[bd71]

I play vanilla SA or 2/1. NT opening range is 15-17, and I typically agree to 15-17 or 15-18 as the NT overcall range that we disclose on our ACBL CC (or if asked).

However, I will overcall 1N in direct seat with 14 points and a balanced hand virtually whenever I have a strong tenace over RHO's suit. Typical hand for this came yesterday when I overcalled 1N holding AQxx KJTx KJx xx after RHO opened 1S. I have never explicitly discussed this with any of my regular or semi-regular partners, although I suspect they have or will notice it over time.

Question: should I adjust my NT overcall range on the CC to 14-17 or 14-18? Or am I simply re-valuing these type of hands as being "worth 15" making the stated ranges accurate?

Bringing this up because the opponent yesterday questioned the accuracy of our CC.

[mgoetze]

I like to write this sort of thing as (14)15-18, meaning I will always do it with 15 but only when the circumstances are right with 14. I personally don't have this problem for direct 1NT overcalls but for balancing ones I write my range as 11-14(16). The 16 happens often over 1♠ and never over 1♣. Similarily, I have written the range for my weak 2s as (3)6-10.

This is just what I do personally, I have no idea what any regulating authority would allow or suggest.

[barmar]

I don't think it's necessary to disclose. It's a matter of bridge judgement -- you basically treat the well-positioned Q as equivalent to a K, so you consider the hand to be worth 15 HCP.

[bluejak]

I would write good 14 to 17. The problem with saying it is just judgement is that many players do not allow much allowance for judgement where a range is concerned, and many players have different ideas of judgement anyway. For example, I would not consider the actual hand given for a 15-17 1NT overcall.

If you write good 14 to 17 then a point counting defender will not be misled ["he cannot have that hand because it is only 14 points"] and a player who wants to know what good means in this partnership can ask.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-January-12, 08:06, said:

I would write good 14 to 17. The problem with saying it is just judgement is that many players do not allow much allowance for judgement where a range is concerned, and many players have different ideas of judgement anyway. For example, I would not consider the actual hand given for a 15-17 1NT overcall.
If you write good 14 to 17 then a point counting defender will not be misled ["he cannot have that hand because it is only 14 points"] and a player who wants to know what good means in this partnership can ask.

Agree with Mgoetze and Bluejak.

• (14)15-17
• Good 14-17 or
• 14.5-17
  

All are all fine. IMO 14-17 is OK too. Perhaps, disclosure laws should clarify this. For example

• Does the declared range include adjustments for shape, honour quality (e.g. Aces rather than Quacks), honours reinforcing each other, honours in long suits, texture and intermediates, position (relative to bidding opponents), and so on -- which might pump a 5332 thirteen-count up to fifteen or more?
• Does 15-17 mean 15.00-17.00 or 14.50 to 17.49?

[Coelacanth]

nige1, on 2011-January-12, 10:09, said:

Does the declared range include adjustments for shape, honour quality (e.g. Aces rather than Quacks), honours reinforcing each other, honours in long suits, texture and intermediates, position (relative to bidding opponents), and so on -- which might pump a 5332 thirteen-count up to fifteen or more?

I think it certainly should include these adjustments. I think that more experienced players will routinely do this kind of upgrading and downgrading and will be unlikley to be put out if their opponent does it. Newer players will tend to evaluate by HCP only and will be more likely to complain if a 15-17 NT turns out to have 18HCP.

Does this mean that the level of competition determines the level of disclosure that's required?

[nige1]

Coelacanth, on 2011-January-12, 10:44, said:

I think it certainly should include these adjustments. I think that more experienced players will routinely do this kind of upgrading and downgrading and will be unlikley to be put out if their opponent does it. Newer players will tend to evaluate by HCP only and will be more likely to complain if a 15-17 NT turns out to have 18HCP. Does this mean that the level of competition determines the level of disclosure that's required?

