14 good upgraded to 15

[firmit]

I held this hand yesterday:

♠ AQT

♥ A9xx

♦ xx

♣ ATxx

 

MP - First seat, vul.

 

Playing in a intermediate field - I choose to upgrade this hand. The reason for doing it, was that if I opened 1♣, and partner said 1♠, I felt that I would be to strong for a 1NT rebid...

 

Another thing - I don't use Zar points all that much, but when thinking about upgrading/downgrading, I tend to use it to get a "second opinion" - here I have 14+10+6=30zars - which may be 1 point short - but... swap the cards around, and I believe one can construct numerous hands where 1NT is the "obvious" choice.

 

Do you agree?

 

What is your criteria for upgrading a 14hp balanced hand to a 15hp - so you can open a strong 1NT?

[the hog]

I don't agree that this hand should be upgraded. My prime rationale for upgrading would be the existence of a reasonable 5 card suit as a source of tricks. This hand is nothing exceptional. If you open this 1NT you are playing a 14+ point NT imo.

[dicklont]

I need a good fivecard to upgrade, that will probably provide an extra trick.

 

This hand is just 14 for me, so 1♣.

You have to rebid either 1NT or 2♠ when partner responds 1♠.

My partner doesn't like threecard raises so I would rebid 1NT, but I have a feeling that 2♠ is superior.

[655321]

Upgrading this hand seems reasonable to me.

 

You have a bunch of Aces and some tens, all your cards are working.

The hand is significantly better than many weak notrumps.

 

When you say you were vulnerable, I assume you were playing IMPs. Opening 1NT will get you some vulnerable game bonuses you would miss by opening 1♣ (as long as you make the games. :P )

[rogerclee]

Upgrading this hand seems reasonable to me.

 

You have a bunch of Aces and some tens, all your cards are working.

The hand is significantly better than many weak notrumps.

 

When you say you were vulnerable, I assume you were playing IMPs. Opening 1NT will get you some vulnerable game bonuses you would miss by opening 1♣ (as long as you make the games.  :P )

I agree that upgrading this hand is reasonable, but I would never call it obvious. I think either action is fine, and I would personally open 1NT.

 

There are a lot of benefits of opening 1NT. You clarify the nature of your hand and approximate point range to your partner, and you also take up an entire level of bidding room from the opponents. Consequently, your partner is very well-placed to make decisions after you open 1NT, while the opponents have no idea what their partner has and are very poorly placed to make decisions.

 

The downside to opening this 1NT at matchpoints is obvious. If partner has nothing, you could go for -200 against their partscore, and you could be playing a bad 3NT while the field is in 1NT. At matchpoints, there is less of an urgency to bid game.

 

If you were NV at matchpoints, I would call opening 1NT on this hand obvious, since there is much less risk involved with all the same upsides.

[kenrexford]

This is an easy "upgrade" for me. However, I dislike the term "upgrade" somewhat because I think the real term should be "real valuation."

 

In any event, my criteria can be explained well with this hand.

 

The first thing I do is to count HCP -- here 14.

 

I then check the control count -- here 6. I multiply that by 3.333 and get 20. 20 is substantially higher than 14, so I am inclined to "upgrade." In fact, my control count is so substantially higher, that my gut leans me toward a 2-point increase, or a 16-count.

 

I then check for shape. 4432 is a "good shape" if I like body. Here, each long suit has an Ace and either a 0-count honor (10) or a high pip (9). (A 9 is a "0-point honor" if touching a 10.)

 

I also have a bolstering 0-point honor in a three-pack (AQ10).

 

Therefore, I would not hesitate to assess this hand as worthy of that initial assessment -- 2-point increase.

 

A negative feature is that diamond hole, of course. This is a liability if the contract is NT. However, the doubleton being in a minor makes that concern lesser, as the likelihood of a final major contract is increased. Thus, I disregard that problem. Had the doubleton been in spades or hearts, I would probably deduct one.

