[campboy]

Why don't you announce it as "65-73 Ostrich points; that is to say, approximately 12-15"? I imagine most people will decide the last part is good enough to be going on with, but at least this would make it clear that there is a better explanation available if required.

[dburn]

NickRW, on Jun 9 2010, 10:36 PM, said:

Well, we're going to have one mighty bad natured argument when I come and sit at your table.

Possibly. If you persist in the attitude that "we explain our methods in terms that you walruses might grasp, but we judge our hands in terms of our own God-like standards that are utterly beyond your feeble understanding", then the bottom of my hitherto inexhaustible well of tolerance and bonhomie towards my fellow human might easily be reached.

If on the other hand you just tell me what you're actually playing, I expect I will be able to cope. It occurs to me that there ought to be a box on the convention card for "most absurd hand with which we have ever opened 1NT on purpose"; in these days of word processors and the like this ought to be relatively easy to keep up to date, and it would be far more useful than any of the current "may contain a singleton" rubbish.

[cloa513]

dburn, on Jun 9 2010, 10:10 PM, said:

As I have remarked before, my belief is that you should be allowed to play what you like provided that you can disclose it properly.

Now, "proper disclosure" means at a minimum that the people to whom you are doing the disclosing will understand it. If they will not - either because there is not enough time for you to complete your disclosure or because they are not as clever as you are - then you will fall short of the requirements of Law 40.

If you seriously mean to tell me that you opened 1NT ("12-15") with ♠Q432 ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣A8542 because you thought it the best available description of your hand according to your methods, then you would indeed have had to spend many hours pre-explaining your methods to me before I could begin to understand that you might have that hand. And although as a veteran of many county teams-of-eight matches I realise that they are to be treated with the utmost seriousness, it is not reasonable for either of us to spend very much of our ever-shortening lives in such a pursuit.

If you can't (or won't) disclose it, then you can't play it. That seems both logical and practical to me, and entirely in keeping with the "spirit of the game" (whatever that may be).

That 1 NT could easily explained as semibalanced allowed, need all-round strength with discounted honour evaluation (12-15 is still a quite a range for opponents to evaluate their hands). Not nearly as complex as 1♦ could be short, 2 ♦ could be either major or flat strong. Complex is each bids needs many lines to explain and defence needs even more lines as its uncertain what shape the bidder has. Some numbers on strength are certainly required but given the general ranges of a lot of bids like 1♣ in ACOL as 11-19, its hardly severe to allow a lot of latitude in that area.

I agree complexity should limited for the particular tournament- but real complexity not something easy to defend if you have decent amount of bridge judgement.

[jeremy69]

I find that if you go to a club and you make the slightest attempt to explain your method, whatever it is, clearly and without condescension there is rarely any problem. It is when players start with the "well it is this, this or this but I can't explain it properly to you because we use a complex method of hand evaluation that plonkers like you can't cope with" that people get a bit stroppy. It is not even so much that oppo. wish to understand but simply that they don't want to feel cheated or talked down to. Certainly the lecture on the inadequacy of Milton Work Count is an unwelcome one

[blackshoe]

We have a player here who really hates "lessons" at the table, even when they're directed at his partner rather than himself. We have another player who cannot resist giving lessons. The slightest excuse is enough to set her off. Oil and water, anyone? Whenever they play against each other, I expect about a 95% chance of an altercation and a TD call. Maybe I should go hover over their table whenever they meet.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Jun 10 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

We have a player here who really hates "lessons" at the table, even when they're directed at his partner rather than himself. We have another player who cannot resist giving lessons. The slightest excuse is enough to set her off. Oil and water, anyone? Whenever they play against each other, I expect about a 95% chance of an altercation and a TD call. Maybe I should go hover over their table whenever they meet.

Don't hover, ask the lesson giver to stop

[blackshoe]

Done that. Last time, I told her when it happens again, she's gonna get a DP. And I'm confident it will, and she will. Then she'll decide she's not playing at this club anymore — for about two weeks.

[NickRW]

dburn, on Jun 10 2010, 04:37 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 9 2010, 10:36 PM, said:

Well, we're going to have one mighty bad natured argument when I come and sit at your table.

