[rogerclee]

dwar0123, I would like to address two of your points

Quote

you are misrepresenting your hand and getting payed off by the opponents playing as if you had a hand that fits a nt bid. Thus they underbid and/or defend passively. Where if they know you open hands like this 1nt they might be more inclined to defend aggressively and/or punish you.

I think this is a common fallacy. My 1N opening bid does not show a 14 count with a 6 card minor. If you would truly like the entire list of hands that I would open 1N with, in roughly decreasing order of probability, it is:

-Any "balanced hand" with no singletons or two doubletons and 15 to a non-amazing 17 points, including a 5 card major
-Often, a good hand with 14 points and lots of intermediates and a 5 card suit
-Often, a hand with 22(54) shape and 14-16 points, depending on my hand
-Often, a hand with a 6 card minor and 322 in the other suits, 14-16 points, depending on my hand
-Occasionally, a hand with a stiff Q or K, a 5 card minor, and 4-3 in the other two suits (edit, thanks Phil)
-Occasionally, a very bad hand with 18 points
-Occasionally, a remarkable hand with a 6 card minor and 322 in the other suits, 13 points
-A tactical bid/psyche

Notice that the kinds of hands you are talking about only make up a small percentage of the time I would open 1NT. If you want to completely change your style to cater to the less than 5% chance I may be "goofing around", that is okay, but I doubt you will find it is very effective. My point is that even if whenever I opened 1NT, my partner listed this entire set of possibilities, I would be very surprised if any of my opponents would think it necessary to bid in a completely different way.

Quote

Saying that you consider 13 points(with an unguarded queen and jack) to be worth a good 14 just sounds like a rationalization. I realize you have a 6 card running suit, thus if you get in you make 1nt, but a 1nt bid is telling the world you have a flat 15-17 count, not a running 6 card suit with 3 unstopped side suits.

As to the first part of your sentence, since I would accept a NT invite with Qx Txx AKQJxx Qx, I do not see why I cannot possibly think Jx Txx AKQJxx Qx is "worth" a good 14 points. I suppose if you forced me to assign a number to it, I would say "about 14", but part of bridge is bidding tactically, and I do not see why we should not apply that element to opening bids.

Is opening 1S with KQJxx ATxx xxx x a "psyche" to you also in first seat, playing a standard 2/1 style? I would always open this hand, not because I consider it worth 12 points, but because I think it is tactically sound and that I will do better in the long run to open this kind of hand. If you do not object to the second example, I do not think you should object to the first.

[dwar0123]

Phil, on 2012-January-25, 16:05, said:

From the ACBL website:

Fine, it doesn't meet the legal definition of a psyche, just the literal definition. You win an irrelevant point.

[mike777]

Phil, on 2012-January-25, 16:05, said:

From the ACBL website:

my guess is the question is what do you need to tell the opp if you open nt offshape often.


Lets call a 'general' definition of offshape as:

(24)(52)
22(54)

or

a 6 or 7 card minor with no stiff or void.

often meaning enough that pard is not shocked or considers your bid as that unusual.

[mikeh]

dwar0123, on 2012-January-25, 16:01, said:

I apologize for my ignorance, I thought that an undisclosed understanding would fall under the realm of unauthorized information. If miss information is a better term I stand corrected.

A psyche is misinformation.

Here is a bridge definition
Psychic bids, psychs, psyches...these are bids made in an attempt to achieve a good score by misleading the opponents into taking losing actions in the bidding and/or play.

As that is one of the main reasons he bid's 1nt with these types of hands, I would call it a pysche. As it is an understood part of their system, it is systematic and undisclosed. Saying good 14 does not describe with enough clarity a 6 card running suit with 3 unstopped side suits. You need to actually say he will open this with a 6 card running suit and nothing else to meet full disclosure.

While you and I have raised similar concerns, there are some important differences between us. it is completely normal to allow upgrades. I have often opened 1n with 14 counts that in my view were undervalued by the 4321 count....a decent 5 card suit, some 10's, hands with A's and K's rather than Q's and J's for example.....and I truly see no reason why I should pre-alert this or why it means I shouldn't use 15-17 on my card....I stress that most balanced 14 counts are NOT opened 1N.

So I don't have a problem, in terms of disclosure, with this particular hand....it does have 14 hcp...it does have a semblance of a stopper in 2 side suits. My concern was that roger was suggesting that he would happily do it with weaker hands with effectively nothing on the side....upgrading by 2 or 3 hcp.....and my view was and is that this isn't upgrading...this is tactical bidding, which is something quite different, at least as I see it. Nothing wrong with that either, except now we have undisclosed agreements.....which may or may not place the opps at a disadvantage, depending on their experience level.

