EricK

If partner had opened a weak NT, I would punt game (3NT). Here, if partner hasn't got a weak NT hand, then he has at least 4 ♦. In which case the fit means I am still strong enough to GF (especially if GF really means that we can stop in 4m if necessary). So 2♣ for me. Eric

North's hand is huge to begin and if South shows ♦ support it becomes huger still (just count the Zar points :) ) After 3♣, South shoud show bid 3♦, and then North can go for the ♦ slam. Eric

This hand looks like a normal fit jump hand to me. If there is a double fit, we are making lots of tricks on offence and very few on defense. Just the message partner needs to make a sensible high level decision. But on this auction, is there much chance of partner having a high level decision to make? Surely LHO isn't going to bid again, and RHO would likely have raised ♥ immediately if he had some. I think that jump bids on auctions like this should be slammish (either a much better suit, or maybe a splinter - it's a partnership decision) Eric

When you calculate your figures, do you blindly assume the partnership will bid to the level indicated by the points, or do you assume they will eg check for Aces before bidding a slam etc? Eric

I think this is one of those situations where double should mean the same from either side of the table. Since you had the chance to make a take out double of ♥ and didn't, then your partnership must be playing penalty doubles, so his double must be penalty. Or to put it another way, if his double is take-out, then you have already misbid by failing to make a take-out double yourself. Eric

In proper Acol, almost nothing is forcing :D. But seriously, after a double of 1♠, what do you do on a hand like ♠x ♥Txxxxxx ♦xx ♣xxx? If you can't suggest to partner that it might be right to play in 2♥ he might find himself struggling in 1SX. Eric

This is an over-evaluation. AK is worth two tricks and might build up a Queen or a long suit in your partner's hand. AQ in RHOs suit is only a likely (or very likely) two tricks and is not likely to build up anything in your partner's hand. If RHO overcalls in a suit, I don't see why AK in my hand is more likely to build up a long card in partner's hand than AQ is. I certainly don't expect it partner to have the Queen when I have AK in RHO's suit, any more than I would expect him to have the King when I have AQ. Eric

I haven't thought out all the details (or even many of the details!), so this might be rubbish; but ... Could one use 1♦ as either a -ve or a ♥positive. With all other bids transfers (1♥ = 5+♠, 1♠ = balanced +ve etc). In reply to the 1♦ bid, 1♥ shows extras, others are natural and NF, except for jumps which set trumps and are forcing. After 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ responder somehow shows his hand type, possibly through more multi-way bids (these are the details I haven't worked out!). Eric

You are right in that the "correct" evaluation method takes account of opponents' bidding (and state of the match, your estimation of partner's skill, psychological aspects etc etc). But there are still rules to all of this. eg Whatever evaluation method I was using, I would count AQ as if it were AK if my RHO bid the suit. Adding these rules to zar (or any other method) would only improve it. But that is no reason to discount the whole enterprise of trying to construct the rules of bidding. Eric

I don't agree. Judgement isn't (and can't be) anything more than a set of rules. Complicated rules, to be sure, but rules nonetheless. The trouble is that these rules are completely internalised and often the practitioners themselves are unaware of what those rules are. I think it is excellent that people are making the effort to externalise those rules. Eric

This is the point. If your partner is going to assume a minimum number of defensive tricks, then you can't afford to open these hands at the one level. That doesn't mean opening them is wrong, it just means that you need to have partnership agreement. Eric

Maybe it is standard then (if anything about fit jumps can be called standard). It certainly makes sense as an agreement, but it does mean you need to have a minimum defensive strength in your fit jumps. ♠x ♥xxxxx ♦KQJTx ♣xx looks like a FJ to the 4 level if it doesn't set up a forcing pass, but not if it does. Eric

So 4♦ sets up a forcing pass? If you have that agreement that is fine, but I didn't think it was standard for fit jumps to do that. Eric

I don't think you understood my question. The bidding has gone 1♥ 1♠ 4♦ 4♠ X P ?

