Dumoti

You don't get it. If 3NT is cold then it doesn't matter whether you go +120 or +150. +600 will still beat you. You must compete against those people who are in part scores. +120 will beat 3♣+3 (+110) and will beat 2♠+2 (110). If 3NT makes 3 or 3♣+4 when you're just in the wrong contract. Next time bid better.

You have to play it for +120. If you're cold for 150, then you're getting a bad board against those people who are in 3NT. Similarly, if you are going +90 then you are losing out to the people who bid: 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 3♣ P Play for something like ♣KJTx behind the queen and spades 3-3.

Since you mentioned at https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/79463-an-opening-hand/page__view__findpost__p__960392 that you open pretty much any 11-point hand, presumably holding ♠xx ♥Kxxxxx ♦xx ♣AKJ you would open 1♥ and later rebid, I suppose, 2♥ because, as you pointed out, "You are a bridge player." Apparently, you would also bid the same way with the hand in question, which is fully an ace stronger. I can't help but wonder how partner knows what to do with your bids considering the range is so wide.

Personally, I found your argument unconvincing. My back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that there is a 52.4% chance of making the game. So, yes, the game is not hopeless. However, it's far more of an argument to make this call at IMPs than at matchpoints. If you play it better than everyone else then it doesn't matter whether you are +150 vs -50 or +150 vs +120. At IMPs, on the other hand, it definitely does matter. Additionally, I don't find the reasoning of some players here persuasive. Some have advocated opening 11-13 under the theory that if partner has a strong NT, he can put them in game. To my way of thinking, this is rather silly. I'd much rather let the strong NT open the hand and use all the bells and whistles available to get to the ideal contract. There is something to be said for the idea that JT is better than Jx. However, I think that many here would still open it if you remove the ♠T. Correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming you subscribe to the rule of 15, you wouldn't open this in third seat. Obviously, not everyone subscribes to said rule. But if you wouldn't open it in 3rd seat, why would you open it in 1st and 2nd? Nor do I see the problem after P-P-1♠-P-?? You should be able to bid 1NT assuming you play 2/1, a bid that is semi-forcing. If partner has a minimum, he can pass and you're almost certainly in a playable spot even if partner opened a four-card major with sub-minimum values. If he bids on, you have no problems with easy rebids that accurately describe your hand.

So assuming that your partner has a mirror-image hand: ♠AQ52 ♥KQ64 ♦987 ♣JT ♠JT ♥987 ♦KQ64 ♣AQ52 What are your chances of making 3NT?

I went to a sectional yesterday, and there was a lecture. I don't normally pay attention to such things, but this one was about 2-way NMF, something I know little about. I was unconvinced by the lecture, partially because the first example showed both opener and responder with the ♥A and partially because one of the example hands was: ♠JT ♥987 ♦KQ64 ♣AQ52 and the discussion centered around all the problems that would ensue with this hand. However, I didn't feel that the hand merited an opening bid. Yes, it is 12 HCPs, but one of those points is the jack in a doubleton. I asked others what they thought and was surprised to hear that about half of the people thought it was an opening bid. One person responded that he simply opened all 12-point hands. Presumably QJ QJ QJxxx QJxx is an opening bid for him. Another responded that it had 7-losers and so it qualified as an opener. A third responded that he opened a fair number of 11-point hands. So my question is: Is this an opening hand? Why or why not? Please do not hijack this thread into the pluses and minuses of 2-way NMF. Should you wish to do so, we can easily start another thread entirely devoted to Checkback Stayman vs. 2-way NMF.

