Hand Evaluation
There have been several threads recently about the precise definition of playing tricks or losers etc.
However hands are evaluated, there are various schemes for optional adjustments. This includes the normal point count where points may be added or subtracted for length or shortage.
So if a call is described by the opposition as 8 losers I'm not 100% sure of its meaning. But then the same is true when my partner makes such a call!
The thing that most worries me is the 1NT call which in our system we announce as 12-14.
What it actually means is 12-14, or 11 with a couple of well supported tens, or 15 downgraded by 4333 shape..... . It means 12-14 after possible adjustments.
Is this considered acceptable?
However hands are evaluated, there are various schemes for optional adjustments. This includes the normal point count where points may be added or subtracted for length or shortage.
So if a call is described by the opposition as 8 losers I'm not 100% sure of its meaning. But then the same is true when my partner makes such a call!
The thing that most worries me is the 1NT call which in our system we announce as 12-14.
What it actually means is 12-14, or 11 with a couple of well supported tens, or 15 downgraded by 4333 shape..... . It means 12-14 after possible adjustments.
Is this considered acceptable?
Alan
Comments
In short NO! in the EBU high card points are defined according to Milton C Work and no allowance is made for upgrading. See 5B of the Blue Book (below)
5 B High Card Points (HCP) and Controls
HCP are a method of valuing honour strength. An Ace is worth 4 HCP, a King 3 HCP, a Queen 2 HCP and a Jack 1 HCP. There are thus 40 HCP in total in any one deal.
An Ace is counted as two controls and a King one. There are 12 controls in any one deal.
There is absolutely no problem in announcing 1NT as 'a good 11 to a poor 15 High Card Points' however as there no stipulation as to the maximum range of a 1NT call - even in Level 2 competitions. (This isn't quite within EBU guidelines where you just announce the point range but since opponents are entitled to full partnership agreements, I think it is fairer).
6 C 2 An opening 1NT must be non-forcing. It may show any agreed range with at least 10 HCP, with no singleton or void and no 7-card suit. - level 2
(i) Natural, non-forcing with a continuous defined range. A ‘natural’ 1NT opening has no more than nine cards in two suits, no void, and does not have seven hearts or seven spades. The range must be the same when holding a singleton - level 4 - other options are available but don't apply here.
If I was declarer and having heard "1NT' called by opponents as "12 - 14" and then worked out the position of a certain card as a result - and it turned out to be incorrect, I could call the director under law 47E (misinformation)
That's not how I read it. I see section 4 as independent of sections 5 and 6, which are about something different.
4E1 is very precise. I could say 12-14 or 11-15 and I see the former as more truthful than the latter. If I have to do anything differently then I read the Blue Book as saying that I should probably alert.
To me this is ridiculous for what is fairly standard practice.
(Those who know me will know that I am not a great fan of anything in the Blue Book.)
Alan
Well unfortunately in EBU events we have to go by it. I am sure the EBU would appreciate suitable suggestions about hand evaluation (preferably in a document shorter than "War and Peace") - I understand there was a lot of discussion before the current definition of 'strong' was accepted and as you can see from this thread, problems arise in other bidding sequences.
I fail to see how you can say that sections "5 and 6" are independent of section 4 - sections 5 and 6 tell you what is allowed and section 4 tells you how to tell the opponents so they know what you are playing (and that it is allowed).
I would also beg to differ - but I am 100% certain that under EBU definitions "12 - 14" is significantly less truthful than "11-15". if you continue to just say "12-14" then I suspect that, if called, the director would rule that you had a concealed partnership understanding (CPU).
14 The standard score adjustment for a CPU/red psyche is AVE+/AVE− with an additional standard penalty; the penalty can be higher, see §1.4.4.
White Book. - which would mean 60%/15% under the new penalties. (Yes I know that CPUs usually occur under psyching, but they are not limited to them)
And the answer is simple - just announce 1NT as '11-15'. I am pretty sure that the decision whether to open 1NT or not on a particular hand is a matter of style. (Again the law isn't clear - I take it as meaning that if asked then you have to say that you won't open 1NT on rubbish 11 counts, nor on reasonable/ good 15 counts. It appears that you don't have to mention this when announcing 1NT as "11-15" - and indeed it may fall under the knowledge generally available to bridge players, but ethically I would.)
