[jillybean]

---

& why

[DavidKok]

I think it's close. The three aces and two kings are great, but the lack of tens, lack of a five card suit, some weakness in the majors, the fact that partner might have a positional stopper in either major and the fact that my system over 1♣ is much better than my system over 2NT pull in the opposite direction. Having a way to show 17-19 balanced at the 1-level (or establish a game force cheaply) is really nice, and is enough to convince me to open 1♣. I don't mind 2NT though.

[Cyberyeti]

We play good 19-21 so easy upgrade.

[smerriman]

I'm a vote for not upgrading, whether right or wrong, because I want a 5 card suit to upgrade. If we don't have DavidKok's system advantage and we'll likely be at 2NT both ways (via 1♦ - 1M - 2NT), what sort of hands would partner go onto game over a 2NT opener but not a 2NT rebid, and do we want to be in game then?

[mycroft]

Playing Precision, I think I'll take the low road (17-19, with some idea immediately if partner has anything) because it ends in 1NT. 2NT is a good bid, and breaks the NT ladder nicely, but I don't see any need when I have to lose a level as well.

Playing a standard system, where I'm rebidding 2NT, maybe. I'm going to be happy being dropped in 3♠, though. I'd be much happier upgrading if I were 4=4=(23) instead.

Playing K-S, I'm more likely to upgrade. The chance that I'm going to be forced into a position where my rebid "might be stretched", or even "I'm probably balanced 15-19" is frankly the same as with a strong NT, but their action will be less ambiguously be 18-19 bal.

However, I'm conservative in this case. I avoid upgrading into strong bids (more so if they are undefined strong, but 2NT has the "compensation" of preempting ourselves in exchange for "well-defined hand"). I still live with Simon's rule that it's easier to show extras than to deny what was already shown.

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2025-July-22, 18:13, said:

Playing K-S, I'm more likely to upgrade. The chance that I'm going to be forced into a position where my rebid "might be stretched", or even "I'm probably balanced 15-19" is frankly the same as with a strong NT, but their action will be less ambiguously be 18-19 bal.

The K-S book auction is opening 1♦ with the intention of rebidding 2♣, forcing, not promising 5+ ♦.

[mycroft]

Yeah (although I don't play that), although KSU isn't clear (it doesn't in fact claim a meaning for 1♦-1M; 2NT(*); 1♦-1M; 2♣-2♦; 2NT is "Nonforcing; 17-18 points; mildly unbalanced" (and 3NT similarly, "19-21". It does claim the common meaning for 1♣-1♦; 2NT and 1♥-1♠; 2NT, so maybe? The 3244 KSU talks about opening 1♦ to rebid 2♣ has ♥xx, though, which explains "in case of a 1♠ response" This hand - isn't that.)

KSU also says 2NT is '20-21 points (not a "bad 20" - too many queens, honours in short suits; treat a "bad 22" as 21).' That (if you play KSU style) would tend to discourage "good 19s" from upgrading, unless they're so good they're "not a bad 20".

But I'm not worried about when we get the auction to ourselves; any system will work. 1♦-p-1♠-2♥, though? Sure, this hand is happily rebidding 2NT (or 3NT), but are you comfortable passing (for me, "assume I have 15-17 balanced", though I may not. If you double to show a strong NT here, same question) with the same hand, but ♣QT94? Especially knowing the room started 1NT-p- and almost certainly knows whether 1♠ is 4 or longer?

(*) although it does claim that after that, 3♣ is Wolff Signoff-like. Interesting that it *doesn't* define the 2NT rebid :-).

[mikeh]

No 10’s. No 5 card suit. No upgrade.

Close but not quite good enough, for me.

Plus, in my serious partnerships we often get to show a balanced 17-19 by rebidding 1N should responder show a major in response to our 1C opening bid. Standard bidders probably open 1D, planning to rebid 2N,but playing T-Walsh, it makes sense to open 1C.

T-Walsh seems to have some overlap with Dutch Doubleton. Imo, the ability to rebid 1N on these hands is a truly significant advantage. For one thing, it allows very light responses to 1C.

[thepossum]

jillybean, on 2025-July-22, 15:15, said:

---

& why

I know I get into trouble for "unethical" upgrades but that is a clear upgrade for me
3 Aces, clubs covered, a few nines and only one Jack
On another day I open a suit

I was going to ask this the other day. Is there a well defined formula for such decisions?

[DavidKok]

There is no well defined formula. However, there are a lot of rules of thumb. Keep in mind none of these are terribly accurate though:

• On average, a 5332 is worth 0.5 HCP more than a 4432, which is worth slightly more than 4333.
  
• On average, an ace is worth closer to 4.25 than to 4. A ten is worth closer to 0.25 than to 0. A jack is worth closer to 0.75 than to 1.
  
• Having values in our long suits is better than having values in our short suits. This is expecially true for tens and nines. This is difficult to quantify.
  
• We might want to upgrade for tactical reasons: positional stoppers, shutting out an overcall, or a weakness in our bidding system.
  
• 2NT in particular is very self-preemptive, and I stretch to not open it. Including 19s in the range systemically is in my opinion a noticeable loss.

My personal takeaway is that it takes multiple factors to upgrade by a whole point. It does happen, but generally the HCP ladder is already pretty good for balanced hands.

[Huibertus]

For me this is a clear upgrade, not because of the quality for NT. But because of the Aces and cover cards when partner transfers and is going to play a suit contract. Keep in mind HCP count is off, AKQJ relative strength should be closer to 5 3 2 0,5 rather then 4321 so whenever you have many aces consider an upgrade.

