Are there times not to bid 1NT (strong)

[pescetom]

Having said that, I reiterate that "judgement is allowed" (with the caveats in the convention charts, if you're ACBL. They don't want disallowed agreements "sneaking in" under judgement, and yeah, there are unintended consequences deemed acceptable) and only Walruses (and people who have been nailed by the CCs on their own pet convention) are going to complain about a 14-count with ♦AKT85 opened a "15-17" NT.

ACBL sometimes seems a long way away from here, where we have lots of problems both real and self-invented, but nobody (player or TD or the janitor's dog) is going to complain about a 14-count with ♦AKT85 opened a "15-17" NT. If anything, maybe they should grumble when I open a "15 17" NT with ♠A7 ♥KQJT ♦AKT85 ♣43, but that never even crosses their radar either.

 

 

Cue my "please provide a *useful* set of guidelines for Announcing NT ranges that give a good, standard idea of 'how often you upgrade', Señores C&CC" rant - again.

 

In answer to OP, the way standard systems have been built, the times not to open a 15-17 1NT is when you don't have a 15-17 point balanced hand.

First, please define the possible declensions of balanced, and let us choose within. That is one third of the problem, which most RAs have now addressed (guiltily or not) but remains the origin of most arguments, at least around here.

 

Second, please define what "minimum" and "maximum" mean, because they cannot reasonably be simply yes/no integers: hrothgar in the past has suggested we should see a frequency distribution for the pair, which would be ideal for skilled pairs playing online: but even f2f we have to have some criterium (I could live with announcements with half point ranges indicating that at the limits <30% of hands meeting description will bid differently, or whatever).

 

Third, please define how we should announce, which is the area that sees most varied solutions. FWIW I'm not a fan of letting people "describe" their agreement in a freely or flexibly worded announcement, which could easily be self-serving. A range of two numbers (with or without half points) seems optimal.