A long-running controversy. I disagree with Coelecanth (and almost everybody else) because different players swear by different evaluation methods. The laws are subjective enough already without reliance on even more judgement. Famously, David Burn claimed that, in his exerience an "85" combination was worth a trick or two. Authors argue other controversial ideas in books. Reliance on individual judgement leads to inconsistent rulings. Anyway, an ordinary player must understand a rule before he can comply with it. At a pinch, most players can understand crude simple HCP. IMO it would be reasonable to insist that a player declare his notrump range as 13-17 rather than 15-17, if he upgrades some 13 counts.

[barmar]

One problem I see these days is that many players like to find any excuse to upgrade their NT hands. If 60% of their 14 and 19 counts are opened 1NT and 2NT, then I'd argue that 14 and 19 are in the range, and it's more like they downgrade some of them.

My regular partner and I play Mexican 2♦. We describe this as "18 to bad 20". I'm not sure I've ever downgraded any 20 counts to 2♦ openers, but this effectively prevents me from upgrading 19's. A good 19 is like a bad 20, and that's still in the 2♦ range.

When many of us first learned bridge, the standard strong 1NT range was 16-18. Nowadays it's 15-17 in most places. I suspect this happened as a result of people upgrading 15's more and more frequently, until we collectively admitted that 15 really was the lower limit. And maybe in a few years the standard range will drift to 14-17 because of all the upgrading.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2011-January-12, 17:10, said:

One problem I see these days is that many players like to find any excuse to upgrade their NT hands. If 60% of their 14 and 19 counts are opened 1NT and 2NT, then I'd argue that 14 and 19 are in the range, and it's more like they downgrade some of them.

My regular partner and I play Mexican 2♦. We describe this as "18 to bad 20". I'm not sure I've ever downgraded any 20 counts to 2♦ openers, but this effectively prevents me from upgrading 19's. A good 19 is like a bad 20, and that's still in the 2♦ range.

When many of us first learned bridge, the standard strong 1NT range was 16-18. Nowadays it's 15-17 in most places. I suspect this happened as a result of people upgrading 15's more and more frequently, until we collectively admitted that 15 really was the lower limit. And maybe in a few years the standard range will drift to 14-17 because of all the upgrading.

16-18
15-18
15-17
14-17
14-16
...


This is just evolutions way of acknowledging the superiority of a weak no trump.

[blackshoe]

From what I've read here and there, the move from 16-18 to 15-17 occurred because the lower range allowed more frequent openings, not because people were upgrading 15s.

[bluejak]

Which is, of course, why I play 9-12.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2011-January-12, 12:43, said:

A long-running controversy. I disagree with Coelecanth (and almost everybody else) because different players swear by different evaluation methods. The laws are subjective enough already without reliance on even more judgement. Famously, David Burn claimed that, in his exerience an "85" combination was worth a trick or two. Authors argue other controversial ideas in books. Reliance on individual judgement leads to inconsistent rulings. Anyway, an ordinary player must understand a rule before he can comply with it. At a pinch, most players can understand crude simple HCP. IMO it would be reasonable to insist that a player declare his notrump range as 13-17 rather than 15-17, if he upgrades some 13 counts.

It is very unhelpful to opponents to call your 1NT overcall 13 to 17 if it is 15 to 17, with occasional upgrades. 13 to 17 means that an opponent can reasonably expect you to hold 13 more often than 17.

[ahydra]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-12, 17:37, said:

From what I've read here and there, the move from 16-18 to 15-17 occurred because the lower range allowed more frequent openings, not because people were upgrading 15s.

Would it not also have something to do with the fact that then you have 1NT rebid = 12-14, rather than the uncomfortably wide 12-15?

Talking of which I've always wondered how strong NT players handle 18-19 point hands after the auction starts 1x-2y.

ahydra

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-12, 17:37, said:

From what I've read here and there, the move from 16-18 to 15-17 occurred because the lower range allowed more frequent openings, not because people were upgrading 15s.

ahydra, on 2011-January-13, 17:05, said:

Would it not also have something to do with the fact that then you have 1NT rebid = 12-14, rather than the uncomfortably wide 12-15?

