[Cyberyeti]

2nd seat, NS vulnerable, teams

---

We were playing a 12-15 1N in a strong club context, so the alternatives were to open 1N or open 1♣ (16+). If you open 1♣ partner will GF with any 8. If you open 1N, limited experience shows partner will invite with an average or maybe a fraction above 10.

What do you think gives you best odds of a sensible result ?

[Douglas43]

I am very reluctant to downgrade hands when vulnerable at teams, so 1♣. At pairs I might well downgrade to 1NT.

[Cyberyeti]

 Douglas43, on 2021-February-27, 03:45, said:

I am very reluctant to downgrade hands when vulnerable at teams, so 1♣. At pairs I might well downgrade to 1NT.

I looked at this hand (which partner held) and thought "is this a 16 count, looks more like 15 to me", K&R says 14.9, so not sure if it's even a downgrade.

[LBengtsson]

you have 16 high card points with two tenaces and three and a half controls. k&r is best used for suit contracts. with one hand passed i would not downgrade. so 1♣ at teams or mps

[shyams]

Open 1♣ with an intention to show the NT-type hand via the next bid.

[mikeh]

If you downgrade this hand, then you are not playing the system that you describe

5 controls!

I recall reading meckwell’s WBF CC back in 1999, and their notes said that they frequently upgrade and rarely downgrade. They were, at that time, pretty clearly the best pair in the world. Now, none of us here play our cards as well as they played them back then (I don’t mean to say that they’ve become bad declarers but they’re not as young as they used to be, and I don’t think many would still see them as the best pair in the world).

Yes, partner will force to game with an 8 count, and 16 opposite 8 is borderline. But this is why a lot of big club players play 14-16 1N such that 1C shows 16+ if one has shape and 17+ if balanced.

You have chosen to play a method that dooms you to bid inferior games when both partners are minimum and balanced. However, the solution is to change your agreements rather than lie to the opponents.

Imagine defending after 1N leads to 3N. One counts out the hand and decide that if opener has 14-15 hcp, partner ‘must’ have a specific card....we play for it...opener has it and we let a game through.

We ask...didnt you have a 16 count with 2Aces, and a king? We’re told....oh...we don’t open 1C with balanced 16s unless we think it’s a good 16.

I know I’d be calling for the TD, seeking a procedural penalty for you deliberately misleading your opps by misdescribing your agreements.

So ethically your choices are to open 1C or change your CC to describe 1N as 12 to a bad 16 (not that I think this is a bad 16...it’s not a good one, either, but it has no QJ tight or Qx or KQ tight, etc, and it has at least the average number of controls for a flat 16)

[Douglas43]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-27, 03:55, said:

I looked at this hand (which partner held) and thought "is this a 16 count, looks more like 15 to me", K&R says 14.9, so not sure if it's even a downgrade.

For me it comes down to the maths of IMP scoring which make a less than 40% chance of success plenty to justify bidding game when vulnerable. I mainly play pairs, but the one thing I know about teams is "bid vulnerable games". Mind you, I go down a lot. Maybe that should be "bid vulnerable games and make them?"

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2021-February-27, 06:42, said:

If you downgrade this hand, then you are not playing the system that you describe

5 controls!

I recall reading meckwell’s WBF CC back in 1999, and their notes said that they frequently upgrade and rarely downgrade. They were, at that time, pretty clearly the best pair in the world. Now, none of us here play our cards as well as they played them back then (I don’t mean to say that they’ve become bad declarers but they’re not as young as they used to be, and I don’t think many would still see them as the best pair in the world).

Yes, partner will force to game with an 8 count, and 16 opposite 8 is borderline. But this is why a lot of big club players play 14-16 1N such that 1C shows 16+ if one has shape and 17+ if balanced.

You have chosen to play a method that dooms you to bid inferior games when both partners are minimum and balanced. However, the solution is to change your agreements rather than lie to the opponents.

Imagine defending after 1N leads to 3N. One counts out the hand and decide that if opener has 14-15 hcp, partner ‘must’ have a specific card....we play for it...opener has it and we let a game through.

We ask...didnt you have a 16 count with 2Aces, and a king? We’re told....oh...we don’t open 1C with balanced 16s unless we think it’s a good 16.

I know I’d be calling for the TD, seeking a procedural penalty for you deliberately misleading your opps by misdescribing your agreements.