Uhh… yeah. By me. As I pointed out, the original Banzai/Cowan points were developed using an exhaustive analysis of all the combinations involved in hands containing 4-3-3-3 and 4-4-3-2 shapes. Even adding in a shape like 5-3-3-2 involves three new possibilities, which were not covered in the original analysis: 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 possibilities. No one is arguing that A-x-x-x-x opposite K-x-x-x-x is about the same as Q-J-x-x-x opposite K-x-x-x-x. Now when Andrews to run a simulation that permits pretty much any hand shape but rules out stiff kings(!), he may have supplied some data. But for you to pretend that said data refute anything having to do with Banzai points is pretty shameless on your part. Fair enough. I figure someone with 15 points has 37.5% of the face cards in the deck, so redone in a 5-4-3-2 method would show 20.625 on the low end (plus the chance of having a ten) vs. 42.5% for a 17 count, so 23.38 on the high end (plus the chance of having a ten). But why should I go for that number? By figuring in a 5-4-3-2-1 + points for a 5-card suit, Klinger has shown that he never bothered to understand the initial system nor the reasoning behind it. 5-card suits are not to be considered in such a system because they are out of scope of the original analysis. An average hand contains 1 ace, 1 king, 1 queen, etc. A 4-3-3-3 shape should be a king better than average to merit an opening bid. Sure, 5-3-3-2 hands might be shaded to 12 because you figure that you have some distribution regardless of whether you count short suit points or long suit points. Even if you subscribe to the rule of 20 or whatever your preference, 4-3-3-3 still needs 13+ to qualify — a king better than average. But in Banzai Points, a hand that is a king better than average would boast 19 BZPs. So, 19x2 = 38. That's the way I see it, at least. Well, you'll forgive me if I find your counter-examples unconvincing. It's easy to construct a normal slam hand that goes down on a double-dummy cross-ruff defense (two voids). That doesn't mean that the contract was bad — just unlucky. The point is to construct two hands in which it is clear that the hand has little chance of making game. Oh, well, I guess there's no scope for innovation in bridge anymore. Maybe we should all stop playing the game. Still, perhaps I have had different experiences than you have. In my club, I have found people who have been playing the game for 5 decades and they are still horrible at the game!! Pot Kettle Black. You know zero about the system -- less even than I do. Yet, you are here attacking me for saying that I want to try the system out. Heck, you can't even defend why 37 points is the magic number for games. As far as you know, no real research of any kind has been done on that matter. Nevertheless, you are here telling me that it's a waste of my time based on nothing more than a firm jut of your jaw as you issue your edicts like some Pharaoh of old? Give me a break. You remind me of the guy at http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/54044-point-counting-method/page__p__646980#entry646980 who assures us that a 40-point BZP hand is worth a 6NT contract. Or of the woman at http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/54044-point-counting-method/page__st__20__p__647699#entry647699 who understands the system so poorly as to think that it claims that AKxx is equal to QJT9 because they both net two tricks. Obviously, the first holding is 9 BZPs whereas the 2nd is 6 BZPs. Whoever that lady is, she obviously didn't know what she was talking about. Perhaps now she has a more enlightened understanding of the system. Who knows?

No. You said: Replacing MW by the new method would only earn you 2 imps per 1000 boards or something like that. So it is possible that something giving more credit to lower honours would be better for 1NT-3NT auctions. Buying a copy of BridgeBrowser would constitute a small fraction of the costs of publishing a book. Arguing such a case using made-up examples and case stories instead of data analysis is sooooo 18th century, if not even more outdated. ============================================= That's exactly what you said.

Yeah. I've played bridge before. I'm certainly aware that ♠xx ♥AKxxx is better than ♠AK ♥xxxxx. Thanks for restating the obvious. We all appreciate it.

As I told you before, I have already read all the threads regarding Banzai Points in BBOs forums. Helene's conclusion was that it would earn you 2 IMPs per 1000 boards. She then sniffed disdainfully at the concept of writing a book about Banzai Points and said " Buying a copy of BridgeBrowser would constitute a small fraction of the costs of publishing a book." Andrews' work has already been debunked. No. I came on here asking 3 specific questions: 1. If partner opens a 15-17 1NT how many Banzai Points should I figure he has? 2. How many Banzai Points would someone need to invite? 3. How many Banzai Points would someone need to bid game? Instead the whole thread has been hijacked and turned into a let's-slam-the-new-guy fest. Yes, I am aware of the problem. That's why I came on here and asked people what they thought. My tentative solution was to assume that the 15-17 NT opener would probably have 22-26 BZP, average 24. I came up with these numbers by multiplying 15 by 1.5 and 17 by 1.5 to come up with 22.5 to 25.5, which I widened to 22 to 26. Could that become problematic? Sure. That's why I was going to investigate the matter to determine how well it worked. How did you come up with the average of 21-24 when I came up with an average of 22-26? All right. I'm not going to sift through all of them. I'm simply going to focus (for now) on the first one. The first question we need to ask is: How many BZPs are required to bid game? It is generally agreed that, using a standard 40-point system, one needs 26 to bid game, though this number can be shaded to 25. Accordingly, it seems to me that with a 60-point system, the new number should be 37.5 - 39 BZPs to bid game. In fact, I am pretty sure I said something along those lines in my initial post. So, the first thing I notice about your first example is that it contains only 37 BZPs. This puts the contract at 1-2 points shy of the number I came up with for bidding game. The second thing I note is that the contract fails only because you have carefully arranged the spades to be 4-1 offsides. If we switch the E-W hands, we might well get a diamond lead and pick up both spades honors for an easy overtrick. I am also amused by your example 4. You have given yourself 26 HCPs, but the hand only makes 9 tricks because the club hook is on. If we switch the E-W hands, the contract will likely fail (unless you make the double-dummy play of a low club off of the board, planning to put in the jack). And if we use Andrews' method of 4.25-3-2-1-0.5 we get a whopping 27.25 points when supposedly you only need 25.75 to make game. Not very convincing, I'm afraid. No, I'm not saying ANYTHING. I asked 3 questions: How many BZPs should I figure if partner opens a 15-17 NT? How many to invite? How many to bid game? Instead of getting an answer, I have gotten sucked into defending a system that I have yet to try out over the board! Give me a break, dude! Take a chill pill and just answer the questions!

