[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-May-17, 11:35, said:

1NT ("good 11-14", and didn't that help our score over December when it was "Alert")

I remain in favour of Announcements of opening bids, but only if they are rigidly worded and very simple. A good regulation requires "11-14" and then anything else should be an infraction.

mycroft, on 2023-May-17, 11:35, said:

If they still didn't get it, and went on the "just say 'Transfer'" kick again, we let them off the hook and said "it's not a transfer."(</Arnie>) That almost always got a "oh, then what is it?" :-)

My favourite gripe is with those who (usually with no real reason to ask in the first place) will put an explanation in your mouth ("both minors 5-5?").
I can't help smiling, but maybe this is naive as they do tend to score better than their bridge merits for some reason.

[Gilithin]

pescetom, on 2023-May-17, 14:59, said:

I remain in favour of Announcements of opening bids, but only if they are rigidly worded and very simple. A good regulation requires "11-14" and then anything else should be an infraction.

If my partner and I play 12-14 but also 11s that I feel like upgrading, then "11 to 14" would be misinformation. Similarly "12 to 14" might cause a Director call when the defence are upset that I only have 12. Your rigid wording needs to address such issues in a way that announcing "Good 11 to 14" does.

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2023-May-17, 15:39, said:

If my partner and I play 12-14 but also 11s that I feel like upgrading, then "11 to 14" would be misinformation. Similarly "12 to 14" might cause a Director call when the defence are upset that I only have 12. Your rigid wording needs to address such issues in a way that announcing "Good 11 to 14" does.

Your RA will determine how this is dealt with: some seem to find upgrading half a point a world changer, others not, I tend towards the latter FWIW. I would certainly rather have just two numbers than people adding adjectives and disclaimers audible to their partner when and if they see fit.
My own agreement is that many 5M332 including most spades will upgrade: that is clearly written on my system card, the RA can decide whether my 1NT is announced as 15-17 or 14-16 or 14-17 (I do the latter in absence of precise indications).

[blackshoe]

Are half of all 11 counts "good" 11 counts? Are half of them "bad" 11 counts? Is there some middle ground where the 11 count is neither good nor bad? How large is that middle ground? Is it symmetrical about the center of "11 count"? What constitutes "half a point"?

The ACBL Alert regulation includes an example regarding 1NT openings that says "A 1NT Opening Bid that generally shows 12-14 HCP, but is frequently opened with 11 HCP: Announce “Good Eleven to Fourteen.”" What is the definition of "frequently"? My dictionary says "regularly, habitually; often". This is not really helpful, since if you open an announced 12-14 once with 11 points, your opponent is going to think you are cheating, and at least some directors will go along with him.

If it's half the 11 counts, then "frequently" probably fits (though it would be nice if the regulation made us sure it fits), but I'm not so sure half of all 11 counts are "good".

[mycroft]

Okay, "12-14". People need to know when I say that to ask "what 11s do you open"? Because with one partner, it's "A A K or noteworthy 5-card minor"; with another, it's "A A K or connected honours in long suits"; with another, it's "11s that don't look like 10s". With another yet, it's "if I do, I'm 100% responsible for the result."

Okay, at least one of those should be "11-14"? Now, people need to know when I say that, to ask "what 11s do you not open?" Same deal. And, of course, they should be asking "so, what 10s do you open?" in case I'm one of those weirdos, right?

A common agreement here for strong NTs is "good 14 to flat 17". basically "14.5 to 16.5". How are they supposed to "simply" Announce this? 14-17 is a lie (on both ends). 14-16 is a lie - which will get called on when the 4333 17 shows up (or when 1NT is rebid on the 2434 14 with honours in the short suits). 15-17 gets us back to the original problem - "what 14s do you open?" (viz the current expert "14-16", which "everybody knows" includes a bunch of - maybe half of - 13s).

Not saying you don't have a point, but "simple" HCP doesn't cut it for ranges. What the qualifiers should mean, however, or what you should be able to assume without qualifiers, really needs to be spelled out, rather than relying on people's opinions of their own ranges.

