Disclosure?

[blackshoe]

I'm not bothered - but I will say that it's the combination of 12 HCP and a six card suit that IMO makes this agreement alertable.

 

There's a (very good) player here who used to live in Mexico. She has a lot of experience from those days playing against Romex. Her problem, she tells me, was not with Romex per se, but that the experts playing that system refused to alert when they should have. That's not to say that occasionally, or even often, opening 1NT on a six card suit makes the bid alertable. it's rather to say that the fact that experts (even a huge majority of them) don't alert something doesn't mean it's not alertable. B)

[jdonn]

it's rather to say that the fact that experts (even a huge majority of them) don't alert something doesn't mean it's not alertable. B)

Any more than the fact that bridge players (even a huge majority of them) think it's ok to not alert that they might upgrade 14 but must alert if they upgrade 12?

 

I agree Adam, that clause seems to make the 2227 hand no good assuming that is what the partnership expects to be possible. Only because it's a specific prohibition (well it does say 'generally' but I won't nitpick on that.)

[MickyB]

The majority prefer to upgrade hands more often than they downgrade. This means that the stated range usually applies to 4333s, with 5332s in a strong NT being closer to 14-16 than 15-17. This is common knowledge.

 

The problem comes when players

 

a] think a 6322 with a good six-card suit is worth three HCP more than a 4333

b] think this hand still counts as "balanced", despite having two short, weak suits

 

I don't think there is an easy solution to this. Just announcing the literal range might be better as it would encourage further questioning, but it gives the impression that the agreement is illegal, which it certainly shouldn't be IMO.

[awm]

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth.

 

It seems to me that "offensive strength" and "defensive strength" are different things. The first determines how many tricks you expect to take when declaring; it increases a lot when you have a shapely hand or a good six card suit. The second is how many tricks you expect to take on defense, and "high card points" perhaps slightly modified to emphasize controls over slow cards are much more accurate here. A long suit with honors in the suit can actually reduce the defensive strength of a hand.

 

I'd argue that the "standard" meaning of bids implies something on both counts. Typically a preempt will be fairly strong offensively but fairly weak defensively. A 1NT opening is the opposite, usually delivering substantial defensive strength but not much stronger offensively.

 

The hands given deliver something approximating the "offensive strength" of a standard strong NT opening, but deliver very little defensive strength. I think a style in which players open hands based on offensive strength only and generally disregard defense is a perfectly allowable style, but that when taken to extremes like this it should require some disclosure (either a pre-alert or alert). Similarly, if a partnership routinely opens 1♠ with the following, it should be disclosed:

 

♠KQTxxx

♥-

♦QJTxx

♣xx

 

One can certainly argue that this is a five-loser hand, it has 26 ZAR points, it makes game opposite two aces and a balanced hand, and so forth and so on. But it delivers virtually no defensive strength.

 

On another note, if a partnership routinely opens a strong 2♣ with:

 

♠KQJTxxxx

♥-

♦KQJTx

♣-

 

I think this also should be an alert for much the same reason. Again you can argue that offensively, this is a game force (two loser hand, 4♠ cold opposite virtually anything). But defensively, this hand could well deliver one or zero tricks!

 

Obviously, my opinions are not enshrined in LAW anywhere. Thus I voted the "active ethics to disclose" option.

[matmat]

I'm going to turn into a walrus here, and y'all can point and laugh. 15-17 HCP means 15-17 points in the Goren count system. it doesn't mean 14, sometimes even 12, it means 15-17. I have no problem whatsoever in people upgrading 14s, 13s or even 12s, if they think they have the playing strength of a 15-17. I do mind if a partnership has the understanding that they may deviate by as much as a queen or king and not make it knowledge available to the opponents.

 

Unfortunately we're stuck with the particular point evaluation system and the laws of the game are written within that framework, since there is an insistence on disclosing NT range, you might as well do it accurately, I don't really see the purpose of concealing frequent deviations with a blanket 15-17, hell, I'd even prefer it if the range were simply described as "strong, with a maximum of 17" (or 18, or 16 or whatever)

 

Another possible issue here, and this is sort of going away from the original post, is those playing a mini-nt (10-12), who sometimes "upgrade" their 9s; As I recall the ACBL is fairly clear on NT having fewer than 10hcp and what systems one is allowed to play over it; how do people feel about this?

