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♦.

Assuming it was an ACOL variant, how would the bidding go thereafter?

No, you have it backwards. The person berated me for my call and then booted me from the table.

Maybe because I wasn't interested in declaring 4♣. With the people I end up partnered with nothing is forcing.

[hv=lin=pn|South,VM1973,North,East|st||md|3S3JHJD79TAC358TJQ,S6KH8TKAD356KC29A,S579H45D48JQC467K,|rh||ah|Board 73|sv|e|mb|p|mb|2S|mb|3C|mb|4S|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pg||pc|HJ|pc|H8|pc|H4|pc|HQ|pg||pc|S2|pc|S3|pc|SK|pc|S5|pg||pc|S6|pc|S7|pc|SQ|pc|SJ|pg||pc|SA|pc|D7|pc|D3|pc|S9|pg||pc|H2|pc|C3|pc|HA|pc|H5|pg||pc|HK|pc|C4|pc|H3|pc|D9|pg||pc|HT|pc|C6|pc|H6|pc|DT|pg||pc|CA|pc|C7|pc|D2|pc|C8|pg||pc|C2|pc|CK|pc|S4|pc|C5|pg||pc|H9|pc|CT|pc|C9|pc|D4|pg||pc|H7|pc|CJ|pc|D5|pc|D8|pg||pc|ST|pc|CQ|pc|D6|pc|DJ|pg||pc|S8|pc|DA|pc|DK|pc|DQ|pg||]400|300[/hv] No jury would convict me. [[ minor point, you can not post names of players and then suggest it is ok to kill them. Second minor point, if the purpose was to seek auction advice, names would not be needed either -- inquiry ]]

[hv=lin=pn|levlev,tltolu,VM1973,joe_k_3|st||md|2S7H368TQKD24JQC39,S45AH2D569KC2457T,S389JKH4JD78C6JQA,|rh||ah|Board 100|sv|b|mb|p|mb|1S|mb|p|mb|2H|mb|p|mb|2S|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pg||pc|D3|pc|DJ|pc|DK|pc|D7|pg||pc|H2|pc|HJ|pc|HA|pc|H3|pg||pc|H5|pc|HK|pc|S4|pc|H4|pg||pc|D6|pc|D8|pc|DA|pc|D2|pg||pc|H7|pc|HQ|pc|S5|pc|S8|pg||pc|CQ|pc|CK|pc|C3|pc|C2|pg||pc|C8|pc|C9|pc|CT|pc|CJ|pg||pc|C6|pc|DT|pc|S7|pc|C4|pg||pc|DQ|pc|D5|pc|CA|pc|S2|pg||pc|H9|pc|HT|pc|SA|pc|S3|pg||pc|C5|pc|SJ|pc|SQ|pc|D4|pg||pc|S6|pc|H6|pc|D9|pc|S9|pg||pc|SK|pc|ST|pc|H8|pc|C7|pg||]400|300[/hv] Playing with a partner, no previous discussion, we reached 2♠. Suggest the best contract and a reasonable auction to reach it.

West 100% as he led the 3♠ despite not having it.

Well, I used to think exactly as you did. In my case it wasn't opening 11 HCP 4-3-3-3s because I simply don't do that. My concern revolved around opening 1NT with a 5-card major. Obviously there is a chance, when doing so, that the action is wrong but if you open the major you may have rebid problems. My solution was to religiously open 1NT with a 5-card major and 1NT-Pass-3♣ was puppet Stayman to sort it out. Then I read Kit Woolsey's book Matchpoints. He said it was fine to open 1NT on a hand like: ♠Jxxxx ♥KQx ♦Ax ♣KQx or ♠AKQxx ♥Ax ♦Kxx ♣xxx but not with ♠KQxxx ♥Ax ♦Kxx ♣Kxx His reasoning was that in the first hand the suit in question is too weak to serve as a ready source of tricks at no trump whereas in the second hand the suit is ready to go. In the third hand, however, it will take time to get the suit set up and so it's better to play it in a suit contract. He explains it far better than I ever could and so I suggest you just pick up a copy of the book and read it.