Possibly. If you persist in the attitude that "we explain our methods in terms that you walruses might grasp, but we judge our hands in terms of our own God-like standards that are utterly beyond your feeble understanding"

Well, if you want to characterise yourself as being in the position of "feeble understanding" despite the fact that I am quite well aware that you are an extremely intelligent person, then we're off to a bad start before we begin.

Fundamentally it boils down to the fact things like this hand which I mentioned earlier:

Qxxx
KQ
KQ
Axxxx

is worse, for the purposes of playing a NT contract than, say this somewhat similar hand:

J9xx
KQx
Kx
AQTx

The latter is certainly better than a bad 15 and too strong for our "reasonable 12 to bad 15" range. The former, though simplistic counting makes it 16, is, in my view, worse. I would have thought that even the most obtuse of people (which you are not) can understand why some, indeed many folks, downgrade QJ tight by a point. Other doubleton honours tend not to come in for this treatement in common practice - but are arguably worth half a point off - and in the former hand you've got two KQ doubletons - which to my mind makes the former hand a 15 count. Then, on top of that, you have no intermediates at all and both long suits are headed by just one honour - which makes them poor - hence this hand is, IMO, (it doesn't matter whether you actually agree or not) a bad 15. The fact that I arrived at this right or wrong conclusion by what is, in fact, a completely different point count, is not relevant, other than the fact that you want to make it an issue.

All I can say that this reasoning can be taught to beginners (I have), beginners play against it without complaint, old ladies play against it without too much complaint and better players all the way to international standard have played against it without so much annoyance as to actually think they will have a leg to stand on if they call the director. You, on the other hand, claim to be tolerant of different methods of point count, but when I tell you that to explain this fully will take longer than we have to play the hand, want to effectively ban me from playing - because I am certainly NOT going to stop using my methods of hand valuation - I'd most certainly would rather walk out first regardless of any consequence.

I suspect (indeed you've said as much) that you're used to a "12 to 14" NT being exactly and only that - thus you can use this fact in defense against declarer - fair enough - I do too - though I suspect not in such a facile manner as you do. And you're not used to people who up and downgrade freely - which I am sorry for you - I am perfectly entitled to do. You are just going to have to get used to retraining your mental circuitry that pictures or counts opposing hands to include a few (actually relatively unlikely) other possibilities.

(I say relatively unlikely - actually the above hand is the *only* 16 count that I or partner have downgraded in this manner in all the time we've been playing - so it is actually pretty rare. If I claimed that I was as much in the dark that partner might have done this as the opps, then, for practical purposes, I'd be pretty darned close to being 100% right - especially, for example, I have had people who do not alert/announce opening 1NT with a singleton actually do so having a single A or K with about treble the frequency).

Nick

[TMorris]

Playing a 12-14 NT I open a good 11 about once every 18 months and a bad 15 about once in three years (maybe less). I have no agreement with partner about this who always takes me for 12-14. I pass bad 12 counts about twice a year at pairs and a little more often at teams.

I consider it more misleading to say 12-14 but occasional good 11s and bad 15s than just 12-14 but I state on my card that I might pass bad 12s.

To me it's frequency that's the issue.

[olegru]

My partner likes to give explanation like this:
"15-17 balanced all deviations you could imagine are possible."
Is it a full disclosure?

[Phil]

NickRW, on Jun 10 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

And you're not used to people who up and downgrade freely - which I am sorry for you - I am perfectly entitled to do. You are just going to have to get used to retraining your mental circuitry that pictures or counts opposing hands to include a few (actually relatively unlikely) other possibilities.

Not to get in the middle of this entertaining row, but I think that this definition would suffice a Walrus, if not a DBurn on the function of 'disclosure'.

By the way, I am a firm believer of, "if you can't explain it, you don't understand it yourself", not only in bridge but in other matters of life.

[NickRW]

Phil, on Jun 10 2010, 08:21 PM, said:

By the way, I am a firm believer of, "if you can't explain it, you don't understand it yourself", not only in bridge but in other matters of life.

