[A2003]

ACBL rule says, 1NT range needs to be announced.
Like 11-14 or 15-17 HCP.
Is there anywhere written, how the point count is to be calculated?
AKQJT= 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 method.
AKQJT= 6, 4, 2, 1, 0 Zar method.
AKQJT= 4.5, 3, 1.5, 0.75, 0.25 method.

[blackshoe]

Not so far as I know, but the Work (or Goren) point count (4-3-2-1) is the most popular and widely known in the world. I can't imagine that when the ACBL talks about "points" they're talking about anything else.

There is the principle that if you use a different evaluation method, and can explain your preferred method quickly, you can use that, but I think in the case of 1NT openings you should give the Work ranges - it's what most people expect.

[jdonn]

If it wasn't specified you had to use a certain method then I could say in my evaluation method every card is worth 1.2 points and then open every balanced hand 1NT, no?

[helene_t]

I suppose as long as the points in the deck are 40 it doesn't matter. Using your last mentioned method is just MW points with some adjustments which many people do regardless of whether they have formalized it or not.

But don't confuse opps with ZAR points or other scales that do not sum to 40. It is your responsibility to convert your scale to something opps can readily understand. If you have a scale that make you open some 9 count hands, many 10 count hands and most 11 count hands when unbalanced, then say appr. 10/11+ or something like that.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Sep 23 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

I suppose as long as the points in the deck are 40 it doesn't matter.

Does it say anywhere no negative points? (people give their hand negative adjustments for shape an honor location after all) so every card is 1.2 points and the deuce of clubs is -21.2, it adds up to 40 and I can open any balanced hand without the deuce of clubs 1NT.

My point is that unless everyone is using the same or virtually the same method, or a method that can easily be converted to the one everyone else is using, ridiculous results can ensue.

[helene_t]

Hey Josh if it was Cascade who wrote such a silly post you would have called him a troll

Of course if your method caused you to open 1NT on 15% of all balanced zero counts, 15% of balanced ten counts and 15% of balanced twenty-counts, then it can't be converted to MW so it doesn't matter whether it sums to 40 or not.

But I think that any sensible valuation method for balanced hands that gives you 40 points in the deck will be sufficiently similar to MW points that you might as well pretend that it is MW points.

And if it sums to say 70 instead of 40? Just adjust by a factor 40/70 for the purpose of disclosure and do not bother opps with your scale.

[jdonn]

I don't think I would have said that, it's along the lines of my usual belief that it's the spirit rather than the letter of the law that matters, as well as common sense. I'm trying to show that obviously when the rules refer to 'points' they mean milton work points, or something very close, since otherwise you will get silly (trolling!) results.

I don't think it means anything to say you can use any method that can be converted directly into MW points, because then you are using MW points at least for the purposes of your explanations. It's how you explain and what you hold relative to your explanations that matters, not the math that goes on inside your head. I guess that's what you are saying with your last sentence.

(digression) Btw I've tried to be good, I made a very civil and constructive response to one of his posts, and otherwise haven't referred to him except right now and a slight implication earlier that he probably doesn't think much of me. Let's spread the love.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

(digression) Btw I've tried to be good, I made a very civil and constructive response to one of his posts, and otherwise haven't referred to him except right now and a slight implication earlier that he probably doesn't think much of me. Let's spread the love.

Awwwwwww... how sweet =)

[jeremy69]

I played a tournament in Iceland where more than 50% of players used 7-5-3-1 but they were helpful, had well completed cards and after a few boards I could work out whether 1NT 19-24 was weak or strong. I think that in England some players are very inflexible in some respects and it has occasionally occurred to me to use this method to see how many heart attacks there might be in the first hour.
However when the opponents won't tell you what is going on or make it difficult then I think it is wrong. One of my opponents in this year's Home Internationals played ordinary Milton Work Count when they opened any suit bid but 5-4-3-2-1 with Ace=5 and 10=1 when they opened a natural NT bid. Their card said that 1NT was 21-25 or some range like that but nothing further which, in my view, is not playing the game and it was the third question before anything much was revealed.
Mind you anyone who thinks a strong NT is
QJ10x
QJ10
QJ10
QJ10
is ready for the lunatic asylum!

[gnasher]

jeremy69, on Sep 23 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

QJ10x
QJ10
QJ10
QJ10

Does that qualify as four clear-cut tricks?

[PeterE]

no, not against A, A, A, AK987654

[NickRW]

Of course the ACBL (surely!!!!) must mean Milton Work points.

Equally, I think I am right in saying that regulating authorities are on dodgy ground if they try to regulate against style - so people who use other point counts are quite free to do so, so long as they can explain their bids in terms that make sense to their opponents.

I play a weak NT with some partners (not in ACBL land), based on another count, that is announced as "a decent 12 to a bad 15". It is possible for us to open an 11 (or even a 10 in a very extreme case) and to downgrade a 16 - but these are rare - and when they do come up and someone questions it, I say, "call the director if you don't like it". None of them have yet - and while I wouldn't expect to win the argument on all director calls (if they ever happened) I would expect to win most given that the director concerned is not brain dead.

