14 points

[lycier]

Matchpoints

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk6ha94dak743c752&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv]

 

2/1 15-17 NT

 

is it close

 

For me, only open 1♦, opening 1nt is really a overcall.

The reasons :

1- there isn't a decent five card suit.

2- there isn't a Ten. If there are two Ten in this hand, it is possible to consider this matter.

 

For 14 points to open 1nt, the most classic hand is :

♠Kx

♥Jxx

♦AQJxxx

♣Kx

[Vampyr]

O.K., but I value the AK in a 5-card suit as 8 points. So I have my 15 HCP. do I not?

 

No. Do you actually know what HCP are?

[Vampyr]

Disclosure obviously depends on how frequently you upgrade. If 10% of your 1NT openers are upgrades, then clearly this should be announced. 5% too, It seems to me. I don't know where the cutoff is, but there should really be one.

[kenberg]

Disclosure obviously depends on how frequently you upgrade. If 10% of your 1NT openers are upgrades, then clearly this should be announced. 5% too, It seems to me. I don't know where the cutoff is, but there should really be one.

 

On this we could probably agree.

 

There are tricky areas, at least partly due to varying levels of commitment to the game. I mentioned elsewhere that with a minimum 2=3=4=4 hand I open 1♦ but one of my partners would open it 1♣, and neither of us are willing to change. Fortunately, we do not have to check a box on the standard acbl cc as to which we do. If the opponents ask about my partner's 1m opening, I would be happy to tell them. I don't think I have ever been asked. Similarly, I have sometimes played in the Walsh style where, supposedly at least, I would jump over KQJTxx of diamonds (unless holding gf values) to respond 1♥ on 8642. It seems reasonable to alert such a style. But Kit Woolsey, in his book Matchpoints, recommend that when partner opens 1♣ you sometimes jump over diamonds to bid a major and sometimes not. I still have the book around someplace,I have not looked it up, but as I recall part of his thinking is that if the four card major is strong enough that you don't mind being raised on three then skipping over diamonds is fine, but if the four cards are shaggy and you have a perfectly fine diamond suit then bid that. I regard this as practical bidding, not a conventional understanding.

 

I am always more that willing to explain our style to the extent that I know what it is. Often the extent is not very extensive.

 

Various things can defeat the best of intentions. Some years back I was playing in the "Unit Game". Not the Nationals but a decent game, Steve Robinson plays in it for example. I had agreed to play in the Walsh style, I opened 1♣, partner bid 1♥ and I alerted. I was asked to explain and I did, or so I thought. I explained that partner would very often pass over even a very strong diamond suit to bid any four card heart suit. I was asked for more detail and I explained that partner, holding four hearts and long diamonds, would bid the diamonds only in the case that his hand was strong enough to make a game forcing reverse into hearts if my rebid over 1♦ was 1NT. Sill some confusion, but eventually we played the hands. After the round, as we were heading for the next table, I caught part of the conversation from the table we just finished: "He said his partner would bid 1♥ with four hearts and long diamonds but he did bid 1♥ and he didn't have long diamonds."

[Vampyr]

"He said his partner would bid 1♥ with four hearts and long diamonds but he did bid 1♥ and he didn't have long diamonds."

 

Do these people avoid using escalators, because there is a sign reading "Dogs must be carried" and they haven't got a dog?

[Winstonm]

No. Do you actually know what HCP are?

 

My point being that the card reads: High Card Points, not Milton Work HCP. Besides, even Milton knew that the AK combination raised the value of the King to equivalency with the Ace. It is well known that the Work Point Count slightly undervalues aces and kings and slightly overvalues queens and jacks. If a thinking player is not allowed to adjust his bidding due to the nature of his holdings, then we might as well be playing Old Maid.

[Vampyr]

My point being that the card reads: High Card Points, not Milton Work HCP. Besides, even Milton knew that the AK combination raised the value of the King to equivalency with the Ace. It is well known that the Work Point Count slightly undervalues aces and kings and slightly overvalues queens and jacks. If a thinking player is not allowed to adjust his bidding due to the nature of his holdings, then we might as well be playing Old Maid.

 

There are other methods of evaluating high cards, but none are accepted as appropriate disclosure except for Milton Work HCP. You seem to be located in the US -- why don't you ask the ACBL? EDIT: EBU BB 5B also defines HCP. However one feels about it, one must accept the governing body's regulations.

 

In any case, your "thinking player" can evaluate his hand however he likes, but only if his thought processes extend far enough for him to be able to disclose his actual methods.

[Zelandakh]

For me, only open 1♦, opening 1nt is really a overcall.

The bottom end of your 1NT overcall is lower than for your (strong) 1NT opening? For me it would be the other way around with the overcall being more along the lines of 15⁺-18.

[billw55]

The bottom end of your 1NT overcall is lower than for your (strong) 1NT opening? For me it would be the other way around with the overcall being more along the lines of 15⁺-18.

Lycier's English is not quite native fluency. I suspect he meant "overbid", not "overcall".

[lycier]

Lycier's English is not quite native fluency. I suspect he meant "overbid", not "overcall".

 

Yes,yes, you are correct.

Thank you very much for your help.

[Zelandakh]

Lycier's English is not quite native fluency. I suspect he meant "overbid", not "overcall".

Ah, thanks Bill, that makes sense! Whether it is an overbid seems to me to be dependant on how aggressively you up and downgrade. As long as both partners are on the same page it will work out. It is clear that this hand is worth more than many balanced 15 counts so upgrading is more than reasonable, providing Responder will correspondingly downgrade their quacky hand.