[billw55]

kenberg, on 2016-April-07, 12:26, said:

I am one of the 1D openers and, for me, it is not close. This means that I would not have to think twice about it, but I don't mean that anyone who opens it 1NT is clearly wrong. I am simply certain of what I would do. And I would not call a director if an opponent opened this 1NT when their card said 15-17.

Same here. I am definitely bidding 1♦. And a director call for 1NT would be silly, to say the least.

[Winstonm]

Upgrading has not worked out well for me in the past, but I still open this hand 1NT.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2016-April-07, 12:26, said:

About the director call. Any bridge book that you read tells you that evaluating a hand involves more than counting high card points. Assuming that we believe this, then we should allow the opening bidder to do more than count high card points.

Yes, but as per Nigel above, why not put it on your card and announce accordingly? What is listed on a CC, and announced, is HCP after all, nothing else.

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-07, 22:28, said:

Yes, but as per Nigel above, why not put it on your card and announce accordingly? What is listed on a CC, and announced, is HCP after all, nothing else.

O.K., but I value the AK in a 5-card suit as 8 points. So I have my 15 HCP. do I not?

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-07, 22:28, said:

Yes, but as per Nigel above, why not put it on your card and announce accordingly? What is listed on a CC, and announced, is HCP after all, nothing else.

I think we would have to do this on many bids. I play Flannery as 11-15. If I have a 16 count that includes Jx of clubs might I decide it is only 15 highs? Quite possibly, if the rest of the hand is a bit sleazy. I have, on occasion, declined to open 2NT when my 20 count includes AK tight. Or KQ tight.

Maybe we could pre-alert for all calls: We sometimes use our judgment instead of simply counting high card points. The only problem would be that everyone else does also, so why bother.

I once had the following happen. 1NT on my right, I held AKQJxx in spades and an outside Ace. I decided to double, passed out. I cashed my seven tricks for down 1. My rho announce he was summoning the director because the double of a 15-17 point NT shows at least 15 highs and I had only 14. My lho very forcefully instructed his partner, my rho, to leave him out of any such objection. My rho decided to leave it be. We all came to be friends, I think the devil had briefly invaded rho's body.

As near as I can see, directors approve of this approach. I rarely open 1NT on 14, in particular I opted for 1D on the OP hand. Give the suits a little more body, but not more highs, and I would opt for 1NT. With or without the extra body I would not question either the ethics or the judgment of anyone who opened it 1NT. I open it 1D because it is not such a great hand and we might well want to compete to 3D. Maybe right, maybe wrong.

I did play for a while with someone who seemed to have trouble determining whether numbers summed to 14 or 15. Time to put down 15- to 17or even 14+ to 17. But this also causes problems since some of those hands that he would open 1NT I would not dream of opening 1NT. Maybe at the highest levels partners come to full and complete agreement on such matters, each opening 1NT on exactly the same hands, but for me it is loose around the edges. Different people, different views. Example: Some time back partner opened 1NT and the opponents asked if he could ever do this holding a singleton. I explained that we had no agreement that prohibited it, we do not routinely do it, I had on some occasions done so when I thought there was good reason to do so, I had never seen him do so. This seems reasonable to me. If we had to get the legal teams out to negotiate full agreement in everything, we would never get around to playing. "I, on rare occasions, might do such and such, but I have never seen partner do it" seems fair information. I once had a partner who started frequently psyching 1S in third position. I told him he had to stop or we had to start alerting. I prefer he stop. He stopped.

A mild and infrequent give on highs when compensating features occur seems right, it does not in my opinion contradict full disclosure.

[lycier]

eagles123, on 2016-April-06, 16:31, said:

Matchpoints

---

2/1 15-17 NT

is it close

For me, only open 1♦, opening 1nt is really a overcall.
The reasons :
1- there isn't a decent five card suit.
2- there isn't a Ten. If there are two Ten in this hand, it is possible to consider this matter.

For 14 points to open 1nt, the most classic hand is :
♠Kx
♥Jxx
♦AQJxxx
♣Kx

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-08, 16:44, said:

O.K., but I value the AK in a 5-card suit as 8 points. So I have my 15 HCP. do I not?

No. Do you actually know what HCP are?

[Vampyr]

Disclosure obviously depends on how frequently you upgrade. If 10% of your 1NT openers are upgrades, then clearly this should be announced. 5% too, It seems to me. I don't know where the cutoff is, but there should really be one.

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-09, 06:38, said:

Disclosure obviously depends on how frequently you upgrade. If 10% of your 1NT openers are upgrades, then clearly this should be announced. 5% too, It seems to me. I don't know where the cutoff is, but there should really be one.

