[mw64ahw]

No upgrade for me - other posts have highlighted why.

[jillybean]

When I asked this simple, straight forward questionI expected to get a variety of responses.
Thanks for the detailed, thought provoking responses. What a wonderful game!

Can the mods please remove the posts that disrail the thread
.....

[mycroft]

If they do, this is part of the derail, but hopefully might tone down reactions (in similar threads, in the future, too far gone for this one).

David Stevenson's definitions apply here:

• If a practise violates the Proprieties (Laws 72-75), it is improper.
  
• If an improper practise is being employed *knowing it is improper*, it is unethical.
  
• If an unethical practise is being employed *for the purpose of gaining an illegal advantage*, it is cheating.

Jumping directly to "unethical" rather than "improper" implied intent or knowledge that was clearly lacking (and may still be). We could wish that basic knowledge of the Proprieties (or the Laws in general, for that matter) was something considered important enough to be taught at a similar time to "here's how to ask for Aces", but it's not (and the arguments over this, even here on BBF, are epic). It was probably not intended, but I would suggest at least considering the definitions above to see if they fit one's view.

Now, there are also some on here that read both intent and personal, rather than routine, focus into many comments that aren't intended that way; but we all know who has that tendency, and the proper thing to do is to be especially careful to avoid it when they are around (as opposed to being very careful to avoid it unless it's *specifically intended* both for general "health of the conversation" reasons and to make it immediately obvious and more impactful when it *is intended*).

[WasWinM]

I responded earlier but as it was iPhone it didn’t post, which happens frequently. The gist was this. I do not upgrade due to poor spot cards as I don’t mind plsying 2NT if partner bids only once holding Jxxxx, xxx, xxx, Ax

[Cyberyeti]

WasWinM, on 2025-July-23, 12:56, said:

I responded earlier but as it was iPhone it didn’t post, which happens frequently. The gist was this. I do not upgrade due to poor spot cards as I don’t mind plsying 2NT if partner bids only once holding Jxxxx, xxx, xxx, Ax

But if he bids only once holding xxx, KQxxx, xx, 10xx/xxx, Kxxxx, xx, Qxx it's maybe less optimal, there must be hands that pass 1m where game is close or even good

[DavidKok]

To play 1m it isn't sufficient for partner to pass your bid, both opponents must pass as well. Also those hands are in my opinion clear responses, even in systems that don't cater to it very well.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2025-July-23, 14:50, said:

To play 1m it isn't sufficient for partner to pass your bid, both opponents must pass as well. Also those hands are in my opinion clear responses, even in systems that don't cater to it very well.

Yes I agreethey are responses, but ones that pass 2N (or the 1N we would bid), but particularly if both your minors might be short, what hands do you pass 1m on ?

When you have a flattish 24 points, ops may easily have flat hands unable to reopen.

[helene_t]

While I frequently upgrade into a 1NT opening, I almost never upgrade into 2NT. I like 2NT openings a lot less than 1NT openings. 19.5 I would rather downgrade to 19 than upgrade to 20.

But I don't even think this hand is a particularly awesome 19 count. With 3-2 in the majors we should valuate the hand based on NT contracts rather than suit contracts, and then the lack of 10s and the lack of a 5-card suit is more important than the hard honours.

Also, if this hand belongs in slam it is quite likely to be in a minor suit fit which we probably won't find if we open 2NT. Somewhat depending on methods, of course.

[mikl_plkcc]

Upgrade due to 3 aces and the lack of quacks.

A typical 20 contains 2 of each of AKQJT.

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.

I normally treat them as 4.5 - 3 - 1.5 - 0.75 - 0.25

I upgrade for a good 5-card suit and downgrade for honours in short suit. I treat 4333 and 4432 the same for the purpose of playing in NT, but in suit contract, 4432 is 1 point more than 4333 due to calculating shortness.

[WasWinM]

 Cyberyeti, on 2025-July-23, 14:17, said:

But if he bids only once holding xxx, KQxxx, xx, 10xx/xxx, Kxxxx, xx, Qxx it's maybe less optimal, there must be hands that pass 1m where game is close or even good

If you are searching for perfection, it won’t happen in a bridge bidding system.

[Cyberyeti]

WasWinM, on 2025-July-24, 07:29, said:

If you are searching for perfection, it won’t happen in a bridge bidding system.

Which is why I was looking for a sim opposite 5 counts. I suspect particularly at MPs some quacky flat 6 counts will only make one bid too.