 

so if a rule is bad, does it mean it's ok to break it?

[mike777]

"One of the better players in our district will routinely open a strong 1NT on hands like:"

 

 

If this "player" has been doing this for years what did his opponents actually do?

What have the directors been doing for years?

 

I get the impression the answer is nothing, nothing for years.

 

 

OTOH if the directors have been ruling that this is ok and ruling that way for years OK>

[awm]

If this "player" has been doing this for years what did his opponents actually do?

Keep in mind that I haven't lived in this district for very long, and I am not one of this players' regular partners (although I have opposed him and played on teams with him on occasion). So honestly I don't know whether anyone has complained about this or what sort of traction they get from directors. I'd note that the hand type of (322)6 shape with a very strong six card minor suit is not overwhelmingly frequent, so it's quite possible that this action is more like a "once a month" occurrence than an every day one. I have seen him make these openings several times and heard him comment that he "thinks this is the value of the hand" and would always bid this way.

 

This player also has the type of reputation that local directors are likely to rule however he tells them to rule (i.e. he knows more about the laws than most directors, serves on committees, etc) so whatever they rule in his case may be a bit biased.

[mike777]

"Keep in mind that I haven't lived in this district for very long, and I am not one of this players' regular partners (although I have opposed him and played on teams with him on occasion). "

 

 

If you play on teams with him on occasion it seems you need to make an ethical decision.

 

If you and your local directors think this is normal bridge, no problem.

If you do not, you got a problem.

[david_c]

I voted for "Should require an alert or other special disclosure", but really that's wrong - it's not alertable, nor is there anything special about the disclosure required, they just need to disclose accurately, rather than giving a range which does not correspond to what they are playing.

 

Now, some amount of upgrading / downgrading is expected, and does not need to be explicitly disclosed. But obviously we've got to draw the line somewhere, and in my opinion what they are doing crosses that line (though not by much). This shouldn't be a big deal though. As TD I would just tell them that 15-17 is not an adequate explanation and ask them to find a way to describe it better.

 

If we didn't have announcements this would be easy. With announcements, it's not clear what the right thing to say is. Personally I would recommend they say, "15-17, maybe less with a good suit". Or something like that. Just find something which points out to the opponents the possibility of unusual levels of upgrading, without being overly long or confusing. (In response to Arend's post above, I would say this is a description of the range.)

[han]

I agree with what mikeh wrote. It's perfectly fine to open these hands with 1NT, but they should make their opponents aware that they frequently do this. It seems to me that it follows the spirit of the game, and I doubt that you can get into trouble by making such an announcement.

 

This summer in the Spingold Meckwell told us before playing started that they take point count very liberally, they like to upgrade and they do it anytime it seems right to them (and they added: and sometimes when it doesn't). I think that that's a great example of how it should be done.

 

Last week I played against Uday and his partner. When they opened 1NT they said something like "15-17 or sometimes a 14-count but only with a decent 5-card suit". This seemed unnecessary to me as I consider that normal bridge, but it can't hurt and I am sure that some opponents really appreciate it. Playing against pairs that alert like this is very pleasant in my experience.

[jdonn]

Last week I played against Uday and his partner. When they opened 1NT they said something like "15-17 or sometimes a 14-count but only with a decent 5-card suit". This seemed unnecessary to me as I consider that normal bridge, but it can't hurt and I am sure that some opponents really appreciate it. Playing against pairs that alert like this is very pleasant in my experience.

Call me a cynic, and nothing at all against Uday, but I find this sort of things rather annoying. I just want to sit and play, and if I want to know about something I ask. I don't want to be swamped by irrelevent explanations that aren't required, about which I usually don't care, and that get in the way. He is definitely erring on the safe side, but people can go too far the other way too and just bombard you with information you don't care about.

 

I hope it doesn't look like I try to hide things every chance I get. If the opponents ask something about style THEN I am probably one of the best around at offering good information, and in fact I take pride in that. I got complimented on it twice in San Francisco at the national, which was very nice. But anyway as for the original question, I am still waiting to hear what is the difference between 14 that is worth 15, and 12 that is worth 15, as far as what someone should announce.

[jtfanclub]

I am still waiting to hear what is the difference between 14 that is worth 15, and 12 that is worth 15, as far as what someone should announce.