Nick

[mycroft]

I might add to your explanation, " usually, though we don't use HCP to evaluate NT. Would you like a quick explanation?"

I would note, though, that (not counting your exceptional 10 as an outlier - xxx xx AKQJx xxx?) while you're allowed to use a different evaluation, and are allowed to give approximations to HCP in your announcements, the dreaded GCC DISALLOWED, 7 might bite you, as it is prescriptive on HCP, and you do open great 11s through horrible 16s. It's borderline, I realize, and I doubt if many, even TDs, would quibble. You say nobody has had a problem with what you've done - has anybody seen you open an 11 and a 16 within memory of each other, though?

[blackshoe]

The mere fact that someone occasionally opens an "out of range" hand with 1NT does not indicate that he is playing a "wide range" 1NT. If it's rare, as Nick has said, then he should not run afoul of the GCC stipulation.

[bluejak]

The problem is that there is a difference between occasionally opening 1NT out of range for judgement reasons which is not an agreement, just something people do, and always opening a hand 1NT despite being out of range because of using a different valuation method. I would not like to say how the ACBL would interpret it, but if you find an 11 count this pair would always open and a 16 count they would always open then I have a horrible feeling the ACBL might consider that wide range.

[NickRW]

mycroft, on Sep 26 2009, 03:05 AM, said:

I might add to your explanation, " usually, though we don't use HCP to evaluate NT.  Would you like a quick explanation?"

I would note, though, that (not counting your exceptional 10 as an outlier - xxx xx AKQJx xxx?)

No, the 10hcp outlier is something like T9x AT AT QT9xxx - in 2 years of playing 2 sessions a week and another 30+ boards at home such a hand has never actually come up. A downgraded 16 has happened for real once in all that time - it was something like Qxxx KQ KQ Axxxx - essentially we upgrade both 10s and 9s a little and steal the extra points from Qs mainly, but a little of Ks and Js too - plus take a dim view of doubleton honours.

Upgraded 11s do happen on a very infrequent basis - it has happened perhaps 3 times in that period - I don't even recall the last one - they are typically AAK hands with at least 3 tens.

Quote

while you're allowed to use a different evaluation, and are allowed to give approximations to HCP in your announcements, the dreaded GCC DISALLOWED, 7 might bite you, as it is prescriptive on HCP, and you do open great 11s through horrible 16s.  It's borderline, I realize, and I doubt if many, even TDs, would quibble.  You say nobody has had a problem with what you've done - has anybody seen you open an 11 and a 16 within memory of each other, though?

No - it is hard enough for me to remember! It is on the front of our card as the first item in the "things opponents should note" bit on the front page and in red letters. In terms of verbal exchange at the start of a round with unfamiliar opps I usually confine myself to more common things that they should know - like "Hi, we're playing 4 card majors with a weakish NT, the opening 2s are a little exotic" - they are open to pick up on what "weakish" is supposed to mean. They are also free to query what "decent" and "bad" are supposed to mean on the "decent 12 to a bad 15" 1NT announcement.

With reference to what the GCC says - well I don't specifically have that problem as I live in England - but I do run into similar things with the EBU Orange book - which explicitly states that you are free to use whatever method of hand
valuation you like, but then goes on to prescribe a few things in terms of HCP - and then somethings which your method hand valuation says should be done fall foul of the HCP requirement. I realise this is a genuine problem area for anyone writing regulations where ever you're from - I don't have an easy answer that doesn't make the regulations more complex than they already are - except to say that there are better methods of hand valuation than mindless 4-3-2-1 - and perhaps regulating authorities should consider not perpetuationg stone age tools in the first place.

Nick

[aguahombre]

Nick, 4-3-2-1 might be stone age, but is a "common language" for disclosing the nature of the notrump opening. And that is the op's issue. Josh has already said this more eloquently. but, since "work" is the norm, requiring a player to use that language when communicating to the opponents does not mean the RA is dictatiing evaluation methods.

[bluejak]

There are few restrictions based on strength in the EBU, but such as there are have to be followed even if you play a different form of valuation in general.

It is not clear why you should write strength regulations on anything that is not based on the valuation that 99% of people use. True, you do not have to use it yourself - why should you? - but there seems little sensible alternative to expressing strength in regulations.

RAs do not perpetuate "stone age tools": players do.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Sep 26 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

There are few restrictions based on strength in the EBU, but such as there are have to be followed even if you play a different form of valuation in general.

It's also worth noting that they are (in general) very lax. Coming from a partnership whose system was designed to open as much as possible and stretch the allowed system/bids as much as possible, the one thing we have _not_ been constrained by is the points requirements.

[aguahombre]

I thought the question was how to describe your strength agreements, not whether you are allowed to evaluate in a different way.