 

So, this hand values, for me, at about a 16-count expectation value. Were I to have essentially the same hand but switching the holdings in diamonds and either major, then it values to about 15. Either way, "upgrade," but the actual hand is a much more confortable upgrade. Were I to lack the 10's and 9's, and have the doubleton in a major (e.g., ♠xx ♥Axxx ♦AQx ♣Axxx), then the whole house collapses and this is not a good 1NT opening.

[bid_em_up]

I think it is 100% wrong to upgrade this hand in an intermediate field, regardless of how you "value" the hand. Assuming you consider yourself better than the field, you should want to be in the "normal" contract, and let your declarer play win the board.

 

jmoo.

[ASkolnick]

I think a 2 point re-evaluation is a rather large assessment for this hand. I am starting to believe ZARS count is a pretty good evaluation of the hand. And the ZARS count is really not very different from how Ken is assessing it.

 

1) HCP+Controls (Same evaluation, 6 extra points versus very good controls.

2) Shape (3424) is an OK shape, not a great one. You do have the advantage of if he bids a major, you have good support, but the more length you have in a major, on average, the less he holds of a major. ZAR count gives this 10 ZP which is about average if you only have the "traditional" or semi-traditional NT holdings (4333,4432,5332,4522) fair of (8,10,11,12).

 

3) Body - I agree that you should evaluate body as well which is not taken in account in ZAR points, but I think saying you have good body I think is overstating it.

a) Your "3-pack" is in your short suit.

:) An A9 doesn't do much unless you are holding two honors/intermediates with the other hand with it.

c) An AT needs another honor/with it.

 

Usually I wind up adding 1/2 point for useful intermediates with the ZAR count as well as deducting a point for short honors.

 

So, I can understand the upgrade of 1 point moving it to a "minimum" NT in evaluation, but moving it to an "intermediate" NT is fooling yourself.

[pclayton]

I would not upgrade at MPs but I would at IMPs. This is a very strong dummy if pard has a major.

 

At MPs, upgrading is completely anti-field. You might miss a good heart (or even a spade) partial.

 

IMPs is different. This is an awfully good 14 and if there is a chance pard won't invite over a single raise of a major (for instance), then you will miss many games.

[jdonn]

I don't agree that this hand should be upgraded. My prime rationale for upgrading would be the existence of a reasonable 5 card suit as a source of tricks. This hand is nothing exceptional. If you open this 1NT you are playing a 14+ point NT imo.

I agree 100%.

[kenrexford]

Some comments made during discussions concerning "upgrades" make my head explode.

 

The premise of some objections seems to be that Works Point Count is somehow dispensed from God to guide our daily bidding lives and that any deviation from stated WPC ranges must be justified by some exception to The Rule or by some corollary to The Rule.

 

However, what does one do if one does not find WPC to have any presumptive perfection but instead merely cites WPC when forced to define ranges? Cannot a person describe in one's internal (partnership) meaning a 1NT opening as "balanced with strength surpassing a simple opening by about one extra trick but not by three tricks"? If that definition happens to equate usually with "15-17" under WPC, but not always, then why is it somehow incorrect to open that which the bid shows simply because some other flawed evaluation method, forced on you for reasons of preparing a CC, says something else?

 

Sure, I'll buy the "14+ to 17-" definition. However, if that is the case, NO UPGRADES ARE POSSIBLE. I could easily also say that a 14-count with a good 5-card suit is "14+," right?

[Apollo81]

I would not upgrade it -- the reason being that I want to play in spades in most cases where partner has 4 spades and no more than 3 hearts. If I upgrade I will play in 1NT on some of those hands rather than 2♠.

 

Change the hand to A10x A9xx xx AQ10x and I would upgrade it because now I want to play in spades only when we have a 5-3 fit (and this hand is slightly better anyway).

 

Change the hand to xx A9xx A10x AQ10x and I would not upgrade it, because I don't want to play a 5-2 spade fit and I don't want to miss a 4-4 heart fit.

[rogerclee]

I would not upgrade it -- the reason being that I want to play in spades in most cases where partner has 4 spades and no more than 3 hearts. If I upgrade I will play in 1NT on some of those hands rather than 2♠.

 

Change the hand to A10x A9xx xx AQ10x and I would upgrade it because now I want to play in spades only when we have a 5-3 fit (and this hand is slightly better anyway).

