[skjaeran]

I would not upgrade this hand, although I know a lot who would.

Normally I need a decent 5-bagger to upgrade. With 4432 I need more fillers than here. But this one is close for me.

Opening 1♣ with transfer responses, I'm more able to distinguish strength and fit than most.

[gwnn]

Easy 1NT for me I've been very pleased with the results of similar upgrades.

[3for3]

15.75 on the Kaplan Rubens hand evaluator. The only reason not to open 1nt is to stay with the field.

Danny

[mikeh]

I upgrade this hand, which is rare for me when lacking a decent 5 card suit.

I really can't add much to the discussion so far, altho I definitely do not use an analysis as arithmetical as Ken claims he would use.

To me, the factors that persuade me to upgrade include the Aces (the Work point count undervalues Aces) and the texture. I'd rather have AQ9 A10xx than AQ10 A9xx, but that is a miniscule factor.

Another factor is that I rarely pass 12 counts and open some (but not most) balanced 11 counts, so opening this 1♣ and rebidding 1N (if partner bids 1♦ or 1♠... yes, some would raise spades, and in some partnerships I would as well) would leave me very nervous... partner will pass a lot of 10 counts opposite which we have a decent game contract.

The main downside, at mps, is the risk of missing a 4-4 heart fit by opening 1N opposite a hand too weak to stayman.

But that is a risk inherent in whatever notrump range you play.. and the point of the thread is to see if this hand fits within your 15-17 range.. not to see what range you choose.

If this hand is, by whatever analytic process you use, 15-17 balanced, then it is a 1N opener. If you don't like it, change your range. Thus, if your range were 12-14, open 1♣ with this hand.

[NickRW]

IMO, the comments from Ken and Fred are pretty much spot on.

I don't count points according to Zar - but, never the less, by something that is a lot closer to it than HCP. In England partner is required to "announce" the range of our opening NT - we announce ours, for the benefit of our HCP counting opponents, as "a good 12 to a bad 15". So our opening NT is about half a point better than the rest of the field. Despite that fact this hand is (just) too good for an opening 1NT for us - it just squeaks over the borderline.

I should add that we play MP almost exclusively. I should also add that, though I am perhaps a bit above average at card play, I am nothing special. My partners are inexperienced. Yet we do above averagely well - and we are doing so mostly on the strength of better hand valuation - not through outplaying our opponents.

Nick

P.S. I should add that the strategy of bidding with the field and hoping to outplay them is a perfectly good strategy if you're a good card player relative to the field you're playing in. Trying to out do them in the bidding if you're a better bidder is also a perfectly good strategy.

[kenrexford]

3for3, on Oct 15 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

15.75 on the Kaplan Rubens hand evaluator. The only reason not to open 1nt is to stay with the field.

Danny

That's funny. I said it was worth about 16, with a slight downgrade that I was willing to ignore because of the location of the downgrade.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Oct 15 2008, 06:43 PM, said:

I definitely do not use an analysis as arithmetical as Ken claims he would use.

A friend of mine got angry with me (in a joking sense) because he found himself sitting there as dealer quite often muttering, "three and a third, three and a third..."

So, I don't just "claim" to use this analysis -- I actually do use this analysis all the time. Now, admittedly I sometimes elect to disregard what it tells me because I fall in love with a hand or get pessimistic or whatever, but I al3ways go through this routine when assessing a hand.

I do the same thing with weak hands and very strong hands. For example, I frequently will open 2NT and then super-accept a transfer with primed 19's. I always analyze a 6-count's as to whether I do or do not have two controls and 10-counts as to whether I have three controls, down or up. For me, sorting the hand involves suits into rank, count HCP, check shape, check LTC, and then check 3 1/3 adjustments, peeking at pips.

[whereagles]

There's another reason for upgrading. If our side happens to have a major, this hand is EASILY worth 16+ points.

What would be

1♣ 1♥
1NT 2♥
pass

might become

1NT 2♦
2♥ 3NT
4♥

Of course, it could also go from...

1♣ 1♠
2♠ pass

just made, to

1NT pass

with a couple unders

[NickRW]

whereagles, on Oct 16 2008, 07:38 AM, said:

....just made, to

1NT pass

with a couple unders

Well, yeah, that's true - but whatever system or systems of hand valuation you use and whatever your bidding system says to do with the outcome of that evaluation, hands will often play better in one strain than another and, in particular, hand valuation for NT is not quite the same kettle of fish as for a suit contract. One does one's best to live with these difficulties which are an inherent part of the game.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Oct 16 2008, 02:38 AM, said:

What would be

1♣ 1♥
1NT 2♥
pass

might become

1NT 2♦
2♥ 3NT
4♥

If you are rebidding 1NT after a 1♥ response, your problems go beyond hand evaluation!

[matmat]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2008, 11:50 AM, said:

whereagles, on Oct 16 2008, 02:38 AM, said:

What would be

1♣ 1♥
1NT 2♥
pass

might become

1NT 2♦
2♥ 3NT
4♥

If you are rebidding 1NT after a 1♥ response, your problems go beyond hand evaluation!

aw come on. be reasonable!