[jillybean]

Does seat and vulnerability influence your decision to upgrade a hand?

Nice hand, no spots, no length but pointy values.

---

[DavidKok]

In general I think it is wise to take seating and vulnerability into account. However, here that would prompt me to downgrade rather than upgrade. Regardless I think the hand is nowhere near an upgrade to 20 to begin with, for a number of reasons:

• Unlike upgrading into 1NT, upgrading into 2NT is often lousy. 2NT is a poor contract if partner passes it out, and playing something at the 3-level is often no great joy either. In addition to this partner will be well placed to put us in game if we show 18-19 systemically. In the systems I'm most comfortable with (Dutch Doubleton, T-Walsh, several strong club systems) we can show the 18-19 NT at the 1-level facing a weak hand. Why preempt the auction and distort our values? In general I really dislike upgrading into 2NT, and this hand is no exception.
  
• Being NV means that we don't need to push for a slim game quite as hard, the IMP odds for questionable games are simply less attractive than when we're vulnerable. The third seat also argues for being a bit conservative - partner might well not have much, and most of the values the opponents have are likely seated over us. The fact that the opponents are vulnerable also means they are less likely to compete aggressively, especially since we have a big hand with values in all suits (well, those spades are looking a bit drafty. But still), which means the slow 1m opening is less likely to come back to bite us.
  
• The hand is just not worth 20. We have a 4333, soft values everywhere, no tens, only one nine.

Combining all the above I feel very comfortable opening 1♣ and showing the 18-19 balanced after. If my system demands that I open 1♦ and jump rebid 2NT I'll do that instead - I don't love that (it also kills my argument about preemption) but I think it's still better than opening 2NT.

[Cyberyeti]

I wouldn't upgrade this playing good 19-21 as I do. Intermediates - nope, 5 card suit - nope.

There was a hand on BW which was something like Kx, A10x, AQ10xx, A109 - a 17 count that I'd rate better than this 19.

[smerriman]

K&R value this as 18.10, a considerable downgrade - and much less than the "1NT" hand in the other thread! If we're playing in a partscore when starting at the 1 level, game seems hopeless.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2024-January-30, 13:11, said:

Does seat and vulnerability influence your decision to upgrade a hand?

Nice hand, no spots, no length but pointy values.

---

In answer to the opening question…no

Upgrading is intended to compensate for (some of) the inadequacies in the simple point count method of evaluating a hand

So, we like texture. We like a five card suit that contains texture and we love controls. Not one of those factors is in any way connected to seat or vulnerability.

As for the actual hand, I’m frankly baffled as to why anyone would consider an upgrade. Into what? 20-21 hcp? Or 19+-21 if you shade your 2N range.

A good if imprecise rule of thumb or s to take your 4321 hcp and divide by 3. The resulting number is a reasonable approximation of expected controls. Here, dividing 18 by 3 yields 6. So an average 18 count will have about 6 controls.

Which is what we have. So it’s a boring average 18 count in that regard, hence our controlscargue against, not for, an upgrade.

Our shape is the absolute worst for an upgrade…4333 is the second worst shape one can have in terms of likely playability….only 4441 hands are worse.

We have no meaningful texture.


Where seat and vulnerability do come into play has zero to do with hand evaluation and a lot to do with tactics.

For example, red v white in second seat one should pass hands that one would happily open at the 2 or 3 level if white v red in any seat but 4th.

Red, playing imps, one stretches to bid vulnerable games that one wouldn’t bid at mps or non vulnerable…but (and this is important) it’s not because we upgrade our hand. It’s because we’re willing to risk more for the vulnerable game bonus than the non-vulnerable one.it definitely isn’t because we ‘upgrade’ an average hand.

Don’t confuse upgrading with anything other than hand evaluation based on the hand itself, independent of seat or vulnerability, and the auction: some hands go down enormously on the auction, some go up enormously.

To give an example from yesterday, playing an international invitational event, you pick up J10xx xxxx A QJ10x.

All vul.

LHO opens a strong 1N (14.5 - 17 was announced) and partner overcalls 2D, showing a 6+ Major. You’re mulling over how aggressive to be when RHO surprises you by bidding 4S.

Well, at least you know which major partner holds, but how good is this 8 count?

Imo, it’s incredible. There’s no assurance that 5H makes and no assurance that 4S goes down. But as little as x AQxxxx xxx Kxx makes 5H a favourite, so I bid 5H. Dummy hit with x AQJxxx xx Axxx and slam was cold as the cards lay but I think most would agree that it was unbiddable. At the other table my hand sold to 4S, which drifted off.

[TylerE]

I probably open 2N a hair wider than most, and I wouldn't open this 2N or even think especially hard about it.

[jillybean]

Mike, where are you playing?

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2024-January-30, 23:26, said:

Mike, where are you playing?

