[nige1]

Welcome back, Frances

[miamijd]

 DavidKok, on 2020-October-23, 06:57, said:

This is common to the point of being universal at higher level these days. In fact, there are some heated ongoing debates if this should be marked on a CC, or needs a pre-alert, or where to draw the lines. Some people have taken to writing "14⁺-17^-".

If you occasionally upgrade a good 14 to 15 and open 1NT (for example, a hand with three Aces, or hand with lots of 10s and 9s or maybe a hand with a good five-card minor), then you absolutely SHOULD put 14+ - 17 on your cc.

Cheers,
Mike

[miamijd]

 nudnikbp, on 2020-October-23, 05:26, said:

North shouldn't bid one spade with a regular partner.
In addition, it is ethically questionable to make psychic bids against weaker players.

It's not ethically questionable, in that nothing in the Laws prohibits it. On the other hand, it's not very nice and can serve to discourage beginners from wanting to play competitive bridge. I recall that in my mother's very first session of duplicate (back in 1985, with me), we faced an auction that went:

(2H) X (2S) pass
(3H) all pass

I was the doubler. Mom had spades, but she didn't realize the 2 spade bidder was psyching; he had 7 HCP or so, a stiff spade and 4-card H support. After the auction, he said something to the effect of "Well, isn't that basically just a free psyche? After all, it's forcing, so I'll show heart support on the next round, at the four level if I have to." He wasn't playing with a regular partner, so they probably had no agreement here; thus, no alert.

I wasn't very happy and told him so after the game. What he did was perfectly legal, but does he really think my mom is going to want to come back to play again if people do those sorts of things against duplicate newbies in a Saturday afternoon club game?

So I would never question the ethics of someone who did it. I would, however, question their wisdom in terms of their commitment to promoting and expanding the game.

Cheers,
Mike

[pescetom]

 miamijd, on 2020-October-23, 13:22, said:

If you occasionally upgrade a good 14 to 15 and open 1NT (for example, a hand with three Aces, or hand with lots of 10s and 9s or maybe a hand with a good five-card minor), then you absolutely SHOULD put 14+ - 17 on your cc.

I'm all in favour of disclosure, but I don't fully understand this.
If instead I put 15-17 then I should always have 15-17 independent of how good/bad the hand is, in other words be what on BBO is called 'idiot' (or 'GIB')?
And if I occasionally devalue a quacky 18 do I have to write 14+ 18-?
And if my partner knows I only occasionally do so, is he bound to alert to explain that 18-?
Probably it's a fault of the card format, "NT upgrade(downgrade) style = never/moderate/radical" might be a good start.
In any case it's not (IMHO) a big deal.

[Vampyr]

 miamijd, on 2020-October-23, 13:30, said:

He wasn't playing with a regular partner, so they probably had no agreement here; thus, no alert.

There would probably not been an alert anyway; the most common meaning is still probably natural.

Quote

I wasn't very happy and told him so after the game. What he did was perfectly legal, but does he really think my mom is going to want to come back to play again if people do those sorts of things against duplicate newbies in a Saturday afternoon club game?

Hopefully your mother learned how to deal with baby psychs and continued to play. But since psychs can backfire, why do it against beginners? Beat them by being stronger players than they are.

 pescetom, on 2020-October-23, 13:31, said:

I'm all in favour of disclosure, but I don't fully understand this.
If instead I put 15-17 then I should always have 15-17 independent of how good/bad the hand is, in other words be what on BBO is called 'idiot' (or 'GIB')?
And if I occasionally devalue a quacky 18 do I have to write 14+ 18-?
And if my partner knows I only occasionally do so, is he bound to alert to explain that 18-?
Probably it's a fault of the card format, "NT upgrade(downgrade) style = never/moderate/radical" might be a good start.
In any case it's not (IMHO) a big deal.

Well, it is not a matter of opinion, and it is a big deal.

[haka9]

 nudnikbp, on 2020-October-23, 05:26, said:

North shouldn't bid one spade with a regular partner.
In addition, it is ethically questionable to make psychic bids against weaker players.

I remember a deal kibitzing in BBO. NS, very good players but not a constant pair. EW was an intermediate couple with a long mutual history. S opened 1 ♣ (at least 3).
W bid 1 ♦ and then it started. N doubled and E bid 2 ♠. S passed (forcing) and so W. N doubled, and E bid 3 ♥. p-p-D (in rage)-4♦-D-passout. Home, sweet home. E had anything but majors.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-23, 18:49, said:

Well, it is not a matter of opinion, and it is a big deal.

The need to disclose is not a matter of opinion, I agree.
Nor are RA rules, even if they differ.
If you think that it is a big deal to know whether or not opponent occasionally upgrades a hand then we have different opinions.

[Vampyr]

 pescetom, on 2020-October-24, 06:37, said:

The need to disclose is not a matter of opinion, I agree.
Nor are RA rules, even if they differ.
If you think that it is a big deal to know whether or not opponent occasionally upgrades a hand then we have different opinions.

