Psyche, Deviation or what?

[Phil]

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]

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]

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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:

 

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]

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

[mycroft]

Unfortunately for you the Orange book says:

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.

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.

Posted without comment.

Okay, posted with comment. "But we describe it using a method easily understood by the opponents, of course that requires some simplification and some actual inaccuracy" doesn't get you past 10A3. Yes, the "standard" people who play the "standard" deviations get away with it where you can't; that's life.

[jeremy69]

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.

 

 

I don't think your explanation/evaluation method is simple. Perhaps you regard all those who don't take in what you say instantly as wrong, feeble minded or both. I thought your previous post failed the test of 10A3. I suppose what I am saying is that if 1NT is essentially 12-14 we have all been known to upgrade or downgrade but most would not understand the best 10 or worst 16 in the world to be in that process.

When you talk about not being able to get across your method to those "life long HCP counters" within the confines of the time normally allocated for a hand that is what I meant by showing contempt. If you can't communicate your method with them in a reasonable time and their eyes glaze over how does it satisfy 10A3?

[cherdanno]

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.

I am quite happy to explain the general idea of wall-crossing for Gromov-Witten invariants in 2 minutes. Just not to everyone.

[bluejak]

I suppose what I am saying is that if 1NT is essentially 12-14 we have all been known to upgrade or downgrade but most would not understand the best 10 or worst 16 in the world to be in that process.

I really think that part of the trouble is that not everyone upgrades or downgrades. It is all very well for dburn to pour scorn in his charming manner on people who refer to Walter the Walrus types, but it is a fact that some people think HCP are sacred, some do not. And the vast majority of players who would never ever upgrade or downgrade do not expect their opponents do.

[jeremy69]

I really think that part of the trouble is that not everyone upgrades or downgrades.

 

I agree with you but even if one stuck religiously to the limits an explanation such as 12-14, some 11's or 12-14, occasionally outside this range would be understood even if not agreed with. It is when someone wants to explain modified aardvark point count which counts red 8's as 0.31 of a normal HCP multiplied by a factor of the size of the explainer's considerable ego that the problem occurs. Players are bored with this, think it inappropriate to club night and feel that they are either being blinded by science or patronised (or more probably both).

In my view this is not so much to do with a bridge method as a communication exercise. I play a strong club in one club with one partner. No-one else does and some don't really know what a strong club is. We always have a convention card(not that anyone looks), sit down and say 3 lines the first of which is one they do understand e.g. Five card majors, 14-16 NT throughout, 1C is strong) and smile. It causes no aggravation whatsoever. IMO saying, as someone earlier suggested the range with approximately before it will also do IF it is not more than a point out of range but when you want to explain why you open off centre shapes and you are too strong for the bid anyway (unless you are using the aforementioned aardvark point count in which case you are only too strong on even days of the month) some players will think they are being diddled and I don't blame them.

 

To make it easy for NickRW I'll put a line underneath so the insults can be done according to number rather than taking the trouble to write them out.

 

1. stupid 2. thick 3. indolent 4. stroppy 5. flaming wrong 6. other :)

[NickRW]

I really think that part of the trouble is that not everyone upgrades or downgrades.

 

I agree with you but even if one stuck religiously to the limits an explanation such as 12-14, some 11's or 12-14, occasionally outside this range would be understood even if not agreed with. It is when someone wants to explain modified aardvark point count which counts red 8's as 0.31 of a normal HCP multiplied by a factor of the size of the explainer's considerable ego that the problem occurs. Players are bored with this, think it inappropriate to club night and feel that they are either being blinded by science or patronised (or more probably both).

In my view this is not so much to do with a bridge method as a communication exercise. I play a strong club in one club with one partner. No-one else does and some don't really know what a strong club is. We always have a convention card(not that anyone looks), sit down and say 3 lines the first of which is one they do understand e.g. Five card majors, 14-16 NT throughout, 1C is strong) and smile. It causes no aggravation whatsoever. IMO saying, as someone earlier suggested the range with approximately before it will also do IF it is not more than a point out of range but when you want to explain why you open off centre shapes and you are too strong for the bid anyway (unless you are using the aforementioned aardvark point count in which case you are only too strong on even days of the month) some players will think they are being diddled and I don't blame them.

 

To make it easy for NickRW I'll put a line underneath so the insults can be done according to number rather than taking the trouble to write them out.

 

1. stupid 2. thick 3. indolent 4. stroppy 5. flaming wrong 6. other ;)

Look, if you want to play, as dburn seems to, against opps who religiously stick to 12-14 or whatever exact hcp range, then I suggest you stick to holiday bridge and level 2 sessions - you seemed to me to suggest that is what you expect others to do. I personally don't usually play in that company and do not expect supposedly expert people to come out with arguments in favour of "my opps must dumb down coz it suits me".

