[aguahombre]

We are required to state the HCP's which by agreement our 1NT bid includes.

If my partner is known to include 14's, the range is 14-17. Not including "14" is misinformation. Whether all hands within that range are opened 1NT is not part of the announcement; but I must disclose that if asked.

[robert2734]

Yes. Been the victim. Not paying attention to whatever you scribble on your card any more.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on 2016-March-07, 11:11, said:

If my partner is known to include 14's, the range is 14-17. Not including "14" is misinformation. Whether all hands within that range are opened 1NT is not part of the announcement; but I must disclose that if asked.

Over the years, I am quite sure that I have opening a 15-17 NT with everything from a 3 count up to an 18 count.

Are you claiming that my partners should announce our range as 3-18?

[Manastorm]

I suggest could be light instead of upgrades etc. Your opponents have no idea what you do and when. If they ask, say could be light and shrug. You can bid tactical 12+ with 6 card minor and you are still within your agreements. If 14 is light, then surely 12 is even lighter. If you opponents become upset, poll experts and let them know it was good bridge to ease any ill feeling.

[weejonnie]

If partner knows you may upgrade 14HCP to be equivalent to 15 then you MUST announce it as 14-17. Failure to do so is a concealed partnership understanding.

Note that I said 'equivalent' - some players, believe it or not, actually count the high card points that a hand has shown and if, for example they deduce you must have a King to make it up to a bare 15, when in fact you only have the Queen , then it could prejudice their defence - and I would be all in favour of awarding an adjusted score (or at least recording the hand).

[mycroft]

We say 12-14. I have on my card (11++). What it means is:

"12-14. A, A, K is 12 (and A, AK can be closer to 13). AKTxx is 8; KQT8x is 6. In third seat, white, if the alternative is to pass, and it's a 'can't pass' 11 balanced, well. M- will upgrade (and open on 5M332, 4M225m, and other off-shapes) more often than E-."

I think if we announced this as 11-14, we'd be lying more than we currently are, because opponents will expect more 11s than we actually open.

I've played "good 11-14" as well; basically any 5-card suit with connecting honours made a good 11, as did 9-11 of the points being in two suits, at least 4-3; basically "frequent upgrades". I've played 11-14 as well, both "frequent downgrades of bad 11s" and "it's 11 high, what more do you want?"

Where to draw the line? I don't know; but I haven't had complaints (at least more than "you had 11!" "AKT9x?" "okay.")

[Zelandakh]

weejonnie, on 2016-March-07, 14:26, said:

If partner knows you may upgrade 14HCP to be equivalent to 15 then you MUST announce it as 14-17. Failure to do so is a concealed partnership understanding.

And announcing 14-17 when it is not the truth is MI. Apparently there is no way of announcing without committing an infraction so we should all either become walruses or give up the game completely.

[Cyberyeti]

Are you allowed to announce "excellent 11 to terrible 15" to give a fair impression of what you open ?

[mycroft]

yeah, "excellent 11 to 14" (I'm not sure I'd ever downgrade a 15) might work. Maybe we should do that. But frankly, anybody who questions the 11s we open isn't going to be working out whether I need the missing queen for my 12 (or just the othersuit J).

[akwoo]

I do work out whether you need the missing queen for your 12, and while I wouldn't question the 11s you open, I would like to know whether you open those 11s or not.

If I may hijack this thread - agreement with one partner is to upgrade (both directions) precisely the hands with a good 5 card suit. Should I announce "excellent 14 to 17" or "14 with a good 5 card suit to 17 without" or "15-17, but a good 5 card suit counts as a point"?

[blackshoe]

In discussing announcement of an agreed 1NT range, the EBU Blue Book does not use the term "high card points". Instead it says simply "announce the range", giving "12 to 14" as an example. I would think that if you routinely count a point for the fifth card in a suit, that your actually range is perhaps "good 11 to 14" or, playing strong NT "good 14 to 17". Similarly, if you downgrade for excess quacks, or doubleton quacks, the range should be "good 11 to bad 15" or "good 14 to bad 18". If your opponents want to know what makes a particular count good or bad, they can ask — the purpose of the announcement is to give the general idea, not to completely disclose your methods in the announcement. The same principles should apply in the ACBL.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2016-March-07, 12:55, said:

Over the years, I am quite sure that I have opening a 15-17 NT with everything from a 3 count up to an 18 count.