It really depends upon what “occasionally” means. If it is once in a blue moon, then your low standards of disclosure will be fine. I think that when it approaches the level of approximately one session in ten, then it is something that needs to be disclosed.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2020-October-24, 07:45, said:

It really depends upon what “occasionally” means. If it is once in a blue moon, then your low standards of disclosure will be fine. I think that when it approaches the level of approximately one session in ten, then it is something that needs to be disclosed.

My threshold would be a bit higher, say 1 in 8, but yes there is a point at which I would expect to be warned 'frequent upgrades'. But even without such warning this is not on my list of big deals, despite a high standard of disclosure. Nor do I think that attaching +/- to ranges is a good way of communicating such tendencies as it is highly ambiguous about the frequency which as you say is the key.

[nige1]

 pescetom, on 2020-October-24, 06:37, said:

The need to disclose is not a matter of opinion, I agree. Nor are RA rules, even if they differ. If you think that it is a big deal to know whether or not opponent occasionally upgrades a hand then we have different opinions.

I agree with Vampyr that pairs should truthfully disclose their HCP ranges. For example, many top players, who declare a 15-17 1N opener, open most 14 HCP hands -- "upgrading" them unless the shape is (4333).

Pescetom has a point, however. Such practices are rife and usually condoned. Experienced players get into bad habits. They practice and expect such dissimulation. So where's damage? Well...

Occasionally, naïve club-players are hoodwinked and misdefend, If they call the director, he usually rules in favour of the misinformer. Not just at club-level. In a European Championship, Charles Outred's opponents opened 1NT "light" on 3 consecutive hands but the director wouldn't rule against them.

HCP are a simple well-defined objective measure. Honour quality, honour distribution, shape, and intermediates are separate factors that you should declare as well. Vampyr points out that you can employ a concise notation. For example 14+ - 17- (or whatever is the truth, for your partnership).

IMO, the lax attitude to disclosure by rule-makers, directors, and players is symptomatic of the current malaise infecting the probity of Bridge.

[mycroft]

Without some guidance from the Regulatory authorities, it's hard to explain how much people upgrade.

"Everybody" (but Walruses) upgrades the odd hand. Almost nobody downgrades anything but the quackiest, flattest dreck.

Many players upgrade "good" hands, not just "not-Walrus" hands.

Some players upgrade good hands - i.e. anything but "bad" hands.

Most people are of the opinion their style is "obviously" right, and "normal", and will tell you that when you ask. Even those that aren't, will have a different idea what "good, great, excellent,..." mean.

Many pairs don't discuss this at all, and don't pay any attention to their partner judgement. So there's that, too.

With one partner, it was 'AAK or connected honours in long suits' to upgrade 11 into a 12-14 (and we announced 'good 11 to 14', and gave that explanation when they asked what a "good 11" was). With my current partner, it's 'really, it's a 12-count' (with me upgrading maybe twice as often as partner), maybe half as often? (and we Announce '12-14')

My strong NT pair is 'any 14 that isn't 13', so we do in fact Announce "14-17".

I wish we did have this guidance, because I'd like to be saying The Right Thing, and have my opponents know what I mean (or, at least, they can be pointed to the guidance so they will know in future).

[pilowsky]

 mycroft, on 2020-October-24, 14:23, said:

Without some guidance from the Regulatory authorities, it's hard to explain how much people upgrade.

"Everybody" (but Walruses) upgrades the odd hand. Almost nobody downgrades anything but the quackiest, flattest dreck.

Many players upgrade "good" hands, not just "not-Walrus" hands.

Some players upgrade good hands - i.e. anything but "bad" hands.

Most people are of the opinion their style is "obviously" right, and "normal", and will tell you that when you ask. Even those that aren't, will have a different idea what "good, great, excellent,..." mean.

Many pairs don't discuss this at all, and don't pay any attention to their partner judgement. So there's that, too.

With one partner, it was 'AAK or connected honours in long suits' to upgrade 11 into a 12-14 (and we announced 'good 11 to 14', and gave that explanation when they asked what a "good 11" was). With my current partner, it's 'really, it's a 12-count' (with me upgrading maybe twice as often as partner), maybe half as often? (and we Announce '12-14')

My strong NT pair is 'any 14 that isn't 13', so we do in fact Announce "14-17".

I wish we did have this guidance, because I'd like to be saying The Right Thing, and have my opponents know what I mean (or, at least, they can be pointed to the guidance so they will know in future).

Finally! I learned to upgrade from John Newman (zenbiddist), who when challenged by his opponents at the end of hand - I was his partner at the time- laid down his cards and quietly appointed to the doubleton as his extra point.
On that Tuesday evening at the Sydney Bridge Centre, I was a walk-in and he was the playing Director. So no, he didn't rule against himself.

I think most new players stick to the 'right thing' ie do exactly what they're told, better players do what's right for them, and some people just feel that they have the 'right stuff' as Tom Wolfe put it - until they don't then the two men in black visit their significant other

Where do you buy guidance in Bridgeworld? The guidance shop?.

[Zelandakh]

 mycroft, on 2020-October-24, 14:23, said:

I wish we did have this guidance, because I'd like to be saying The Right Thing, and have my opponents know what I mean (or, at least, they can be pointed to the guidance so they will know in future).