 

Change the hand to xx A9xx A10x AQ10x and I would not upgrade it, because I don't want to play a 5-2 spade fit and I don't want to miss a 4-4 heart fit.

To me, this is a matter of hand evaluation, not searching for the best strain. Yes, there are dangers of preempting our side, but 1NT can also gain heavily when we preempt the opponents. To say that you want to keep things flexible is like saying you would open 1♦ on 4342 and a normal 15 because you want to play spades if you have spades.

 

And we only have three spades here!

[pclayton]

Some comments made during discussions concerning "upgrades" make my head explode.

 

The premise of some objections seems to be that Works Point Count is somehow dispensed from God to guide our daily bidding lives and that any deviation from stated WPC ranges must be justified by some exception to The Rule or by some corollary to The Rule.

 

However, what does one do if one does not find WPC to have any presumptive perfection but instead merely cites WPC when forced to define ranges? Cannot a person describe in one's internal (partnership) meaning a 1NT opening as "balanced with strength surpassing a simple opening by about one extra trick but not by three tricks"? If that definition happens to equate usually with "15-17" under WPC, but not always, then why is it somehow incorrect to open that which the bid shows simply because some other flawed evaluation method, forced on you for reasons of preparing a CC, says something else?

Ken do you play much matchpoints?

 

What % of the rest of the field are going to upgrade this? Maybe one or two other players in a section?

 

Are you aware of the ramifications of opening this 1N and losing a major suit partial?

 

Maybe you reach a marginal 3N, and play it really well. How many more matchpoints are you getting for +150 versus +400?

 

Sure, I'll buy the "14+ to 17-" definition.  However, if that is the case, NO UPGRADES ARE POSSIBLE.  I could easily also say that a 14-count with a good 5-card suit is "14+," right?

 

I think a 14+ to 17 implies that the pair does upgrade enough to include the good 14 in their range. Otherwise an absurd development occurs:

 

"what is your NT range"?

 

14+-17

 

"would you upgrade with QTx, xx, ATx, AKTxx"?

 

Yes.

 

"Then your range is really 13+-17" :blink:

 

Personally I state the range is 15-17, but I will gladly upgrade hands like QTx xx Axx AKJxx.

[whereagles]

I'd upgrade, on grounds that I'll be playing the hand :blink: :) :)

[kenrexford]

Ken do you play much matchpoints?

 

What % of the rest of the field are going to upgrade this? Maybe one or two other players in a section? 

 

Are you aware of the ramifications of opening this 1N and losing a major suit partial? 

 

Maybe you reach a marginal 3N, and play it really well. How many more matchpoints are you getting for +150 versus +400?

I humbly would suggest that you are missing a lot of MP gains to opening this 1NT. The sole basis is not to get to marginal 3NT contracts. The other possible benefits include the following:

 

1. 1NT is VERY preemptive, especially in comparison to a minor opening.

1A. 1NT buys the contract a lot, and that is often a good thing.

1B. If 1NT does not buy the contract, knowing that I have good defense (which is as true with primes and 14), we can make more lucrative penalty doubles.

1C. If the opponents can and do overcall, their structure is not ideal, in comparison to the structure over a minor opening.

 

2. Opening 1NT often right-sides the contract. Thus, I might play that major-suit partial after Stayman or a transfer for one more trick than the field.

 

3. Opening 1NT facilitates easier auctions.

 

4A. When I do not open 1NT, partner knows that I do not have an upgrade-worthy hand, such that we can play at 1NT more often when 2NT goes for a set.

4B. When I do not open 1NT, partner can low-ball his one-suiters more comfortably, not inclined to make aggressive invites in case I might have this hand.

 

5. Upgrading allows a slightly lesser opening for "upgraded 11's," without the same risk, thereby allowing us to get first into the auction ever-so-slightly more often.

 

Against this, you ask whether I am aware of the ramifications of losing a major fit. Sure. I am also aware that, on those hands where I actually lose the major partial, we would have often been required to make a decision as to whether to bid or defend at the three-level. I am also aware that 1NT may and often does score higher than the major-suit partial if I receive an undeserved trick from the blind lead and blind defense.