I think you've missed the point of my post. It's not that the second hand is a better hand for purposes of making 3NT, rather the point was that the original hand has more than one way to be a bad bid than just not having enough power to properly assist a 3NT game opposite a balanced 14 count. Specifically I criticized the bid for A) lack of preemptive power, B) lack of lead-directing power, and C) lack of sacrifice-suggesting power. Additionally I didn't mention other reservations I have about opening balanced 11 counts willy nilly; namely that against a competent defense that knows that you will invariably open 11 counts, they can more effectively play hands that you pass initially as they can draw the conclusion that you will have, at most, 10 HCPs in a sense of the dog-that-didn't-bark scenario. The same can be said for a 1♦-1[NT]-Pass-3[NT] scenario - they will have no difficulty playing the hand double dummy whereas at other tables where the dealer passed such inferences will not be available.

To be certain everyone is entitled to have their own agreements. If they choose to open balanced 11 counts as a matter of style, this is not illegal. Nevertheless, this shouldn't stop us from pointing out that it's a spectacularly bad idea. There are many reasons why people open the bidding. Bidding may lead to a profitable game, or part score. It may have preemptive value. It may suggest a profitable sacrifice. It may also help to guide the defense. Now people don't generally think of all of these reasons when they pick up ♠AKJxx ♥xx ♦ xx ♣KTxx but regardless, they are present. The reasons why you should have 13 HCPs to open a 4-3-3-3 are probably well known, but I'll review them anyway. Since two 4-3-3-3 hands with 26 points between them generally make 3NT it makes little sense to pass balanced 13 counts as, should both partners do so, a laydown game could easily be missed. Additionally, assuming the balance of the points are evenly divided between the three other hands, your partner will have 9 HCPs and so your combined assets will be more than half the deck, and you will have every reason to believe that the hand belongs to your side. Accordingly when someone opens a balanced hand with less than 13 HCPs the hand already has one strike against it. As such, there should be other, compensating factors in the hand to make the bid worthwhile. Looking at the hand in question, I really don't see any. First of all, I don't see that a 1♦ opener has much preemptive value. At least the 10-13 1NT people are consuming the entire first level of bidding space. The same cannot be said for this bid as it will be child's play for East to mention any majors he would like to bring into the mix. Second, bidding a three-card suit is unlikely to suggest a profitable sacrifice. I should also throw in here that his partner will probably read him for 4+ diamonds and may take unwarranted action should he have a 5-card diamond suit, such as taking a phantom save. Third, if the opponents buy the contract it is unclear that North really wants to see a diamond lead. How will he feel, for example, if his opponents buy the contract in 3NT and his partner opens the ♦Q from ♦Q4? Won't his ♦7 look like a come-on signal and the bad start to the defense could easily result in overtricks - a costly mistake in matchpoint scoring. Finally, I strongly deny that all of these problems can be solved just by having the partnership agreement that 4-3-3-3 and 11 can be an opening bid. This decision will skew the entire bidding structure. After all, if partner can have as little as 11, perhaps responder will decide that 6 HCPs and balanced is not enough to keep the bidding open or, if he does bid, he could easily find himself declaring a 17-HCP 1NT while doubled and vulnerable. A nice -500 when his opponents don't have a biddable game will be a bottom board. The partnership decision to not respond unless you have 7 (or even 8) HCPs then may result in shapely 17 HCP hands going 1♦-All pass when makeable games are available. If we adjust the offensive hand above to the following: ♠K97 ♥QT2 ♦KQJ7 ♣T72 Then maybe a better case could be made for a 1♦ opener, although I, personally, would still not take that action. The hand in question has no part of a 1♦ opener.

I'd say that 80 percent of the blame needs to go to North. You just can't consider 4-3-3-3 and 11 an opening bid. South should not have rebid 3♥. If he thinks his hand is good enough for game, he should bid 3NT and if he thinks it's invitational he should bid 2NT. In either case his partner can pass or correct.