Well, if it's so easy, then why didn't you do it when I asked you to? This claim has already been debunked. Yeah. I've played bridge before. I know how No Trump contracts work. Thanks, though. Anyone can invent numbers. What I asked you to do was to invent two 4-3-3-3 hands in which the 4.25-3-2-1-0.5 system was superior. Can you do it? Or can't you?

Yes, but when partner opens 1NT his possible shapes are 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, and 5-3-3-2. That means that 67.4% of the time he will have a hand that is the right shape for applying Banzai Points. So if responder also has a 4-4-3-2 or 4-3-3-3 hand, then applying Banzai Points might be worth the trouble and that is something that I wish to investigate. What's the problem? I think that you need to go back and read the original post. The plan is to experiment with Banzai Points as the responder when partner opens 1NT. The plan is not to try to mastermind what an opening 1NT bidder should do. The point of the example is to debunk the claim that Aces + upgrades is superior to Banzai Points when the hands are the right shape. I'm not interested in watching you build up straw men and then take them down.

Well, it's 26 Zar Points so it has sufficient offensive potential. If you end up defending, you have 2 quick tricks so partner won't be disappointed with that. And if partner ends up on lead, you won't be embarrassed if he leads the suit.

Yes, I know the topic has come up multiple times. I've read all the threads about Banzai Points contained in the forum. However, I am highly skeptical of your claim that you just use 4-3-2-1 and mentally upgrade for As and Ts and are "doing just fine." Here are two hypothetical hands: ♠ ATx ♥ Axx ♦ Axx ♣ Axxx ♠ Kxx ♥ Kxx ♦ xxx ♣ Kxxx North counts 16 HCPs plus 4 aces and a ten and upgrades it to 17. He opens 1NT. South invites to 2NT and North bids 3NT like a shot. We will also stipulate that you don't get a diamond lead or, if you do, it breaks either 4-3 or 5-2 with the hold-up play cutting communication. What are your chances of making the contract? Well, they're not very good. You have 7 top winners. If clubs go 3-2 you can knock out the ♣Q for down 1. If the clubs are 4-1 or 5-0 then things get worse. Of course, Banzai Points advocates will be quick to point out that 4333 opposite 4333, there's no way that aces are worth 4.25 if we're evaluating for no trump purposes. So you can be skeptical all you want, but until you show me a 4333 opposite a 4333 in which Work Points gets it right but Banzai Points screws it up, I will simply classify your skepticism as unfounded. Now that doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the technical problems with implementing Banzai Points. There's no way for the responder, in a vacuum, to know whether opener bid 1NT with a 15-17 and 3-2-5-3 or bid 1NT with Axx, Axx, Axx, Axxx, or bid 1NT with KQTx, KQTx, xx, KQTx. In practice, however, we expect responder to be using Banzai Points as a check back when his hand is something like: AJxx Axx xxx xxx This is a solid 9 HCPs and opposite opener's theoretical 17 HCPs, it could make 3NT. In fact, if we upgrade 0.25 per ace, then it seems even more clear cut. However, Banzai Points argue for caution with this hand. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, at least when we look at this hand, we know for sure that partner didn't open Axx, Axx, Axx, Axxx.

Okay. Let's start right there. Andrews made 4 assumptions, which were: 1. South is "balanced" (which could include 5-3-3-2). 2. There is no 8-card major fit (Okay. Whatever). 3. North is not "freakish" shape (freakish undefined, but fair enough). 4. Neither hand has a doubleton queen or jack without a higher honor (no Qx, Jx), and north doesn't have any singleton kings. These assumptions are far different from the ones used to develop Banzai points. These points are for two hands that are 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2. 5-3-3-2 is explicitly excluded. Nor do Banzai points shy away from considering how well Qx will do opposite KTxx or some other holding. And Andrews' caveat that north shouldn't have any singleton kings(!!) is a far cry from Banzai's requirement that north be 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2. Obviously, there will be no singleton kings in this scenario! But apparently Andrews WOULD accept a hand like: ♠x ♥Kxx ♦xxxx ♣AKxxx The evaluation of that hand for NT purposes is well outside the scope of Banzai points. So, Banzai points are not the right tool for evaluating every hand. But you shouldn't say that a hammer is a bad tool just because you can't use it to change the tires on your car. It's just not the right tool *for that job*. I think, you need to go back and read the OP. The plan is NOT to use Banzai to decide when to open the hand. The plan is NOT to use Banzai when you are in a suit contract. The plan is NOT to use Banzai when you are contemplating an opening NT bid. The plan is to use Banzai points when your partner has already opened 1NT and you are responding with a hand that is 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2. Now admittedly Banzai points may not work as well as advertised because responder will have no way of knowing whether the opening bidder has an undisclosed 5-card suit. But that's the point of trying them — to see how well they work in the field.

