EricK

I would be surprised if Sontag doesn't claim when all the tricks are clearly his (there are after all time constraints and penalties in many events). But in that particular case, the only person who can make a mistake which affects the outcome is him, and then it can only make his score worse. In the other situations (i.e. when opponents have a possible trick, or even all the remaining tricks) there is usually a possibility (however slim) that they may throw a trick away. I must also add, that I have never got upset, or called the director etc, if someone has played on when all the tricks were clearly theirs. It is practically always the case that by that time, my partner and I both realise that we have no more tricks coming, so it doesn't actually cost us any mental energy - and who knows, maybe declarer will blow a trick somehow! Eric

Indeed, the story behind that quote is rather strange. His policy derived from an incident in which he had claimed a contract that involved the concession of a trick yet to be lost, for one down. The opponents rejected his claim, in the hope of taking it two off. The hand was played out and the opponents misdefended to allow the contract to make. They then claimed a score of one-off on the grounds that Sontag had conceded one-off. I cannot remember what the final ruling was (I think he was allowed to make), but what strikes me as odd is that the hand was allowed to be played out at all. It now appears, as pointed out by Erick, that Sontag's policy is in breach of the proprieties. I don't think so. You are allowed to not claim if the opponents still have some tricks to come (they may, after all, misdefend). But you shouldn't play on if you have all the tricks. Eric

In a serious event I adopt the following policy: If it is obvious to the opponents that I have the rest, I will claim, to avoid an inadvertent slip in the play by me. If it is obvious to me but not to the opponents that I have the rest, I will play them out. Forcing the opponents to think about the defence when I do not have to think about the play contributes to wearing them down more than me, which may pay dividends in a later hand, and give partner (dummy) a slightly longer rest. I believe that this is considered unethical. Eric Where is this published, please? Anyone else agree with Erick? What are the underlying principles that bring the ethics of this practice into doubt? Law 74 - Conduct and Etiquette B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. Eric

In a serious event I adopt the following policy: If it is obvious to the opponents that I have the rest, I will claim, to avoid an inadvertent slip in the play by me. If it is obvious to me but not to the opponents that I have the rest, I will play them out. Forcing the opponents to think about the defence when I do not have to think about the play contributes to wearing them down more than me, which may pay dividends in a later hand, and give partner (dummy) a slightly longer rest. I believe that this is considered unethical. Eric

I think that in SAYC 3♦ is forcing. This follows from the SAYC "rule" that a 2/1 bid promises a rebid unless opener bids a game. With a weaker hand you are meant to rebid your suit, and then, on the next round, bid 3♦. I, of course, realise that when people say they play SAYC, they usually play something else - so there is a chance that responder with a minimum 2/1 will pass a direct raise to 3♦! Eric

If declarer knew that the finesse would win, then he also knew that if he played a small card from dummy without claiming, then that trick would take only a few seconds. So trying to get the hand over with quickly is hardly a valid defense. There really is no legitimate excuse for claiming when there is still some play left in the hand. Eric

Are you meant to add 6 points for the ten card fit AND 2 points for a singleton? I thought that because your short suit was a singleton you just add 2 points for each card over an eight card fit. So you get only points for the superfit, rather than 8 (6+2) Eric

If they are vulnerable, you do even better by passing! INT is down 5 isn't it? Eric

I don't think it is sensible to look at what happens in uncontested auctions. Bridge is a four player game, not a two player game. In an uncontested auction almost any reasonably sensible system will reach the right contract nearly all the time. It is in contested auctions where system differences really show. Playing a weak NT gains in contested auctions in two ways: 1) being semi-pre-emptive it makes it hard for opponents to compete over a 1NT bid. You can steal a lot of part score hands this way. 2) When you don't open 1NT, you will have extras (either in terms of points or distribution). This makes it easier for partner to compete sensibly if there is an overcall. The big disadvantage of Strong NT (especially when allied with 5cM) is the 1m opening. It is very easy for LHO to introduce a major on a moderate hand, and partner can't afford to compete on many hands because of the fear that you have a weak NT type. Of course there are disadvantages to a weak NT as well: Firstly, it is slightly more dangerous than a strong NT, and there is a risk that when vulnerable you will concede 500 when opponents don't even have a game. This is more of a concern at IMPS where the size of a loss matters as well as the proportion of time you lose. Secondly, you occasionally end up in the wrong part score (1NT instead of 2M). On the other hand, if you open these hands 1m to make it easier to find your major fit, the opponents can often find a fit of their own which they would miss if you opened 1NT. Eric