I would never rule against 1N on this hand, but xx 10xx AKQJxx Qx would get me ruling against Roger should there be no disclosure and there be evidence that this is systemically appropriate for his partnership (and I think we all know that he and his partners would never deny this were it the case).

[Phil]

Clee needs to add in "occasionally a 1345 / 3145/ 1453, etc.."

[dwar0123]

rogerclee, on 2012-January-25, 16:11, said:

dwar0123, I would like to address two of your points

I think this is a common fallacy. My 1N opening bid does not show a 14 count with a 6 card minor. If you would truly like the entire list of hands that I would open 1N with, in roughly decreasing order of probability, it is:

I understood that you open 1nt with a wide range of hands; that it includes hands with 12-13 points and a running 6 card suit is what concerns me.

Quote

As to the first part of your sentence, since I would accept a NT invite with Qx Txx AKQJxx Qx, I do not see why I cannot possibly think Jx Txx AKQJxx Qx is "worth" a good 14 points. I suppose if you forced me to assign a number to it, I would say "about 14", but part of bridge is bidding tactically, and I do not see why we should not apply that element to opening bids.

I appreciate that a 6 card running suit is worth more then 10 points, especially if you get in early. My issue isn't with hand evaluation as much as with the opening of this shape with the intent to mislead the opponents.

Quote

Is opening 1S with KQJxx ATxx xxx x a "psyche" to you also in first seat, playing a standard 2/1 style? I would always open this hand, not because I consider it worth 12 points, but because I think it is tactically sound and that I will do better in the long run to open this kind of hand. If you do not object to the second example, I do not think you should object to the first.

No, it is merely light, but it is not misleading the opponents about the playing strength of your hand. It is spades. Opening 1nt shows a balanced 15-17 count, not a distributional 12 count with a lot of trick taking power but no defensive power.

To many of the others, I wouldn't open the OP hand 1nt and if it happened against me I wouldn't call the director. My issue isn't the OP hand but Roger's suggestion he would open 1nt with even worse hands, as low as a 12 count.

[mgoetze]

Hi Roger,

rogerclee, on 2012-January-25, 13:55, said:

I am very comfortable saying that I know without a doubt that it is better to open 1N than 1D on hands like this. It's not even a matter of opinion/style, opening 1D is an extremely losing style.

does it matter at all what sort of 1♦ opening you have? Specifically, would you consider it closer if your 1♦ opening promised 5 diamonds?

[rogerclee]

mgoetze, on 2012-January-25, 18:08, said:

Hi Roger,

does it matter at all what sort of 1♦ opening you have? Specifically, would you consider it closer if your 1♦ opening promised 5 diamonds?

I love opening 1N so much on this handtype that I doubt it, but I have never played a style where a 1D opener showed 5, so it is hard for me to say that with any certainty. It seems that the main advantage to showing 1D is 5+ is that partner can be more aggressive with 3 card support. Since, if I open 1D, I am planning to compete to the 3 level in diamonds anyway if possible, I don't think there is a huge difference in this case.

[MrAce]

Roger just wrote everything i believe about opening 1NT style, but much better than i cld possibly express. As well as the off shapes that Phil mentioned.

[JLOGIC]

You only have 14 points though, and 1N shows 15-17

[dwar0123]

JLOGIC, on 2012-January-26, 03:23, said:

You only have 14 points though, and 1N shows 15-17

I know you are being ironic, but really, it wasn't about the 14 point hand OP posted but the 12 point hand roger described later on.

[Phil]

Early nomination for POTY.

[Phil]

Sorry, TOTY.

[Fluffy]

this popularity contest is becoming an spam on good threads

[Flem72]

rogerclee, on 2012-January-25, 13:55, said:

I am very comfortable saying that I know without a doubt that it is better to open 1N than 1D on hands like this. It's not even a matter of opinion/style, opening 1D is an extremely losing style.

Agree completely. Even though he's not a Flem.

When I was first playing duplicate, Meyer Schleiffer (sp) used to open these patterns 1N all the time, even 12-14s, even with a 7 card minor.

A winning action.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[vuroth]

Huge thanks to mikeh and clee for clearly expressing their viewpoints. I've always been pretty stodgy/old fashioned in my NT ranges, but this was food for though.