Goren ("Bridge in a Nutshell" etc.) advised 13 HCP as the normal minimum for an opening bid at the 1-level and 16-18 HCP for 1NT.
(But it is also worth noticing that Goren "required" 26HCP for game)

ahydra, on 2011-January-13, 17:05, said:

Talking of which I've always wondered how strong NT players handle 18-19 point hands after the auction starts 1x-2y.

ahydra

3NT of course?

[Trinidad]

ahydra, on 2011-January-13, 17:05, said:

Talking of which I've always wondered how strong NT players handle 18-19 point hands after the auction starts 1x-2y.

ahydra

The same way as weak notrumpers do. The strong NT and weak NT are flipped around. The "too strong for a strong NT" is "left over" in both systems.

Rik

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on 2011-January-13, 19:03, said:

The same way as weak notrumpers do. The strong NT and weak NT are flipped around. The "too strong for a strong NT" is "left over" in both systems.

Rik

I think that is unlikely.

After 1x 2y in a weak NT system 2NT is forcing is a standard agreement.

Therefore with 18-19 we can bid 2NT

1x 2y
2NT 3NT
4NT

and we have the option of making a quantitative raise if responder does not show extra distribution.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-January-13, 07:40, said:

It is very unhelpful to opponents to call your 1NT overcall 13 to 17 if it is 15 to 17, with occasional upgrades. 13 to 17 means that an opponent can reasonably expect you to hold 13 more often than 17.

Again, my experience differs from Bluejak's. For example, when vulnerable, some players who declare a 12-14 notrump, are more likely to hold 14 than 12. If their opponents ask them, they will specify the subset of flat 12 counts they open when vulnerable. Also, when defenders are are trying to reconstruct your hand, they seem to find an accurate point count to be helpful.

Nevertheless, players often do talk about ranges in the way that Bluejak describes: their ranges include agreed adjustments for shape, texture, and so forth. For disclosure purposes, however, when informing opponents about HCP ranges, I think the laws should insist on the crude truth. For legal purposes, unadorned HCP is a more objective and consistent measure than any adjusted point-count. Opponents are already aware that you won't open *all* hands in the specified range. There will be additional specifications of shape and so on. These can be separately declared and opponents can ask about them.

[bluejak]

I do think that arranging disclosure for better players only is not acceptable. Better players may assume that 13 to 17 does not mean 13 to 17 [though I would not]. Weaker players certainly would not.

I think your suggestion hides the truth as to what is played.

[campboy]

I agree with bluejak. Overstatement of range can cause problems for your opponents just as much as understatement of range. If you state a 1NT range of 12-14 then opponents will expect you to open 1NT on a balanced 12-count and may conclude that you probably don't have such a hand if you pass, similarly if you do open 1NT they may play you for a 12-count not realising that it is unlikely. If you state your NT range as 12.5-14, (12)13-14, or something similar, of course, they will be prepared for the possibility and know to ask for further detail if necessary.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2011-January-14, 05:38, said:

Again, my experience differs from Bluejak's. For example, when vulnerable, some players who declare a 12-14 notrump, are more likely to hold 14 than 12. If their opponents ask them, they will specify the subset of flat 12 counts they open when vulnerable. Also, when defenders are are trying to reconstruct your hand, they seem to find an accurate point count to be helpful.

Nevertheless, players often do talk about ranges in the way that Bluejak describes: their ranges include agreed adjustments for shape, texture, and so forth. For disclosure purposes, however, when informing opponents about HCP ranges, I think the laws should insist on the crude truth. For legal purposes, unadorned HCP is a more objective and consistent measure than any adjusted point-count. Opponents are already aware that you won't open *all* hands in the specified range. There will be additional specifications of shape and so on. These can be separately declared and opponents can ask about them.

It strikes me that your problem may (fundamentally) be a function of where you play rather than the laws.

Simply put, you seem to be surrounded by cheats, thieves, scoundrels, and incompetents.

I don’t think that any chance to the legal system is ever going to address your main problem. Change the laws and people are just going to find some new, improved way to disappoint you.