Thanks for clarifying that. Even so, as long as your 2/1 bids are kept fairly strong (eg 11+) so 2NT rebid can show 12-13, I don't see too much problem with playing true 4 card majors (non-canape) and a 14-16 NT. Certainly not enough to call them incompatible. Eric

Don't the Hacketts play 4 card majors and a strong(ish) NT (14-16)? They do alright. Eric

Maybe I'm missing something but surely the whole point of supp X andXX was to show 3 card support for partners suit? --- ESPECIALLY of only playing them up to the 2 level ;) But do you always want to show three card support? eg ♠5432 ♥432 ♦AK2 ♣AQ2 After 1♣ (P) 1♥ (1♠) do you really think it is important to show 3 card ♥ support? Even 1♥ may be too high! Eric

I have a few questions about ZAR points: 1) If partner bids a suit, I add a point for each honour I have in his suit (up to maximum of two). Now, if my hand has an honour in each suit, can I add the point at the start before partner bids a suit, since I am bound to have a fitting honour? 2) If I open a suit, and partner raises it, do I add points for honours in my own suit? 3) If I bid a suit and partner supports it, then he adds extra points for any shortage he has. If I understand correctly, when he does support it, I now only add points for shortages as well if I have extra length in the suit. Since the points one adds are dependant on how short your shortest suit is (3 for void, 2 for singleton, 1 for doubleton), it seems that if only one person adds points, then in the case of say a 4-4 fit, the total number of ZAR points would depend on which player bids the suit first! 4) It is claimed that one should open balanced hands with 13 HCP, even if the ZAR points are less than 26. Does this mean that ZAR points don't rank balanced hands correctly? eg ♠KQJx ♥KQT ♦ Qxx ♣xxx has 13 HCP but only 23 ZAR points and ♠Kxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axx ♣xx has only 10HCP but 24 ZAR points. Which hand is actually stronger? 5) Should I discount 1 point for the J in a suit KQJ? Clearly the J is worth more in KQJx, but equally KQJ is worth more tha KQx. 6) Do the levels i.e 52 points for the 4 level, 62 for 6 level etc, depend on vulnerability? IOW, should I bid to eg 4S on only 50 points (or whatever) if vulnerable at IMPS? Eric

Caren this example is a standard 3NT opener. Looks more like a 1♦ opening to me. If I had to pre-empt I would choose 4♦, and I think partner would raise to 5♦. Eric

This is exactly how I play it too. Eric

As The_Hog says, there are various styles. If you haven't agreed any particular style with partner then I would tend to bid 1♦ if the ♦ are strong, but 1♠ if the ♦ are weak. This is especially true if your hand is quite weak. It might be important if you end up defending to tell your partner where your values are. Eric

After 3S (X), west should look at his 3 card support, and (probably) well placed honours in all three outside suits, and simply bid 4S. Either immediately or on the second round. The 3S opening is not really my style, but pre-empting is mainly a matter of partnership agreement, so it could be OK. Eric

The last trump is like a security blanket. It stops the opponents running the rest of the tricks. In the example given, the player was, I suspect, always planning to take the finesse, and saw that if she took the last trump before taking the finesse she might lose the last two tricks. Squeezes don't come naturally to 99.9% of bridge players. If you haven't covered this type of squeeze (the show up squeeze) explicitly, then it is a bit harsh to condemn a student for not working it out. Judging by the amount of squeezes I play for, I must be missing loads of opportunities to squeeze the opponents - and I know quite a bit about squeezes. So for someone who is still at the early learning stages it is not that surprising that they miss even simple squeezes like this. Eric

I think the North hand is much nearer 3S than 2S. I also think the South hand is worth a trial bid over 2S! So blame is fairly evenly divided. On balance, I think that North deserves slightly more of the blame, because it is so easy to construct minimum opening hands for South where game is easy, and there won't be many where 3S doesn't have some play. I read somewhere (I think it was in a book by Reese) that if you aren't sure whether to raise to 2 or 3, then raise to 3 if your trumps are good. Eric

There are four major varieties of the Multi (and quite a few rarer ones as well). In the UK, I would say the most popular one is as follows 2♦ = Weak 2 in ♥ or ♠; Strong 2 in ♣ or ♦; or strong NT (some play 19-20, others 21-22) I think that on continental Europe it is more common to play it as you describe i.e. 2♦ = weak 2 in ♥ or ♠; or strong NT A third way (which is usually played by Precision players) is 2♦ = weak 2 in ♥ or ♠; strong NT; or strong 4441 hand The fourth way is simply to play it as 2♦ = weak 2 in ♥ or ♠ The benefit of this fourth way is that partner knows you are weak, and can "muck around" on lots of hands because he knows the opposition has all the strength. If I were playing with a pick up partner, and they wanted to play multi I would simply ask them "Which strong hands could be included in the multi?" If they include the strong 4441 hands, I would try and talk them out of it, because the follow ups are not easy to remember. If they include the strong 2s in the minors then the follow ups are more straightforward: 2♦ 2♥/♠ 3♣ shows clubs, similarly for ♦ and 2♦ 2NT (asking) 4♣ = ♣ similarly for ♦. In this last sequence, 3♣ would show a good 2♥ opener, 3♦ would show a good 2♠ opener and 3♥/♠ would show a bad 2♥♠ opener. There are other ways to play the follow ups, but I think this is standard. I hope this is of some help. Eric

