Chamaco

Hi all, having read the article on ZAR points ("ZP" from now on), I agree the basic calculations are easy to perform (adjustments need more practice though...). However, then the small "trouble" is remebering the point scale of the ZAR range. Here is what I have found useful, and I invite comments/corrections from more experienced users. I noticed that an opening hand is 26 ZP. The old-fashioned hcp rage needed to open was 13 hcp An Invitational hand is around 22+ ZP Invitational is about 10/11+ hcp A hand worth more or les a reverse is around 34 ZP. A reverse in hcp is about 16/17. A combined strength for small slam is around 32/33 hcp, often 30 is enough A combined strength for small slam is about 62+ ZP. (please correct the ZP ranges if I am wrong) So I came to the conclusion that an approximate transformation of ZP-> usual assessment scale is simply DIVIDE BY 2 This may not be 100% accurate but it is simple to explain to your partner if you want to convince him to try Zar Points evaluation ! :)

Micky, thanks a lot for your contribution ! As far as thge ptship is concerned, you hit right on the nail :P Now a question on about Jacoby 2 step. What does opener bid with a singleton and a minimum ? 3C and responder asks again with 3D ? Thanks !!! :P

That's the basic idea. Building on top of the Cinderella team system but not giving up completely the previous structure (at leat major suit raises) until the rest is well defined. After all, this is what is suggested in the book "Precision Today" by Berkowicz. And, it is also suggested in the book "Precision in the 90s" by Barry Rigal. I know it is not the "purist" approach, but certainly the most practical. And if Berkowicz and Rigal suggest it, it may not be 100% wrong :P I do not like to have to choose between a totally elementary system and a supercomplicated one ;) Life is no black and white but shades of grey... :P

Claus, I know your suggestions are driven by the idea of directing my enthusiasm towards a more rewarding goal, and I appreciate this. However, I do think you do not understand my sistuation in practical terms, so I will give details here. I started playing 3 years ago, in the states. I learned by myself, being a Chess Master, buying a lot of books, studying the "right" books on bidding, play and defense (Mollo, Lawrence, Kelsey, Bergen, Cohen, Woolsey, Kantar, etc etc)suggested to me by Life Masters. Also I made a lot of practice on BBO and at the local club. I was playing SAYC + gadgets (Bergen, J2NT, Inverted raises, nmf, etc etc). I developed some live partnerships with other "illuminated beginners", and it was fun after a while to play with someone who actually followed your defensive signals and whom you could trust on his signals ! 2 years ago I moved to Italy, and it was another total change. There nobody plays Bergen nor Jacoby nor almost anything I had learned in the US. They play a strong club system but then most of the people just opens 1 club and then bids naturally. If you mention "Asking bids" they may think you are asking for money rather than anything technical. This si 90 % of the club. The remaining 10% are good players who have tehir ptsships and will not play with me. Actually this should not come as a surprise to you nor to any bridge players: good partners are always taken. The left ones are either weak, or they are not taken because they are a....holes and noone can play with them. So the first months at the club meant that everytime I had no pard for the next week and I should be coupled there with some Mr Smug yelling at me or with some Mrs Guggenheim looking at me in a sweet manner perhaps thinking to her cup of tea but certainly not to my defensive signals.... After a while I met my current partner. He was an old buddy from ten years before (college time) and we used to play chess together at competitive level; we always got along well, at the time, then we did not keep in touch (I moved in the US, he married, etc etc). He discovered I was playing bridge, and he was pleased of this, because, as an ex chess player, he knew we were in same frame of mind of trying to build something out of the bridge game. He was playing since longer than me, together with his wife, who is actually a "good" player (as good as me I mean :P ). So we started to exchange books and exchange emails on the system (SAYC + gadgets, much like the one I used to play in the US). And then we made a team, he plays with his wife and me (alternate), and I do the same with him and another girl who is a bright intermediate. Periodically we try to fill the holes of the system, and some months ago we came to the conclusion that the SAYC system had several holes in terms of showing hands as a reverse, or, even worse, the 2C opening. Of course, there are conventioins for almost each of these pitfalls, but thenm the adding up of conventions (Ingberman, Gazzilli, 2C + sequences, not to mention competitive bidding situations) suggested that we could just move to a strong club system. The basic idea was to try to improve it littleby little. But then severalò things came up: TABs, CABs, SABs, strong club overcalled sequences etc etc. Lots of stuff. We want to learn, but there is a limit to the amount of things you can store. My friends do not play online so we can practice only once a week at the local club tourney (they live in another town). 2 days ago, Alessandra, my partner, was almost crying because of the drop of her level of dummy play: she was doing silly mistakes, and it was obvious it was due to the overload by the system. If there were relays it would be madness. (BTW: once I ended up playing a contract in an asking bid suit). ------------------- You may say: "Give up these partners and look for better ones or that are willing to study". 1) I do not think to be better of my current partners 2) I do not think that a player like me *finds* parters. You may *find* a partner if you are an expert. But if you are like me, all you can find is a nervous advanced player who yells at you, or a lovely smiling old lady for some nice social bridge. When you are a player of my level you do not FIND a partnership, you BUILD it. You start with a lot of exchange of material and you make your choices with the consensus of your teammates. You build partnerships based on respect, trust and harmony. I'd rather play a distorted precision rather than change my partners, who are the most valuable part of my bridge activity right now. Ok, end of the story, hope I did not bore too much anyone :P and... BTW is there anyone who plays a better version of J2NT in a big club system ?? ;)

