[camilleln]

If your NT range is 15-17 but you make deductions for 4333 hands by subtracting a HCP or adding a HCP with a 5 card suit, does ACBL want the alert be the actual HCP or the adjusted number? i.e. 14-17 or 15-17

[Mbodell]

If you really bid 1nt with every balanced/semi-balanced 14 point hand with a 5 card suit then I think you should not say 15-17. Saying 14-17 can be misleading too if many 14 don't open. A number of people solve this by saying something like 14+-17.

[akwoo]

I would prefer to hear 'good 14 to very bad 18'. I have definitely misdefended because I assumed a 1N opener announced 15-17 actually had 15 and therefore played for partner to have some highly unlikely entry instead of an ace.

[Trinidad]

This is one of the downsides of announcements.

If I would be asked for an explanation, I would simply explain: "15-17, but we add a point for a five card suit and subtract one for a 4333". But when you are announcing, you are supposed to state a HCP range, even though virtually nobody plays a strict HCP range. This means that you have to say: "15-17" or perhaps "good 14 to bad 18" which inevitable suggests that it is the whole story when it isn't.

Rik

[WellSpyder]

How about "15-17 including adjustments for distribution"? This shouldn't take too long, and gives oppo a chance to ask about your rules for distributional adjustments if and when they want to.

[blackshoe]

I don't remember how the EBU regulation is worded, but the way the ACBL regulation is worded, there's only one proper form for an announcement. In the case of NT openings, it's "state the range" and nothing else. So while you can make up your own form for the announcement (as many people do) technically you're wrong if you do.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-26, 02:27, said:

But when you are announcing, you are supposed to state a HCP range, even though virtually nobody plays a strict HCP range. This means that you have to say: "15-17" or perhaps "good 14 to bad 18" which inevitable suggests that it is the whole story when it isn't.

I don't see why it suggests anything of the sort. If virtually nobody plays a strict HCP range, then virtually everybody understands that the HCP range doesn't tell the whole story in their own announcements. So why should they expect opponents' announcements to be any different?

[blackshoe]

They shouldn't. But they do. People don't think.

[helene_t]

WellSpyder, on 2015-January-26, 05:03, said:

How about "15-17 including adjustments for distribution"? This shouldn't take too long, and gives oppo a chance to ask about your rules for distributional adjustments if and when they want to.

I don't think that you have to announce whether you play strict walrus points, or adjust for 4333(-) and 5332(+), or add half a point for two tens (and subtract half a point for zero tens) or whatever. "Points" is a hand strength scale on which an average balanced hand has ten points but exactly how you count them is not something you disclose unless opps ask for it. Maybe you should if you do something that is very weird (like Vienna or Banzai or ZAR points), but I wouldn't wory about minor adjustments, especially if it is something feel-based which is difficult to explain and may not be fully understood by partner.

What you should disclose is a biased use of a scale, i.e. if a balanced hand with 15 walrus points will sometimes evaluate to 16 but (almost) never to 14.

BTW, it is not so that opps need to know your exact minimum strength with three decimal points. It is more about making sure that they know whether they play their weak-NT defense or their strong-NT defense.

[mycroft]

Well, it would be *nice* to know if they Walrus or not in their NT ranges...

But I agree, it isn't necessary, at least in announcements. I'd rather be "lied to" with 15-17 when there are some "14s that look like 15" than "lied to" with 14+ to 17 (or good 14-17) when only "14s that look like 15" are upgraded. Of course if asked about style, "15-17" isn't appropriate if that's not what they do.

I did get asked that last tournament: "They announced 15-17, and dummy looks like this" to which I replied "Looks like 15 to me" (it was something like KQx xx KQTxx Axx) and the whole table understood. If they hadn't understood, I would have explained completely, of course.

[barmar]

With my regular partner we play Mexican 2♦, and describe it as "18 to bad 20". When people ask "What's a bad 20?", my usual response is that it's a 19 count, i.e. this range essentially just prohibits us from upgrading 19 counts to 2NT openers.

I think he did once open a 21 count with 2♦, though. He never explained why, maybe he just miscounted.