On this we could probably agree.

There are tricky areas, at least partly due to varying levels of commitment to the game. I mentioned elsewhere that with a minimum 2=3=4=4 hand I open 1♦ but one of my partners would open it 1♣, and neither of us are willing to change. Fortunately, we do not have to check a box on the standard acbl cc as to which we do. If the opponents ask about my partner's 1m opening, I would be happy to tell them. I don't think I have ever been asked. Similarly, I have sometimes played in the Walsh style where, supposedly at least, I would jump over KQJTxx of diamonds (unless holding gf values) to respond 1♥ on 8642. It seems reasonable to alert such a style. But Kit Woolsey, in his book Matchpoints, recommend that when partner opens 1♣ you sometimes jump over diamonds to bid a major and sometimes not. I still have the book around someplace,I have not looked it up, but as I recall part of his thinking is that if the four card major is strong enough that you don't mind being raised on three then skipping over diamonds is fine, but if the four cards are shaggy and you have a perfectly fine diamond suit then bid that. I regard this as practical bidding, not a conventional understanding.

I am always more that willing to explain our style to the extent that I know what it is. Often the extent is not very extensive.

Various things can defeat the best of intentions. Some years back I was playing in the "Unit Game". Not the Nationals but a decent game, Steve Robinson plays in it for example. I had agreed to play in the Walsh style, I opened 1♣, partner bid 1♥ and I alerted. I was asked to explain and I did, or so I thought. I explained that partner would very often pass over even a very strong diamond suit to bid any four card heart suit. I was asked for more detail and I explained that partner, holding four hearts and long diamonds, would bid the diamonds only in the case that his hand was strong enough to make a game forcing reverse into hearts if my rebid over 1♦ was 1NT. Sill some confusion, but eventually we played the hands. After the round, as we were heading for the next table, I caught part of the conversation from the table we just finished: "He said his partner would bid 1♥ with four hearts and long diamonds but he did bid 1♥ and he didn't have long diamonds."

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2016-April-09, 07:11, said:

"He said his partner would bid 1♥ with four hearts and long diamonds but he did bid 1♥ and he didn't have long diamonds."

Do these people avoid using escalators, because there is a sign reading "Dogs must be carried" and they haven't got a dog?

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-09, 04:51, said:

No. Do you actually know what HCP are?

My point being that the card reads: High Card Points, not Milton Work HCP. Besides, even Milton knew that the AK combination raised the value of the King to equivalency with the Ace. It is well known that the Work Point Count slightly undervalues aces and kings and slightly overvalues queens and jacks. If a thinking player is not allowed to adjust his bidding due to the nature of his holdings, then we might as well be playing Old Maid.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-09, 07:56, said:

My point being that the card reads: High Card Points, not Milton Work HCP. Besides, even Milton knew that the AK combination raised the value of the King to equivalency with the Ace. It is well known that the Work Point Count slightly undervalues aces and kings and slightly overvalues queens and jacks. If a thinking player is not allowed to adjust his bidding due to the nature of his holdings, then we might as well be playing Old Maid.

There are other methods of evaluating high cards, but none are accepted as appropriate disclosure except for Milton Work HCP. You seem to be located in the US -- why don't you ask the ACBL? EDIT: EBU BB 5B also defines HCP. However one feels about it, one must accept the governing body's regulations.

In any case, your "thinking player" can evaluate his hand however he likes, but only if his thought processes extend far enough for him to be able to disclose his actual methods.

[Zelandakh]

lycier, on 2016-April-09, 01:40, said:

For me, only open 1♦, opening 1nt is really a overcall.

The bottom end of your 1NT overcall is lower than for your (strong) 1NT opening? For me it would be the other way around with the overcall being more along the lines of 15⁺-18.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-10, 02:23, said:

The bottom end of your 1NT overcall is lower than for your (strong) 1NT opening? For me it would be the other way around with the overcall being more along the lines of 15⁺-18.

Lycier's English is not quite native fluency. I suspect he meant "overbid", not "overcall".

[lycier]

billw55, on 2016-April-11, 05:59, said:

Lycier's English is not quite native fluency. I suspect he meant "overbid", not "overcall".

Yes,yes, you are correct.
Thank you very much for your help.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2016-April-11, 05:59, said:

Lycier's English is not quite native fluency. I suspect he meant "overbid", not "overcall".

Ah, thanks Bill, that makes sense! Whether it is an overbid seems to me to be dependant on how aggressively you up and downgrade. As long as both partners are on the same page it will work out. It is clear that this hand is worth more than many balanced 15 counts so upgrading is more than reasonable, providing Responder will correspondingly downgrade their quacky hand.