[dcohio]

Playing 15-17 1NT, is this worthy of an upgrade in 1st seat?

Scoring: MP

---

[pooltuna]

dcohio, on Dec 4 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

Playing 15-17 1NT, is this worthy of an upgrade in 1st seat?

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ A9 ♥ A83 ♦ QT94 ♣ AT53

depends on how well you play 3NT with

---

[andy_h]

pooltuna, on Dec 5 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

depends on how well you play 3NT with

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ KQ32 ♥ Q954 ♦ 52 ♣ Q82 ♠ A9 ♥ A83 ♦ QT94 ♣ AT53

Pooltuna, either that is a hand from another thread which I have somehow missed, or your post is one of the most random ones ever.

As for OP, I would open 1m whichever one is systemic.

[gnasher]

I would upgrade it. If partner happens to raise to game on a misfitting pipless 9-count, I'll probably go down.

[kenrexford]

Definite upgrade for me.

14 HCP.

6 controls (K=1, A=2). 6X(3.33)=20. 20-14(HCP)=6. 0-1.66[+/-0], 2-5.66[+/-1, 6-8.66(+/-2) means +2.

14+2 = 16-count.

Add in not 4-3-3-3, two 10's, both 10's in tenaces, one 10 supported by a 9, and I really like this hand. Almost a maximum 1NT opening, in a sense.

BTW -- the "end up in 3NT" hand is silly. 9-count. One control. 1X3.33 = 3.33. 9-3.33 = 5.67. So, -1, but almost -2. Only upside is not 4-3-3-3. No 10's. So, that Responder's hand is arguably downgraded to a terrible 8-count, using this same logic, and possibly even to a 7-count.

IMO, it is inconsistent to upgrade but not to downgrade.

[aguahombre]

Keep good notes on all your upgrades and downgrades for NT openings. You might need them when they try to take away your conventional responses ---claiming a 5 or six point range has become your actual agreement.

This one is close, though. Please pass me another ten.

[mikeh]

I wouldn't upgrade...8 of my 14 hcp are in my short suits. Aces are great, but they are better, for notrump purposes, in one's source of tricks. These aren't.

But it is close...I would upgrade it in 3rd chair (I like upgrading in 3rd chair for its preemptive value).

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on Dec 4 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

Keep good notes on all your upgrades and downgrades for NT openings. You might need them when they try to take away your conventional responses ---claiming a 5 or six point range has become your actual agreement.

This one is close, though. Please pass me another ten.

Actually, a five-point range is OK.

If you move 15-17 to 14-17, that's well within parameters.

You can easily add in one more level (14-18 or 13-17), depending on which occurs more often (downgrade 1 point or upgrade 2).

That may seem easy. However, length upgrades seem to be quite frequent, and there are few compelling reasons to insist on a lack-of-length downgrade. Plus, a lack-of-length downgrade mitigates against a "short honor" scenario and increases the chances of stray 10's arguing against the high-end downgrade. That, and the fact that 13-counts occur more frequently than 18-counts.

My gut tells me that the "bad 18" downgrade is less likely than the "great 13 upgrade," but I'm not sure.

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on Dec 4 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

I would upgrade it.  If partner happens to raise to game on a misfitting pipless 9-count, I'll probably go down.

hardly random, guess I required too much foresight, nonetheless I do not think the hand is worth an upgrade change the hand to

---

and I might upgrade

EDIT: this was initially in response to Andy

[whereagles]

No upgrade. Scattered honors and no trick source.

[ArtK78]

I would not upgrade this hand. To me, the hand is unremarkable. If you upgrade this hand to a 1NT opening, then you are, in effect, playing a 14-17 1NT opening.

For what it is worth, I ran the hand through the Kaplan-Rubens Hand Evaluator and the Kleinman Hand Evaluator. Surprisingly enough, the K&R evaluates the hand as worth 15 HCP and the Kleinman evaluates the hand as worth 15+ HCP.

Interestingly enough, the hand that pooltuna suggested - 43 A83 AQT9 AT95 - evaluates as 16.7 HCP by K&R and 16 HCP by Kleinman. While this hand is certainly better than the OP hand, I think the K&R valuation is overstated.

So, there is certainly room for disagreement.

[kfay]

If my ♦Q were with my clubs I think it's ok.

No upgrade as is.

[skjaeran]

No upgrade for me. It takes more than this for me to upgrade with no 5-card suit.

[kenrexford]

Because people play 1NT ranges of just about anything imaginable, there is never a "wrong" answer, IMO. Rather, perhaps the best idea is to discuss a few examples with partner.

In the end, anyone claiming to play "15-17" 1NT, or "14+ to 17-" or any such other garbage definition, unless applying strict Works, plays some minute range of such-and-such minimum to such-and-such maximum, with the difference, for example, between Person A's minimum and Person B's minimum being maybe a 9 in some specified location.

IMO, it is more important to have a formula or manner of expressing your reasons than any specific reasons, so that partner can visualize what you have.

I don't, for instance, have a "what I think" definition, which is really hard for partners to guess in a specific situation (God help anyone who tries to figure out that mystical question). Rather, I have a formula that seems to work. The "3 and a third" mathematics, adjusted for 4333 or for 5-card or longer suits, and confirmed against body (10's and 9's and locations of the same). I think any partner, whether liking my analysis or not, could fairly easily reconstruct my analysis and guess whether I would or wouldn't, and that's fairly important.

[Jlall]

I would not, and in general am a pretty huge fan of not upgrading except with the nuts in MP. In USA almost everyone plays strong NT so I can stay with the field by not upgrading and hope to find an edge later on where it's less random and more certain. I also don't want to end up in a thin game that requires good play or whatever to make since I'll be freerolling myself in a negative way (if I make I get the same very good board I would have got had I not been in game and mad it, but if I go down I get a zero instead of an average or maybe even average plus).

I suppose if half the field played weak NT and half strong or whatever it would be different since I couldn't stay with the field, but I also do not view this hand as strong enough for an upgrade in general.

[benlessard]

Unless i need to play agianst the field I dont see any need to upgrade here. I dont have a 5 card suit and rebidding 1Nt is not a costly underbid.

[ONEferBRID]

A "garbage definition" I ran across sometime ago ( upgrade A and K; downgrade Q and J ):
A = 4.5
K = 3.25
Q = 1.75
J = 0.5

3 x 4.5 = 13.5
..........plus 1.75

= 15.25

[nigel_k]

I agree with Justin's comments about the field. Just bid to the normal contract and try to gain a trick in the play.

It isn't surprising that K/R upgrades this, because it uses 6421 and you have aces. But actually 4321 is more accurate than 6421 for NT bidding. It's more likely by not upgrading you miss a good 4H game, eg opposite xxx KQxxx KJx xx, than you miss a good 3NT opposite a balanced hand.

However at IMPs I would still upgrade. While 6421 overbids hands with aces, my computer simulations put the 'correct' values at something like 4.4-2.8-1.6-0.8-0.4 which adds to 15.6 on the hand. The short aces are a slight downgrade but the tens are both in long suits and the 9 is also well placed.

Remember also that a K/R score of 15 is equivalent to the playing strength to an average 15 HCP hand, not an average 15 HCP *balanced* hand. So a 15 rating is actually significantly better than the lower limit of a 15-17 NT.