[mycroft]

NickRW, on Jun 10 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Unfortunately for you the Orange book says:

Quote

10 A 3 A partnership may define the strength of a hand by using any method of hand evaluation that will be understood easily by its opponents

Which is exactly what I do - so you're just flaming wrong.

NickRW, on Jun 10 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

However, in the general case, trying to get across something that involves two different counting methods, one of which features halves and quarters, usually leaves life long hcp counters with a glazed look and getting it fully across takes longer than the 7 or so minutes allocated to a typical bridge hand.

Posted without comment.
Okay, posted with comment. "But we describe it using a method easily understood by the opponents, of course that requires some simplification and some actual inaccuracy" doesn't get you past 10A3. Yes, the "standard" people who play the "standard" deviations get away with it where you can't; that's life.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Clearly you are too lazy to bother to really read what I've written. I disclose in hcp terms for your feeble mind and you still have to make rude remarks (again).

You're the one showing contempt.

Unfortunately for you the Orange book says:

QUOTE 
10 A 3 A partnership may define the strength of a hand by using any method of hand evaluation that will be understood easily by its opponents



Which is exactly what I do - so you're just flaming wrong.

I don't think your explanation/evaluation method is simple. Perhaps you regard all those who don't take in what you say instantly as wrong, feeble minded or both. I thought your previous post failed the test of 10A3. I suppose what I am saying is that if 1NT is essentially 12-14 we have all been known to upgrade or downgrade but most would not understand the best 10 or worst 16 in the world to be in that process.
When you talk about not being able to get across your method to those "life long HCP counters" within the confines of the time normally allocated for a hand that is what I meant by showing contempt. If you can't communicate your method with them in a reasonable time and their eyes glaze over how does it satisfy 10A3?

[cherdanno]

Phil, on Jun 10 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

By the way, I am a firm believer of, "if you can't explain it, you don't understand it yourself", not only in bridge but in other matters of life.

I am quite happy to explain the general idea of wall-crossing for Gromov-Witten invariants in 2 minutes. Just not to everyone.

[bluejak]

jeremy69, on Jun 11 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

I suppose what I am saying is that if 1NT is essentially 12-14 we have all been known to upgrade or downgrade but most would not understand the best 10 or worst 16 in the world to be in that process.

I really think that part of the trouble is that not everyone upgrades or downgrades. It is all very well for dburn to pour scorn in his charming manner on people who refer to Walter the Walrus types, but it is a fact that some people think HCP are sacred, some do not. And the vast majority of players who would never ever upgrade or downgrade do not expect their opponents do.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I really think that part of the trouble is that not everyone upgrades or downgrades.

I agree with you but even if one stuck religiously to the limits an explanation such as 12-14, some 11's or 12-14, occasionally outside this range would be understood even if not agreed with. It is when someone wants to explain modified aardvark point count which counts red 8's as 0.31 of a normal HCP multiplied by a factor of the size of the explainer's considerable ego that the problem occurs. Players are bored with this, think it inappropriate to club night and feel that they are either being blinded by science or patronised (or more probably both).
In my view this is not so much to do with a bridge method as a communication exercise. I play a strong club in one club with one partner. No-one else does and some don't really know what a strong club is. We always have a convention card(not that anyone looks), sit down and say 3 lines the first of which is one they do understand e.g. Five card majors, 14-16 NT throughout, 1C is strong) and smile. It causes no aggravation whatsoever. IMO saying, as someone earlier suggested the range with approximately before it will also do IF it is not more than a point out of range but when you want to explain why you open off centre shapes and you are too strong for the bid anyway (unless you are using the aforementioned aardvark point count in which case you are only too strong on even days of the month) some players will think they are being diddled and I don't blame them.

To make it easy for NickRW I'll put a line underneath so the insults can be done according to number rather than taking the trouble to write them out.

1. stupid 2. thick 3. indolent 4. stroppy 5. flaming wrong 6. other

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Jun 11 2010, 01:55 PM, said:

Quote

I really think that part of the trouble is that not everyone upgrades or downgrades.

