[maris oren]

---

East opened with 1 club. pass / partner responded with 1♦. after overcll of 1 ♠ can East show her ♥ and if so, how?

[mw64ahw]

If 1♦ doesn't deny ♥ as in some styles then a negative X will show ♥ with not enough strength to reverse. If not then I'd bid 1NT playing a strong or weak NT given the 14 count..

[Stephen Tu]

If playing an up-the-line bidding style where West routinely bids diamonds with 4-4 in the reds regardless of strength, which is rarer these days, it's reasonable to play a double by opener as showing hearts. But if playing "Walsh", where diamonds are only bid if holding longer diamonds AND game forcing strength, there's no need for opener to show hearts because responder either doesn't have them, or will be strong enough to reverse into them. In that case double should arguably show diamond support (3-cd support double), not hearts.

I would *not* bid 1nt as mw64ahw suggests. Just pass. The weak balanced range is what partner should expect, so there's no need to bid 1nt to tell them this. If your partnership ends up declaring some number of NT, you'd much rather have the overcaller on lead and having to lead into partner's stopper, rather than South being on lead to lead through partner's honors.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd have seriously considered opening 1N playing 12-14 or 15-17.

I would double unless playing Walsh style

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-June-05, 12:14, said:

I'd have seriously considered opening 1N playing 12-14 or 15-17.

I would have considered 1N playing 15-17, but decided against it, and not just because of RA regulations and opponent bitching.
I don't have much experience of 12-14, but would expect it to be automatic there?

[Douglas43]

pescetom, on 2022-June-05, 15:33, said:

I would have considered 1N playing 15-17, but decided against it, and not just because of RA regulations and opponent bitching.
I don't have much experience of 12-14, but would expect it to be automatic there?

Yes, it's a Ladybird Book* weak 1NT. (*Short factual books aimed at primary school children, not the relaunch aimed at adults))

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2022-June-05, 15:33, said:

I would have considered 1N playing 15-17, but decided against it, and not just because of RA regulations and opponent bitching.
I don't have much experience of 12-14, but would expect it to be automatic there?

I like 1N to block the spade suit out at the 1 level with this hand, I think it's about 14.5 but I think you need more to upgrade out of 1N than you need to upgrade into it.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-June-05, 16:09, said:

I like 1N to block the spade suit out at the 1 level with this hand, I think it's about 14.5 but I think you need more to upgrade out of 1N than you need to upgrade into it.

If you open this a 15-17 1N, and if that is within partnership expectations (as it would be the second time you did it with this partner) you’re being unethical. Even if your CC said something like 14+ - 17, this isn’t 14+.

4432 shape with xxx in a major isn’t imo an upgradable 14 count. It’s simply a maximum 12-14 1N and as soon as you take flat 14 counts and open 15-17, you’re not playing honestly, again imo. Btw, it’s neither my nor your opinion that matters, but I’d be astounded if any governing organization agreed with you.

And this is coming from someone whose WBF CC is routinely marked with ‘we frequently upgrade out of or into our notrump ranges’

Having got that off my chest, I upticked Stephen’s post because I agree with it entirely. Over 1S one has an automatic in tempo pass. A lot of either inexperienced or possessed of dubious ethics players hesitate then pass, allowing partner to basically know their entire hand.

Pass and over a reopening double….that’s actually a more interesting problem. The pass over 1S is just boringly obvious. 1N is frankly idiotic. Partner raises to 3N with say Kx Kxx AQJxxx xx
and is, shall we say, disappointed when they run the first 5 or 6 spade tricks. Nice bid.


If one passes in tempo and partner doubles….what then?

2H seems relatively straightforward and I think I’d choose it. It’s no longer a reverse, since a reverse bids 2H over 1S. It denies 3 diamonds and 5 clubs. And a spade stopper so it’s almost guaranteed to be this hand type. 3424. With as little as 10xxx in spades, I’d bid 1N over a reopening double.

Of course, I play a Walsh style. If I was being paid to play or was playing with a novice or very old fashioned friend (the only conditions in which I’d bid up the line) 2H is even easier since partner is more likely to hold hearts than in a Walsh style, where if he has 4 hearts, he has a good hand.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2022-June-05, 17:58, said:

If you open this a 15-17 1N, and if that is within partnership expectations (as it would be the second time you did it with this partner) you’re being unethical. Even if your CC said something like 14+ - 17, this isn’t 14+.