Flame, I appreciate your advice, and actually I am sort of exploring relays (I got myself a copy of th book on Viking Precision). Yet, with my teammates we are moving from a SAYC-like system to Precision, and they want to start -at the beginning at least - by modifying as little as possible from previous SAYC structure. One may say that when you decide to jump in a precision syste,m, he/she'd better forget previous SAYC-2/1 approach. Maybe this is true, but if that were the approach, I would never convince anyone in my area to play Precision like that, it is too much. In other words, I have nothing for or against relays, but my teammates have explicitly requested the absolutely need to limit the number of things to remember, and I think at this stage they are absolutely right. As I said in a previous post, I must be practical. So the first step will be to move to Precision in a "soft" way, and then we'll see. -------------------------------------------- Now I am asking whether there is anybody who plays the forcing 2NT raise on Precision 1M opening, and whether they use Jacoby structure or an improved one, or a totally different system. Thanks !! :P ----------------- PS- 2/1 game forcing and 1NT forcing is suggested in the original Wei book on Precision, so I guess it is not a NON-Precision feature :P

Yes, that is what I am looking for, if there is better scheme than the original to describe opener's hand, perhaps more accurately. The original scheme uses 2 bids (3M and 3NT) for reverses, which is a wasted use in Precision (no reverse) , and goes too high to show a good side suit. When responder is strong and uses J2NT, he may wish to stay at a lower level.

Sorry if I post on a TD forum, if this OT or undue, please remove this post. Anyway this is just to give a contribution, hopefully constructive, to a thread that is quickly becoming a flame :P DISCLAIMER- THIS POST IS NOT WILLING TO TAKE EITHER PART IN THIS CONTESTATION I do believe we all know that there are arrogant people in life, so we'll meet them also when playing bridge. Arrogant people will not admit mistakes in discussions, they will try to use all kind of arguments rather than admit they were wrong. I have met both arrogant players and arrogant directors. I do believe that the best way to deal with these contestations is to try to be as objective as one can, and avoid any personal implication. In my opinion the way to do it is that TDs just state clearly the number of the article code of the bridge laws they are applying. Then one can just read it. I have seen in live bridge good TDs just do like that: when arrogant players yell at them, these TDs just pull out the Book of the Rules and put the article in front of them. Sometimes it does not work because some of these players will not stop yelling, but most of the time the case is over that way. Things go much worse when the same players yell against some less-prepared TDs. This procedure immediately informs the player that the TD is not exerting a dictatorship but applying the rules as mentioned in an official document. This way the player does not feel the decision as unfair, but as a well-documented and well thougt choice. I also do believe that a player has a right to ask to a director the reason of a decision, and it would be nice for a director to inform him of the reasons for it. Using the abovementioned procedure is in my opinion a good way to avoid the contestation to become a personal matter.