So ethically your choices are to open 1C or change your CC to describe 1N as 12 to a bad 16 (not that I think this is a bad 16...it’s not a good one, either, but it has no QJ tight or Qx or KQ tight, etc, and it has at least the average number of controls for a flat 16)

I respectfully disagree with your comments. I simply don't see this as a 16 count, no touching honours, no intermediates worthy of the name, 4333 shape. I saw the hand as a 15 count not 16, there are plenty of balanced 14s that are better than this hand (AKQ10x, xxx, xx, AJ10 for example which is pretty close to what I actually held opposite it).

I'd be interested to see a sim opposite a minimum ish balanced hand say 8-10 (4333/4432/5332) without any 10 count having 2 10s or one and a 5 card suit to see how often game makes.

[DavidKok]

The crux is that the hand does have 16 points, no matter your personal opinion of its playing strength (and, most importantly, no matter if you're right or not). If your system card claims you open those with 1♣, and you decide not to, your opponents are entitled to this sort of information. I'm not familiar enough with the rules but I think the normal explanation 'Points Schmoints, we can deviate by one or two based on our judgment' is not allowed precisely because a Precision 1♣ is artificial.

[Cyberyeti]

 DavidKok, on 2021-February-27, 07:53, said:

The crux is that the hand does have 16 points, no matter your personal opinion of its playing strength (and, most importantly, no matter if you're right or not). If your system card claims you open those with 1♣, and you decide not to, your opponents are entitled to this sort of information. I'm not familiar enough with the rules but I think the normal explanation 'Points Schmoints, we can deviate by one or two based on our judgment' is not allowed precisely because a Precision 1♣ is artificial.

In the EBU there were rules about upgrading to but not downgrading from strong bids as far as I remember.

It's usually understood that a 12-14 NT means "hands you evaluate as 12-14" so the odd 11 count and 15 count may creep in, if it's more than occasional or you only ever upgrade and never downgrade, you should refer to that on the card. This is essentially the same situation, do you assess it as 12-15 or 16-18.

[mikeh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-27, 07:18, said:

I respectfully disagree with your comments. I simply don't see this as a 16 count, no touching honours, no intermediates worthy of the name, 4333 shape. I saw the hand as a 15 count not 16, there are plenty of balanced 14s that are better than this hand (AKQ10x, xxx, xx, AJ10 for example which is pretty close to what I actually held opposite it).

I'd be interested to see a sim opposite a minimum ish balanced hand say 8-10 (4333/4432/5332) without any 10 count having 2 10s or one and a 5 card suit to see how often game makes.

You misunderstand me. From a bridge perspective, if you routinely downgrade this into a 12-15 1N, you need to change your cc announcement or at the very least ensure that every time you open 1N, partner announces something like ‘12-15, but we often downgrade 16 counts’

Otherwise you and your partner have a concealed agreement to that effect, assuming that you consider downgrading this to be normal.

I’m not arguing with your view that this is a poor 16 count. I’m not arguing that it would be a bridge mistake to open a 12-15 1N with this hand. As it happens, I do disagree with your views, but that truly isn’t my concern. My concern is that you and your partner, if he knows you think this way (and if you do this twice, he’s deemed to know) are misleading your opponents in a potentially damaging way.

This may be a below average 16 count, but so what? Put 12-16- as your range. Don’t put 12-15 when you actually play 12-16.

Of course, the real issue is that you see your system as unplayable if you comply with your announcements, but don’t want to change your system, so you get around it by misleading your opponents. I do NOT suggest that you are intending to mislead. I fully accept that you think that you are exercising bridge judgement but I’d be extremely annoyed if I ‘misdefended’ based on your concealed partnership agreement and I doubt I’m alone in that.

[Douglas43]

Local rules may vary between England and Canada and Netherlands. My position (playing 12-14 which includes 11+ nv and 15- at pairs) is almost exactly as described by Cyberyeti above. It is on my EBU convention card and explained to opponents online. That's allowed under EBU regs, but I appreciate that ACBL and NBB might differ.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2021-February-27, 08:56, said:

You misunderstand me. From a bridge perspective, if you routinely downgrade this into a 12-15 1N, you need to change your cc announcement or at the very least ensure that every time you open 1N, partner announces something like ‘12-15, but we often downgrade 16 counts’

Otherwise you and your partner have a concealed agreement to that effect, assuming that you consider downgrading this to be normal.