[Huibertus]

thepossum, on 2025-July-22, 22:25, said:

I know I get into trouble for "unethical" upgrades

Unethical upgrades do not exist. What does exist is the unethical practise of not informing your opponents of frequent upgrading and the style you use to do it.

Your convention card should be something like 1NT 14 1/2 - 17, upgrades whenever holding a 5 card, or 3 aces. Or similar.

[awm]

I'd vote for not upgrading. In general I only upgrade hands with good spots or a long suit. Of course, there could be "state of the match" or "identity of partner" type considerations that would lead to a different decision.

[DavidKok]

 Huibertus, on 2025-July-23, 02:25, said:

For me this is a clear upgrade, not because of the quality for NT. But because of the Aces and cover cards when partner transfers and is going to play a suit contract. Keep in mind HCP count is off, AKQJ relative strength should be closer to 5 3 2 0,5 rather then 4321 so whenever you have many aces consider an upgrade.

If I'm not mistaken 4-3-2-1 is much closer to the truth than 5-3-2-0.5. I know Helene has statistical regression analysis numbers and has shared them on these fora before, but I don't have them on hand. Putting an ace at 5 is too high, as far as I know.

[awm]

DavidKok, on 2025-July-23, 03:25, said:

If I'm not mistaken 4-3-2-1 is much closer to the truth than 5-3-2-0.5. I know Helene has statistical regression analysis numbers and has shared them on these fora before, but I don't have them on hand. Putting an ace at 5 is too high, as far as I know.

4-3-2-1 is very accurate for notrump contracts, but undervalues aces (and overvalues queens) for suit contracts. Of course, you don't really know whether you will play notrump or a suit when you are choosing the opening bid (this is perhaps one of the biggest hidden problems in bidding theory) but I wouldn't want to open 2nt (in particular) with a hand that's underpowered for notrump play (even if stronger for a suit contract).

[DavidKok]

Yes, the statistical analysis is split between trump and notrump contracts. I thought aces still don't cross the 4.5 barrier on average between the two though.

[Cyberyeti]

Can somebody run a sim of what this hand makes opposite a reasonable 5 count, no 6+ card suit, not 2 5 card suits.

This is probably what should determine its value.

[thepossum]

Huibertus, on 2025-July-23, 02:28, said:

Unethical upgrades do not exist. What does exist is the unethical practise of not informing your opponents of frequent upgrading and the style you use to do it.

Your convention card should be something like 1NT 14 1/2 - 17, upgrades whenever holding a 5 card, or 3 aces. Or similar.

I hope everyone out there who adjust their bids to fit the strength of their hand detail every little considertion before lecturing me
That goes for every single player who has ever tried to fudge a bid to fit an auction
I have a simple card. "I **try (ie make every endeavour)** to describe my hand as best as possible"
The problem is the consideration I made on thinking about upgrading this hand is not strict rule. the number of aces and jacks and intermediates and whatever is not describable as a rule
Could be 19-21 or 14-18 etc - at least that vague rule covers all points between 14 and 21. Not suree about bad 22
20-21 most of the time, 15-17 most of the time unless I feel differently
Or maybe 12-14 favourable vulnerability sometimes
I only psych occasionally but fudging a point on NT is not a psych etc - I beleive a *gross* misrepresentation of strength and shape
I actually just read about upggrading Aces and downgrading Jacks yesterday
I do not have a rule for ugrading or downgrading anything, or a frequency

[thepossum]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-July-23, 03:36, said:

Can somebody run a sim of what this hand makes opposite a reasonable 5 count, no 6+ card suit, not 2 5 card suits.

This is probably what should determine its value.

Are you looking just at number of tricks, or taking account of pre-emptive value too
A very crude sim (uing the shape restriction above, and exactly 5 points) gives average tricks around 8.2 sdev 1, which possibly suggests 1 diamond is better (or not)
Someone must know
I don't know what it says about upgrading Aces and dowgrading jacks either
But in my case since it only happens occasionally does the sim matter?

[Huibertus]

thepossum, on 2025-July-23, 04:24, said:

I hope everyone out there who adjust their bids to fit the strength of their hand detail every little considertion before lecturing me
That goes for every single player who has ever tried to fudge a bid to fit an auction
I have a simple card. "I **try (ie make every endeavour)** to describe my hand as best as possible"
The problem is the consideration I made on thinking about upgrading this hand is not strict rule. the number of aces and jacks and intermediates and whatever is not describable as a rule
Could be 19-21 or 14-18 etc - at least that vague rule covers all points between 14 and 21. Not suree about bad 22
20-21 most of the time, 15-17 most of the time unless I feel differently
Or maybe 12-14 favourable vulnerability sometimes
I only psych occasionally but fudging a point on NT is not a psych etc - I beleive a *gross* misrepresentation of strength and shape
I actually just read about upgrading Aces and downgrading Jacks yesterday
I do not have a rule for ugrading or downgrading anything, or a frequency

An absolute garbage reply.

First of all my comment does have NOTHING to do with psychs.
Second of all, YES my comment applies to downgrading practises as well.
Third of all my comment is NOT lecturing you. It simply explains what your obligations at the Bridge table are. Explaining all explicit AND implicit partnership understandings, INCLUDING those base on experience only is mandatory. If you don't do it you are following a non-existent rule set which implies you are playing a different game, not Bridge.

So, whether you like it or not, frequent upgrading as implied by the post I responded to "I know I get into trouble for ..." is something your partner has knowledge of by experience and for THAT reason your opponents are entitled to the exact same information.

I can't help it, I can't change it.