4432 shape with xxx in a major isn’t imo an upgradable 14 count. It’s simply a maximum 12-14 1N and as soon as you take flat 14 counts and open 15-17, you’re not playing honestly, again imo. Btw, it’s neither my nor your opinion that matters, but I’d be astounded if any governing organization agreed with you.

And this is coming from someone whose WBF CC is routinely marked with ‘we frequently upgrade out of or into our notrump ranges’

K&R (which I've just looked up after your comment) gives 14.9 I disagree it's much of an upgrade. The points are mainly in the long suits and all the quacks are there with higher honours, the 10♥ and 8♣ are in the right places, you have 2 aces, I would actually reconsider opening the weak no trump more than upgrading to the strong one.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2022-June-05, 17:58, said:

If you open this a 15-17 1N, and if that is within partnership expectations (as it would be the second time you did it with this partner) you’re being unethical. Even if your CC said something like 14+ - 17, this isn’t 14+.

4432 shape with xxx in a major isn’t imo an upgradable 14 count. It’s simply a maximum 12-14 1N and as soon as you take flat 14 counts and open 15-17, you’re not playing honestly, again imo. Btw, it’s neither my nor your opinion that matters, but I’d be astounded if any governing organization agreed with you.

Apologies for the off-topic question.

But I've wondered for a long time: If your partnership agrees to subtract a point for no aces and add a point for three tens, how should that affect your announced range?

[mikeh]

bluenikki, on 2022-June-06, 06:32, said:

Apologies for the off-topic question.

But I've wondered for a long time: If your partnership agrees to subtract a point for no aces and add a point for three tens, how should that affect your announced range?

My first reaction was that I don’t do that, but on reflection I do something akin to that, just not specifically.

When I look at a hand, I ‘like’ aces and kings. I ‘dislike’ queens and jacks. Hands with controls are ‘hard’,hands with mostly quacks are ‘soft’. I feel happy about hands with controls, and unhappy with those light on controls.

I’d never downgrade out if 1N (or 2N) simply because I hold no aces.but a hand such as QJx KJxx QJx KQx is something I might well consider bidding as a 14 count. Such hands are vanishingly improbable and in fact I can’t recall the last time I downgraded out of a notrump range.

Also, 10s by themselves are not something I assign points to, but they play a role in liking or disliking a hand. I definite don’t need three 10s to ‘add a point’ and I don’t stop at 10s.

I like 10s most when they’re in a 5 card suit, especially if accompanied by 9s or even 8s. A1087x is, imo, much better than A8643, but AJ109x is even better, because of the combining power of the honours and spots.

While Q102 is better than Q53, I won’t upgrade simply because I have something like Q10x K10x AQJx Q10x. The hand is very soft. It has horrible shape. Your formula would have this at 15.

Basically I don’t consciously add ‘points’. If I have a very nice 14 I’ll upgrade into 15-17. If I have a very nice 17, I’ll upgrade out and so on.

I hope that helps. Your post makes me realize all the more why prominent bridge writers discuss what I see as simplistic rules. There is so much that goes into valuation, but merely telling people about ‘liking’ or not liking a hand is not really helping much. Unpacking the factors that generate those assessments is complex and people still in the process of learning anything benefit from simplification until they’be mastered the basics. I’m not being condescending: I’ve benefited and still benefit from that way of learning in other facets of life and undoubtedly did so in bridge when I was learning.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2022-June-05, 17:58, said:

If you open this a 15-17 1N, and if that is within partnership expectations (as it would be the second time you did it with this partner) you’re being unethical. Even if your CC said something like 14+ - 17, this isn’t 14+.

4432 shape with xxx in a major isn’t imo an upgradable 14 count. It’s simply a maximum 12-14 1N and as soon as you take flat 14 counts and open 15-17, you’re not playing honestly, again imo. Btw, it’s neither my nor your opinion that matters, but I’d be astounded if any governing organization agreed with you.

