VM1973

Well personally I couldn't help but notice that opening hand has 38 Zar Points and the responding hand has 29 ZPs which read the magic 67 ZPs needed for 13 tricks (and yes, I've done the math twice so no one can bust me). But then I realized I didn't have enough tens. Anyway can I bid that to 13 tricks? No, I don't think I can but I have a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach that good big club players would be able to. The only real possibility I can see is for North to decide that his hand is too strong for 1♥ and too weak for 2♣ and so he decides to open an off-shape 2NT. From there South will decide that he knows the trump suit is spades and proceed accordingly... but South will have problems cuebidding and holding a void he will want to have some sort of exclusion ace-asking in place. 2NT-3♥ (xfer) 3♠-4♣ (for aces, Spades key suit) 4♦-5♥ (I'm void in hearts so that ace doesn't count) 6♦ (I don't have the ♥A but I do have the ♦K) Even then it might be hard to bid 7.

I'm certain Haspel cannot be any worse than the normal partners one gets when they go on this website and sit down with a random partner.

No, actually, I've just discovered them and although they seem to work extremely well I am having problems applying them. For example, we all "know" that if your partner makes a negative double and you have 10+ that you're supposed to jump... but what's that in ZPs? Again, the takeout doubler shouldn't bid again unless he has extras... let's say 17+ considering that his partner should have jumped if he had 10+ so what's that in ZPs? Assuming that you want to play ZPs for NT then how much is 15-17 in ZPs? As for thinking that AKxxx Axx xx xxx that I added up and came up to a number that was bad and I should have known that was too much... that's what comes from being unfamiliar with something. Previously I would never have thought of opening holding: Axxxx Axxx xxx x as I always used the rule of 20 (8+9=17 ... not even close). Nevertheless ZPs says it's an opener (12 for aces, 13 for shape, 1 for concentration...and even if you don't count concentration you can still add 1 for having the spade suit). Anyway I read an article written by the author of Binky points in which he basically admitted that ZPs were statistically within 1 trick of the actual trick taking power of the hands (using double dummy play) but that his system was within 0.79 (statistically better) so Binky points are definitely on my reading list, but until then I'm experimenting with ZPs but I feel encouraged that even the detractors of the system (Binky adherents) have to admit that it does work. Still, I can't help but think that YOUR posts are the ones lacking. You said ZPs overvalue controls. As soon as you said that I opened a second tab and Googled it to try to confirm what you said and I came up with nothing. How do you know ZPs overvalue controls? A deep feeling in the pit of your gut or can you actually link me to a webpage or post that indicates how, when, and why they fail under certain circumstances? Additionally, I can't help but think that you're the one who isn't reading my posts. If you read back you'll see that my original post was: "I really don't think slam is there unless the opener has extras and I think that just asking for aces is a bad idea because you can always set the spade suit as trump first before asking and find out about suit quality." From there we're off on English teachers living in Peru often can't do math even with a calculator in their hand. Well, if I were good at math, I would be an engineer not an English teacher. Finally, even if 5-3-3-2 often plays in NT I'm thinking it's not going to play in NT opposite the hand in question... just a theory of mine but you're welcome to play it in NT as often as you'd like.

Well I think that's a strange argument to make considering that the first hand has a reasonable shot at slam opposite the posted hand while the 2nd hand might not even take 10 tricks. Don't get me wrong... I like having 10s around while playing 3NT just as much as anyone else. I just don't see them being that helpful when I'm trying to make 6NT.