Is opening a 'good' 12 count as 15-17 balanced is highly unusual or unexpected? If at your rarified level it's usual and expected, then I guess you don't need to alert it.

 

Again, it's not a question of judgement, it's a question of whether it's what your opponents expect for your bid (and announcement). I know what my opponents at the local club expect, and what people gripe about when I direct online. Maybe your field is different.

 

I think "15-17 occassionally weaker" should be a fine explanation of range. But then, I also thought "Invitational, usually in the 8-11 range" implied that we have the occassional 6 count, but I had a national-level director get upset with me about it. So who knows.

[jdonn]

I am still waiting to hear what is the difference between 14 that is worth 15, and 12 that is worth 15, as far as what someone should announce.

Is opening a 'good' 12 count as 15-17 balanced is highly unusual or unexpected? If at your rarified level it's usual and expected, then I guess you don't need to alert it.

14 is highly unusual and unexpected to huge classes of players, both with regard to skill level and probably to geography. Anyway don't forget in all this, the bid still shows 15-17 balanced, and that's what the player presumably has the large majority of the time.

 

FWIW I (in my opinion) intentionally over-alert at the club. Many people there seem to want to know what everything means simply because they are allowed to, rather than because it makes any difference to what they will do, so I oblige the masses. I am speaking in this thread about what I think is right, not what I expect most people to think is right.

 

Some people will never be happy. I have seen the director called on a player for raising his partner's 1♠ to 2♠ with AQJx Jxx Jxx Jxx. I wouldn't let the odd director call by people who don't understand why the rules are they way they are discourage you from doing what you 'know' is right. I don't want to hide anything. I simply think your agreement should be alerted, and style and judgment should not, with the opponents asking about that if it makes a difference to them. And to me this is in that category, even if it does seem extreme to many.

[blackshoe]

This player also has the type of reputation that local directors are likely to rule however he tells them to rule (i.e. he knows more about the laws than most directors, serves on committees, etc) so whatever they rule in his case may be a bit biased.

That's just... wrong.

 

If Edgar Kaplan himself came back from the grave to play where I am directing, I will still rule IAW the laws as I understand them, and if he doesn't like the ruling, he has the same right of appeal as anybody else. And so should any other director.

[cherdano]

I simply think your agreement should be alerted, and style and judgment should not, with the opponents asking about that if it makes a difference to them. And to me this is in that category, even if it does seem extreme to many.

It will never occur defenders to ask whether the 1N opener that has been announced as "15-17" could be based on a 12-count with a nice 6-card minor. I don't even think this hand type is very infrequent, if I was defender I would really like to be able to take it into account.

 

Also your distinction between agreements and style doesn't exist, obviously it is a style issue with which hands you raise 1m-1M on 3-card support, but if you know partners style then it is an agreement.

 

Obviously it is a grey area, for example on the German bridge mailing list many argued that you should alert 1m-1M-2M if it is frequently based on 3-card support; probably that is right in Germany since it is an unusual style but obviously it wouldn't make sense in most places. But you have to draw a line somewhere, and I think these 1N openings cross the line where you should add a comment to the announcement.

[blackshoe]

I think these 1N openings cross the line where you should add a comment to the announcement.

I agree they cross the line, but technically, at least, if the announcement is not adequate disclosure in itself, the bid should be alerted. Adding a comment to the announcement is not in accordance with the regulation.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

the bid should be alerted.

 

Just ask yourself, which opening would you expect

with the given hand, if a player claims to play 5 card

mayor and 15-17NT.

Choose your level at your likening. I would say, the

majority will open the minor, once in a while they may

open 1NT as some semi psych, and they would see it

as semi psych.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[sceptic]

14 is a judgement call.  12 isn't.

Says who? When you are 1 point outside your announced range you get to use judgment, when you are 2 or more outside you don't? That is the claim you are making?

 

I see no problem at all with the 5 point range rule (a stupid rule to begin with.) 12 is not in the range, any more than 14 is in the range of someone who opens Jx Axx AKQxx Txx with 1NT.

I dont quite understand the logic here, why not alert it as 10 - 23 hcp range and unbalanced

 

I may not understand the 5 point rule either

[sceptic]

The player does this routinely, with a regular partner. Thus, the partner knows he does it. That makes it a disclosable agreement. See Law 40B

 

If this is the case, do they have to provide an proper defence against it?