It is actually even more complicated than this because the rules say both partners have to play the same system but they do not have to agree on what constitutes an upgrade and what does not, nor even on which 4441, 5M332 or 4M5m22 hands qualify. Just today I opened a 2=2=3=6 hand 1NT in third seat and partner was very clear that they would never do that (or indeed the 2=4=3=4 4 count I opened 1NT in third a few days ago). These individual interpretations of the agreed system can be even more problematic to explain than the system itself.

[pescetom]

 nige1, on 2020-October-24, 10:45, said:

I agree with Vampyr that pairs should truthfully disclose their HCP ranges. For example, many top players, who declare a 15-17 1N opener, open most 14 HCP hands -- "upgrading" them unless the shape is (4333).

Pescetom has a point, however. Such practices are rife and usually condoned. Experienced players get into bad habits. They practice and expect such dissimulation. So where's damage? Well...

Occasionally, naïve club-players are hoodwinked and misdefend, If they call the director, he usually rules in favour of the misinformer. Not just at club-level. In a European Championship, Charles Outred's opponents opened 1NT "light" on 3 consecutive hands but the director wouldn't rule against them.

HCP are a simple well-defined objective measure. Honour quality, honour distribution, shape, and intermediates are separate factors that you should declare as well. Vampyr points out that you can employ a concise notation. For example 14+ - 17- (or whatever is the truth, for your partnership).

IMO, the lax attitude to disclosure by rule-makers, directors, and players is symptomatic of the current malaise infecting the probity of Bridge.

I'm with you on the principles and the bottom line, as usual.
My point however was not that opening 1NT most (i.e. >50%, not 10% or 12%) 14 HCP hands is rife and usually condoned.
If that is really so in USA or UK then I understand why people might consider NT disclosure a significant (if not big) problem.
A 5332 with no other redeeming features can hardly be worth a whole point upgrade.
But even then 14+ does not solve the problem, unless it is agreed that this means that around 50% of 14 HCP hands will open 1NT.
Vampyr was worrying about how to differentiate 0% from 10% and even I would call foul if not advised about 15%, which is presumably below your 14+ radar.
Perhaps "Percentage of 1NT hands upgraded:" on the system card would content all.

[pilowsky]

Isn't the real question: what is it that your opponents would be able to do if that extra information was available to them?
It's similar to the problem I struggled with concerning short club (could be 2) versus better minor (at least 3).

What I would like to know - as a Beginner-Intermediate is: what additional action would I be able to take as the next bidder if the opener has exactly 14 HCP rather than 15HCP as promised.

To put it another way, when does it matter when doesn't it? How serious an infraction is it?
Playing in many clubs, I cannot recollect a penalty being applied for failure to alert an artificial call. Non-alerted transfers, Non-alerted Bergen bids etc etc.
Except perhaps once. My partner bid 2D over 1NT. I alerted Cappelletti (both majors) and because my partner had forgotten the system and actually had 6 diamonds, and the opps took advantage of the error, Ms Director awarded the Opps 60%.
I still don't understand that ruling, but it was presumably reasonable.

To be fair, my experience is limited to coffee club competitions and community clubs with a bit of online Bridge thrown in. Perhaps in real Bridge it's different.

[Vampyr]

 pilowsky, on 2020-October-24, 14:34, said:

Finally! I learned to upgrade from John Newman (zenbiddist), who when challenged by his opponents at the end of hand - I was his partner at the time- laid down his cards and quietly appointed to the doubleton as his extra point.
On that Tuesday evening at the Sydney Bridge Centre, I was a walk-in and he was the playing Director. So no, he didn't rule against himself.

When a playing director needs a ruling at his table, he should ask one of the other directors present to make the ruling. If there is no one available, the ruling should be done by an agreed referee, either by email or telephone or whatever. It is no trouble if the ruling has to be don after the session is finished. I’m shocked by the behaviour of this John Newman.

 pilowsky, on 2020-October-24, 16:30, said:

What I would like to know - as a Beginner-Intermediate is: what additional action would I be able to take as the next bidder if the opener has exactly 14 HCP rather than 15HCP as promised.

When it matters is in the play when you are counting his hand.

Quote

Except perhaps once. My partner bid 2D over 1NT. I alerted Cappelletti (both majors) and because my partner had forgotten the system and actually had 6 diamonds, and the opps took advantage of the error, Ms Director awarded the Opps 60%.
I still don't understand that ruling, but it was presumably reasonable.

If the opponents took advantage of the error, it sounds as if they’ve got a good board to begin with. There is no penalty for a misbid. I believe the EBU has changed the regulation with regard to a fielded misbid being the same as a fielded psych, and it is no longer treated the same, unfortunately. In any case, unless your partner frequently forgets, in which case it can be said that you are not playing the convention and all and so what you gave was misinformation, I don’t understand why there would be a ruling. You should have asked for the law or regulation to be read out to you.

[blackshoe]

Last time I asked a director to read a ruling from the book, she replied "I can't, the book's in the car." I said "I'll wait," but it didn't matter, she just ignored the request.