"A New Approach to Bidding" by Jon Drabble. His method of hand evaluation is surprisingly accurate. it is slightly less aggressive than Zar points, but not much! One of the differences is that Zar points explicitly add points for controls (2 for an Ace, 1 for a King) whereas Drabble's CV compares the controls actually held with the expected number (CV/3) and upgrades or downgrades the hand accordingly CV is explained briefly at http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~fitzpatr/cv.html Midmac is quite a nice bidding system, but I think the minor openings are rather too open to pre-emption Eric

I am new to ZAR points, but somehow, I think the ability to evaluate a hand doesn't change rather you are using ZAR points, loser tricks, Goren, or whatever. I certainly add ponts to any auction for fits and side shortness, and even add more for double fits. Likewise, I softpedal hands without fits or with 4333 distribution or with miss placed honors in opponents suits. So somehow, to pooh-pooh ZAR points on this point seem overkill. BTW, the article I read (thanks Misho), had several things that they recommend subtracting points for (like bad placement of honors in opponents suits or short suits, etc). I see reason why you can't judge for yourself how much to subtract for bad fits (I would take a fair number off myself). I remember a hand for the late 80's in the bridgeworld where opponent opens 2♠, one hand was 6-5 in reads with AK, AK in both suits, the other had AKQJ of spades and AK-"seventh" of clubs. Both hands would have like 40 ZAR points and they can't make anything. Both pairs in teh bidding contest got to slam, one to 7NT. Bad fits are bad, regardlss of system used. I am not pooh-poohing Zar points because of this one point. At least I didn't mean too. I suspect that subtracting a trick (5 points?) for a singleton opposite length would improve their accuracy. I think the purpose of this sort of "advanced" point count system is to replace as much judgement as possible with something quantifiable. If you are going to say eg this is a good 26 zar point hand but that is a bad one, then I don't see the benefit of using zar points instead of HCP. Eric

that's true, but as zar says "you always have a fit"... he gives the odds (if i remember correctly) as 85% of the time there's an 8 card fit and 15% of the time at least two 7 card fits not too sure how many people are crazy bout 7 card fits, but there you go The fact that you always have a fit is irrelevant! Some hands fit better than others. For every pair of hands with combined Zar points of eg 52, the best fitting ones will make maybe 12 tricks, and the worst fitting ones will make 7 or 8 tricks. I think the main source of the difference is when there is wasted values opposite a singleton or void, and there is no adjustment for this. eg you open 1♠ on this hand ♠AQxxx ♥Kxxx ♥Qxx ♣x (zar point 27), and partner responds 2♣. I think the value of this hand has gone down, but according to zar points there is no adjustment to be made. Eric

I don't think 5♦ was not bidded because of count, but because of major/NT orientation of systems. If you play nat 1♦ opening 5(4) you have chance to bid game, but with 3(2) cards opening - can't. Zar points are interesting in theory, but I already have my own system of count/evaluation of hands suitable from 4333 to 7-6 distribution and it works enough well for me and my friends. Misho In most natural systems when a 1♦ is doubled by the next player it has at least 4 cards a sufficiently large percentage of the time to make it a reasonable assumption. The trouble with Zar points (if I have understood them correctlly) is that there are lots of upgrades, but they never seem to get downgraded for distribution. So a hand like ♠AJxxx ♥KJxxx ♦xx ♣x is an opening 1♠ bid, and a similar hand ♠xx ♥x ♦AJxxx ♣KJxxx is a GF responding hand, and yet game is awful. If you take the hand quoted, and swap the ♠A with the ♥J, then game becomes much worse (especially considering the double) but Zar points are still the same. Eric

This is not a trivial question. I would open it 1NT. The main problem with opening 1S arises if partner bids 1NT (which is his most likely response). We could easily have 3NT on if partner has 9 points, but equally 1NT may be the limit of the hand if partner has 5 or 6 points. The downside of bidding 1NT arises if partner has 3 spades, fewer than 5 hearts, and then only if spades plays better than NT. I think the former argument outweighs the latter. Eric