VM1973

That wasn't the question. It's apparent that you haven't thought about the topic enough. You like bidding 1NT with this particular hand. Fine. Do you also bid 1NT with: ♠32 ♥32 ♦KQJ2 ♣AJ532 (26 ZPs) Or what about: ♠2 ♥K32 ♦KQ32 ♣K5432 (27 ZPs) still 1NT? Or are you going to actually give an opinion as to whether 1♦ or 2♣ is a better way of handling the fact that a 1♣ opener is systemically not possible with 4-5 minor hands?

I have designed a system because of some frustration over mixing Zar Points with standard HCPs. Zar points are useful with unbalanced hands, but I feel that standard points are better for NT hands. The problem has been that a person may open a shapely 8 HCP hand and then feel uncomfortable when his partner doubles for penalties. It occurred to me that one solution was to switch to a 12-14 HCP NT, an innovation that solved some, but not all of the problems. Recently, I hit upon the idea of using a semi-strong 1♣ opener to describe 15-19 balanced hands. The rebid shows whether the hand is 15-17 or 18-19 with 20-21 handled by a 2NT opener. The 1♣ is also used mega strong hands. To clarify, a person does not open 1♣ with any strong hand. Holding 34 ZPs and 5-4-3-1 the opener should open 1♠, as usual. The first problem I encountered was that 4-4-1-4 and 4-4-4-1 hands became difficult to handle. One solution was to abandon 5 card majors, but I decided to experiment with a 2♦ opener to show an opening hand with 4-4 majors and a stiff in one of the minors. So the next question becomes how to handle a hand such as the following: ♠ K2 ♥ K2 ♦ K432 ♣K5432 Since the hand contains 12 HCPs (29 ZPs) it's a pretty standard minimum opener. The problem is, what to open? Since 1♣ is out, one possibility is 2♣ and another is to open 1♦. Both have drawbacks. Any thoughts?

The main point of my post was simple: That if any person should have taken further action, it was North. Now perhaps you disagree with my reasons for thinking so. Perhaps you think my calculations are completely off. Perhaps you think that I should have analyzed it in a different way. Nevertheless, do you disagree with the main point, namely that knowing that opposite a 12-count he has a 50-50 shot of making 6NT and opposite a 13+ count his odds improve, that the bidder should have bid 6NT had he been able to work this out at the table? If not, then why are you so eager to argue about inconsequentials? Does it really matter if the probability is 67.5 percent, 66 percent, 63 percent, or even 53 percent as long as it is over 50 percent? I swear if you met someone with a gun and he said, "I was thinking about flipping a coin to see whether or not I should kill you, but since the odds of you winning are 80 percent, I figured I'd just let you go" then I'm sure you would argue the point that it's really 50-50 and convince him to flip the coin to see if he should shoot you or not. So since you enjoy arguing about inconsequentials, why don't we start by arguing about your use of the word wronger, which is incorrect. You should have said more wrong. In fact a simple Google search showed that wronger occurs only 269,000 times worldwide whereas more wrong occurs more than 1.27 million times. Perhaps we can even have 20 messages back and forth and start insulting each other's mothers. It will provide a good distraction from the apparent failure of the Wonk point count and the general lack of solutions offered on this forum.

These numbers that you so cavalierly toss about are only true in a vacuum. Yes, if you pick up any random hand your chances of having 12 HCP are 41% more than having 14 HCPs. However, once you know that your partner has 19 HCPs these numbers are no longer valid. They would need to be recalculated at the table and this would be difficult under the time constraints available.