Ok, apparently I did count a king twice. My bad. However, I disagree that Zar points overvalue controls. I googled "zar points overvalue controls" and I didn't find any webpages that made a case for that. Really the system is not substantially different from what the Aces used (3-2-1-½) or what the Modern Losing Trick Count uses (Missing Ace = 1.5 losers, King = 1, Q = 0.5) so basically several sources indicate that an ace should be worth triple a queen. Secondly, the idea that you shouldn't add 1 point for concentration is also suspect. Surely you must agree that: ♠AKxxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣xxx is better than ♠xxxxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AKx Thirdly, considering that the system calls for someone to open with as low as 25 ZPs as long as they have the spade suit (as a measure of the value of the preemptive effect) then surely the hand in question cannot be considered a minimum opener. Finally, it doesn't address the problem that possession of the ♠Q is a liability as AKxxx opposite xxxxx doesn't usually result in a trump loser. The opening hand could be: ♠AQxxx ♥AQx ♦xx ♣xxx for the same number of ZPs, one more HCP, and still be unsuitable for slam purposes. Accordingly I maintain my view that even if your strategy is just to ask for controls it surely must be worthwhile to establish spades as the key card suit in order to ensure that the controls are there. I also note that the actual hand opener held contains 32 ZPs (without counting extra for concentration) though in all fairness the ♠Q is wasted but even at 30 ZPs it's a full king better than a minimum opening bid and you're not cold for 13 with it.

Zar Points: A=6, K=4 Total: 20 Plus 5 Points for the Spade Suit: 25 Plus 3 Points for the Heart Suit: 28 Plus the difference between the longest and shortest suit: (5-2):31 And probably one point for concentration of your honors into two suits = 32 Since you need 26 to open and a king is worth 4 points the hand you've posted is 1.5 kings above a minimum opener. A minimum opener looks much more like this: ♠KQxxx ♥KQx ♦xx ♣Qxx For honors: 14 For shape: 11 Spade Suit: 1 = 26 And slam is definitely not on opposite this hand. Plus assuming that you're determined to ask for aces off the bat, it certainly can't hurt to bid 2NT first, setting the spade suit as trump, and THEN bidding RKC as you'll also know if partner has the K and Q of spades. The lack of the ♠Q would be good here as you'll know partner must have more outside to justify his bid and so slam will be more likely, but the lack of the ♠K would definitely not be a good thing.

Well I think South should pass as he doesn't have an opening bid and his hand is far too strong to suggest a sac. Assuming that he opens regardless I don't get the point of the 2♥ call. Unless I can't count you're 5-5 spades and hearts so surely the opening contribution by North to the auction should be 2♠. Surely being an experienced pair they must have some tools in their box to work it out but my auctions are normally pretty crude and would probably go something like: 2♦-2♠-3♣-7♥-?? Seeing as you are packing 44 ZPs and your partner has opened (supposedly 26 ZPs) that means you have 70 combined points, which rates you to be able to take 13.6 tricks. Edit: Maybe 2♦-2♠-3♣-3♥-3NT-7♥ is better.

I cannot agree with 4NT because really your hand is not strong enough to put you into the slam zone. If partner doesn't have extras you're not safe at the 5 level. Both 2♦ GF and 2NT should get you off on the right track, though a lot depends on what systems you have in place over 2NT. I'd probably bid 2♦ and support spades later. I'm assuming, also, that the person you were kibbitzing plays 5-card majors.

First of all, I never asserted that I was smarter or better educated than anyone on here. How could I? I don't know anything about any of you. Secondly, you'll have to forgive my scepticism, but every day I run into BBO "Advanced", "Experts", and even "World Class Players" who make the most amazingly stupid bids and plays imaginable. It makes the Bridge Baron Bots look quite skilled in comparison. So you'll have to forgive me if I take anyone's claim of expertise on here with a grain of salt. Finally, as to the claim that if the hand were submitted to a different software package that the results would be markedly different, I seem to recall that I suggested other people put it to their favorite software program and/or just deal some hands out to see what results were obtained. It wouldn't be impossible for all these expert club players to agree to "spike" one of the boards that had the correct vulnerability and position to see how the hand would actually get bid and played in a club setting. No one, however, seems to have any thing else to say except, "We're not experts, but we have the uncanny ability to read experts' minds and know that experts would unanimously bid 4♠ with this hand."