I agree with you but even if one stuck religiously to the limits an explanation such as 12-14, some 11's or 12-14, occasionally outside this range would be understood even if not agreed with. It is when someone wants to explain modified aardvark point count which counts red 8's as 0.31 of a normal HCP multiplied by a factor of the size of the explainer's considerable ego that the problem occurs. Players are bored with this, think it inappropriate to club night and feel that they are either being blinded by science or patronised (or more probably both).
In my view this is not so much to do with a bridge method as a communication exercise. I play a strong club in one club with one partner. No-one else does and some don't really know what a strong club is. We always have a convention card(not that anyone looks), sit down and say 3 lines the first of which is one they do understand e.g. Five card majors, 14-16 NT throughout, 1C is strong) and smile. It causes no aggravation whatsoever. IMO saying, as someone earlier suggested the range with approximately before it will also do IF it is not more than a point out of range but when you want to explain why you open off centre shapes and you are too strong for the bid anyway (unless you are using the aforementioned aardvark point count in which case you are only too strong on even days of the month) some players will think they are being diddled and I don't blame them.

To make it easy for NickRW I'll put a line underneath so the insults can be done according to number rather than taking the trouble to write them out.

1. stupid 2. thick 3. indolent 4. stroppy 5. flaming wrong 6. other

Look, if you want to play, as dburn seems to, against opps who religiously stick to 12-14 or whatever exact hcp range, then I suggest you stick to holiday bridge and level 2 sessions - you seemed to me to suggest that is what you expect others to do. I personally don't usually play in that company and do not expect supposedly expert people to come out with arguments in favour of "my opps must dumb down coz it suits me".

Further, if you treat more accurate evaluators with the contempt you do, don't be surprised when people who are mentally alert enough to outstrip your capacity to add up get a bit shirty with you when the company is not populated by beginners.

Nick

[NickRW]

mycroft, on Jun 11 2010, 12:56 AM, said:

Okay, posted with comment. "But we describe it using a method easily understood by the opponents, of course that requires some simplification and some actual inaccuracy" doesn't get you past 10A3. Yes, the "standard" people who play the "standard" deviations get away with it where you can't; that's life.

I think you're wrong - for example, I was perfectly capable of making a simple, hcp oriented case for the two example hands I posted.

Even if not, the number of hands which fall outside what most might recognise as a "normal" deviation (whatever that is precisely) are so uncommon that it amounts to the same thing in practice as "partner taking a view" - which we are all only too familiar with and happens way more commonly.

I would, for example, announce my "14-16...ish" 1NT that I play with one partner as "13-17" - but though I'd cover my backside more completely, the truth is I'd be giving a less accurate announcement that would completely mischaracterise the opening. I mean - what do ya'all want - for me to cover my arse - or you to get less accurate info?

Nick

[jeremy69]

Quote

Look, if you want to play, as dburn seems to, against opps who religiously stick to 12-14 or whatever exact hcp range, then I suggest you stick to holiday bridge and level 2 sessions

Thank you for your advice.
I haven't noticed players in, say, the Premier League trying this "accurate" hand evaluation method but if they do then I don't suppose it will be much of a problem however in the style more commonly played in clubs where there is more of a mix of players and some are put off, intimidated even, by the sort of antics that insist on giving them many decimal places to go with what should be a simple explanation.

Bluejak is right(2nd time this month I've said that) that many do not upgrade or downgrade. It's akin to flashing in the high street on a Sunday morning.

That doesn't stop you provided
a. you can explain it,
b. your opponents have a reasonable shot at understanding what you are saying, c. they can keep awake whilst you do it,
d. they don't all leave the club for evermore because watching the llama hunting on Sky Sports Extra is more entertaining.

If you wish to open your 5-4-2-2 16 count a weak NT(sorry 11.21 to 15.37 except that this time I have 16 Milton's but poor suit quality and honours in my short suits and the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars) then I think you ought to realise that it is not many people's idea of that and your opponents may be mislead especially if they have not grasped the full import of your, no doubt, erudite explanation.

Meanwhile I am just off to the Level 2 local duplicate and I hope that none of them will be playing Bamberger Point Count this time. It's simple, I know, but after two glasses of the house shiraz I never know whether 21-25 is a weak or a strong nt.

[Pict]

Personally I never downgrade.

I've noticed several discussions on the Expert forum where world class players say 'never downgrade'. Yet, I have twice in the last ten years miscounted, or misremembered who I was playing with, whatever, and found myself looking at 15 points after opening a 12-14 NT.

As it happens I don't upgrade. I can recall 20 years ago at a strong club, being the idiot dburn mentions, counting a hand down to the last jack and the NT opener a point short at eleven. I don't have to tell you how it ended. I might have to tell you I didn't feel inclined to call the Director.

I've played internationals who say their NT is x-y, and I immediately know it's really x-z to y. (Especially if it is 10-12).