And this is coming from someone whose WBF CC is routinely marked with ‘we frequently upgrade out of or into our notrump ranges’

I agree with cyberyeti that this is a very decent 14, with well placed honours and intermediates in the two suits.
But it still falls short of a judgement upgrade to 15 in my eyes and as a Director I would point that out.
I disagree that it would be unethical to routinely open this hand 1NT if the card said 14+ and as a Director I have no objection to that at all.
But I'm more liberal on this issue than many colleagues and my RA is less concerned about it than some other RAs.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2022-June-06, 10:31, said:

I agree with cyberyeti that this is a very decent 14, with well placed honours and intermediates in the two suits.
But it still falls short of a judgement upgrade to 15 in my eyes and as a Director I would point that out.
I disagree that it would be unethical to routinely open this hand 1NT if the card said 14+ and as a Director I have no objection to that at all.
But I'm more liberal on this issue than many colleagues and my RA is less concerned about it than some other RAs.

I think as long as it says "15-17 upgrades much more common than downgrades" that would be sufficient, this to me is at least as much of a 15 count as it is 14.

The right balanced 7 makes game worth bidding (xx, Kxxx, Axx(x), 109x(x)) not that you'll get there even with an upgrade, and the right 9 makes it excellent (swap the small club for the Q) and you might now

[nullve]

a) ♠xxx ♥AQTx ♦Kx ♣AJxx

b) ♠QTx ♥KTx ♦AQJx ♣QTx

c) ♠QJx ♥KJxx ♦QJx ♣KQx

So according to

* CCCC, c) < b) < a)
* HCP, a) = b) < c)
* Binky NT, c) < b) = a)
* Binky Suit, c) < b) < a)
* Fifths, c) = a) < b)
* BUM-RAP, c) < b) < a)
* Bissell, c) = b) < a),

where

Thomas Andrews said:

CCCC

The Kaplan-and-Rubens evaluator.

HCP

The standard high card points sometimes called the Milton Work point count, where Ace=4, King=3, Queen=2, Jack=1.

Binky Notrump and Suit

The results of my hand evaluation research.

Fifths

The Fifths evaluator is an evaluator which adjusts standard HCP slightly, removing one fifth from the value of kings and queens and adding two fifths for tens. It might or might not work better for determining whether to bid 3NT or not.

BUM-RAP

Alex Martelli's adjustment to work point count, which seems good for suit contracts. A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.5, J=0.75, T=0.25.

Bissell

Closely related to losing trick count, Bissell's evaluation dates from 1936. (If you subtract Bissell from 39 and divide by three, you get a rough losing trick count.)

.

[mikeh]

My suggestion that opening this as a 15-17 1N was unethical was just that: telling the opps that one plays 15-17 and treating this hand as 15. Do this in a regular partnership and partner knows to pull in a bit because he knows that you’re playing 14-17. When partnerships actively conceal their agreements, unethical is a very generous way to describe what they are doing

In contrast, if they announce 14+-17 or even 15-17 with frequent upgrades then I gave no ethical concerns. I personally don’t think this is worth an upgrade but so what? Everyone is entitled to their own evaluation. However, for better or for worse, the CC requires that we disclose our 4321 point count for opening notrump bids and doing so by claiming to play 15-17, without disclosing an agreement to open flat 14 counts is unethical imo. That’s why I’m my CC says frequent upgrades. In ACBL events, the CC doesn’t usually say that but I haven’t played face to face in ACBL events for years and online I always tell the opps we upgrade frequently

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2022-June-06, 12:05, said:

My suggestion that opening this as a 15-17 1N was unethical was just that: telling the opps that one plays 15-17 and treating this hand as 15. Do this in a regular partnership and partner knows to pull in a bit because he knows that you’re playing 14-17. When partnerships actively conceal their agreements, unethical is a very generous way to describe what they are doing

In contrast, if they announce 14+-17 or even 15-17 with frequent upgrades then I gave no ethical concerns. I personally don’t think this is worth an upgrade but so what? Everyone is entitled to their own evaluation.

You did say:

mikeh, on 2022-June-05, 17:58, said:

If you open this a 15-17 1N, and if that is within partnership expectations (as it would be the second time you did it with this partner) you’re being unethical. Even if your CC said something like 14+ - 17, this isn’t 14+.

which was the basis for my comment implying that you gave ethical concerns even for 14+. Maybe I misunderstood.