Obviously there are problems with simulations, but assuming that the simulations are accurate I think that your interpretation of them is faulty. If North were able to look at his hand and know that he has the percentages you stated above (although this is not possible at the table) then he could reason as follows: If my partner has 12 (we assume 34% of the time) then the chance of making the bid is 50% so 17% If my partner has 13 (we assume 33% of the time) then the chance of making the bid is 64% so 21.1% If my partner has 14 (we assume 33% of the time) then the chance of making the bid is 89% so 29.4% So then we have a 67.5 percent chance of making the slam opposite some sort of a 12-14 NT hand. This calculation seems to imply that if anyone is going to make a forward move it should be North, not South. Now at IMPs I think it's pretty clear that 67.5 percent isn't enough to risk a solid game in favor of a slam. At matchpoints, however, it's far more reasonable to assume that the entire field will be in 4NT making something so then you have a 67.5 percent chance of getting a top vs. a 32.5 percent chance of getting a bottom. Those are good odds. That being said, I'm not aware of a special hand evaluation method that could be used to evaluate your NT shaped hand for slam purposes other than the standard methods already being employed.

Hand 1: Pass. With only 11 HCPs and the ♦Q of questionable worth, I see no reason to risk it. Hand 2: I hope you're playing some system that lets you show two-suited hands. In some systems 2♠ shows spades and a minor. In Los Angeles that's often called "Hamilton" but it has another name in other places that I never remember.

Well, West is pretty much marked with the ♥K so that's eliminated my heart problem and potentially given me two heart entries. I think if I try to cross ruff that too many trumps might come back at me. I'll just aim for a dummy reversal using hearts as entries to ruff clubs in the closed hand. I'll lead a small club to the ♣K at trick 2. If it works then I should be okay because I can get 3 hearts, a club, three ruffs in the closed hand, and AK of spades... wait a minute, that's only 9 tricks...

Again I think you're missing the point. The point is that you should make bids that have multiple ways of working out well and only one or no ways of working out badly. Imagine, for example, that you are fond of opening 2-2-4-5 with 1NT if it falls into your NT range, which we'll assume for now is 15-17. Obviously there is a way that this bid works out badly otherwise this would be common practice. That being the case, you occasionally do it, which I don't have a problem with. The point is, however, that if this bid has extra ways of going wrong then you should not take that action. Holding: ♠K2 ♥K2 ♦KT32 ♣AQJ32 a 1NT bid might work out quite well. On the other hand, holding: ♠32 ♥K2 ♦KQJT ♣AQJ32 you have a second flaw in that you don't have all suits stopped. Holding: ♠32 ♥AQJT2 ♦K2 ♣KQJ2 you have a third flaw in the form of a 5-card heart suit. Holding: ♠KQJ2 ♥AQJT2 ♦K2 ♣32 you have a 4th flaw. God willing no one would open this hand 1NT because it is just too flawed for that action. Nor will any double-dummy Dealmaster simulations opposite 3-2-4-4 9 counts convince me that opening 1NT with the 4th hand is a good action. Sorry.

I think you're right that you should have shown fit the round before. Now I think you have to pass and hope for the best.

Sorry administrator. Surely you'll have no difficulty in moving it to the correct forum.

Sorry that you found a 1-6-6-0 hand uninteresting.

[hv=lin=pn|beraug,piug2107,bdvylder,VM1973|st||md|4S456789HJD6TC26JQ,STQH79TD27JC45TKA,S23KAH245D4QC3789,|rh||ah|Board 38|sv|e|mb|1H|mb|p|mb|2H|mb|p|mb|6H|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pg||pc|CQ|pc|CA|pc|C3|pc|SJ|pg||pc|H7|pc|H2|pc|HA|pc|HJ|pg||pc|H3|pc|S4|pc|H9|pc|H4|pg||pc|HT|pc|H5|pc|H6|pc|S5|pg||pc|D2|pc|D4|pc|DA|pc|D6|pg||pc|DK|pc|DT|pc|D7|pc|DQ|pg||mc|13|]400|300[/hv] Please suggest improvements on the bidding method.

Well I didn't know so I just followed the way the person above me had written it.

I would not double with this, so according to JLogic I'm going to need a good defense lawyer. It's definitely a double in the balancing seat, though. 26 ZPs.

I agree. I'd bid 2♦.