ochinko

1. Yes, South's double makes perfect sense if you play a negative double till 3Sp. It means "partner, please pick up one of the two remaining suits". With these lengths I'd double even weaker. 2. 3Sp mean suit quality 9 (cards + honors in the suit). A nice rule by Ron Klinger. So the bid would only be justified if clubs and spades are swapped. South has expressed his distribution. Unless a fit is found from now on he can only contribute to the bidding with penalty doubles. 3. No, 4Cl would be a bad bid from North. If we assume that partner has equal lengths in the black suits, then 4Sp should be just as easy/hard as 5Cl. But we than add to this partner's preference of spades, it's again spades. Then we add the fact that because of the club ace opps can't quickly ruff a club if spades are trumps, whereas if clubs are trumps a fast ruff of a spade can be expected. So, again 4Sp. 4. No. North can't expect such weak spades from his partner, and South can't expect spades to be broken that bad. Yes, they make, but the bidding space was exausted first from the preempt, then from the insistance from North to his hearts, and finally the wrong bid of 3Sp from South.

They are not good. They are great! :) Seriously, I really find them very useful, very easy, both informative and preemptive. Especially when your whole system is based upon fast arrival and slow carefull investigation when you're stronger. Not to be able to use them would feel almost like I was returned back to the strong 2's openings. But Free is right that it's much harder, if not impossible to make use of them, if you open with 4-card majors. You can't name yourself follower of the LOTT if you don't use Bergen raises. Of course you have to feel comfortable with them so you should first thy them for a month or three. No single system, let alone convention, can win you a match.

♥A is by necessity in E, otherwise he will be able to return a heart after an unsuccessful diamond finesse, or even if it is successful W must hold only one other diamond in order for us to make the contract. Imagine what happens when ♠J is played, and E wins with the queen. The only safe exit for him is to take his ♥A and return a heart. Now I cash all the remaining hearts, ♠AK, and my last spade. This wins if spades are 3:3, if ♠10 is doubleton in either opponent, or if E started with ♠QTxx because in the last case he's thrown in hand, and is left with nothing but diamonds, where I get my last trick. Petko

Diamonds are worthless unless I catch Kx in W so I play for 3 tricks in spades, and 4 in hearts. I jump with ♣K, then play ♥K which I expect to be ducked by E. Since W is dangerous, I now continue with ♠J. If W covers, I'll have to finesse the 10 in E. If E wins, there is no winning card from him assuming that W started with 5 clubs.

For all that fail to reach the precision of suitplay, take comfort in this analysis by Fred: Expert Errors Look ma, I play like an expert. :)

Funny, for me bridge is a game of rules. Every new rule that I learn helps me to eliminate a blind spot. It's not important that I remember the exact rule, just to be aware of yet another aspect of the game. Rules aren't carved in stone but only those who know them have the right to break them ;) Perhaps it's a matter of what part of the brain a player predominantly uses during the bidding - the creative or the rational one. I do agree with you and all the others that the ultimate goal is to think in patterns, not numbers. But even a rule that produces a number (like Zar) can help you achieve a better understanding of what makes a hand strong because the ingredients of the formula show you what's important in a hand. And I find it to be a nice formula.

Yes. And the more methods of evaluation a player knows, the less likely s/he is to overcommit to any of them. Tysen also made a good point about reevaluation in competitive bidding when you have to evaluate whether the strong hand in opponents' line is behind or in front of yours. Petko Boukov

Ok, Roland. Take the example of Ben's last hand where you'd open 1♠. I know I would but I can do that only after I learned Zar. How are you going to explain to your students why it is the right bid with only 9 HCP without resorting at least to LTC or number of controls? For you perhaps it just feels right. But what about the rest of us that don't have your experience?

Fred, Roland, you're both absolutely right, but you're also biased. Let me explain: First of all, you are world class players. Zar can't help you because you've already reached a point that no new system of evaluation can bring you something that you don't already know, because of the overlap between the systems. You've covered (perhaps) all the ground. Zar is to help intermediate players to achieve a better judgement. Yes, I believe it pays off to learn it, just as it pays off to learn HCP, LTC, LTT, etc. It certainly won't pay off if learning it makes someone a Zarbot. Second of all, and even more important, is the preemptive value of Zar bids. I recently participated on a tourney on BBO where I met two stars in the first round. I didn't even use Zar at that moment but remembered the golden rule that you can let mediocre players bid without disturbing them. They can dig their hole themselves. But if you leave experts to bid without intervention, you can be sure they are going to reach the best possible contract. So you enter the bidding early with a calculated risk, and then remain mute hoping to have done the harm. Opponents stopped at 3♠ for +2. Admit it, you don't like your RHO to open 1♥ when you cannot be sure whether to place him with 9 or 19 HCP :)