You could use wdp when opps make a mistake, and wpp (well played partner) when partner played well. And remember to deny doing this if the opps ask <_< Eric

I Pass. I think I am more likely to go plus by defending on this hand. As it happens, NS can only make 2♥, and EW can make 3♠ or 4♦, so on this hand, it hardly matters what you do. Eric

I went for 4♦. 4m is a good pre-empt on a lot of hands as it gives opps little room to judge their best contract, but it is not so high to give them an easy double. 1♦ is also tempting. I think that this has just as much chance as deceiving opps as it does of deceiving partner. If you open 4♦ and the opps happen to have a big hand, they may stay in a safe game rather than risking a slam because they know of the bad breaks. If you open 1♦, they will never suspect an 8 card suit! Eric

What do you do if the bidding proceeds (4S) X? Do you pass because you have let partner in on the desicion making process, or do you bid on (5C?) because of your extra offence? Eric

Problem is if you don't look at every single hand (even the uninteresting ones) you don't capture the whole problem. Zar's main weakness is not in the missing of games or slams. It's weakness is when only a boring partscore can be made but Zar tells you to bid game. By only looking at the hands where game can be made, you are ignoring this aspect. Tysen Having experimented with Zar points, I think that this problem can be overcome if responder assumes at the outset that there is no good fit, and subtracts 3 or so Zar points when choosing his bids. If the bidding confirms a fit, then he can add those points back and use the full Zar score. So although 26 Zar points is theoretically enough for game opposite an opening bid, I would only force to game with 29 or 30, unless I had a fit for openers suit. Obviously, this has only been tested on a relatively small sample of hands, so it should be treated with suspicion initially. Eric

Surely "personal hand evaluation" or "judgement" or whatever you want to call it is just a set of rules which you have internalized (and may not even be able to consciously explain). Unless you would judge the same hand differently on two different occassions, then your "personal hand evaluation" could be expressed as a set of rules. I would agree with you if you said that the human brain has the advantage over any simple computerized rules. Eric

1) I calculated the average number of Zar distribution points over all possible bridge hands and got 11.77. The average number of Zar HCP is 13. Therefore (ignoring adjustments for short suit honours, and concentrated honours etc), the average number of Zar points is 24.77. This means (if my calculations are correct!) that a "Zar opening bid" is only a Jack and a bit above average. And an average hand with Spades is very nearly an opening bid. Also, because these figures ignore fit points and fitting honour points, two average hands with a fit should together have a good shot at game. Are my figures and conclusions right? Eric

Would you want to do well because your opponents didn't expect this kind of hand? Since they might not, it can't be wrong to alert but it might be wrong not to. Eric

Suppose you were playing against a two pairs, one of whom played "traditional" pre-empts, and the other played your style of pre-empts. If there are any hands which you bid differently against these two pairs then I think you should alert your pre-empts. Otherwise, how are your opponents supposed to know what to do on those hands? Eric

Generally (and perhaps, obviously) one would use 5NT = pick a slam, where there is a choice of places to play, and the bidder can't find out the relevant information. It would most often be used if cue-bidding has already carried the partnership to the 5 level. It certainly does not ask partner to simply bid his longest suit. Rather, it asks him to try to work out which slam might play best. Since one can discard losers in side suits, but not in the trump suit, this often boils down to responder bidding his more solid suit (or what he believes the partnership's most solid suit will be). But it is very hard to generalise - it is a convention which requires that elusive quality of judgement. Responder will nearly always bid at the six level. It is certainly not a convention to spring on a partner undiscussed. Eric

I don't like "No psych" rules either. But I do see why some would like them, especially in events where well established partnerships are playing against pick-up pairs. But individual events are the events where I can least understand such a rule. Psyching does present various alerting and explaining issues in regular partnerships where you are to some extent aware of your partner's psyching tendencies. But in an individual event that is unlikely to be the case. In response to Shrike, it is fairly easy to define a psych. If the agreed meaning of your bid does not nearly match your hand, then your bid was a psych. Neither your purpose for making the bid, nor the likelihood of success, nor the type of auction have anything to do with it. Eric