Are you claiming that my partners should announce our range as 3-18?

I wouldn't recommend anything to your partners nor to you. I stated what I am comfortable doing according to the announcements required, and that my failure to do so would be MI.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2016-March-07, 12:55, said:

Over the years, I am quite sure that I have opening a 15-17 NT with everything from a 3 count up to an 18 count.

Are you claiming that my partners should announce our range as 3-18?

Unless the 3 counts come up often enough that partner might expect it, it's a psych, not a part of your agreed range. You're required to announce your agreement. Deviations from agreements are allowed, so long as they're not frequent enough to become implicit agreements that you haven't disclosed.

I'm sure you know that.

And if you do play 3-18 in ACBL, the range is wide enough that you can't play any conventional responses.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2016-March-07, 06:16, said:

Trinidad, on 2016-March-07, 05:51, said:

How hard is it to say: "15-17, could be a good 14."?

In between boards there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the tongues of bridge players. But when it comes to explaining the auction, suddenly tongue cramp is all around.

Rik

But what does "could be a good 14" really mean? If it just means that some hands, despite being 14 walrus points, are more similar to a mundane 15 than a mundane 14, then it is just bridge, and talking about it is at best distracting and at worst misleading.

You disclose your system for your opponents, not for yourself.

If your opponents are (or could be) walruses, you will have to do your explanations in Walrussian. So, you could explain: "Could be 14 HCPs that s/he thinks are worth 15."

Rik

[akwoo]

helene_t, on 2016-March-07, 06:16, said:

But what does "could be a good 14" really mean? If it just means that some hands, despite being 14 walrus points, are more similar to a mundane 15 than a mundane 14, then it is just bridge, and talking about it is at best distracting and at worst misleading.

To me, it is neither distracting nor misleading. I want to know for defensive planning whether your partner ever upgrades a walrus 14. I suppose I could ask on every 1N opening (usually at the end of the auction) about the frequency of upgrades, but since the majority of players here never upgrade (not having enough bridge sense to do so), the easiest dividing line for disclosure purposes is to allow folks to assume there never are upgrades when "15-17" is announced. This is especially true because the folks who never upgrade or downgrade are also the folks who don't know how to disclose; they might not understand the "Do you ever upgrade?" question.


If you are unknown to me and announce "good 14 to 17", I will ask you something like "how often do you upgrade a 14" at the end of the auction. I appreciate having the prompt to ask, and don't mind if the answer is "almost never".

In practice, I'm never going to complain unless I'm actually and specifically damaged in that I would've made a different play for specific reasons (usually late in the hand when I have close to a complete count) if I thought a walrus 14 was possible.

[barmar]

Even if you announce "good 14 to 17", isn't there still a disclosure issue? How are the opponents supposed to know your criteria for "good"? Does it need a 5-card suit, or a few 9's and 10's sufficient? Do you downgrade QJ tight?

[mycroft]

And sometimes the entire criteria is "if it looks like 15". What makes it look like 15? Well, we really haven't actually put effort into quantifying it.

Note - because of the way I think, either I *do* quantify it, or I can review a history of deviations and draw enunciable conclusions. Given the number of people who can't tell me how short their Precision 1♦ can be: "We just know it can be short, and that we have to tell you that", I think the number of players who can do this is at best not a majority. I'd bet it's close to 100% of BBO Forum commenters, though.

[barmar]

I rarely upgrade/downgrade my 1NT openings, so I can probably enunciate that easily. On the other hand, I doubt I could enunciate my strong 2♣ opening hands very precisely.

[blackshoe]

Re: 2♣ it's kind of like porn: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I don't think that's a useful, or legal for that matter, explanation of the bid, though.

[1eyedjack]

Heh I used to call it the Elephant Test. Porn Test may be a bit more 21st century.