My remaining puzzle.

If someone tells me his NT is 12-14 (and maybe sniggers up his sleeve). Then it turns out 12-14 was a reasonable approximation in 'my' world of his arcane calculation.

Why do I care? Why does dburn care? Why does Jeremy care?. Why is Nick so excited about it?

[gwnn]

what is z?

[Pict]

gwnn, on Jun 11 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

what is z?

Apologies Gwnn.

Opponent says 10-12 NT and I guess he will play 9-12 (so z=1).

So easy to make things difficult for people and deflect them from any meaningful point.

[blackshoe]

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations. Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on Jun 12 2010, 05:53 AM, said:

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

Case [b]. On the first hand I pick up an average 7-count on which I decide to psyche a 1NT opener. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

[hrothgar]

jallerton, on Jun 12 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 12 2010, 05:53 AM, said:

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

Case [b]. On the first hand I pick up an average 7-count on which I decide to psyche a 1NT opener. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

My understanding is that case (B) is perfectly legitimate in ACBL land. (An outright psyche isn't the same as a deviation)

As for case (a), the ACBL isn't pedestrian enough to burden themselves with needless complications like law or process. (with this said and done, they could always resort to the Endicott fudge if pressed)

[gwnn]

apologies Pict, z=1 was my guess too but I thought you had some complex function to give you the amplitude of opps' deviations!

[blackshoe]

I like Hrothgar's answer to Jeffrey's case [a]. If I were pressed for a Law, I suppose Law 40. It is interesting, though, that the ACBL took the opportunity to designate only one agreement as a "special partnership understanding", and this one ain't it.

[peachy]

jallerton, on Jun 12 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 12 2010, 05:53 AM, said:

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

Case [b]. On the first hand I pick up an average 7-count on which I decide to psyche a 1NT opener. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

I thought this was clear, but perhaps it is not?
a. ACBL regulation violated and in strictest sense L40B because that gives the ACBL the right to regulate it, and they have so regulated.
b. No law or regulation violated. This is a psych.

[dburn]

NickRW, on Jun 11 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

Look, if you want to play, as dburn seems to, against opps who religiously stick to 12-14 or whatever exact hcp range

I have no idea what has caused you to arrive at this conclusion, but it is not true. As I have remarked many times, I don't care what you play or how you count your points. You are entirely at liberty to open a "weak" no trump on ♠Qxxx ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣Axxxx if you wish - I happen to think it's pretty awful bridge, but there is no Law against your playing badly.

What you are not at liberty to do is open 1NT with that and have your partner announce "12-14", for there is a Law against your playing methods that you do not properly disclose.

[mjj29]

dburn, on Jun 13 2010, 05:00 AM, said:

What you are not at liberty to do is open 1NT with that and have your partner announce "12-14", for there is a Law against your playing methods that you do not properly disclose.

So if someone were to play a hand evaluation methods where 1NT is mostly 12-14, sometimes a good 11 or bad 15 and once in a blue moon an excellent 10 or a really aweful 16 (bridge merits aside), do you really think that it should be announced "10 to 16" - I think that's far more misleading than saying "12-14", or at least "12-14ish" (disclosure on the convention card should be more verbose, of course).

[dburn]

mjj29, on Jun 13 2010, 10:25 AM, said:

dburn, on Jun 13 2010, 05:00 AM, said:

What you are not at liberty to do is open 1NT with that and have your partner announce "12-14", for there is a Law against your playing methods that you do not properly disclose.

So if someone were to play a hand evaluation methods where 1NT is mostly 12-14, sometimes a good 11 or bad 15 and once in a blue moon an excellent 10 or a really awful 16 (bridge merits aside), do you really think that it should be announced "10 to 16"?

No.

If NickRW actually plays "reasonable 12 to bad 15", which is what he says he plays, then he should tell me that it is what he plays - that is, his partner's announcement should be in those terms.

But if every time he picks up (in some order) queen empty fourth, ace empty fifth and a couple of KQ doubletons he is going to open 1NT, then his disclosure should include the information. He argues that the hand is "in fact" a 15 count, and a bad 15 count at that, but it is in fact a 16 count and I cannot be expected to know that he will open 1NT with it unless his partnership tells me that he will.

He argues, somewhat weirdly, that such a hand is "worse for playing in notrump" than some balanced 15 count or other. This is true, but perhaps he should consider that if your hand is bad for playing in notrump, you might open it with some other bid than 1NT.