No Trump Range Query

[eagles123]

I have been wondering about No Trump ranges for a while... Often pairs will have (for example) (14+) 15-17 as their range

 

my question is, if you simply alert your range as 15-17 are you banned from having a 14 as you're not alerting it as 14+ - 17, or should 14 counts just be extremely rare.

 

What made me think of this was:

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-8954/

 

fwiw I opened 1N (alerted as 15-17), my p bid 3n on his balanced 10 count and they had 5 cashing spades, but it's besides the point... Should we be alerting our no trump range as 14+-17 if we open this kinda hand 1N or is it just "normal bridge" (the majority if not all of the expert players agreed with my 1n call) - where to draw the line?

 

Thanks

 

Eagles

[blackshoe]

Marty Bergen talks a bit about this in his "hand evaluation" pamphlet. His argument is that if you have a balanced 14 count that is good enough to upgrade to 15, or a balanced 18 count that is bad enough to downgrade to 17, you should open 1NT, and you should put "14+ to 18-" on your card, and announce "good 14 to bad 18". I agree with him. Now if only I could get my partner to remember to announce it properly… B-)

[wank]

if you're only opening those 14s which you consider to be as good as random 15s it's just bridge and you don't need to say anything.

[barmar]

You haven't specified a jurisdiction. ACBL is somewhat schizophrenic about how they treat upgrading. You're allowed to upgrade 14's to 15-17, and aren't required to mention it in your announcements. But if you play 10-12 NT, you're not allowed to upgrade 9's, because opening 1NT with less than 10 HCP is not allowed in GCC (technically, it's allowed but you can't use any conventional responses or rebids).

[eagles123]

if you're only opening those 14s which you consider to be as good as random 15s it's just bridge and you don't need to say anything.

 

 

ok, so you're saying i could open a hundred 14 balanced hands as 1n in a row if i happened to judge each one of them as worth 15, it's only when i upgrade a hand that isnt worth an upgrade that it's a problem? and jurisdiction is EBU barmar

[hrothgar]

You haven't specified a jurisdiction. ACBL is somewhat schizophrenic about how they treat upgrading. You're allowed to upgrade 14's to 15-17, and aren't required to mention it in your announcements. But if you play 10-12 NT, you're not allowed to upgrade 9's, because opening 1NT with less than 10 HCP is not allowed in GCC (technically, it's allowed but you can't use any conventional responses or rebids).

 

Couple comments

 

1. From what I can tell, the ACBL is taking deliberate steps to make the regulatory structure as confusing as possible

 

Don Mamula (a former ACBL President and BoD member made the following comment on Bridge Winners)

 

> There are no precedents in the ACBL. There is an active culture designed to prevent such a thing.

> I tried to get a database of rulings (both TD and committee) to provide reference for future rulings.

> Shot down like a Zeppelin.

 

Told me, this passes beyond incompetence.

We're dealing with active malfeasance.

 

2. I got into a disagreement with John Adams regarding which HCP limits are absolute and which are subject to "judgement".

 

My position was that the 1o HCP limit for mini-NTs was absolute. (Players may not exercise judgement)

However, players may exercise judgement regarding other bids with minimum strength requirements.

 

Rulings@acbl.org originally claimed that there was not option for judgement anywhere.

I pointed out that this ran contrary to previous expression opinions by the same org.

 

Rulings then stated the following

 

> You've raised some interesting points. Remember that the 10 point

> limit for NoTrump is for when a partnership may or not play conventions.

> The 8 point limit is for being allowed to open at the one level at all.

 

> In both cases, it seems there should be some leeway for judgment

> if that judgment is exercised so rarely (once a year, perhaps) that

> there can be no anticipation whatsoever by partner for such a call.

> Anything more gets the partnership into implicit agreement and

> improper disclosure territory.

 

> I will bring this topic, and also the whole somewhat related

> area of NoTrump with off shape, to the Competition and

> Conventions Committee at their next or next next meeting.

> I would like to get an opinion from them and then try to

> write a rule which is more clear and logical on these subjects.

 

So there you have it.

The rules in North America appear to be, do whatever you damn well please.

Just make sure that you are better at badgering the tournament staff than the opposition.

[wank]

ok, so you're saying i could open a hundred 14 balanced hands as 1n in a row if i happened to judge each one of them as worth 15, it's only when i upgrade a hand that isnt worth an upgrade that it's a problem? and jurisdiction is EBU barmar

 

yes, right, if those 100 14 counts are actually good ones. if your partner spots you're manic and open totally boring 14 counts though then he should say something.

[robert2734]

When I'm a defender, I don't care whether you think your 14 count is really worth 15. I want to know if my partner can or cannot hold another jack. I have partners who open 14+ to 17 (on advise from Larry Cohen) so I've been around this tree.

[hrothgar]

ok, so you're saying i could open a hundred 14 balanced hands as 1n in a row if i happened to judge each one of them as worth 15, it's only when i upgrade a hand that isnt worth an upgrade that it's a problem? and jurisdiction is EBU barmar

 

I'd say "that depends".

 

The purpose of a range announcement is to provide the opponents with useful information.

 

The purpose of announcing "15 <--> 17" rather than "14 <--> 17" is that the the set 14 HCP hands that are appropriate to open 1NT

is sufficiently rare such that announcing "15 <--> 17 HCP" is a "better" description of the hand than either "14+ <--> 17 HCP" or "14 <--> 17 HCP".