Hmm, well, given a specific example or pair of examples, as above, I certainly can explain it in terms most people will understand (even if not fully agree with) - and did so above. However, in the general case, trying to get across something that involves two different counting methods, one of which features halves and quarters, usually leaves life long hcp counters with a glazed look and getting it fully across takes longer than the 7 or so minutes allocated to a typical bridge hand.

Nick

[zenko]

I absolutely hate leading from unsupported Jack, Jxx, Jxxx, even Jxxxx, unless pard bid that suit, I think over the last 2 years I did it 3 times (all 3 times it was mistake), which means that I will do it maybe once year from now on. Am I supposed to announce that every time I lead a small card and J is not on the table?

[jeremy69]

Quote

My partner likes to give explanation like this:
"15-17 balanced all deviations you could imagine are possible."
Is it a full disclosure?

No. It's trying to be clever and failing. Let's see how we can avoid giving the opponents a straight forward answer and if we are lucky putting them off coming back to the club.

Quote

You are just going to have to get used to retraining your mental circuitry that pictures or counts opposing hands to include a few (actually relatively unlikely) other possibilities.

I'm sure David will retrain his mental circuitry and cope with this balderdash however the attitude that I shall play what I want, describe it in a way that suits me, show contempt along the way for the the predominant counting system means that we would not enjoy playing against each other but then I guess we probably already knew that. The surprise is more that your club does not have to specialise in 0.5 table Howell movements by now.

[karlson]

I still don't understand this discussion. What's wrong with "approximately 15-17, could be a bit more or less" and then if they ask you for details, say "we upgrade very often with good intermediates and honors in the long suits and downgrade very often with honors in short suits". I estimate that would take me no more than 10-15 seconds to get out of my mouth.

[Phil]

NickRW, on Jun 10 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

However, in the general case, trying to get across something that involves two different counting methods, one of which features halves and quarters, usually leaves life long hcp counters with a glazed look and getting it fully across takes longer than the 7 or so minutes allocated to a typical bridge hand.

Nick

I wonder why it would take more than 7 minutes to explain, but apparently you and your partner can do hand evaluations on the spot and not hold up the game.

[655321]

This thread reminds me of Nigel explaining "These go to eleven", with poor dburn in the role of Marty DiBergi.

[PeterAlan]

NickRW, on Jun 10 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

Fundamentally it boils down to the fact things like this hand which I mentioned earlier:

Qxxx
KQ
KQ
Axxxx

is worse, for the purposes of playing a NT contract than, say this somewhat similar hand:

J9xx
KQx
Kx
AQTx

I couldn't agree more. In fact, it's so much worse for the purposes of playing a NT contract that I suggest the radical step of not opening it 1NT.

As it happens, my partner and I take very much the opposite view to you, giving priority to describing the hand shape rather than (whatever measure of) HCP, to the extent that we will reverse on hands that others won't. From my perspective, this is an easy hand to bid: you've got 5 clubs and 4 spades, so open 1C and (1) re-bid 1S over either 1D or 1H from partner, or (2) raise a 1S response.

Instead, you open with a bid that distorts both your shape and, by your admission, your HCP. This strikes me as just plain daft, but then I can only just manage whole points without halves and quarters.

PeterAlan

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Jun 10 2010, 10:42 PM, said:

Quote

You are just going to have to get used to retraining your mental circuitry that pictures or counts opposing hands to include a few (actually relatively unlikely) other possibilities.

...however the attitude that I shall play what I want, describe it in a way that suits me, show contempt along the way for the the predominant counting system..

Clearly you are too lazy to bother to really read what I've written. I disclose in hcp terms for your feeble mind and you still have to make rude remarks (again).

You're the one showing contempt.

Unfortunately for you the Orange book says:

Quote

10 A 3 A partnership may define the strength of a hand by using any method of hand evaluation that will be understood easily by its opponents

Which is exactly what I do - so you're just flaming wrong.

Nick

[hrothgar]

Phil, on Jun 10 2010, 11:21 PM, said:

By the way, I am a firm believer of, "if you can't explain it, you don't understand it yourself", not only in bridge but in other matters of life.

Try getting a good baker to explain how they know whether bread dough has been kneaded sufficiently in 15 seconds or less