Well your post was long and kind of rambling, but let me respond with a few impressions. First of all, you indicated that you think a 4-3-3-3 +12 Milton Work points (hereinafter called "HCPs") is just as likely to make game opposite another equal hand as two 27 Zar Point (hereinafter "ZP") hands. Now I personaly have not done any simulations, but from what I've read ZPs work out just fine, including some people on here who've said they've found it profitable to open 6 and 7 HCP hands because their ZPs were good. Even the detractors admit that ZPs are better, statistically speaking, than HCPs. Accordingly I reject your idea that I should open ♠KJx ♥AQxx ♦Jxx ♣Jxx for basically no other reason than that the 4-3-2-1 HCP system was popularized back almost a century ago because it was simple and easy to remember. A simple look at the ZPs of that hand shows that it is well below a minimum opening bid and the LTC concurs. Secondly, regardless what you might bid with the hand in question I certainly hope you wouldn't bid 4♠ holding ♠AKQ10xxx ♥xxxx ♦x ♣x but you certainly might consider opening it 1♠ and if you do, I think you must certainly admit that it doesn't do the hand justice to rebid 2♠ with it. You could easily make game opposite: ♠x ♥AQ10 ♦xxxxx ♣xxxx which is a bare 6 HCPs and no better than an 8-card fit. The hand values at 21 ZPs and since the proposed opener clocks in at 30 ZPs you are actually 1 ZP short of the 52 required for game.

AQxxxxx x x xxxx Zar Points: Ace=6 Queen=2 Total:8 Plus 7 points for the longest suit: 15 Plus 4 points for the 2nd longest suit: 19 Plus 6 points for the difference between the longest and shortest: 25 Plus 1 point for concentration: 26 Plus 1 point for holding the spade suit: 27 Minimum open bid using Zar points: 26 So yes, I would not argue with a partner that chose to open the hand in question 1♠ if we had agreed to play Zar points. In fact, you could change the ♠Q to a ♠J and it would still be an opening bid. Edit: Not that I think this opening would be considered legal in an ACBL junior room.

This forum is hilarious. Half the people say that talking to me is like talking to a brick wall because I just won't budge and the other half claims that my opinion changes. Yes, I initially thought that 3♠ was better than 4♠, as you can see by looking at my initial posts. It turns out I was wrong. I also initially thought that if you were going to bid with the hand that you should bid 1♠-2♠-3♠ with it. I no longer think that way. Isn't it amazing what will happen to a person's POV when they play the same hand 50+ times. I can tell you that playing with these bots you can never reach 3NT when it's right as when they bid 3NT they always have a void in my suit and that doesn't work out well at all. Does that mean that 3NT could never be right with this hand? Not at all! As other people have noted: pass can work but it isn't the right decision. I completely agree! I've found, however, that pass never does badly when your partner is void in spades. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that this is the case. My biggest complaint about this thread is people attitude along the lines of: "Well, we know what the right call is with this hand so we see no reason to look into the matter further" and then think I'm the stubborn one!

I'm also surprised that a good portion of the people here wouldn't invite with this hand. If this isn't an invitational hand then what is?