This of course is my own interpretation.
Any hand bid with 11 or 15 would be a variation, rather than a psych?
So it would not be a CPU unless they have methods to cope with the outliers.
I play 20 to 22 for 2NT but seldom open 1 of a suit, or 2NT with a bad 23 or good 19. When i say seldom, perhaps only 3 or 4 times ever.
I am sure i read somewhere that within a king of the agreement is just a tweek and not a psych?
When my partner opens 1NT I treat it as a hand worth 12-14. I have no way to find out if it's an upgraded 11 or downgraded 15 and I don't want to know. It's the same with a response of 2NT over 1NT - This may be 11 points or a downgraded 12. I don't care which.
Alan
It would be - if the agreement was '12-14' then opening with 11 or 15 would be a deviation - but the actual agreement is '11 + two tens to 14, or 15 if 4-3-3-3'. The point is - if you deviate by up to a King then partner must have no more idea that you have done so than the opponents.
I have to disagree - if only because I said something different in print.
The first answer in the first 'Ask Robin' column (October 2017)
Frances Hinden gave me a fuller answer, discussing what proportion of 11 HCP hands you could agree to open and still disclose as "12 14" but it did not make the edit.
The Blue Book says to announce the range, it does not say the range is (strict) HCP.
I note 5A3... Any method of hand Evaluation.
I used the modified points system as recommended by Mr Bridge and widely understood.
Alan
"Frances Hinden gave me a fuller answer, discussing what proportion of 11 HCP hands you could agree to open and still disclose as "12 14""
That would be interesting. It's a discussion I often find myself having.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
As a rough guess from my memories of the last few months I think the chance of downgrading 15 points to an opening 1NT is about 5% or less. Upgrading 11 points is more like 1%.
Alan
A partnership may define the strength of a hand using any method of hand evaluation that will be understood easily by its opponents (High Card Points (HCP), Playing tricks, Losing Trick Count, etc).
However you must explain to the opponents the method of hand evaluation. So I would agree that
"12 -14 points including tens as half a point and deducting a point for a 4-3-3-3 distribution" would be adequate.
Or maybe I should open 1NT as showing 18- 25 points - and then omit to tell opponents that I am using a 7-5-3-2-1 scale? (which is just as easily understood).
What you say would only be a partial description and in any case is not allowed as an announcement.
I will stick with 12-14.
Alan
Most people who don't stick religiously to the "Miltons" will have a tendency to upgrade more often than to downgrade (or vice versa). One of my partners upgrades a lot (playing a nominal 12-14 he opens quite a lot of 11-counts 1NT, especially NV. Rather fewer 14-counts he upgrades to a 1NT rebid. I probably upgrade rather less than he does even when I play with him. We announce "good 11-14".
Whilst I think that it is sensible to allow (as per Robin's post) a bit of upgrading or downgrading without changing the announcement of your basic range, if you feel that you upgrade or downgrade frequently enough that opponents might be misled by a straight announcement of your nominal range, I would prefer something along the lines of "12-14-ish". That implies that you might upgrade or downgrade and allows the opposition to ask if they want to know the detailed tendencies, without having to make a more cumbersome announcement when 94%(ish) of the time you will actually have 12-14 Miltons.
I am sure that in 99+% of cases that will be adequate.
But what will you say when someone says
"You said 12-14 but your partner only had 11"?
What do you think might happen when you say "Well actually we have an agreement to upgrade good 11 HCP hands to 12"?
Probably best to have your method of hand evaluation on your convention card under "Points opponents should note" - "We count tens as 1/2 point in NT hand evaluation".
At the London Easter festival, the player who said something like this explained to the TD that he had read something in English Bridge. The TD then asked me what I had written in English Bridge. :)
I can't remember what I wrote (I can't even remember that I wrote it, but Robin has a better memory than I).
The announcement should be the best description of your methods. If you basically play 12-14 but open some 11s and some 15s then announce it as "12-14".
If your opponents are strong enough to take your upgrading/downgrading propensities into account, they should ask. Announcing as "11-15" is deceptive because it implies you open (virtually) all 11s and 15s.
