[DavidKok]

Thanks, so 14-18 is safe.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-08, 02:52, said:

I think such a 5 point range is illegal in ACBLand, for the record.

Legal in ACBLand, as blackshoe pointed out above.

Legal in EBUland too (they allow any continuous range, oddly enough considering how uptight they are about strength in general).

Illegal in FIGBland (max 4 point range).

[thepossum]

I wouldn't want a 5 point range. Top is heading into 2NT territory

EDIT - correct me if I am wrong but that could be 1 or 2 tricks

[thepossum]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-08, 02:52, said:

I think such a 5 point range is illegal in ACBLand, for the record. And the point is that you properly disclose your range. If your range is "15-17, but we bunch some rare 14-counts and 18-counts in there", possibly with a specified list of conditions, that is your range. You should not claim to play 14-18, or 15-17, or anything else. I'm not sure why you would claim it is "14-18" when it is not.

I'm not suggesting keeping the 15-17 but moving some rare hands into/out of the range based on evaluation. I was suggesting shifting the range - including a host of 14-counts, say, and excluding a host of 17-counts. Regardless of what you choose to play you have to accurately disclose it.

I think this is the worst way to go about it. This will make you an unreliable bidder. You force your partner to choose between frequent total guesses or attempting to mastermind your actions. Having a light or aggressive opening style is very profitable and I highly recommend it, but this "vague approach" sounds awful to me. It is a major goal of the bidding to cooperate with partner to find the best contract. In my opinion the best approach is to sit down with your partner and discuss in what situations you'd like to take a non-conventional action, and then attempt to make those part of your bidding system. Incidentally it also helps with disclosing them. I am not at all confident that "I have a vague approach to 1NT" is sufficient disclosure.

I try to bid according to the strength of my hand - which hopefully is reliable
My disclosure stated occasionally bid on the light side

Occasionally I will be so unreliable and have a similarly unreliable partner who gets me to 6NT with 30 points which I think is more fun for all at the table

I think you would find me remarkably and disappointingly disciplined in most serious bridge

But I will always make every endeavour to bid my hand accurately according to strength and shape (most of the time)

I strive more than most to find an accurate bid, often struggling against systems - what would be the point in doing otherwise

Can you not write on your card. Occasional light openings, especially at favourable vulnerability etc General approach. I have hardly ever strayed into very light but it does happen very rarely

But I have bigger concerns at the moment. As I was writing this I noticed white smoke coming from somewhere in the vicinity of my laptop

[mycroft]

Whether or not it matches the games around the ACBL charts, "exceptional 14 to aceless flat 18" is a perfectly good description.

Having said that, I reiterate that "judgement is allowed" (with the caveats in the convention charts, if you're ACBL. They don't want disallowed agreements "sneaking in" under judgement, and yeah, there are unintended consequences deemed acceptable) and only Walruses (and people who have been nailed by the CCs on their own pet convention) are going to complain about a 14-count with ♦AKT85 opened a "15-17" NT.

Cue my "please provide a *useful* set of guidelines for Announcing NT ranges that give a good, standard idea of 'how often you upgrade', Señores C&CC" rant - again.

In answer to OP, the way standard systems have been built, the times not to open a 15-17 1NT is when you don't have a 15-17 point balanced hand. Whether it's right on this hand (or even this category of hands) or not, the damage to the rest of the system caused by having to cater to those hands in the 1-suit openings is much higher. You could build a system where the damage is less. But many people have tried this (well, they "had conditions" in the Goren, etc. days) and it hasn't worked as well. There is always a perfect system for *this* hand; the problem to solve in bidding is how to make the "closer-to-perfect" system for *all* hands. And that's a very interesting problem.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-January-09, 10:20, said:

Having said that, I reiterate that "judgement is allowed" (with the caveats in the convention charts, if you're ACBL. They don't want disallowed agreements "sneaking in" under judgement, and yeah, there are unintended consequences deemed acceptable) and only Walruses (and people who have been nailed by the CCs on their own pet convention) are going to complain about a 14-count with ♦AKT85 opened a "15-17" NT.

ACBL sometimes seems a long way away from here, where we have lots of problems both real and self-invented, but nobody (player or TD or the janitor's dog) is going to complain about a 14-count with ♦AKT85 opened a "15-17" NT. If anything, maybe they should grumble when I open a "15 17" NT with ♠A7 ♥KQJT ♦AKT85 ♣43, but that never even crosses their radar either.

mycroft, on 2023-January-09, 10:20, said:

Cue my "please provide a *useful* set of guidelines for Announcing NT ranges that give a good, standard idea of 'how often you upgrade', Señores C&CC" rant - again.

In answer to OP, the way standard systems have been built, the times not to open a 15-17 1NT is when you don't have a 15-17 point balanced hand.

First, please define the possible declensions of balanced, and let us choose within. That is one third of the problem, which most RAs have now addressed (guiltily or not) but remains the origin of most arguments, at least around here.

Second, please define what "minimum" and "maximum" mean, because they cannot reasonably be simply yes/no integers: hrothgar in the past has suggested we should see a frequency distribution for the pair, which would be ideal for skilled pairs playing online: but even f2f we have to have some criterium (I could live with announcements with half point ranges indicating that at the limits <30% of hands meeting description will bid differently, or whatever).

Third, please define how we should announce, which is the area that sees most varied solutions. FWIW I'm not a fan of letting people "describe" their agreement in a freely or flexibly worded announcement, which could easily be self-serving. A range of two numbers (with or without half points) seems optimal.