[diana_eva]

Would you open this 1NT? No special agreements, 15-17 assumed. Does this fall into a "just bridge judgement 1NT" for you?

---

[mgoetze]

I would open this 1NT playing with GIB, but not generally speaking with humans if indeed playing 15-17 (I prefer 14-16 anyway).

[hrothgar]

I would not treat this as a 15-17 NT

[rhm]

This one is close, but I would.

Rainer Herrmann

[neilkaz]

If I played 14+ to 17- I'd think about it but still wouldn't, but playing 15-17 I don't see this as good enough. This is a better 14 than the other hand, but not an upgrade to me.

[johnu]

If you have to open this 1NT, you should change your range to 14-16, etc so partner has a clue about your actual range.

[TMorris]

I think if you are going to play 14-17 you should just say so.

[whereagles]

Of course not.. you got a normal, straight down the middle, 14 H. The only reason to open 1NT is a desire/need to hog the hand.

[ahydra]

What's special about this hand? Pretty much nothing - no 5-card suit, no touching intermediates, no backup for the SQ... Looks just like a balanced 14 to me and I would treat it as such.

Add the SJ a couple of more useful tens, e.g. QJ7 AK102 64 A1097, and I would upgrade to a 15-17 NT.

ahydra

[ggwhiz]

No way on these colors.

I've upgraded similar spot deficient in 3rd on favorable vul to bug lho knowing it was a swing action and it only works 1/2 the time even then.

[diana_eva]

OK thanks.

This hand and the other similar poll were both opened as 1NT in a team match I played. The player who opened THIS hand (poll #1), made a comment on how bad it was for the other player to upgrade THAT hand (poll #2). I said IMO they're both bad and not worth upgrading, altho his was clearly closer and we got into a bit of an argument on hand evaluation etc.

So I wanted to check, just how close and why wd anyone upgrade in a random game.

[billw55]

diana_eva, on 2014-November-10, 12:37, said:

OK thanks.

This hand and the other similar poll were both opened as 1NT in a team match I played. The player who opened THIS hand (poll #1), made a comment on how bad it was for the other player to upgrade THAT hand (poll #2). I said IMO they're both bad and not worth upgrading, altho his was clearly closer and we got into a bit of an argument on hand evaluation etc.

So I wanted to check, just how close and why wd anyone upgrade in a random game.

Both hands are routine 14 counts. If these are regularly opened 1NT, they should disclose their range as 14 to whatever, otherwise it is a CPU.

[diana_eva]

billw55, on 2014-November-10, 15:22, said:

Both hands are routine 14 counts. If these are regularly opened 1NT, they should disclose their range as 14 to whatever, otherwise it is a CPU.

Nope the context is different. The hands were opened by two different players, in two random partnerships - no disclosure issues. When they upgraded they did so without partner knowing their 15-17 1NT can look like that. That's why I posted, if two separate people considered these to be worth upgrading maybe I need to fine tune my hand evaluation skills.

[Vampyr]

johnu, on 2014-November-10, 11:18, said:

If you have to open this 1NT, you should change your range to 14-16, etc so partner has a clue about your actual range.

You mean the opponents.

[mikestar13]

On the knife edge, but no upgrade--switch the ♦T and the ♠7 or 8 and I would.

[BillPatch]

This hand has 14.7 Kaplan and Rubens points. For balanced hands, are roughly comparable in number to the 40 hcp per 52 card hand. pluses that make this a very good hand for 14 HCP: Surplus Ace; 3 quick tricks, a surplus of over 1/2 qt from normal 14 hcp hand,86% of high card strength in the 2 long suits, good placement of 9 with j and higher honor. Neutral factor: only slightly greater than average intermediate spot cards for a hand with this many honors. Negative factor: bad 10 placement. Positive factor not measured in Kaplan and Rubens points: majority of cards in majors.

Reason for aggressive upgrading: Our side is vulnerable. At IMPS vulnerable we gain 10 imps if game is bid and made and they underbid, and lose only 6 imps if we bid to game, and they bid a trick short and both sides make 8 tricks, From this math at the scoring table all authorities agree that games should be bid more aggressively vulnerable than not. Sorry Ggwhiz, your argument for upgrading more NV for third seat preempting fourth is unsound. Strong NTs are for efficient game bidding, not preemption. Thomas Andrews, a major bridge simulator and the author of the free Bridge dealing program Deal, has derived from simulation that game should be bid on average vulnerable at IMPS with 24 hcp between the side when both partners hold balanced hands; versus the 25 hcp generally held necessary not vulnerable when we want a minimum 50% shot at game.

I am my friend Hermann, another fellow simulator, joined me in selecting the upgrade on this hand. It feels much better only being outvoted 13 to 1 rather than 26 to 1.

I am glad that none of my fellow BBO forum members upgraded the other 14 HCP hand. It had sterile distribution and few pluses. I think it is only worth 14.0 Kaplan and Rubens points at most. No where near 15.

[BillPatch]

Both vulnerable at IMPS is the hour for the Hideous Hog!

[the hog]

No. There is no reason to.

[mikeh]

late to the thread. I think this one is quite close. We have 5 controls, and only 1 Queen and 1 Jack, This is a significantly above average honour distribution. In addition, and this is a powerful factor, partner is a passed hand and he will almost never invite game after I rebid 1N, even on hands where 9 tricks are pretty good, especially after an uninformative auction.

Having said that, I would need another 10. The problem is that the 10 we own is likely not very useful. It isn't worthless, but I'd want another 10 somewhere else.

[chasetb]

Initially I voted (a close) No, but I have changed my vote to a Yes, for three reasons. One, it makes rebidding easier over 1♣ - 1♠. I feel that I'll choose the wrong thing to do between raising on 3 and rebidding 1NT with a Max and partner passing with many hands that have great play for game. Two, I am eating up space so the opponents can't make a cheap overcall to find a good contract or lead not otherwise found. Three, if we have the values for 3NT but no Major suit fit, I want to guard the ♠Qxx because I expect a Spade lead.

Only a true hand hog or a person looking for a swing might try 1NT on your second hand. It has nothing to redeem it, and I agree with Mike that it's only worth 13.