I’m not arguing with your view that this is a poor 16 count. I’m not arguing that it would be a bridge mistake to open a 12-15 1N with this hand. As it happens, I do disagree with your views, but that truly isn’t my concern. My concern is that you and your partner, if he knows you think this way (and if you do this twice, he’s deemed to know) are misleading your opponents in a potentially damaging way.

This may be a below average 16 count, but so what? Put 12-16- as your range. Don’t put 12-15 when you actually play 12-16.

Of course, the real issue is that you see your system as unplayable if you comply with your announcements, but don’t want to change your system, so you get around it by misleading your opponents. I do NOT suggest that you are intending to mislead. I fully accept that you think that you are exercising bridge judgement but I’d be extremely annoyed if I ‘misdefended’ based on your concealed partnership agreement and I doubt I’m alone in that.

I think this is the first hand I would even consider downgrading in this partnership, I would estimate we've probably played around 4-500 boards and I don't think we've upgraded from 1N-1♣ either, we may have upgraded once from pass-1N.

It's an evaluation thing, I view it as a not great 15 count and I really don't downgrade often. If I was playing 14-16 and partner raised to 2N, I would probably pass at pairs, and might well pass NV at teams.

[Tramticket]

To answer Cyberyeti's original question, no I wouldn't downgrade. It's not a great 16, but not bad enough to downgrade and I don't think K&R valuation work well for balanced hands.

But if someone chooses to downgrade, I think it is a reasonable judgment. I think that comments suggesting that a downgrade is unethical are wide of the mark. There seems to be attitude amongst Strong No Trumpers that upgrading regularly is normal, but downgrading is not. In my opinion the alert / cc are fair if upgrading and downgrading occurs with similar frequencies.

[DavidKok]

 Douglas43, on 2021-February-27, 08:59, said:

Local rules may vary between England and Canada and Netherlands. My position (playing 12-14 which includes 11+ nv and 15- at pairs) is almost exactly as described by Cyberyeti above. It is on my EBU convention card and explained to opponents online. That's allowed under EBU regs, but I appreciate that ACBL and NBB might differ.

I think the agreement is perfectly legal, but making unannounced adjustments of artificial bids is not. But again, I could be wrong.

[mikestar13]

I don't think K&R is accurate for flat hands. My personal evaluation is based on Danny Kleinman with modifications, so I rate this hand a bad 16. 1♣ is my choice. BTW, when we played 12-15 1NT in Precision, we required 9HCP or "rule of 17" for a positive response--we responded 1♦ with a flat 8.

[jillybean]

 mikeh, on 2021-February-27, 08:56, said:

Of course, the real issue is that you see your system as unplayable if you comply with your announcements, but don’t want to change your system, so you get around it by misleading your opponents. I do NOT suggest that you are intending to mislead. I fully accept that you think that you are exercising bridge judgement but I’d be extremely annoyed if I ‘misdefended’ based on your concealed partnership agreement and I doubt I’m alone in that.

I play a 12-14 (10-12 3rd seat NV) but at times will open a "good" 11 count. I have had a niggling feeling that we should be disclosing this.
"12-14 but we do open some 11 counts?" or simply 11-14?

[DavidKok]

The former is (in my opinion) better, as the latter can be interpreted as "we open all balanced 11-counts with 1NT". Some people write "11⁺-14".

[blackshoe]

 mikeh, on 2021-February-27, 08:56, said:

You misunderstand me. From a bridge perspective, if you routinely downgrade this into a 12-15 1N, you need to change your cc announcement or at the very least ensure that every time you open 1N, partner announces something like ‘12-15, but we often downgrade 16 counts’

Otherwise you and your partner have a concealed agreement to that effect, assuming that you consider downgrading this to be normal.

You may not have meant it this way, but "this" refers to this specific hand. I would always downgrade this specific hand, evaluating it as fifteen starting points. But that is only one of 635 billion possible hands (fewer if you consider only balanced hands). That I would always downgrade it does not make downgrading *this* hand a partnership understanding that I would routinely downgrade a significant number of 16 counts, although I might in fact do that. If I do, and partner is aware that I do, that understanding is disclosable. But we need to avoid the all too common "you downgraded this one hand, so you have a partnership understanding that must be disclosed". That's not necessarily true.