[Phil]

jonottawa, on May 18 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

I will endplay opponents at trick 1 and open 1NT even though the hand isn't quite worth it valuewise. Rightsiding>bean counting.

I'm indifferent between the actual hand and this one: kj2 / kj2 / kj7 / qj65

Right Jon, they'll be endplayed for one trick. And maybe not even then.

1N is a serious overbid. The 10's are nice, but aceless 4333 sucks.

[655321]

1♣.

I like to upgrade 14 counts, but agree this hand is really not close to 1NT.

[andy_h]

The opponent's may be endplayed on trick 1, but I'm sure at some point we'll be endplayed from our KJ's. Like other's have said, this is a pretty horrible 4333 14 count. Easy 1C.

[xcurt]

benlessard, on May 18 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Ive noticed that when you have an aceless borderline hand partner 8-9-10 counts will often have 2 Aces. So these are the hands i visualize whne deciding if i upgrade or not.

Often my rule for these hand is facing 2 A and a 5 card suit do i want to be in 3Nt. Here the answer is yes. But i really hate 4333 and for slam purpose our hand will be very disapointing. So ill open 1nt only facing a passed hand.

This is just bad math. A priori any other action from the rest of the table partner's expected number of aces is 1.33. But we will always reach game after we open 1♣ when he has 3 or 4 aces, his expected number of aces on hands where our decision matters is less. So it's a poor argument for opening 1NT.

[whereagles]

Why is everybody being so doctrinary on a hand that is obviously borderline???

As if there's only one way to look at things...

[helene_t]

It is not borderline, Nuno, whether you should accept an invite after having opened a 12-14 1NT is a more interesting question. According to the Kaplan/Rubin hand evaluator, you shouldn't. I would, though.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

It is not borderline, Nuno.

Sorry, but totally disagree. There's no way you're going to convince me these two flat 14s are worth the same

KJ10
KJ10
KJ7
Q1065

vs

KJ2
KJ2
KJ7
Q765

Most textbooks advise on upgrading 1 point balanced hands with plenty of 10s and 9s, so why should this be an exception?

Maybe you can say it's because of the lack of aces, but truth is very few (if any!) would downgrade this 15 count

KJ2
KJ2
KJ7
K765

to a 1♣ opener.

I prefer to open the original hand 1NT, but I also find 1♣ totally normal. What I don't find normal is a one-track-minded way of thinking. But then again, perhaps I'm the odd one when I belive people should think for themselves and be independent

[helene_t]

The two latest examples you give are 11.40 and 13.05 according to K&R.

K&R may not be gospel but it wouldn't occur to me to open a 15-17 1NT with your latter example. I wouldn't even call it bad judgment. I would just call it a misbid.

Nuno, you are just wrong. Everyone disagrees with you. Take the opportunity to learn something new.

[deep]

helene_t, on May 18 2009, 07:30 AM, said:

Kaplan/Rubin's Hand Evaluator is
http://www.jeffgolds...cgi-bin/knr.cgi

I went in the site that you advised of Kaplan and Rubens I make do the calculation writing the cards in matter and the result was of 18.05 and that is to say DK=15 +. It does it means I did not understood. I hope to understand because my English is poor. Ty

[helene_t]

Enter the hand as KJT KJT KJ7 QT65
(You can also use 10 instead of T, doesn't matter).

[deep]

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

Enter the hand as KJT KJT KJ7 QT65
(You can also use 10 instead of T, doesn't matter).

I did this and the result is: 18.05 and DK 15+ It does it means?

[655321]

deep, on May 19 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

Enter the hand as KJT KJT KJ7 QT65
(You can also use 10 instead of T, doesn't matter).

I did this and the result is: 18.05 and DK 15+ It does it means?

http://www.jeffgoldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.c...JT+KJT+KJ7+QT65

[deep]

655321, on May 19 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

deep, on May 19 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

Enter the hand as KJT KJT KJ7 QT65
(You can also use 10 instead of T, doesn't matter).

I did this and the result is: 18.05 and DK 15+ It does it means?

http://www.jeffgoldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.c...JT+KJT+KJ7+QT65

ok now 12.70 and 14+ but It does it means?