 

As to the "anti-field" idea, I do understand that concept. However, this is not the end-all of bidding, obviously. Otherwise, I'd find the most average looking pair in the room and photocopy their convention card to adopt as our own. Then, I would predict what the field would do on every hand, opting for example to not compete to the three-level because the field will not force a difficult decision on the opponents, relying instead on my excellent defense at 2♥. Not 100% of MP's come from play or defense.

[pclayton]

Ke, I will remind you that the OP was all about 'upgrading'. Nearly all of your points have to do with playing a 14 point NT.

 

1. 1NT is VERY preemptive, especially in comparison to a minor opening.

 

Then play a 12-14 or a kamikaze. It sounds like a zen koan but I don't see how a 15-17 NT can be both preemptive and strength-showing.

 

By the way, I would like to hear about my LHO's diamond suit instead of 'preempting' him out of it.

 

1A. 1NT buys the contract a lot, and that is often a good thing.

 

This is really another way to say #1.

2. Opening 1NT often right-sides the contract.  Thus, I might play that major-suit partial after Stayman or a transfer for one more trick than the field.

 

Then play T-Walsh :blink: I just hope you realize you are adding variance by having a different hand play it.

1B. If 1NT does not buy the contract, knowing that I have good defense (which is as true with primes and 14), we can make more lucrative penalty doubles.

 

Good point. If pard plays you for a real 1N opening, then he will be doubling a lot more. Whether or not this hand has defense equivalent to a 1N opening is anyone's guess. I agree its close.

 

3. Opening 1NT facilitates easier auctions.

 

Also true. But it also removes judgment since pard has no idea where your points are.

 

1C. If the opponents can and do overcall, their structure is not ideal, in comparison to the structure over a minor opening.

 

This is very debatable. I don't know of many methods that can show 5-4 two suiters over 1m. But usually you are taking away their penalty double by opening 1N, so that's OK.

4A. When I do not open 1NT, partner knows that I do not have an upgrade-worthy hand, such that we can play at 1NT more often when 2NT goes for a set.

 

Isn't this just a function of range? If you want to play a 14+-17, go ahead. You'll have gains like you say. You will also get overboard when pard has a bad 10 and plows it into 3N or a so-so-8 and puts it into 2N.

 

4B. When I do not open 1NT, partner can low-ball his one-suiters more comfortably, not inclined to make aggressive invites in case I might have this hand.

 

Whatever results you get in this regard, I can assure you, are random. Again, you are merely playing a different NT range. As far as 'one-suiters' are concerned, I would far rather be responding to 1m than 1N. Sometimes pard raises.

 

5. Upgrading allows a slightly lesser opening for "upgraded 11's," without the same risk, thereby allowing us to get first into the auction ever-so-slightly more often.

 

Again, this is a function of 'range', not evaluation.

[kenrexford]

Phil,

 

With all due respect, WTF!?!?

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding the conversation here.

 

Q: When do you upgrade?

K: When I have such-and-such.

P: You must not play MP, because upgrading is anti-field and only rarely benefits you when you get to close games and make it.

K: Actually, upgrading also gains on other hands.

P: Then play 12-14 NT.

 

I have no response to that.

[Apollo81]

I would not upgrade it -- the reason being that I want to play in spades in most cases where partner has 4 spades and no more than 3 hearts.  If I upgrade I will play in 1NT on some of those hands rather than 2♠.

 

Change the hand to A10x A9xx xx AQ10x and I would upgrade it because now I want to play in spades only when we have a 5-3 fit (and this hand is slightly better anyway).

 

Change the hand to xx A9xx A10x AQ10x and I would not upgrade it, because I don't want to play a 5-2 spade fit and I don't want to miss a 4-4 heart fit.

To me, this is a matter of hand evaluation, not searching for the best strain. Yes, there are dangers of preempting our side, but 1NT can also gain heavily when we preempt the opponents. To say that you want to keep things flexible is like saying you would open 1♦ on 4342 and a normal 15 because you want to play spades if you have spades.

 

And we only have three spades here!

