Slave to a knave?

[nige1]

I shall not be slave to a knave

I do put 14+ to 17 on my convention card, but my impression is that the vast majority of experts who write 15-17 really should write 14+ to 17.

I commend Fred's exceptional honesty. In the UK, players tend to be more reticent about their notrump ranges. Their card may advertise 12-14, but, in practice, this often means 11-13 not vul but 13-15 vul. Such economy with the truth is widely rationalised and condoned as "Judgement" and "General Bridge knowledge".

 

When law-makers address the disclosure issue seriously, relevant issues that they may care to consider are:

• Other high card evaluation methods. Many use the Milton Work (4321) count but some use 7531, 6421, and other high card evaluation methods. If you define a point count range in another system, you should try to explain it. It is also possible, however, to compute a (wider) equivalent Milton Work range, that an ordinary player may better appreciate.
  
• Other evaluation factors. The Milton Work HCP are a crude measure. When evaluating a hand, players consider more than just high cards. For example they take into account shape, intermediates, honour location, and honour concentration. Different partnerships use different yardsticks to evaluate these other factors. IMO they are important and should be disclosed; but they are not high card points; for the sake of accuracy and simplicity, they should be disclosed separately.
  
• Fractional ranges. Suppose that you open 1N on about 50% of flat 11 HCP hands, about 80% of flat 14 HCP hands, and most flat hands in between. Forthright players (like Fred) use various notations to describe this -- plus and minus symbols, brackets and so on. IMO decimal notation ( 11.5 - 14.8 ) is expressive and easy to understand. Unfortunately, it would require re-orientation and cause initial confusion. For example if you open 1N on all flat 12, 13, and 14 HCP hands but no others, then your decimal notrump range is 12.0 - 15.0 (to the nearest decimal place). This decimal notation is based on a similar proposal by John Probst.
  

[helene_t]

I don't think you need to disclose that you don't rely 100% on MW for hand evaluation. Using another method is equivalent to upgrading some 14 counts and downgrading some 15 counts. That is just bridge.

 

If you upgrade much more frequently than you downgrade then IMHO it needs to be disclosed. Not sure where the boarder is. My guess is that when playing 15-17 I upgrade some 25% of all 14-counts and downgrade maybe 10% of 15-counts. I just explain it as 15-17. Playing 13-15 I upgrade lots of 12-counts and almost never downgrade a 13-count so I say (12)13-15.

 

I don't think the rules need to spell this out. You cannot state disclosure criteria with nanometer accuracy anyway because it depends how solid the agreements are, how formalized they are, how detailed the CC is in general (more detailed for a long team match than for 2-board rounds) and how critical the information is to opps (the range of a NT opening may be more critical than that of a negative response to a strong 1♣).

 

There was an old Bermuda Bowl appeal case where the notrump range was disclosed as "basically 14-16" at one side of the screen and "14-16 if not containing a 5-card or 13-15 with a 5-card" on the other side of the screen, and opps were damaged because they now played to two different defenses and had a misunderstanding. It surprises me that some would state explicitly how they upgrade, rather than maybe (13)14-15(16) or 13+-16 or some such.

[MickyB]

[*]Fractional ranges. Suppose that you open 1N on about 50% of flat 11 HCP hands, about 80% of flat 14 HCP hands, and most flat hands in between. Forthright players (like Fred) use various notations to describe this -- plus and minus symbols, brackets and so on. IMO decimal notation ( 11.5 - 14.8 ) is expressive and easy to understand. Unfortunately, it would require re-orientation and cause initial confusion. For example if you open 1N on all flat 12, 13, and 14 HCP hands but no others, then your decimal notrump range is 12.0 - 15.0 (to the nearest decimal place). This decimal notation is based on a similar proposal by John Probst.

This is very counter-intuitive to me. I'd expect 11.0 to indicate an average hand of 11 HCP, so all of your numbers would need 0.5 subtracting from them, e.g. a "down-the-line" weak no-trump, where you upgrade 11s/14s as much as you downgrade 12s/15s, would be 11.5-14.5. I may be alone here! However, I can't see either method ever catching on.

 

Btw, I was interested to see that one of the Irish pairs display all of their no-trump ranges in "54321 points". Must take some getting used to when playing against them - I certainly can't think of any other reason for playing it!

[nige1]

This is very counter-intuitive to me. I'd expect 11.0 to indicate an average hand of 11 HCP, so all of your numbers would need 0.5 subtracting from them, e.g. a "down-the-line" weak no-trump, where you upgrade 11s/14s as much as you downgrade 12s/15s, would be 11.5-14.5. I may be alone here! However, I can't see either method ever catching on.

If you subtract 0.5 from my figures you arrive at a version similar to John Probst's original proposal! :D it seems less intuitive to me :P but still much better than current practice :) Anyway, I fear you may be right about such ideas attracting interest and support.

[NickRW]

Well, I happen to use, basically, 6421, with quite a lot of adjustments and fractional additions for NT hands. My NT range is, in reality, 16.5 to 19.5. This is approx equivalent to 12+ to 14. At the bottom end of the range a few 11s are upgraded, a very few 13s downgraded and quite a lot of 12s downgraded.

 

However, trying to explain this to folks in any kind of detail brings about a glazed look on most, no nearly all, faces.

 

I am strongly of the opinion that, for suit contracts, 4321 should be consigned to the dustbin of history. However, for NT, it is a reasonable first approximation of a hand's strength and, frankly, trying to explain differently to most people is too time consuming for use in a normal pairs event. In other words, I am content to announce my NT as "approx a good 12 to 14". They can ask what "approx" means if they are interested - the details are on the card if they care to study it.

 

Nick

[Trinidad]

I shall not be slave to a knave

I do put 14+ to 17 on my convention card, but my impression is that the vast majority of experts who write 15-17 really should write 14+ to 17.

I commend Fred's exceptional honesty. In the UK, players tend to be more reticent about their notrump ranges. Their card may advertise 12-14, but, in practice, this often means 11-13 not vul but 13-15 vul. Such economy with the truth is widely rationalised and condoned as "Judgement" and "General Bridge knowledge".

 

I don't have a problem with different hand evaluation methods. That's 'bridge'. Everybody who knows anything about bridge knows that 4-3-2-1 is a gross oversimplification.

 

However, I do have a problem with the variation according to position and vulnerability. If this is as significant as 11-13 (fav.) vs 13-15 (unfav.) then it should be disclosed properly. After all, disclosing properly is also 'bridge'.

 

Rik

[jikl]

This reminds me of a discussion on Ben's weird system (ZAR). I can give you a concrete number ofr my NT openings, (this is a made up thing but showing how ridiculous it can be). I am opening 12-14 NT opening with a 96% confidence interval, however the shape can change that by 1 differential. Is this what we want to see on a card?

 

Sean

[kenrexford]

I used to put in big letters and pre-alert that all stated point count ranges, and all ranges written on the card, whever they may occur, are +/- 10%.

 

Then I started to describe things insanely, like how the 2NT opening range showed 20-21, but if 21 usually 4333 or short honors, 22 remotely possible with unprotected short honors, 19 easily if 4432 or better shape, 18 possible if a 6-card suit, and 17 possible in theory which has come up once in my records, with some 20's too strong.

 

People who F with me about this drivel get they deserve. LOL

 

The pattern descriptions are even more fun.