[Cascade]

I think these 1N openings cross the line where you should add a comment to the announcement.

I agree they cross the line, but technically, at least, if the announcement is not adequate disclosure in itself, the bid should be alerted. Adding a comment to the announcement is not in accordance with the regulation.

What the alert chart states is that you should make an announcement for your 1NT opening as follows : "State Range, if natural, for all 1NT openings"

 

Is there a regulation somewhere that says more about this.

 

If not there is a fundamental problem with the statement in the alert chart unless you never upgrade or downgrade hands from within or without the range that you state.

 

The issue is whether an announcement of 15-17 hcp is better than an announcement of 12-18 or whatever is your actual "range" when you upgrade or downgrade some hands. I don't think there is a good answer to what is the best announcement.

[Gerben42]

So it's not the 12 points that bothers you, it's the 6 card suit? It would be a huge expert majority that sometimes opens 1NT with a 6 card minor, and I bet it is never alerted at all.

 

Just because others don't alert it, you shouldn't either. I think EVERYONE should alert opening 1NT where partner is not surprised by a 6322-distribution. The same is true if they choose to open a 15-17 NT on 13 or 12-counts, even though these hands are "worth it".

[blackshoe]

The player does this routinely, with a regular partner. Thus, the partner knows he does it. That makes it a disclosable agreement. See Law 40B

 

If this is the case, do they have to provide an proper defence against it?

Not in the ACBL. Other jurisdictions may have other rules.

[blackshoe]

First, the Alert Chart is not the regulation - it is a summary of the regulation. The chart and the regulation are both available on the ACBL website.

 

If you might open 1NT on a balanced hand with any point count between 12 and 18 HCP, inclusive, then you should announce 12-18 as your range. If you normally limit the range to 15-17, but might upgrade a good 14 HCP or downgrade a bad 18 HCP, then you should announce it as 15-17. If you might rarely open 1NT with a singleton, or with a long strong minor suit and a couple of doubletons, that is not alertable and does not affect your announcement of range, so long as it's fairly close to 15-17. If you routinely open 1NT with an off shape hand (i.e., not balanced) or with significantly fewer or more HCP than your normal range, then you alert the bid. ("You" refers to the partnership, btw).

[barmar]

IMO, this hand deviates very far from what most players expect a 15-17 NT to show. Yes, most good players will open 1NT with some hands with a 6-card minor; during this weekend's Individual I think I did it more than in the past 6 months, to avoid letting the LOLs declare. :) But few would consider a hand with two small doubletons appropriate, and many wouldn't do it unless both doubletons were at least Kx.

 

So the example hands deviate in three ways from what most would expect: 1) they're not in the stated HCP range; 2) they're only borderline balanced; and 3) the suit texture is not NT-appropriate. One flaw is a judgement call, but three doesn't sit right with me.

 

I suppose they claim that the deviations cancel each other out -- the long suit provides playing strength that makes up for the doubletons. This is presumably what the K&R evaluation reflects. However, as someone pointed out, K&R is known to be a poor way to evaluate balanced hands. I haven't read the description of it, but it apparently awards points for distribution, which is only valuable if you're going to be ruffing.

 

On the other hand, maybe this should be viewed similarly to the people who open a strong 2♣ on hands with 17-18 HCP and a long, solid suit, because it fits their agreement of "8-1/2 playing tricks." Sure, it fits the description, but it's still a pretty stupid thing to do, because partner won't be able to evaluate his hand properly if a single bid encompasses such a wide variety of hand types.

 

But the player who does this is supposedly a local expert, so I suspect he hasn't been burned too much by opening these things. Maybe it's because the hands really do play like 15-17 NT's, or maybe it's just because the misinformation causes the opponents to misplay or misdefend.

[blackshoe]

it's rather to say that the fact that experts (even a huge majority of them) don't alert something doesn't mean it's not alertable. :)

Any more than the fact that bridge players (even a huge majority of them) think it's ok to not alert that they might upgrade 14 but must alert if they upgrade 12?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. For one thing, If I say that such-and-such is alertable, I'm not speaking as a player, I'm speaking as a director. For another, as I said earlier, it's not just the point count at issue here - it's the combination of the point count and the off shape distribution.