[helene_t]

deep, on May 19 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

655321, on May 19 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

deep, on May 19 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

Enter the hand as KJT KJT KJ7 QT65
(You can also use 10 instead of T, doesn't matter).

I did this and the result is: 18.05 and DK 15+ It does it means?

http://www.jeffgoldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.c...JT+KJT+KJ7+QT65

ok now 12.70 and 14+ but It does it means?

12.70 means that according to Kaplan/Rubins it is 12.70 points.

14+ means that according to Kleinman it is 14+ points worth.

[Phil]

deep, on May 19 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

655321, on May 19 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

deep, on May 19 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

Enter the hand as KJT KJT KJ7 QT65
(You can also use 10 instead of T, doesn't matter).

I did this and the result is: 18.05 and DK 15+ It does it means?

http://www.jeffgoldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.c...JT+KJT+KJ7+QT65

ok now 12.70 and 14+ but It does it means?

Translated:

It means this hand is a piece of dung.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Nuno, you are just wrong. Everyone disagrees with you. Take the opportunity to learn something new.

What's the matter with you? This doesn't sound like you at all.

[ninja89]

I normally play good 14 to bad 17 1NT openings, and this hand doesn't seem good enough in that context. I don't like the lack of aces and the 4333 shape. In a weak no-trump context, I wouldn't co-operate with a balanced invite, but my hand should be ok if partner shows up with some distribution, despite the fact that some of my honours will be wasted.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on May 19 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Nuno, you are just wrong. Everyone disagrees with you. Take the opportunity to learn something new.

What's the matter with you? This doesn't sound like you at all.

Maybe you should listen to her, Nuno. When the better players (aka the more experienced and more successful players) unanimously advance a certain position, an intelligent, open-minded reader should at the very least try to understand their position and consider changing his mind.

Stubbornly clinging to bad ideas is a human characteristic. It is also one of the most powerful factors preventing otherwise smart people from putting their intelligence to work for their own benefit... this is true, in my experience, in many fields, but bridge is one of the notable ones.

1N is silly, in a 15-17 framework. No Aces=downgrade. 4333=downgrade. Lots of jacks=downgrade. 10's=upgrade. This is not close... not even remotely close, I am afraid. The 4321 scale is known to overstate Jacks while seriously understating A's.... and the 10's, while nice, don't offset the presence of the latter and the absence of the former.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on May 19 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 19 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Nuno, you are just wrong. Everyone disagrees with you. Take the opportunity to learn something new.

What's the matter with you? This doesn't sound like you at all.

I agree that was out of character for her. Maybe you can look inward instead of outward to find out why? Not that I expect that to happen...

[NickRW]

mikeh, on May 21 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

1N is silly, in a 15-17 framework. No Aces=downgrade. 4333=downgrade. Lots of jacks=downgrade. 10's=upgrade. This is not close... not even remotely close, I am afraid. The 4321 scale is known to overstate Jacks while seriously understating A's.... and the 10's, while nice, don't offset the presence of the latter and the absence of the former.

While I agree that this hand is not a 15-17 1NT opener, I don't quite agree with your assessment of the 4321 system.

For suit purposes, yes, 4321 does overstate jacks (and queens) while drastically undervaluing aces.

But for NT purposes, 4321 understates 10s (even some would says 9s) and the slack should be borrowed, according the system of fifths, from the kings and queens.

I think people make the mistake (perhaps understandably given the example of pretty much all bridge literature) of trying to use one number to evaluate a hand. This works for a lot of hands that are neither particularly NT or suit oriented. This particular example, however, is fairly lousy for suit play - and actually quite good for NT play - albeit, to my mind, not quite there for a 15-17NT.

Of course, if you do ever upgrade a hand of this type (say a marginally better one), and partner bullies the contract into a suit, then he/she may be disappointed with the dummy. Equally, if you don't upgrade and later find yourself in NT (quite likely with this sort of holding of course), you could find yourself lower than you should be. But that is problem more of how one applies their system rather than hand valuation.

Nick