Also lol@jlol

[awm]

I do think there's a disclosure issue here, and would tend to call a director (to record a psych) if someone disclosed "14+ to 17" and opened 1NT on a thirteen like this one.

It's often the case that the offensive and defensive valuations of hands are quite different, especially when you have shape. On this sort of hand, the offensive trick taking potential surely falls in the "15-17" range... yet the defensive value is terrible. Traditionally a 1NT opening has shown defensive value as well as offensive; this is similar to opening 2♣ strong on (say) nine solid spades and out. Once again, you are offensively strong enough for the opening but expect to provide little to no defense. These sorts of openings benefit in two major ways: (1) they get you to game contracts that might be hard to bid otherwise (2) they fool opponents into thinking you have defense, and keep them out of the auction. One major problem is that (3) partner may double the opponents' contract for penalty based in part on your presumed defense (especially at MP where aggressive penalty doubles often pay), only to find it icy cold. People who open this way frequently often have an undisclosed understanding with partner that no defense is promised, allowing them to get the benefit of (2) without the downside of (3).

The other issue is that people's hand evaluation can differ. There are some players in the LA area (not Roger) whom I've played against extensively. My strong impression is that the most common high card point total for their 1NT (disclosed as 15-17) opening is 14, with 13 being a close second place. They upgrade virtually any 14 with a five card suit and virtually any 13 6m-(332), as well as some 14s that have "nice spots" or "aces rather than queens"... or just any 14 "because it's MP NV." There is always a semi-reasonable explanation for the upgrade... but I can't believe that a 1NT opening that is most frequently 14 hcp (and sometimes 12 or 13 with no defense at all) should be routinely disclosed as "15-17" without there being an issue. Yet if no one ever reports these "minor deviations" how can evidence ever accumulate?

[MrAce]

awm, on 2012-January-26, 20:07, said:

I do think there's a disclosure issue here, and would tend to call a director (to record a psych) if someone disclosed "14+ to 17" and opened 1NT on a thirteen like this one.

It's often the case that the offensive and defensive valuations of hands are quite different, especially when you have shape. On this sort of hand, the offensive trick taking potential surely falls in the "15-17" range... yet the defensive value is terrible. Traditionally a 1NT opening has shown defensive value as well as offensive; this is similar to opening 2♣ strong on (say) nine solid spades and out. Once again, you are offensively strong enough for the opening but expect to provide little to no defense. These sorts of openings benefit in two major ways: (1) they get you to game contracts that might be hard to bid otherwise (2) they fool opponents into thinking you have defense, and keep them out of the auction. One major problem is that (3) partner may double the opponents' contract for penalty based in part on your presumed defense (especially at MP where aggressive penalty doubles often pay), only to find it icy cold. People who open this way frequently often have an undisclosed understanding with partner that no defense is promised, allowing them to get the benefit of (2) without the downside of (3).

The other issue is that people's hand evaluation can differ. There are some players in the LA area (not Roger) whom I've played against extensively. My strong impression is that the most common high card point total for their 1NT (disclosed as 15-17) opening is 14, with 13 being a close second place. They upgrade virtually any 14 with a five card suit and virtually any 13 6m-(332), as well as some 14s that have "nice spots" or "aces rather than queens"... or just any 14 "because it's MP NV." There is always a semi-reasonable explanation for the upgrade... but I can't believe that a 1NT opening that is most frequently 14 hcp (and sometimes 12 or 13 with no defense at all) should be routinely disclosed as "15-17" without there being an issue. Yet if no one ever reports these "minor deviations" how can evidence ever accumulate?

I took a break from Bridge close to 9 years and started again playing in BBO where the alerts were not really a big concern at table games which i play most besides GIB duplicate. Reading what u just wrote, it is very hard to disagree with what you said, especially if i played live/competitive bridge frequently.

[quiddity]

awm, on 2012-January-26, 20:07, said:

People who open this way frequently often have an undisclosed understanding with partner that no defense is promised, allowing them to get the benefit of (2) without the downside of (3).
...
They upgrade... virtually any 13 6m-(332)

Does this style work for them? It seems terrible.

[Phil]

awm, on 2012-January-26, 20:07, said:

Yet if no one ever reports these "minor deviations" how can evidence ever accumulate?

I think the hard evidence for these types of unconcealed agreements is to see how they regularly respond with 8-9 counts.

Axxx xx KJTx xxx....and see if they pass "because its MPs?"