Hi all :P Having to play a more or less standard form of Precision, I'd like to use 2NT as the forcing raise with 4 trumps. Assume that: 1) you play splinter raises 12/13-15 hcp with side shortness 2) a 2/1 does not deny 4 card raise: e.g. if I have a good side suit I prefer to start with a 2/1 in that suit and show later support 3) the forcing raise 1M:2NT guaranrtees 4+ trumps and includes balanced hands or unbalanced hands too strong for a splinter. 4) you play inverted Bergen raises (although I am toying with the idea of moving to fitshowing jumps in the version described in "Partnership bidding" by Robson/Segal). --------------- The "normal" Jacoby 2Nt responses by opener would be, in SAYC or modified 2/1: - new suit at 3 level = shortness in that suit - new suit at 4 level, natural suit headed by top honors, as a source of tricks, preferably 5-5 (although Bergen suggests to use this as void showing compared to 3 level bid = singlton showing) - 3 level major rebid = reverse with good trumps (found this in the book by Barbara Seagram), no shortness, no good side suit - 3NT = reverse with bad trumps (Seagram again), no shortness, no good side suit - 4 M = signoff offer, minimum hand no shortness, no good side suit ---------------- Now it seems to me that in Precision, since opener is limited to max 15 hcp, there may be better schemes of responses rather than the original J2NT ? What do the expert use (if playing 2NT forcing raise at all) ? Thanks !!

I agree with KGR. It is probably unfair to require even more time to Fred to devote to these initiatives, however, if somebody else could put together another 4-some of star players to "think out loud" to kibs during bidding and play would be a great thing !!! :P

I am one of those who use a "not proper" skill level or nationality on BBO. With the "nick" = Chamaco, my skill level is set as intermediate, which I believe it to be a decent assessment given the BBO field. However, I use the Malaysian flag, because I self named my self the "Tiger of Mompracem", the nickname of Sandokan, a malaysian pirate character born by the pencil of the italian writer Emilio Salgari. So I slaughter :P my opps on the bridge table with lot of blod loss... No prisoners !! I also have another nick = "Taricone" which non italian people won't understand. It is the name of a character of a TV reality show in Italy, a really dumb guy "a la Rambo", with lots of muscles and little brain. And there, I self assess myself "World class". Of course italian people understand it is a paradox (like logging in as "Rambo" and claiming to be world class) and just laugh. When non italian players ask me aboiut my skill level, i just telle them immediately it is a joke. So my boittomline is that these things are taken probably too seriously: I do this as a joke :P , and not to disrespect anyone, just like - probably - others who log on BBO just for having some fun. After all, as other posters argued, it is very easy to see after 4-5 hands who is who...