It’s a Seniors invitational team organized by the Polish Bridge Union (or at least run under their auspices, I haven’t looked into it, but they do a good job..this is the fourth year.

It’s held on bbo. There is vugraph on bbo [our Team Kokish was on both sessions (2 14 board matches a day…the huge time zone issues would make it impossible to play much more)] today, winning one and losing to a strong US team next…..Gord and I sat out, having played both the previous day. We have six pairs! Including, as an honorary Canadian, Bob Hamman.

[pescetom]

Late to the thread and smerriman and mikeh said it all in terms of upgrading (?), the hand is worth less than its 19 HCP.

Having said that, I would like to have had more comments on seating, which I find the most interesting and difficult aspect of this hand.
I am always wary about opening strong NT in third with a more natural system than Davidkok prefers and have never found clear guidance about what to do with various hands.
Certainly a meritable topic for I/A.

[DavidKok]

My personal thoughts on this are a bit rigid.

• The notrump ladder is the backbone of any bidding system. It pays to be really comfortable with bidding balanced hands of any kind, and if there is an area here where your personal familiarity with or confidence in your system is lacking that's worth putting investing effort into.
  
• I would not adjust much at all for the third seat. In fact, I don't shade my openings much at all in third, maybe a point or so, and my preempts become even more crazy, but my 1-openings are largely the same. If you habitually open light in third it is possible this places more strain on your system and your 'normal' openings may suffer. Personally I think the gains from extra light third seat openings are somewhat overstated, and the downsides are quite real. Either way this shouldn't have a significant impact on your notrump ladder.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2024-January-31, 17:34, said:

My personal thoughts on this are a bit rigid.

• The notrump ladder is the backbone of any bidding system. It pays to be really comfortable with bidding balanced hands of any kind, and if there is an area here where your personal familiarity with or confidence in your system is lacking that's worth putting investing effort into.
  
• I would not adjust much at all for the third seat. In fact, I don't shade my openings much at all in third, maybe a point or so, and my preempts become even more crazy, but my 1-openings are largely the same. If you habitually open light in third it is possible this places more strain on your system and your 'normal' openings may suffer. Personally I think the gains from extra light third seat openings are somewhat overstated, and the downsides are quite real. Either way this shouldn't have a significant impact on your notrump ladder.

I think the long-standing notion that one should open light in third dates back to the days when ‘everyone’ played what would now be seen as ‘sound’ opening bids in first and third. That’s not to say that some pairs who open light in the first two seats don’t now open even lighter in third, with what they see as an appropriate hand for the action (spades in particular, for the preemptive value), but I do think that the trend towards light openings in first and second make it far less attractive to routinely stretch in third.

Indeed, Roth-Stone, which was a hugely influential if not widely adopted method in 60 or so years ago required very sound opening bids in first and second (they’d not open all 13 counts, as an example) had to have light openings in third or miss laydown games.

In my partnerships, we open virtually all 11 counts in first and second…in one we open a lot of 10 counts. If I’m in third seat in that partnership, there’s not much upside for stretching to open, especially if vulnerable, unless I have a clear lead-directing bid, preferably in spades

And I never stretch outside of my notrump range. That isn’t at all the same as saying I don’t upgrade into or out of our notrump range. But Axx Kx AQ109x K109 isn’t 17 for anyone beyond a beginner so opening 1D and jumping to 2N isn’t ‘stretching’…it’s ‘evaluating’.

[DavidKok]

I completely agree. Since I open aggressively in first and second there's less of a need to stretch. The same applies to balancing in competition - since partner would have been aggressive in overcalling or making a takeout double I don't have to balance quite as much (and indeed I think many people will balance far too often, even if partner is somewhat conservative).

Personally I think bidding for the lead is much less profitable than it may seem, and while there's always constructions where it makes sense I will generally do this far less often than most. In my opinion it's not nearly as much of a good reason for bidding light as is commonly suggested, but I fear I'm derailing the discussion by this point.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the informative replies, it's all good stuff.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-January-31, 17:34, said:

I would not adjust much at all for the third seat. In fact, I don't shade my openings much at all in third, maybe a point or so, and my preempts become even more crazy, but my 1-openings are largely the same. If you habitually open light in third it is possible this places more strain on your system and your 'normal' openings may suffer. Personally I think the gains from extra light third seat openings are somewhat overstated, and the downsides are quite real. Either way this shouldn't have a significant impact on your notrump ladder.

Thanks, and I completely agree about the importance of the NT ladder (otherwise I wouldn't dedicate 60 of 80 pages of partner notes to it).
My main doubt was whether third seat can/should shade 1NT (which doesn't feel right, almost the opposite) and whether I am right in being more conservative about opening 1NT with unbalanced hands that I would cheerfully open 1NT in first seat.
Our first seat 1 in a suit openings are more sound than yours (but not that much more) and our third seat style much like yours (never felt the need to play Drury).