You missed the point. The OP hand was borderline value-wise, so you can make a case for either 1NT or 1m as the best "values" bid. The responses to this thread should prove that either of these is a reasonable choice. That's why we have to look at other factors too. A 4342 normal 15 count is not a borderline hand values-wise.

 

I upgrade borderline hands when I think that the expected value of opening 1NT is higher than the expected value of opening 1m. Obviously 1NT has many innate attractive qualities since it's more preemptive than 1m and communicates your hand better to partner. However, you can lose the board a lot of ways by opening a 14 point notrump. Some of the most common ways are missing a 4-4 major fit, playing a bad 5-2 major fit, or playing 1NT-2 vulnerable (when the opps would have bought it if you opened 1m).

 

So, I would tend to open a 14-point 1NT less frequently at MPs when I'm 4-2 majors or vulnerable. If you changed the OP hand to xx AQ10x A10x A10xx then it is a clear 1NT opener on values despite these "other" factors.

[fred]

I would open 1NT.

 

I tell my opponents that I play 14+ to 17.

 

To me this means "I open 1NT with 14 HCP often enough that I feel obligated to let you know".

 

To me it does not mean "I open 1NT with above average 14-counts".

 

I would guess that I open 1NT with about 10% of balanced 14-counts.

 

For me this hand (barely) qualifies because of 3 Aces, not 4333, good spot cards, and because it rates to play well in either major.

 

I would rather have these properties in my 14-count 1NT than those in a typical hand with fewer Aces and a 5-card suit of indifferent quality.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[skjaeran]

I would not upgrade this hand, although I know a lot who would.

 

Normally I need a decent 5-bagger to upgrade. With 4432 I need more fillers than here. But this one is close for me.

 

Opening 1♣ with transfer responses, I'm more able to distinguish strength and fit than most.

[gwnn]

Easy 1NT for me I've been very pleased with the results of similar upgrades.

[3for3]

15.75 on the Kaplan Rubens hand evaluator. The only reason not to open 1nt is to stay with the field.

 

Danny

[mikeh]

I upgrade this hand, which is rare for me when lacking a decent 5 card suit.

 

I really can't add much to the discussion so far, altho I definitely do not use an analysis as arithmetical as Ken claims he would use.

 

To me, the factors that persuade me to upgrade include the Aces (the Work point count undervalues Aces) and the texture. I'd rather have AQ9 A10xx than AQ10 A9xx, but that is a miniscule factor.

 

Another factor is that I rarely pass 12 counts and open some (but not most) balanced 11 counts, so opening this 1♣ and rebidding 1N (if partner bids 1♦ or 1♠... yes, some would raise spades, and in some partnerships I would as well) would leave me very nervous... partner will pass a lot of 10 counts opposite which we have a decent game contract.

 

The main downside, at mps, is the risk of missing a 4-4 heart fit by opening 1N opposite a hand too weak to stayman.

 

But that is a risk inherent in whatever notrump range you play.. and the point of the thread is to see if this hand fits within your 15-17 range.. not to see what range you choose.

 

If this hand is, by whatever analytic process you use, 15-17 balanced, then it is a 1N opener. If you don't like it, change your range. Thus, if your range were 12-14, open 1♣ with this hand.

[NickRW]

IMO, the comments from Ken and Fred are pretty much spot on.

 

I don't count points according to Zar - but, never the less, by something that is a lot closer to it than HCP. In England partner is required to "announce" the range of our opening NT - we announce ours, for the benefit of our HCP counting opponents, as "a good 12 to a bad 15". So our opening NT is about half a point better than the rest of the field. Despite that fact this hand is (just) too good for an opening 1NT for us - it just squeaks over the borderline.

 

I should add that we play MP almost exclusively. I should also add that, though I am perhaps a bit above average at card play, I am nothing special. My partners are inexperienced. Yet we do above averagely well - and we are doing so mostly on the strength of better hand valuation - not through outplaying our opponents.

 

Nick

 

P.S. I should add that the strategy of bidding with the field and hoping to outplay them is a perfectly good strategy if you're a good card player relative to the field you're playing in. Trying to out do them in the bidding if you're a better bidder is also a perfectly good strategy.