Fine, Gwnn: Here you go. In all hands you hold: ♠AKQ10987 ♥2 ♦2 ♣5432 Deal 1 Pass+420 4S+420 1S+420 Partner's Hand. ♠- ♥Q9xxx ♦Q10xxx ♣AQx Auction: P-P-1C-2NT-DBL-2S-P-3NT-DBL-4S-P-P-P Deal 2 Pass+450 1S+450 4S+450 ♠Jxx ♥10xxx ♦AKxx ♣Ax Auction: P-P-1H-P-1NT-2S-P-3S-P-4S-P-P-P Deal 3 Pass+570 1S+570 4S+420 ♠xx ♥QJx ♦873 ♣AQ109x Auction: P-P-1D-P-1H-1S-2H-2S-4H-4S-DBL-P-P-P Deal 4 Pass->6D-1 (+100) 1S->5D+5 (-600) 4S*+570 ♠Jxxx ♥xxx ♦KJxx ♣Jx Auction: P-P-2C-P-3D-4S-4NT-P-5D-P-6D-P-P-P Deal 5 Pass+400 1S->6S+7 4S+510 ♠xxx ♥J ♦AKJ10x ♣AQJx Auction: P-P-3H-5D-P-P-P ---------------------------- After screwing around with the K&R evaluator I came up with this hand: ♠AQxxxx ♥Kx ♦xx ♣KQx This evaluates at 15.70 whereas ♠AKQ10xxx ♥x ♦x ♣xxxx evaluates at 15.65 so the hands are basically considered equivalent. Now let me ask you this: Would you open: ♠AQxxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣KQx ? Lots of people here would so don't tell me that the hand that evaluates at 15.70 isn't a king above a minimum opener. As for your other claims, forgive me, but they are stupid. No one has played enough hands to run into a hand like this 100+ times 2nd seat white vs. red. Do the math. And please, don't try to say that ♠AKQ10xxx ♥x ♦xx ♣xxx is the same as this hand since the hand in question contains 5 losers whereas ♠AKQ10xxx ♥x ♦xx ♣xxx contains 6. And don't try to say that ♠AKQ10xxx ♥xxxx ♦x ♣x is the same, either... because we all know it isn't. It has been specifically stated that this hand was a matchpoints hand so your BS about how experts bid this way in team games can only mean that you need some remedial reading classes.

You hold: ♠AJ ♥AK ♦AKQJ10972 ♣2 Pass-Pass-??? How does one bid such a hand?

I think it depends a lot on the field. A lot of people just double with any 4-3-3-3 and 12 HCPs. I think 1♠ is a very reasonable bid under the circumstances.

Well I've played about 30 of these hands now. After having done that, in my opinion, the right way to bid this hand is to open 1♠ and if partner rebids 1NT to rebid 3♠. This experimental result meshes well with the K&R hand evaluation which says this hand is worth 15.65 points (a fact I find rather comforting). Unfortunately I can't prove it with the hands I've bid and played, even if I posted them all. 1♠ often works out, but so does pass and 4♠. On the other hand, 3♠ has never gotten a top and often gets a bottom. As for expert opinion, I think experts often make field bids and then just beat the pants off people with better declarer play. Wasn't it Bob Hammond that said bidding is 3 percent of bridge? If anyone wants to discuss this further, I would ask this of you: First play 10-20 hands like this against your computer or deal the cards out and have a look. I think you may be surprised at what you find.

Well if I had played it... Win 10♣ in hand. ♦J wins. low spade... I think East should go up with the ♠A and lead back a club, though even if he ducks it doesn't matter because then West wins with ♠K and with no other entries the hand becomes easy. I count: 2 spades 1 heart 3 diamonds 3 clubs If East doesn't win the ♠A and if the ♠9 doesn't fall you have to play West for the ♥J and finesse the ♥10 as if West has the ♥K he will go up with it and cash his clubs anyway and you're down so no sense leading low to the ♥Q. Edit: Though you will need to unblock the ♦KQ in order to ensure communication to the dummy in the event you have to fall back on the heart trick.

I agree that the gambling 3NT usually wrongsides the contract, which was why there was a move afoot to make 3♣ solid and 3NT broken but as far as I know the technical details never got worked out to anyone's satisfaction.

All right, why don't those better than me at calculating odds calculate: A) The chances of getting dealt: ♠AKQ10xxx ♥x ♦x ♣xxxx B) The chance that you will be white vs. red, 2nd seat, MPs, and that RHO will pass. C) Then figure out how many deals you would need, on average, to end up with 10 of those hands. I think that would be a very interesting number to know.

