[broze]

Some hands are worth much less than their HCP count would suggest, but in today's game you seldom see the pros downgrading their NT openers. Is there anything to be gained by doing this in either form of scoring or is it just passive bridge?

For example, these are two recent hands I played that considered downgrading. Would you downgrade any of these hands to be opened 1NT playing a 15-17 HCP range? Does your answer change from IMPs to MPs?


1) W/W, 2nd

---

2) R/R, 2nd

---

[blackshoe]

At either form of scoring, I would open both of these 1♣, not downgrading. If I were going to downgrade either one, it would be the first, but... no, not doing that.

[Antrax]

This is a good question. What does an 18-count have to look like to get opened 1NT?

[Bbradley62]

---

[mgoetze]

 Antrax, on 2012-April-15, 07:19, said:

This is a good question. What does an 18-count have to look like to get opened 1NT?

Well it probably shouldn't have 2 aces.

[EricK]

The second hand is not even close to a downgrade, IMO. The first hand is close, but not close enough. Replace the ♥T and ♣9 with small spots, and make the ♠ KQx instead of AJx, and I'd probably downgrade.

[lalldonn]

Neither hand is close to a downgrade. They both have a ten connected to a jack. If you are going to downgrade, there should be literally nothing good about the hand in context I would say.

[mgoetze]

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-15, 08:54, said:

Neither hand is close to a downgrade. They both have a ten connected to a jack.

Indeed if the hand were

---

we might be talking about whether to upgrade!

[lalldonn]

Yeah lol I mean to be honest I thought when I first read this that these hands are at least as close to an upgrade as they are to a downgrade. I don't ever downgrade, but if you did you would want awful spot cards, and wasted honors in pretty much all suits. I'd say almost no hand with a ten, and literally no hand with a JT that isn't doubleton, should ever be considered.

[broze]

Yeah, in the clear light of day I suppose these hands are a lot better than I first thought. I considered the first since it had 3 Jacks and KQJ tight, and the second because it had four Jacks, 3 unsupported, one tight. But there are certainly worse 18 counts. Thanks for the consensus.

[neilkaz]

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-15, 08:54, said:

Neither hand is close to a downgrade. They both have a ten connected to a jack. If you are going to downgrade, there should be literally nothing good about the hand in context I would say.

Yes,,,100% this.

[neilkaz]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-April-15, 07:30, said:

---

OK I'll downgrade this but it really has to be about this bad.

[CSGibson]

If you have the option of making a slight overbid or a slight underbid early in the auction, it frequently makes an easier auction to make the slight upgrade. The reason for this is that you have expressed all of your values, and can just make discouraging bids later in the auction with the knowledge that partner will not play you for less than you have - there's no need to "catch up" at higher levels, where the potential for going overboard is greater.

[nigel_k]

The people who almost never downgrade will answer that neither is a downgrade, as you would expect. But the first is a pretty obvious downgrade for the rest of us.

[Cyberyeti]

I play a weak not trump.

I almost never downgrade 12s out of it 1st/2nd/4th, I do occasionally in 3rd and often upgrade 11s.

I upgrade 14s out of it more regularly than I downgrade 15s into it, but the disparity is much less than it is at the bottom end.

I wouldn't downgrade either of the examples here, would need to be something like KJ, Q432, AKJ, A432 or KJx, KJx, Kxxx, AKJ. I'd be tempted by xx, AKQ, xxxxx, AKQ which doesn't seem to make game opposite too many flat 7 counts.

[helene_t]

The first hand I would consider borderline, assuming that the partnership agreement is to downgrade about as often as we upgrade.

The second hand is just an average 18 count. I would sooner call it a good 18-count than a bad one but I wouldn't consider upgrading it.

[han]

I wouldn't downgrade these hands, and I'm the king of downgrading. (seriously, I am)

[Lurpoa]

♥ ♥ ♥


My opinion, roughly:
- In both hands♦ J could be "worthless": minus .5
- first hand 4-3-3-3: minus 1

So first hand, no doubt: 1NT opener.
Also on second hand, I would prefer 1NT, it is limit, but taken into account that opening 1NT will more or less ensure that the strong hand plays, yes, 1NT.

♥ ♥ ♥

[fuburules3]

From kibitzing the JEC matches, it seems that their 1NT is something like 15-17 or 18 with a 4333 shape.

I also believe Kit Woolsey has also suggested in one of his bridgewinners articles that if you always subtract one point for 4333 shape you won't be too far off.

The point is at least some well-known experts do (at least in theory) downgrade (your hands aside).

[lalldonn]

If han doesn't downgrade a hand then no one should, for real.