Which I have iterated to ACBLCC on more than one occasion. It seems to be of lower priority than other things.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-May-18, 10:27, said:

Okay, "12-14". People need to know when I say that to ask "what 11s do you open"? Because with one partner, it's "A A K or noteworthy 5-card minor"; with another, it's "A A K or connected honours in long suits"; with another, it's "11s that don't look like 10s". With another yet, it's "if I do, I'm 100% responsible for the result."

Okay, at least one of those should be "11-14"? Now, people need to know when I say that, to ask "what 11s do you not open?" Same deal. And, of course, they should be asking "so, what 10s do you open?" in case I'm one of those weirdos, right?

A common agreement here for strong NTs is "good 14 to flat 17". basically "14.5 to 16.5". How are they supposed to "simply" Announce this? 14-17 is a lie (on both ends). 14-16 is a lie - which will get called on when the 4333 17 shows up (or when 1NT is rebid on the 2434 14 with honours in the short suits). 15-17 gets us back to the original problem - "what 14s do you open?" (viz the current expert "14-16", which "everybody knows" includes a bunch of - maybe half of - 13s).

Not saying you don't have a point, but "simple" HCP doesn't cut it for ranges. What the qualifiers should mean, however, or what you should be able to assume without qualifiers, really needs to be spelled out, rather than relying on people's opinions of their own ranges.

Which I have iterated to ACBLCC on more than one occasion. It seems to be of lower priority than other things.

I could (easily) live with the simplest possible answer to blackshoe's questions, namely that if we announce "12-14" then less than 50% of 11s are in range, more than 50% of 12s and 14s are in range and less than 50% of 15s are in range. So the effective range could be as wide as 11.6 to 15.4 or as narrow as 12.4 to 13.6. Does that change the life of opponents? Yes, but not as much as other detail, at any rate. How can it be controlled - do we ask this about other agreements? It is open to statistical verification with electronic play, for what that's worth.

This heated concern about NT range disclosure seems to be a North American thing (as is maybe the related problem: I have some pretty unruly players, but none that would announce 12 yet open any 11). There are many other details of agreements - including details of NT agreements such as singletons, 5-4, six/seven card suits etc. - that attract more attention than upgrading around here, perhaps rightly so. And of course announcing them is a recipe for disaster.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2023-May-18, 10:27, said:

Okay, "12-14". People need to know when I say that to ask "what 11s do you open"?

The problem with questions like that is that many people don't have any specific rules. They look at the hand and decide whether they feel that it's "good".

Playing 15-17, my partner recently upgraded a 14 count. After we went down in whatever we ended up in, I told him I thought his 4333 hand had nothing extra that warranted the upgrade. He pointed out that it had several 10's and 9's, and I countered that they didn't make up for the Jxx.

There are many other factors that can influence you, like state of the match and your impression of the opponents.

So expecting a useful answer to a question like that seems unrealistic. It would be like asking someone to describe all the hands they'll go to game with after a single raise of their major opening.

[mycroft]

Okay, if that's all you know, tell me that.

Or tell me what percentage of 11s (14s, 13s) get upgraded in your memory.

Because "oh we don't know, we've never really discussed it" is - as correct as it always is.

But if we had guidance from the C&CC as to what the words you should use in Announcements are, and what those words mean, then not only could we know how to announce ourselves, understand the opponents when they do, and know that the table is talking the same language, it would also trigger some of those thoughts in some of those "just a feeling" pairs so that they would know to be able to explain.

Of course, these are the same people who hit the "but you have to give me a point count" button when our (carefully decided, and codified) 3♣ Bergen raise to a Precision 1♠ is described as "4 spades, go on a Goren opener" (and 3♦ as "4 spades, go if you would have opened 1♣ if you knew about the spade fit"). But "we don't know, we just 'look at the hand and decide if it's good'" (or better yet, "any Flight A player would see this one is 15").

[mycroft]

I don't even mind PesceTom's idea (okay, I hate it. But it's still better) because at least I know what the Announcement means.

Of course, I have to ask to work out between the "11-14"s that are 11.4-14.1 and the "11-14"s that are "10.7-13.7", or the "12-15"s that are "12-14, but we downgrade flat 15s because..." and the "12-15"s that are "Precision, 1♦ shows 4, all balanced 12-15s are opened 1NT".

I mean, sure, we should be able to work that out from basic system, but still.