First of all, I don't make any explanation for why bots bid the way they do. I can't ask them after the fact why they bid the way they did and we all know they can make dumb decisions and never learn from their mistakes. Secondly, for those who think it's weird that 4♠ got hit and made 6, I'm surprised you're objecting to a deal in which the 4♠ opener got a top for your side. Would you rather I'd excluded that deal? Thirdly, for those who object to me playing 10 hands and posting the results I freely admitted that the results were INCONCLUSIVE. It could have just been good or bad luck that led to these results. Finally, posting 10 hands and the results beats the heck out of someone saying, "I've looked at a lot of hands and trust me... 4♠ wins big!" Don't get me wrong... maybe you can get a nice cult following and later feed people poisoned kool-aid with this approach, but you won't find me among your followers.

What you haven't said is if you specifically took the seat into account. I completely agree that a 4♠ opening is likely to work in 1st and 3rd seat. You are, however, in 2nd seat and the opener has passed. Using Bridge Baron I dealt 10 hands to analyze them. In all of the hands I held: ♠AKQ10987 ♥2 ♦2 ♣5432 White vs. Red, 2nd seat, matchpoints, opener passes. This is, in my opinion, superior than culling a large database of people of all seats and drawing generalizations about what will happen. These were the results: Hand 1: 4S and 1S lead to +450 3S and Pass lead to +200. Hand 2: 4S and 1S lead to +420 3S leads to +100 (opponents bid 5♦) Pass leads to 4S doubled making. Hand 3: The most interesting hand, dummy hits with: ♠Jx ♥AKQxx ♦AKxxx ♣x After a low heart lead I won on the board, ruffed a small heart in hand and ran the spades hoping for some kind of squeeze. In the end hearts broke 4-3 and +510 for everyone - flat. Hand 4: 4S and 1S lead to +450 3S +200 Pass leads to 4S doubled +5 Hand 5: 4S and 1S lead to +450 3S and Pass lead to +200 Hand 6: 4S and 1S lead to +420 3S +170 Pass -> 4S*+4 Hand 7: Regardless what you open you reach 4S*+5. Flat Hand 8: 4S, 3S, and Pass lead to 4S*-1 1S +140 Hand 9: Another very interesting hand. 4S gets cracked right off the bat and dummy hits with ♠Jxxxx (!) Routine play leads to 12 tricks. 3S, 1S, Pass lead to +480 Hand 10: RHO has ♠Jxxxx of spades and 4S never has a prayer, but doesn't get doubled, either. 4S-2 3S-1 1S+100 (4H-1) Pass+100 (4H-1) Although in all fairness, had I not previously played the hand 3 times, I might have taken an action after P-P-1H-P-1S-??? End Result: 3S +9 4S +16.5 Pass +17 1S +17.5 My conclusion: 3S doesn't work out, but the other 3 options are too close to call.

Assuming your partner has 5 spades then the hand contains only 6 losers. I did seriously consider bidding 2♠. With no advance discussion I didn't want to try a gambling 3NT. After partner bid 3♦ I felt certain that we had an 8+ card spade fit, but that turned out not to be the case.

You hold: ♠Jxx ♥x ♦xx ♣AKQxxxx IMPs. The auction goes: 1♣-Pass-1♠-Pass ??

A) It's not a question of the likelihood of that because it's something we would calculate. Your partner have, for example, ♥KQJx or ♦KQJx which would be less than ideal for offense. B) Considering that the honors that are likely to help you in hearts and diamonds are the Aces (for example partner holding 3 aces or ♥AK and ♦A, or ♥AQ ♦A with a heart lead giving a trick) the hand is likely to make the same number of tricks in NT as in the suit. C) I was going to say that the strongest defensive possibility is to find your partner with ♦A and one or more spade honors cashing to beat 4♥ (or partner with a favorable trump holding) - under those circumstances it seems quite unlikely that 4♥ will fail but 7♦ rolls home. Additionally, if their spot is diamonds the same logic applies to beating that... cashing ♠A, ♥A, heart ruff and then looking around for more. D) Not just because those who bid 3♠ will get to the same contract but also because your partner may bid on unwisely to 5♠ when looking at spade support.