[BillHiggin]

---

[jdonn]

1 2 3.... I count 17

Even thinking about it 'deeper', the tens seem to sort of cancel the QJ doubleton so I would still consider it 17.

[cherdano]

QJ is bad but not so horrible in NT. AKTx is very nice, and both KQxx and QTx are decent, too.

[FrancesHinden]

Is this a 15-17 1NT opening? Yes
If partner invites, is it an accept? Yes, on the basis that if the QJ doubleton are not working we are probably off in two...

[Halo]

I count 17 in total.

[pclayton]

16.5 - is that an option?

[han]

I think it is a poor 17 but not very poor.

[BillHiggin]

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.

[kenrexford]

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.

[jdonn]

If the range was even 14-16 I'd be a little skeptical but just let it go, since there is nothing I could do about it anyway and there is some chance they are telling the truth. If it was 13-15 or less I simply don't believe them, but if they are telling the truth then simply announcing 13-15 is not adequate if this hand qualifies for them.

[awm]

Well you can count HCP by adding up 1 point for jack, 2 for queen, etc. If the number you get by this naive calculation lands in the stated range, then complaining about disclosure is ridiculous. I'd be inclined to give a procedural penalty for such (he opened a 15-17 NT with a balanced 17 HCP and you accuse his partnership of MI? isn't that like an accusation of cheating?)

In general if the hand is within a point of the stated range and the bidder can give some reasonable explanation of why they thought the hand was good or bad for its points (i.e. I have a good five card suit so I thought this 14 was worth 15, or I have 4333 shape and no aces so I thought this 18 was only worth 17) then that's fine.

If the "naive count" is off by two points or more, or if the bidder can't explain why they thought this hand was an upgrade (or a downgrade) in an intelligent way, then I'd either rule it a psych (which is fine if done infrequently) or tell the folks in question that they need to describe their range differently.

[han]

If they play 14-16 then there is no problem. If they play 13-15 then something really strange is going on. Weaker I can't even imagine.

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on May 29 2007, 10:47 PM, said:

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

Not sure what ZT means but besides that, I agree. Usually I have little sympathy for misinformation complaints but I've rarely heard something as absurd as this. Change the ♠T to ♠J and my response would be the same. Change it to ♠Q and there might be an issue.

FWIW, I agree with Han - a bad 17 but not very bad.

Edit: sorry, I misread "less than 15-17" as "15-17". It's still ok to evaluate this one as 16, but if it where one HCP stronger there might be an issue.

[Codo]

BillHiggin, on May 30 2007, 01:26 AM, said:

---

I would rate this hand with 16 HCPs. so I had no problems with a 14-16 NT range.
If they play a weaker NT, there explanation was wrong.In this case they should announce: 13-15 but be well in the 11-17 HCP Range, we don´t stick too close to HCPs.

And with a weaker NT there could be a case for misinformation. Normally not in the bidding, but if you play against 1 (or 3) NT and declarer showed 14 HCPS already you "know", that he cannot posses another high card and will misdefend. Then MI could be a case.

[foo]

BillHiggin, on May 29 2007, 11:26 AM, said:

♠AKTx♥KQxx♦QJ♣QTx

17 HCP
K&R (AKTx KQxx QJ KTx) = 17.60
Danny Kleinman= 18

IOW, this is a =good= 17 by at least two fairly well respected metrics.

[nige1]

IMO of the following 17 counts...

[A] ♠ KQJ ♥ KQJ ♦ QJx ♣ Qxxx is awful.

[B] ♠ Qxxx ♥ Jxxx ♦ KQ ♣ AKQ is bad.

[C] ♠ AKTx ♥ KQxx ♦ QJ ♣ QTx is good.

[D] ♠ AT9x ♥ KQJ9 ♦ AK9 ♣ Tx is too strong fir a 15-17 1NT.

[ochinko]

Looks like 17 pts if I know we're going to end up in a NT contract.

On the other hand I won't superaccept a transfer to major, but I will accept any invitation.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

17HCP, did I miscount?

Sure, there are better ones out there,
but if I take the LTC as a 2nd guide,
I get 6 looser, which fits fairly well
with the expected 6 looser opposite
a strong NT, and I will have 3 cover
cards for partner, no matter which suit
he intends to play.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[skjaeran]

For NT purposes, this is a good 17 IMO.

If partner transfers to ♠'s, the ♠T devalues. Normally, one of the side suit holdings devalues too, while the other two gains value - according to partners (at this time unknown) shape.

Mostly the same happens if partner transfers to ♥'s.

I'd always superaccept if partner transfers to a major here. My agreements is to bid 3M with minimum and 3x with a weak doubleton. Here I'd bid 2NT over a major suit transfer - I won't treat ♦QJ as a weak doubleton.

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.

[Mr. Dodgy]

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?