 

Further, if you treat more accurate evaluators with the contempt you do, don't be surprised when people who are mentally alert enough to outstrip your capacity to add up get a bit shirty with you when the company is not populated by beginners.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

Okay, posted with comment. "But we describe it using a method easily understood by the opponents, of course that requires some simplification and some actual inaccuracy" doesn't get you past 10A3. Yes, the "standard" people who play the "standard" deviations get away with it where you can't; that's life.

I think you're wrong - for example, I was perfectly capable of making a simple, hcp oriented case for the two example hands I posted.

 

Even if not, the number of hands which fall outside what most might recognise as a "normal" deviation (whatever that is precisely) are so uncommon that it amounts to the same thing in practice as "partner taking a view" - which we are all only too familiar with and happens way more commonly.

 

I would, for example, announce my "14-16...ish" 1NT that I play with one partner as "13-17" - but though I'd cover my backside more completely, the truth is I'd be giving a less accurate announcement that would completely mischaracterise the opening. I mean - what do ya'all want - for me to cover my arse - or you to get less accurate info?

 

Nick

[jeremy69]

Look, if you want to play, as dburn seems to, against opps who religiously stick to 12-14 or whatever exact hcp range, then I suggest you stick to holiday bridge and level 2 sessions

 

Thank you for your advice.

I haven't noticed players in, say, the Premier League trying this "accurate" hand evaluation method but if they do then I don't suppose it will be much of a problem however in the style more commonly played in clubs where there is more of a mix of players and some are put off, intimidated even, by the sort of antics that insist on giving them many decimal places to go with what should be a simple explanation.

 

Bluejak is right(2nd time this month I've said that) that many do not upgrade or downgrade. It's akin to flashing in the high street on a Sunday morning.

 

That doesn't stop you provided

a. you can explain it,

b. your opponents have a reasonable shot at understanding what you are saying, c. they can keep awake whilst you do it,

d. they don't all leave the club for evermore because watching the llama hunting on Sky Sports Extra is more entertaining.

 

If you wish to open your 5-4-2-2 16 count a weak NT(sorry 11.21 to 15.37 except that this time I have 16 Milton's but poor suit quality and honours in my short suits and the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars) then I think you ought to realise that it is not many people's idea of that and your opponents may be mislead especially if they have not grasped the full import of your, no doubt, erudite explanation.

 

Meanwhile I am just off to the Level 2 local duplicate and I hope that none of them will be playing Bamberger Point Count this time. It's simple, I know, but after two glasses of the house shiraz I never know whether 21-25 is a weak or a strong nt.

[Pict]

Personally I never downgrade.

 

I've noticed several discussions on the Expert forum where world class players say 'never downgrade'. Yet, I have twice in the last ten years miscounted, or misremembered who I was playing with, whatever, and found myself looking at 15 points after opening a 12-14 NT.

 

As it happens I don't upgrade. I can recall 20 years ago at a strong club, being the idiot dburn mentions, counting a hand down to the last jack and the NT opener a point short at eleven. I don't have to tell you how it ended. I might have to tell you I didn't feel inclined to call the Director.

 

I've played internationals who say their NT is x-y, and I immediately know it's really x-z to y. (Especially if it is 10-12).

 

My remaining puzzle.

 

If someone tells me his NT is 12-14 (and maybe sniggers up his sleeve). Then it turns out 12-14 was a reasonable approximation in 'my' world of his arcane calculation.

 

Why do I care? Why does dburn care? Why does Jeremy care?. Why is Nick so excited about it?

[gwnn]

what is z?

[Pict]

what is z?

Apologies Gwnn.

 

Opponent says 10-12 NT and I guess he will play 9-12 (so z=1).

 

So easy to make things difficult for people and deflect them from any meaningful point.

[blackshoe]

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations. Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

[jallerton]

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

 

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

 

Case . On the first hand I pick up an average 7-count on which I decide to psyche a 1NT opener. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

[hrothgar]

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

 

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

 

Case . On the first hand I pick up an average 7-count on which I decide to psyche a 1NT opener. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

My understanding is that case (B) is perfectly legitimate in ACBL land. (An outright psyche isn't the same as a deviation)

 

As for case (a), the ACBL isn't pedestrian enough to burden themselves with needless complications like law or process. (with this said and done, they could always resort to the Endicott fudge if pressed)

[gwnn]

apologies Pict, z=1 was my guess too but I thought you had some complex function to give you the amplitude of opps' deviations!