I agree that evaluation of what is worth an upgrade is clearly subjective, that's part of why as a Director I am conservative about intervening over 15.
I share your concern about partnerships concealing agreements, obviously.
But this is not an area in which I have encountered frequent and significant episodes, from what I understand things may be different in North America.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2022-June-06, 08:52, said:

My first reaction was that I don’t do that, but on reflection I do something akin to that, just not specifically.

When I look at a hand, I ‘like’ aces and kings. I ‘dislike’ queens and jacks. Hands with controls are ‘hard’,hands with mostly quacks are ‘soft’. I feel happy about hands with controls, and unhappy with those light on controls.

I’d never downgrade out if 1N (or 2N) simply because I hold no aces.but a hand such as QJx KJxx QJx KQx is something I might well consider bidding as a 14 count. Such hands are vanishingly improbable and in fact I can’t recall the last time I downgraded out of a notrump range.

Also, 10s by themselves are not something I assign points to, but they play a role in liking or disliking a hand. I definite don’t need three 10s to ‘add a point’ and I don’t stop at 10s.

I like 10s most when they’re in a 5 card suit, especially if accompanied by 9s or even 8s. A1087x is, imo, much better than A8643, but AJ109x is even better, because of the combining power of the honours and spots.

While Q102 is better than Q53, I won’t upgrade simply because I have something like Q10x K10x AQJx Q10x. The hand is very soft. It has horrible shape. Your formula would have this at 15.

Basically I don’t consciously add ‘points’. If I have a very nice 14 I’ll upgrade into 15-17. If I have a very nice 17, I’ll upgrade out and so on.

I hope that helps. Your post makes me realize all the more why prominent bridge writers discuss what I see as simplistic rules. There is so much that goes into valuation, but merely telling people about ‘liking’ or not liking a hand is not really helping much. Unpacking the factors that generate those assessments is complex and people still in the process of learning anything benefit from simplification until they’be mastered the basics. I’m not being condescending: I’ve benefited and still benefit from that way of learning in other facets of life and undoubtedly did so in bridge when I was learning.

Thanks. But I wasn't asking whether the agreement was a good idea. I was asking how it should be announced. Taken literally, it would be 14-18. But that would suggest 14 and 18 were opened far more often than they would be.

Carl

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2022-June-06, 13:24, said:

Thanks. But I wasn't asking whether the agreement was a good idea. I was asking how it should be announced. Taken literally, it would be 14-18. But that would suggest 14 and 18 were opened far more often than they would be.

It's a question that depends upon your RA.
You might be allowed to just announce 15-17, you might be allowed to announce that plus the detailed agreement, you might be obliged to announce 14-17 (you aren't going to be downgrading many 18 and 14-18 is probably not legal anyway due to excessive range), you might have to alert and explain.
Here, you could just announce 15-17 if the detailed agreement was on your card and doesn't differ substantially from a legitimate judgement decision.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2022-June-06, 14:57, said:

It's a question that depends upon your RA.
You might be allowed to just announce 15-17, you might be allowed to announce that plus the detailed agreement, you might be obliged to announce 14-17 (you aren't going to be downgrading many 18 and 14-18 is probably not legal anyway due to excessive range), you might have to alert and explain.
Here, you could just announce 15-17 if the detailed agreement was on your card and doesn't differ substantially from a legitimate judgement decision.

Actually, 18 would be extremely rare. 14 would be rare, but not extremely so. ACBL wouldn't care these days, I believe.

Frankly, I think miscounting has higher frequency than either. But again ACBL wouldn't care.

[bluenikki]

bluenikki, on 2022-June-06, 15:32, said:

Actually, 18 would be extremely rare. 14 would be rare, but not extremely so. ACBL wouldn't care these days, I believe.

Frankly, I think miscounting has higher frequency than either. But again ACBL wouldn't care.

I apologize for continuing this digression.

Edgar Kaplan was asked whether his weak notrump was 12-14 or 11-14 or whatever.

He replied that it was 12-14. Even though he was systemically forced to open it with AKx Axx xxxx xxx, partner will never merely invite game with 13.

Even though he might open it with a 15- or 16-point pile of quacks, partner will never invite game with a balanced 10.

Seemed sensible, as all Kaplan's reasoning.

But ACBL, as usual, opted for hcp-madness.