I would open Q109 A109 109 AJ1098 as a 12-14 1NT and not think that I was playing "11-15"
In my opinion, 'normal bridge' would be to upgrade maybe 10-30% of 11 counts and downgrade 5-10% of 15 counts
Those playing "good 11-14" would open 40-50% of 11 counts
I'm rather surprised that you put those figures so high. But perhaps that's why you're a better player than I am. :/
As I replied earlier (I think the post has been modified and my comments deleted) this description is not complete and it's not an option.
The only choices are to announce as 12-14 or alert. I cannot add words to the announcement.
I will stick with 12-14, which I believe to be accurate, valid and acceptable.
I presume the last paragraph is an attempt at sarcasm. ¦)
Alan
I can't think that anyone would have modified or deleted your comments - I certainly haven't.
I wonder why you say "The only choices are to announce as 12-14 or alert. I cannot add words to the announcement." I don't think either the Blue Book or the White Book are that prescriptive. They certainly tell you to add words to the 1NT announcement if it may contain a singleton, or to a "may be short" announcement if it may contain an outside five-card suit.
Sorry my comments about modifying and deleting were because I hadn't noticed half a dozen more comments.
I take 4E1 to mean exactly what it says - as for everything about announcements. Players are NOT allowed to deviate from the precise wording specified. If the announcement is not considered sufficient the only option is to alert.
I still think it is vague as to what the numbers mean in 4E1. There is a sort of implication that 5B is relevant but it doesn't say so. The Blue Book is far from being consistent or comprehensable.
Alan
Thanks, Frances. I use very slightly lower figures when I am asked to quantify my opinion, but we are in the same ball park!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Alan, it seems from what you have written that you are correct to announce "12 to 14". However, I know nothing of the words of Mr Bridge about this, and if it really is the case that you additionally count half a point for tens, then the probability of you having two or more tens in your hand is somewhere in the order of 67 times out of 256 or about 26% of the time, so you'd still be just about ok with "12-14" though my view is that you wouldn't be too far off announcing "Good 11 to 14". And I don't think BB 4E1 prevents such an announcement.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Everyone has missed the.... in my original post to show a considerable over simplification. I wouldn't always count a half point for a ten. I might upgrade for a five card suit. My evaluation is always more than a rigid point count. I couldn't describe it succinctly in an announcement.
We will have to disagree about 4E1, which I interpret to mean what it says even if the EBU would like it to mean something else.
If I heard someone say 'Good 11 to 14', I would tell them not to use such an expression. The Announcing rules forbid it.
Alan
I think "forbid" is an overbid. The Blue Book requires various agreements are announced, and gives the form of words to be used, but does not expressly forbid embellishments.
The Laws and Ethics committee recognise that announcements are made in different words from what is expressly required. This is an inevitable consequence of requiring players to use natural language.
What is important, in my opinion:
1. Announcements are only made for bids where the regulations require an announcement [corrected]
2. Announcements are short and clear
3. Announcements are not misleading
4. Opponents recognise that announcements (and alerts) are not a complete description of the agreement and the opponents should take the announcement/alert as a cue to ask for more information.
In other words: the truth (1. + 2.), nothing but the truth (3.) but not necessarily the whole truth (4.)
Now you are confusing me. The announcement of 12-14 is not when the regulations require an alert. Before we had announcements I would never have alerted 1NT
Alan
I imagine that, if challenged on this, you would be hard-pressed to show them such a prohibition.
For those who see announcements as a helpful way to have agreements disclosed, I imagine most would welcome any attempt to increase the accuracy of that disclosure.
To me the wording is crystal clear. It tells you exactly what words to use in an announcement and any deviation from the exact wording is prohibited.
Whether people might welcome any change is hardly relevant.
Alan
In my previous post I wrote "alert" when I meant "announcement", since corrected.
It says: "Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, e.g. by saying “12 to 14”."
So no, it doesn't tell you the exact wording, unless you are going to argue that everyone has to say "12 to 14" regardless of their range! If you have an agreed range that is not accurately described by integers I think you should say what it is.
Earlier you said that the alternative is to alert the 1NT range. But that possibility does not exist in the wording of the regulation, for natural 1NT openings.
I am working from 4B1b that says if it's not announceable it may be alertable.
Alan