[skjaeran]

Mr. Dodgy, on May 31 2007, 10:06 AM, said:

I voted easy 17, but I don't think is a good 17.

skaeran, on May 31 2007, 02:45 AM, said:

Playing a method where you bid a strong four card sidesuit when super accepting, I'd rebid 2♠ over a transfer to ♥'s and 3♥ over a transfer to ♠'s.

Wow. I play this, but didn't think anyone else did. Most seem to like cuebidding or shortness trials here in my experience. However, assuming that a 2♥ bid the transfer to ♠s, I would rebid 2NT over it - superaccepting in NT shows the suit bid by responder in my system. Is this poor?

I don't play this myself, but know people who do (Brogeland-Sælensminde among them). They play 2NT as a max with 4c support and no strong side suit, AFAIK.

If you don't superaccept without a maximum, your method should be superior, since it's spacesaving.

[bid_em_up]

BillHiggin, on May 29 2007, 03:37 PM, said:

Perhaps the real question:
A player has opened 1N with this hand (announced range being less than 15-17) and the opponents have hollered "MI".
Both the 1N bidder and his partner state that the hand qualifies for their range (we will get to that shortly), so it is clearly not a case of "missed that queen".
I would assume that if their posted range were 14-16, none of us would give any further consideration to the MI issue.
How about if it were 13-15?
12-14?
11-13?
Only after your ruling can you invite this pair to your high stakes set game.

♠AKTx ♥KQxx ♦QJ ♣QTx

To me, this hand falls somewhere in between 16-18. 17 looks about right. The QJ of diamonds is a slight minus, but if partner holds one honor, they will carry their full weight.

The hand has both majors. If partner has either major we can practically superaccept.

The hand has 4 cards less than a 10. I don't know what the x's are, but if they are higher than a 7, I consider it a plus as well. Having Q108 of clubs will be more useful than having Q102 sometimes.

I would consider this hand appropriate for any 1N opening range with a lower limit of 14. I could even agree (or not disagree) with treating it as 18 intending to open 1m and rebid 2N or 3M (over partners 1M response).

Anything under 13-15 is pushing it, but I could be convinced a pair would discount the QJ♦ and consider it to be a "really good" 15. I wouldnt, but somebody else might Opening this hand on a 12-14 or less NT range, would be a gross distortion to me.

ZT = Zero Tolerance. You can't call your opponents idiots, at least not to their face.

[bid_em_up]

kenrexford, on May 29 2007, 03:47 PM, said:

For misinformation purposes -- "shut up idiots" would be my TD ruling, except for ZT.

This is a problem with "HCP" as a term, though, in all seriousness. I have run into this problem repeatedly. A hand often "looks like" a specified range, despite not technically being within that range under the "don't re-evaluate" analysis.

Thus, I once defined 1NT as "looks like 15-17, but some hands in the 13-18 range fit within our meaning." I'd offer explanation if desired. Same with 2NT, even worse. I'd define this as "looks like 20-21, but hands that qualify could reach as low as 17 and as high as 23."

I see the problem on this one. 17 raw. -1 or -2 for the poor control count, probably -2 for the Q-J tight. Add maybe +1 for the two tens. Gets me to "looks like" 16, with flexibility to re-think after more of an auction. I might fudge to 16 or 17 depending upon tactics (what do I want to open?) with your range. So, covered.

But, the "MI" might be in not explaining that you "count weird." Not poor counting techniques, perhaps, but weird to someone who calls the TD for this slight discrepancy.

Ken, would you feel the same way, if the announced range was 10-12? 11-13?

I think the question being asked is, when does it change from "Shut up idiots" for complaining about the misinformation to "Hmm, there might be a problem here".

[kenrexford]

bid_em_up, on May 31 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 29 2007, 03:47 PM, said:

For misinformation purposes -- "shut up idiots" would be my TD ruling, except for ZT.

This is a problem with "HCP" as a term, though, in all seriousness.  I have run into this problem repeatedly.  A hand often "looks like" a specified range, despite not technically being within that range under the "don't re-evaluate" analysis.

Thus, I once defined 1NT as "looks like 15-17, but some hands in the 13-18 range fit within our meaning."  I'd offer explanation if desired.  Same with 2NT, even worse.  I'd define this as "looks like 20-21, but hands that qualify could reach as low as 17 and as high as 23."

I see the problem on this one.  17 raw.  -1 or -2 for the poor control count, probably -2 for the Q-J tight.  Add maybe +1 for the two tens.  Gets me to "looks like" 16, with flexibility to re-think after more of an auction.  I might fudge to 16 or 17 depending upon tactics (what do I want to open?) with your range.  So, covered.

But, the "MI" might be in not explaining that you "count weird."  Not poor counting techniques, perhaps, but weird to someone who calls the TD for this slight discrepancy.

Ken, would you feel the same way, if the announced range was 10-12? 11-13?

I think the question being asked is, when does it change from "Shut up idiots" for complaining about the misinformation to "Hmm, there might be a problem here".

When I wrote this, I thought the problem was 14-16 bidding this way.

If the range was say 13-15, this seems odd.

If 12-14, the person has lost his mind.

I would not particularly care, unless his partner was fielding this. If the opener just decided to be weird for some reason, good on him.