Hi all, I read with much interest the article on Zar points and all the related examples, both on the Zar web page and the thread on the forum. I like very much the assessments in terms of *offensive* strength of a hand. But what really worries me is that according to Zar you are allowed to evaluate as "regular" opening hands distributional hands that lack the usual 2 defensive tricks required for opening in 1st-2nd seat. E.g.: Hand 1 ♠void ♥x ♦ KQxxxx♣QJxxxx If I am correct this hand is 8 hcp + 1 control + 12 length p + 6 p (length- shortness) = 27 hcp, a full opening hand. This is true if we buy the contract, but if THEY buy the contract in a major, the hand is worthless, no defensive tricks. So if I bid the hand 1D (or whatever is your "normal" opening with this shape)such as it were a "normal" opening hand, and they get to 4 spades, my pard will double if he has 2 defensive tricks only , based on the QT promised with my opening bid. So I agree this hand is exceptionally good (distribution matters!!) but I need to communicate to pard whether he/she can count on defensive tricks. I would open the above hand as unusual 4NT, clarifying matters. Hand 2 MP, none vulkn, you deal and pick ♠Kxx♥Jx ♦ QJT98xxx♣void I showed this hand on another thread on BBF ("1st hand preempt or not ?"). I think this hand has the same problems: good playing tricks on offense, no defense at all. ZAR p = 7hcp+ 1 control + 11 (length) + 8 (shortness) = 27 = full opening hand Now, discarding ruling problems (the 8hcp for a minimum opener), the problem is that if I open 1D and they compete in clubs, pard is likely to double, just like as described in example hand 1. Opening it as a preempt avoids this problem but may result (paradoxically?) in an underbid, and pass is also an underbid. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So my consideration is the following: from my limited experience it seems to me that ZAR points is a very helpful tool to assess the level of the contract if you buy it. So a system that uses ZAR points will gain considerably in effectiveness on many hands. But it seems to me it is good practice, whatever is the system in which you will plug-in the ZAR evaluation, to still distinguish between bids that promise distributional strength from those based on balance of power (so you can double opponents in competition). Am I missing something ?

Thanks Luis ! These kind of advices are very valuable to players like me !! :unsure:

Thanks to all who commented. When this deal happened, I doid not feel like bidding 2H for the following reasons: a) BOTH opps have bid, not only one, and pard has passed; it is true that RHO may have very few HCP, but odds are that p has very little and bidding a poor suit may result in a telephone number b ) lot of defense very little on offense; all aces are in short suits, QT9xx not a great trump suit c) If opps buy the contract, 2H is not even a great lead-directing bid d) we are vuln, and chances are (having 16 hcp) that they do not have game, if they double and set us (not unlikely due to the Offense-defense ratio of my hand) that would be a bad score. However, these were the hands: [hv=d=w&v=b&n=sk94hj74d94cqt543&w=st8ha2dkjt7ckj976&e=sqj763hk53d86532c&s=sa52hqt986daqca82]399|300|Scoring: MP 1C-p-1S-Dbl 2D(!?!?!?)-p-3D all pass[/hv] NS had at least 3 H :unsure: I supposed suit quality is more important than hcp when having to overcall at 2 level, especially when hcp are concentrated in short suit, but this did not turn out well.... :)

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa52hqt986daqca82]133|100|Scoring: MP West deals and opens 1♣, natural. Bidding goes: 1♣-p- 1♠- ? [/hv]

Hi Ben ! :) I read the article on ZAR points, and it sounds really interesting. But it seems to me it makes harder to distinguish on "defensive strength" if opps buy the contract. With usual opening evaluation, I expect a pard which opens in 1st-2nd seat to have 2 defensive tricks, so I can decide whether to double or not counting on those 2 tricks. This especially in misfit hands (so if pard corrects after my double we will be in trouble anyways). Also, high level decisions, if the auction takes off quickly, can make use of the forcing pass. If you open as regular openings hands that have good playing strength, but no defense, responder can be in dire straits ? :unsure:

When I have a void, I usually consider my suit length as +1 B) (if no other reasons to downgrade) , so I bid 5D. However, pard had ♠Qxx♥Kxx♦AKx♣Axxx and we missed 3NT :(... - (that was MP though) Actually I'd better skip the bids that followed my 5D bid, ending in 6D doubled :lol: for a bottom, sigh... :) ; the sad part is that the sequence that led to 6D is even worse than the final contract :blink: . PS- for OSH: That was no prepared hand, just a random deal from a MP tournament at my local club last week.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxhjxxdqjt98xxxc]133|100|Scoring: IMPS[/hv]

Let me put it this way: spoke with moe than one director of those "low/mid flight" tourneys. They all stated that "I have to choose between variable system according to vul or variable seat". Now, maybe you are right and they are wrong, but frankly I do not care: even if they were wrong, trying to discuss with a TD (especially when the average of TD's thinks alike) means to look for trouble: I I just adapt to the situations, regardless of whether this is the correct interpretation or not. I'd rather choose a more limted system than I could rather than exploit all the possible features but being constantly penalized by TDs who think (wrongly?) that I cannot do it. Commonsense or resignation ? I don't care, I just take that assumption and design the system according to that. :D

This is not possible, I spoke with more than one director. So I need to choose either one or the other.