Couldn't the same criticism be leveled at Binky Points? If it's so wonderful, why has no one at my club heard of them? If the analysis at http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/cardvaluesfor3nt.html is smack on and Work Points are off by 38.99 percent at predicting 3NT whereas 3 other methods are demonstrably better, why are these methods unheard of?

With all due respect to Thomas Andrews, most of his data have been generated using double dummy solvers. For example, holding Axxx opposite Qxxx, the percentage play is to cash the ace and then lead low to the queen. You hope to find some combination of: 1. The stiff king. 2. The king onside. 3. The suit breaking 3-2. However, double dummy, the computer will also pick up Kx offside because it will know to cash the ace and duck a small one to the now-bare king. At the table, there are no such guarantees. Similarly holding Kxxx opposite Qxxx the computer will invariably pick it up for one loser whenever Ax is on either side. In real life, this cannot be so readily accomplished. So most of his data are misleading and the virtues of Binky Points are uncertain.

So your hand was: ♠ - ♥ Kxxx ♦ Kxxx ♣ Axxxx ?

Personally, I would not open the east hand with 2♣. East has 39 ZPs or even at Goren points it's 20. I think that the 3♥ is an underbid. West has 26 ZPs even without the Jack. This is a full opener. Even playing 2/1, I think it is worth a 2♣ response. So I figure both sides are to blame. The exact methods would depend on your style. Like everyone else in the room, I would have difficulty agreeing on the trump suit and getting the cue bids in. So I cannot guarantee that I would reach the slam.

I cannot speak for how others play, as it is a matter of personal preference. When playing inverted minors, I normally prefer that the responder not have a mentionable major. 2♦ would show 10+ and 4+ diamonds with no 4-card or longer major. As opener, I would bid 2NT with the right shape and no extras and 3♦ with the right shape and no extras. Similarly, I would bid 3NT with enough for that and no slam interest. Anything else should show 1st or 2nd round control and slam interest. It would commit the side to game.

Here is my line of reasoning. We are playing MPs and opponents have stretched to game. So, if things lie badly for them, they may well go down. So we must ask: Do things lie badly for them? The answer, apparently, is no. Dummy rates to have about 15-17 with a bit of shape whereas the declarer will have about 10. I would not be surprised to see dummy come down with 2-4-5-2 and find declarer with 3-5-2-3. The ace of hearts rates to be in the closed hand and the ace of diamonds on the board. So if a heart finesse is needed it will be working. If they have a 9-card fit missing the queen, then it will fall. Similarly, both diamond honors are onside. So it appears that you will need to try to hold down overtricks rather than try to beat the contract. I will try a small club. If partner holds just the J♣ then it will not cost whereas if he has K♣ or A♣ then you may be able to set up some tricks in that suit before your diamond entry is knocked out.

Sorry that I didn't reply immediately. I posted, then life got in the way. I do not agree that Banzai Points are useless. For example, opposite: Kxx Axx yields 2 tricks. QJx also yields 2 tricks. So it stands to reason that Axx is approximately equal to QJx for no trump purposes. Yet Axx is 4 Work Points whereas QJx is only 3. Smerriman, thank you for posting the chart. However, I was given to understand that Banzai points were only for 4-4-3-2 and 4-3-3-3. Accordingly, there would not be any 5-card suits. We can easily argue that K-x-x opposite A-x-x is about the same as K-x-x opposite Q-J-x But we cannot so easily argue that A-x-x-x-x opposite K-x-x-x is equal to Q-J-x-x-x opposite K-x-x-x.

So I stumbled across an article on Banzai Points. For those who are not aware, Banzai Points were developed in Australia by Richard Cowen. Basically, they are used for evaluating a hand for no trump purposes when the hands are 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 or some combination thereof. Basically, the analysis revealed that an ace is worth about 5, a king about 3.97, a queen about 3.06, a jack about 1.93, and a ten about 0.95. So, as approximations, the Banzai Point Count recommends 5-4-3-2-1. I like it because it's both useful and simple... or so I thought. As an initial trial, I thought that I would employ Banzai Points when I was responder, my partner had opened 1NT and my hand had the right shape. However, I still found it all confusing. My partner will naturally open a 15-17 NT. But how many Banzai Points is that? How many Banzai points would I need to invite or to bid game? If a standard point count has 40 points in a deck and a Banzai Count has 60, do I just multiply everything by 1.5? So you need 39 for game? Or how does that work exactly? What are your thoughts?