 

Weird ***** happens. Even if the set of 14 HCP hands only makes up 1% of all 1NT openings, it theoretically possible that you could have a run for 5 or 10 or even 100 NT openings in a row such than each and every one happened to fall into this very rare set. In practice, I'd be extremely surprised if this were to happen and it would make me wonder what the hell was going on.

[1eyedjack]

"16, give or take"

[barmar]

"16, give or take"

Sure, but how much are we allowed to take? :)

[barmar]

When I'm a defender, I don't care whether you think your 14 count is really worth 15. I want to know if my partner can or cannot hold another jack. I have partners who open 14+ to 17 (on advise from Larry Cohen) so I've been around this tree.

IMO, the reason for disclosing 1NT ranges is primarily to distinguish strong and weak NT, since opponents often play different defenses to them. But the regulators didn't want to require just a strong/weak checkbox on CCs (or analogous announcements) because then there would be disagreements about where the boundaries are. So players announce a numeric range, and then the opponents can apply their own criteria to decide which defense.

 

But why should the opponents be able to figure out exactly what's in their partner's hand from this? We can't do it with any other bids, where players routinely adjust HCP requirements based on distribution.

[1eyedjack]

Sure, but how much are we allowed to take? :)

OK, not Zero, or the "give or take" qualification would be inaccurate.

And not precisely 1, else that would be more accurate.

 

The lack of precision reflects the reality, that Milton point count is not the last word in determining the average expected trick-taking power of the hand. If systemically you slavishly follow HCP then the description is easy. But I don't think that you are (or should be) obliged to. Zonal restrictions may apply.

[hrothgar]

When I'm a defender, I don't care whether you think your 14 count is really worth 15. I want to know if my partner can or cannot hold another jack. I have partners who open 14+ to 17 (on advise from Larry Cohen) so I've been around this tree.

 

In all seriousness, what is going to cause you to misguess the hands more often?

 

Being told that I open 1N on 14 - 17 HCPs when in fact we play 15-17, however, there was one case 8 years back when opened on a 14 count.

Being told that we play 15 - 17 NTs, however, once in a blue moon I'll upgrade a 14 count.

 

In my experience, people like to complain about the opponent's disclosure and (one way or another) they'll find something to kvetch about...

[blackshoe]

But the regulators didn't want to require just a strong/weak checkbox on CCs (or analogous announcements) because then there would be disagreements about where the boundaries are.

Easily fixed: specify the boundary in the regulation. Of course, then you'll get "you downgraded your 16 count to 15! That makes your 13-15 1NT strong, and you announced it as weak! Mom! Billy's cheating again!" :P

[Trinidad]

How hard is it to say: "15-17, could be a good 14."?

 

In between boards there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the tongues of bridge players. But when it comes to explaining the auction, suddenly tongue cramp is all around.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

How hard is it to say: "15-17, could be a good 14."?

 

In between boards there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the tongues of bridge players. But when it comes to explaining the auction, suddenly tongue cramp is all around.

But what does "could be a good 14" really mean? If it just means that some hands, despite being 14 walrus points, are more similar to a mundane 15 than a mundane 14, then it is just bridge, and talking about it is at best distracting and at worst misleading.

[Zelandakh]

But what does "could be a good 14" really mean? If it just means that some hands, despite being 14 walrus points, are more similar to a mundane 15 than a mundane 14, then it is just bridge, and talking about it is at best distracting and at worst misleading.

And what about a good 13 with a 6 card minor? Or 22(72)? One solution is to add a general comment prominently on the CC along the lines of "frequent upgrades, some downgrades" but that is not going to help the LOLs that find an opponent's CC too complicated to read and rely on the announcements. It is an area one might expect some guidance in the Blue Book but as far as I can see even Rik's modification is against the correctly stated form as laid out in 4E1 on page 15.

[robert2734]

The problem with relying on opponents convention card is that it is not canonical. They can check any darn thing they want on their card at no penalty. There is a duty to accurately and fully explain the partnership agreement. At least in theory, you can get redress.

[blackshoe]

Are you saying there is no penalty for mis-describing your agreements on your system card?

[aguahombre]

We are required to state the HCP's which by agreement our 1NT bid includes.

 

If my partner is known to include 14's, the range is 14-17. Not including "14" is misinformation. Whether all hands within that range are opened 1NT is not part of the announcement; but I must disclose that if asked.

[robert2734]

Yes. Been the victim. Not paying attention to whatever you scribble on your card any more.

[hrothgar]

If my partner is known to include 14's, the range is 14-17. Not including "14" is misinformation. Whether all hands within that range are opened 1NT is not part of the announcement; but I must disclose that if asked.

 

Over the years, I am quite sure that I have opening a 15-17 NT with everything from a 3 count up to an 18 count.

 

Are you claiming that my partners should announce our range as 3-18?

[Manastorm]

I suggest could be light instead of upgrades etc. Your opponents have no idea what you do and when. If they ask, say could be light and shrug. You can bid tactical 12+ with 6 card minor and you are still within your agreements. If 14 is light, then surely 12 is even lighter. If you opponents become upset, poll experts and let them know it was good bridge to ease any ill feeling.

[weejonnie]

If partner knows you may upgrade 14HCP to be equivalent to 15 then you MUST announce it as 14-17. Failure to do so is a concealed partnership understanding.

 

Note that I said 'equivalent' - some players, believe it or not, actually count the high card points that a hand has shown and if, for example they deduce you must have a King to make it up to a bare 15, when in fact you only have the Queen , then it could prejudice their defence - and I would be all in favour of awarding an adjusted score (or at least recording the hand).