Hi all ! the Italian Bridge Federation allows to play in low-mid flight tourneys only two systems to the same couple. That means that you can have one system, say, when vuln, and another when NV; or, alternatively, you can play one system when passed hand (or just 3rd seat if u like) and another when unpassed hand. But you cannot combine the criteria: combining vulnerability criterion with 1st/2nd seat vs 3rd seta criterion, you get 4 different systems (one at red unpassed hand, one at red, passed hand, one at green unpassed hand, one at green passed hand). ---------------------------------------- Now, as you probably know by now, I am starting a Precision system with my teammates with mini 1NT range (10-12) 1D 13-15 bal or < 16 unbal + diams 2C may have 5C+4M multi 2D = weak 2 major or 18-20 4441 2H = 4441/5440/5431 short in diams ( no 5cM) all strong hands (except 18-20 4441) go through 1C, so 2NT is free for other uses Now I have some questions to experienced strongclubber friends :) I would like to differentiate the system according to vulnerabilty or seat, but I cannot do both :( (restriction from the federation :D ). a ) Points in favor of changing system according to vuln: I'd feel much safer to use a variable NT range (10-12 green, 14-16 red) b ) points in favor of changing system according to seat: choosing a more preemptive style in 3rd seat, constructive in 1st and second seat. I would love to play Bergen's "2-under" preempts (e.g. 2♠-> sound or wild preempt in ♣; 2NT -> sound or wild preempt in diams, and so forth), in 1st-2nd seat. This way I could prempt much more often i first-second seat without having a partner with a good hand guess if I opened with rubbish or with a good suit: he would have a relay step to ask the quality of the preempt. On the other hand, in 3rd seat I would love to just bid the suit of the preempt without worrying of preempting pard ( he is a passed hand). Also, I am bit worried of opening 10-12 NT in 3rd position, even at green. SO, MY FRIENDS, HAVING TO PICK A SINGLE CRITERION, WHAT WOULD YOU CHOOSE BETWEEN SEAT AND VULNERABILITY AS A SINGLE CRITERION FOR HAVING A VARIABLE SYSTEM ? :)

Sure Luis, I am aware of that. But before getting into detailed defenses vs 2-suited bids or concealed one suited hans, we realy need to understand how to defend vs natural overcalls :rolleyes: hence this post... :) About reopening with xx or xxx in opps suit: would you reopen also with a dead minimum 10 count ? is it not too dangerous to reopen even with a max (given xx/xxx in overcaller's suit) when pard can have little to contribute (he failed to make a negative double himself) ?

Thanks for the reply, but I think I am getting lost in all of this stuff. 1) I want to avoid transfer responses when opener is 10-12; it is very important to be able to stay at the 2 level with a minor 2) would you agree with a scheme such the one as follow ? 1N-(2y)-? - 2 of a suit = to play - 2NT = classical lebensohl = relay to 3C, either to pass/correct or to show a good hand (various types, generally with a stopper) - 3 of a suit = natural 5+ cards, GF - cuebid = stayman for a major without stopper (the same with stopper wd be 2NT then cuebid) - 3NT = game force without stopper (the same with stopper wd be 2NT then 3NT) - X-XX = takeout double = most of the times a decent hand but not game force (with gf hand with a side major, cuebid with or without going through 2NT; with balanced gf, bid 3NT with or without going through 2NT; with unbalanced gf hand, bid the suit at 3 level) - if you use takeout double by responder, is there a case for a trap pass by responder who wants to punish opponents ? In that case, opener may have trouble decidening on which hand to reopen for a pard to penalty pass: if he reopens anytime he has a small doubleton, many times he will find his partner short of hcp, having to bid at the 2 or 3 level, and being doubled