You'd never catch me arguing against the need of good judgement. :) Zar pts is just another tool in someone's toolchest. They can't compensate for the lack of thinking and experience. I count them only if I have at least one 5-card major, so I'd pass on both examples. It's been a while since I last read them so I can't recall if they were meant to assist in other distributions as well. Your mileage may vary. And another point. Yes, you happen to land on an impossible 3NT but it compensates when your opponents stop at 2NT for +2. :)

I am a long time user of Zar points, and found them useful more times than not. They help to find games/slams that are not bid on other tables. They fail when a misfit is encountered, sometimes miserably, but hey, nothing is perfect :) I don't think that your partner should be aware that you use them, just as she doesn't need to be aware that you count in LTC, rather than HCP. I rarely see it mentioned that they are good not only to advise you when to bid but also when to pass. It certainly help to at least know them. I see many disastrous 1M openings with 11 HCP that I would never open precisely because Zar pts are too few.

This is my second attempt in which I try to encompass more cases while talking into account your remarks and corrections and trying to simplify the common rule. If you dislike numerical recipes, or think this is still hard to remember please treat it as a computer algorithm instead of a human guideline. We need to have 4-5 cards in the unbid major, or 3 cards with two top high cards. Minor suits are expected to contain 3+ cards too but sometimes one of them could be doubleton (with at least a K or A in it). We subtract the length of the bid major from that of the unbid, and add the result to the HCP (assuming no unprotected high cards). The bigger this difference is, the weaker our hand can be. The weakest hand we could have is when we double 1H NV in matchpoints. The end product should be at least 13 (an easy to remember number), and the hand is expected to contain at least 1½ quick tricks. This minimum is corrected as follows: +1 if vulnerable; +1 if the opening was in spades instead of hearts; +1 in IMP; +1 for any level above the first; -3 in balancing position. Examples: A hand that can immediately double 1H in matchpoints NV can double 2H in IMP vulnerable in balancing position from “Jxxxx - Axxx Kxxxx” to “AQx xxxx KJx Axx “. A hand that can immediately double 1Sp in matchpoints NV can double 2Sp in IMP vulnerable in balancing position from “- Qxxxx Kxxx Axxx” to “xxxx KQx AJx KQx”.

Partner's pass is not forcing to me . It means he has described his hand, and has nothing more to add. He could have as little as KQJ10x AJ10 xx Jxx even if we are vulnerable. I don't see a big enough chance to make 5Sp. I am not willing to defend a contract on red that could go down but not necessarily. I pray that opps go down but see little value in doubling. So I pass.

If we double 1M with 13; 2M with 16 then interpolating we'll have to double 3M with what, 19 HCP and no less? I am not sure whether this would be right. Thanks to all that answered, and espessially Brian for his encouragement, but Brian, 3-suiter hands are too powerful to pass them. I'd still double 2H with Jxxx - AJxx Kxxxx when NV. This is a 26 Zar pts hand. You can't shift those desicions to the balancing partner. While experts have many years of experience which allow them to assess their hand non-experts like me frequently prefer rules to help them make a choice even if it wouldn't be 100% right.

What do you think is the minimum hand for a takeout double over a weak two opening in a major suit if you are in 2nd position? Should the requirements be the same as over 1M or different and why? On the one hand the opener is weaker. On the other hand we start our bidding one level higher. After playing with some examples I reached the following conclusion which seems to me to be equally aplicable to 1M and 2M openings. We assume that we have no points in the bid major, and that we have 4/5 cards in the unbid major or 3 cards but with at least 2 of the 3 top high cards in it, and no wasted values. We use the term "delta" coined by Jean-Rene Vernes, the founder of the LTT. Delta would be the difference in length between the unbid and the bid major. We add the delta to the HCP, and decide to double when the end product is at least 13 NV over hearts, or 16 vuln. over spades (The level seems to me to have a higher priority than the vulnerability): We are Opps bid NV Vuln Hearts 13 14 Spades 15 16 Using this formula we can now construct example hands eligible for a double NV over 1/2H: Jxxxx - Axxx Kxxx Qxxxx x Axx Kxxx QJxx xx Kxxx AJx KQx xxx KQx QJxx AQx xxxx Kxx AJx We'd have to double even with a negative delta, I guess. Or vulnerable over 1/2Sp: - KJxxx Axxx Kxxx x QJxxx AJx KJxx xx AQxx Kxxx AJx xxx KQx AQx KQxx xxxx AKx KJx AQx Do you think this is correct? If it is, is it useful or too complicated? Are HCP enough to decide, or are Zar/LTC better?