Hi all ! With my teammates we are experimenting a version of Precision including mini-1NT (13-15 bal are included in 1D together with unbalanced with D). Anyways, we are having a hard time coping with opps intereferences at MP pairs, often failing to compete for the partscore. Below are listed our doubts, I'll be grateful to any contribution by players that had experience playing miniNT ! Thanks !!! :unsure: Mauro ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Assume for the rest of the discussion that 1NT 10-12 is opened in first or second seat only (I know 3rd seat miniNT has other issues). 2) We have agreed, after opps overcall, to play a Lebensohl stile: 2 of a suit= weak, to play 2NT= relay to 3C; may conceal a weak signoff in suit lower ranked than overcalller's or a stronger hand (GF with a stopper or invitational) 3 of a suit = natural GF Dbl/Rdbl = penalty What is the problem ? The problem arises when responder has some 8+/10- hcp opposite 10-12 opener, and the balance of HCP is about even between N-S and E-W. Often opps overcall (sometimes even recklessly), say 1NT-(2D)-? and you hold: KQTx-Axxx-xxx-xx. You'd love to have the negative double available, but you don't, playing Lebensohl. We have discussed this issue with pards, and only ideas that came about were: a ) having opener reopen "in the dark", holding a small doubleton in the overcaller suit if for instance bidding goes 1NT-2D-p-p- ? This is very risky in my opinion: miniNT is used to have OPPONENTS bid in the dark with the risk of being doubled; if you resort to "automatic" reopening, in the dark (pard may have a few hcp), you will fall for the same trap you tried and set to opps; b ) eliminating penalty double from the lebensohl scheme: double will be negative, showing a good hand (9+/10 hcp or better), with at least 4-3 in the unbid majors. This has the obvious shortcoming of being unable to double reckless opponents (one of the reasons you chose to play miniNT in the first place) I am well aware of the motto that "NT openings bury fits", and I did read Rodwell's interview where he addresses the issues of losing 4-4 partscores. So my question to those who tried to play at least once the miniNT then becomes: which option is the least of evil accoding to you ? 1) option a) above: opener should reopen in the dark with xx in opps suit; 2) option b above: yes Lebensohl, no penalty double, yes negative double 3) do not use Lebensohl but a better scheme for responder 4) use this scheme (Lebensohl+ penalty double+ no reopening obligations) and accept the fact that losing fit is unavoidable once in a while using this NT range 5) change NT range at least at Matchpoints pairs

I would like to add the following to my initial post: if that does not complicate too much the structure of the responses, I would love to able to respond 2D with hands with GOOD diamonds and a side major that can find slam with the "right " honors from opener. Say I hold ♠AQJx♥x♦AJT9x♣Axx and opener opens Precision 1D (13-15 bal or unbalanced with diamonds). I think this hand may investigate slam in diamonds but I do not think he will find it if I start with: - 1 spade response - or with an artificial 1♥ GF reponse: starting with 1H I can find the distribution of opener but not his honor concentration, The main advantage of being able to rspond 2D with strong hand and a side major is to help opener to reevaluate his hand based on his diamond fillers. And as I said, this won't happen of i start by showing my major bypassing my long minor, nor if I opt for using a mini-relay sequence. Ok, here is the WHY I would like to respond 2D holding a good 5 bagger in ♦ + a 4cM, but now the question is: how much would this complicate the set of responses after 1♦:2♦ ? Thanks all ! :unsure:

Sorry Misho, :D Before asking here I had tried a quick serach online (althugh not on the BB Forum...). I searched in google but found info on Kokish realy only in strong 2♣ openings in natural systems, and I could not find info on the Precision 1D:2C or 1D:2D sequences... :) Anyway thanks for youe info and suggestions, next time I'll look on my own so not to disturb. Mauro