Weird, Crowhurst is the exact same as multi-landy :P . I usually play this against weak NT, but against strong NT I don't need much penalty doubles I've noticed. Most of the time you can't be strong enough to penalize opps in 1NT all by yourself. I had some opps playing Dbl as penalty against me, and our escape structure doesn't allow us to play 1NT*, only 1NT** or something else. I made quite a few 1NT** and some other contracts by opps doubled if they run away :D I only had 1 bad experience with penalty Dbl on our strong NT so far, I had 1HCP and a 3-4-3-3, partner had 15HCP and a 4-3-3-3 and we went -4 doubled in 2♥ (lucky it was MP's I guess). So I don't agree you need Dbl as penalty. Against weak NT, you'll have a lot more situations where a penalty Dbl is better, but against strong NT the frequency is quite low that you'll have success. I still think it's better to use Dbl to get ourselves in a playable partscore (after strong NT), so you don't let opps play 1NT B) I second that. You _must_ have a penalty double over a weak NT, yet it is seldom useful over a strong one. That's why I prefer Brozel over multi-landy against 15-17/16-18 NT with which there is no possibility for penalty but one can describe their own hand better. Brozel is easy to remember. A minor shows that minor + hearts; He shows hearts + spades; Sp shows Sp + minor; NT = both minors; double is single suit, and requires 2C from the advancer. It gets more complicated if you decide to show three suiter hands. Another neat thing is to differentiate between seats. For example, you can play multi-landy in second position but simple Landy in 4th. This gives you the opportunity to overcall 1NT with 2Sp in 4th position without promising another suit. I saw this in the profile of some Dutch player on BBO.

I find it very odd that virtually no one uses negative redouble (ala SOS) at the first level showing void or singleton in partner's suit but with some minimum of points (7+). This puts the break early, and prevents partner from repeating her 6 card major. In the ideal case I'd be 4-4-4/5 in the remaining suits. Following the LTT I bid 2M over 1M-(dbl) with 3 cards in our suit or 4 with a flat hand, and no points (0-5, for example); 3M NV unbalanced with 4 cards in the suit (0-4 HCP). This is both descriptive and preemptive. NT is showing both points and fit, and forces to the next level in our suit. This I learned reading Andrew Robson. Indeed, hardly anyone uses NT after a double. 1NT shows 9 LTC; 2NT - 8, etc. A new suit from the responder is a stop bid with 6+ cards in the suit and again singleton/void in partner's suit. Partner must pass even with a void in my suit because my hand is much weaker, and there would be at most one entry in it if my hand is not the one with the trumps. I believe those bids cover all the ground at the lowest possible level.

But will you ever be able to pass 2♥ then? On second reading of my posts I noticed that my English is almost as bad as my card play for which I beg forgiveness :D

For me weak 2♥/♠ only make sense when combined with Wilkosz which doesn't say much because I don't know that many conventions. I just wish regulating authorities didn't behave so hyperactivlely :D

This looks like a matter of personal taste and preferences :D I mean, it is obviously more flexible but not descriptive enough if your pair follows strictly the Law of total tricks. Your partner wouldn't know the level to which s/he can safely raise your major suit, and this could prove fatal on matchpoints. On the other hand, with favorable vulnerability I would overcall 1m with 2♠ almost every time I have ♠KQ109x and no outside values, no matter how many hearts I have. Let the opponents start looking for a heart fit at the third level. Openings should be more disciplined though, I believe.

Thank you :) Actually, I'm from Bulgaria where indeed these gadgets are not that popular but I noticed that many Turkish and Italian players on BBO use multi and Muiderberg too. It seems that the American players are among the few that remain faithful to the traditional weak two openings. Wilkosz is cool as well.

Hi everyone! I couldn't agree more with the principles from parent's post. To me best conventions are not isolated but come in packages like, for example, Michaels cue buds and unusual NT. I am particularly fond of combining multi and Muiderberg. Multi is a 2♦ opening showing a 6 card major weak hand (no more than 3 cards in the other major, and at most one ace in the hand) or a strong balanced hand. Muiderberg is a 2♥/♠ opening showing exactly 5 cards in the bid major, and 4+ cards in unspecified minor (when vulnerable it is prefered that the minor contains 5 cards as well, or your HCP must be closer to the top of the weak hand that you described). Such weak hands come very often, and you are able to describe your hand immediately and accurately with an extra added value of preempting the opponents. If your strong option of multi promisses 20-22 HCP you can now open 2NT with 5:5 in both minors and 8-10 HCP (make sure your partner wont get confused here though :), and, of course, don't forget to alert and explain). It gets even better when you add multilandy to these gadgets. Multilandy is a way to intervene after opponents open 1NT. 2♦ promisses a single major suit (like in multi), 2♥/♠ promisses that major and a minor (just like Muiderberg), 2NT promisses both minors (like unusual NT), double is for penalty, and 2♣ shows both majors (the only thing you have to remember if you already know multi and Muiderberg). Another nice package follows the principle of fast arrival. It says that all jumps from the responder or overcaller are weak. Here we combine weak jump overcalls, weak jump shifts (when no intervention), Bergen raises, and reversed minors. Again, you describe your values precisely, quickly, and without unnecessarily exciting your partner. You enter and exit the bidding immediately leaving the opponents wondering whether to pass, double, or explore their own possibilities.