POJC

agree

Not calculating i would like 4S/3Nt Getting this to 50%... Trumps 3-2 plus finesse for the missing queen= 34%. Or 4-1 i need 3-3 ♦s plus finesse queen trump=4% or 4-1 west plus 4-2 ♦ west and finesse trump= not a lot. On top single queen and double honours in Ds= few %. Al in all: is difficult to get 50%

2♦ showing an opnening hand with six ♦s. (not a strong opening hand though)

1♥-2NT 3♠-3NT (shows singleton, 6-7 loosers), Where? 4♣-4NT (club single) and 1430 5♦-5♥ (0/3 aces but could be 0) 5NT-6♥ (3 aces no outside kings but xtra trumps= Q trump) since i can't locate the double Diamond i can't bid a grand

I prefer (no 2/1): Splinter with 9-11 (12 Bad) with more use 2NT. It's important to limit splinter strength or it's to difficult in further biding. Direct splinter=Void Indirect=single 1H-3S=indirect, 3NT asks. (Void with spades=3NT) 1H-3NT/4m=void 1S-3NT=indirect, 4C asks. 1S-4x=void

This is IMO a good idea, which i've seen described b4. Can still be combined with trial style bids at 3 level. We don't raise to 2M with balanced 3 card trump do we? Eg. a good raise to 2H is x Kxx KQxx Exxxx

Where do you see 8 tricks??? :) I normally do this by taking 13 and subtracting the loosers ;-) I agree this is not a clearcut 2C opener. I do it since with this hand i don't want P to pass, my opening bid. only opening 2C would provide any chance of reaching 6♠ IMO

Biding: 2♣ (8½ trick, i don't want p to pass)-2♦(0-1 controls) 2♥-2NT (5+ spades, 2♠ would be negative relay) 3♦ (5-4)-3♠ (6 spades) 4♠ (missing too many controls)-6♠/pass(practical bid since p will never guess our hand)

DBL just like one it's done when playing bridge. The pause will already make me consider calling director

I have played both natural responses (2D negative) and control and definately like control responses the most. Two things which control responses do good 1.U can almost at once know if the hands are game or slam potential. After a possible preempt it's easy to know if u won't to double them or do your own game/slam. 2. Also playing control responses cut down on what u have to remember (VERY IMPORTANT IMO) Playing control responses it's very important that responder has a relay bid avaible after opener shows a suit to show biding space. Also only the strong hand should bid any kind of RKC/Blackwood. I've had no difficulty with the 2NT bid (showing 4 controls), for once it's very rare and secondly when a 4 control hand is opposite a correct 2C hand it's not important who get's to be declarer. Typical 2C 2-suiter: EKDxx Ex Kxxx Ex Not too much trouble if P bids 2NT...

Ok i'm looking the wrong place since it's not in the ZarPointsBOOK. Pls give me a link. P

I don't mind biding NT with five card majors. With weak double sometimes open 1M. A good 17 gets upgraded to 18. Mostly i don't need the puppet stayman, reg. stayman works out ok. All those fancy bids are great, but well mostly u don't really need them... To show 5-4 invitational hand as responder i use: Transfer then 2S when 5H+4S. 2C, then 2S after 2D(neg) to show 5S+4H. (when i have GF i transfer to spades and rebid Hs) The advantage is that it's easy and logical to remember. All rebids by responder are natural including minors.

Would bid 3H any day. That hand is ok opener and becomes great after DBL. I agree with justin that gamescore would be good enough. Would never find 6C

In brief it's more attractive to open 2C when one of the suits is a major, less with only the minors. I would recommend you read this article: Link

Ok Mr jokster answer this: How much better a priori is it to play 3NT than 4M with a 5-3 fit What are the percentages? No feelings involved ;-)

1. I have wondered about Zar's statement that 5-3 plays better in 3NT, 4-4 in suit. How do you guys feel about this? 2. Found these hands:Mike Lawrence and did a Zar calc on them. As far as i can calculate both hands should be in 4S. Then i remembered 1. and well what do you know? Hand 1, will actually win 3NT...

If he doesn't have 5♣ then he is forced to have 3♦, so there isn't much problem :) Ok. So far so good. But then if it goes.. 1♦ 2♣ 3♦ 3NT 4♣ 4♦ what is 4♦? Is it diamond cue with club fit, or it is just saying "I don't have 5 clubs, but I have 3 diamonds."? :) With no agreement 4♦ is "i have 3 diamonds, u like this better?". It's never smart to start a cuebid sequence in a bid suit, since p is bound to misunderstand it or forgot what we had agreed on. After 4♣ i would bid 4♥ instead

No backfire? As in: hrothgar: " you don't know anything about statistics" Zar: "except for my Ph.d. in statistics" ......... There is no reason to go namecalling. You don't like Zar, fine he won't force it on you. 1. Yes. i try to do a few Zar point evaluations once in a while on interesting hands. Haven't had bad results yet. It's not weird it's just ONE way to do a SYSTEMATICAL evaluation. 2. Not weird, same principle as Magic Diamond. Does it work? I don't know. 3. See my above post, I agree that something is a bit strange here, maybe even flawed

I have a question for Zar: I don't understand the "preempts", in your proposed system. Eg. ♠ KQTxxxx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ xxx That's around 22 ZAR so no 3♠ opening in Zar. This i would normally open 3♠ in favorable

Maybe my problem is that I haven't been able to see this wonderous system in action... If its as good as you say, I'm sure I'll rush right over to adopt it. I'd be happy to arrange a match some time. I'll play MOSCITO with Free or The_Hog. You can this use this thing. As I noted, I think the structure is badly flawed. I expect that you'll have large losses on your Pass/1♣/1♦/1N openings. You're gonna need to score amazingly well with the rest of your structure, especially given that those openings occur slightly more than 25% of the time... However, I've been wrong before. I might be wrong this time around. I'm sorry but your criticism really points out that u haven't READ what Zar writes. Try that out for starters... What Zar has done is somewhat similar to magic diamond (reversed) but has shown a different way to evaluate hands, based much more on distribution and controls instead of mostly HCP. Eg we all know that a very good 14HCP plus a good 5 card minor is not hurt by opening as a 15-17 1NT. Most of the time it won't be a problem, more often than not we will get a better score. What Zar has done is set this into system and proposed a biding system around it. But by now you must know a most of your criticism was one helluva backfire. The question is are you man enough to try to look into what ZAR really has done ?

That problem is non-existent I would expect my P to bid PASS, not bid 1 of a major... Just like in bridge Well Kokish who coaches many top flight teams thinks responder hand must bid 100% of the time, as do other top expert team coaches. Pass is not as clear cut as you infer by many top players or even novice players such as myself. To say this problem is non-existent seems not to be the best turn of the phrase. See current September 2005 issue of ACBL Bulletin for another viewpoint. That might be correct. It might even be better than what i do... But this is beginner forum, and i doubt that any beginners are taught to respond with around 0 HCP... If i played with a normal p and a natural system i would be really sorry to see P pass my 2C rebid

That problem is non-existent I would expect my P to bid PASS, not bid 1 of a major... Just like in bridge

The more i look at this hand the less i like it. It's really nasty to bid. That however does not make it right to destroy the meaning of a strong 2♣ opening. I imagine something like an auction like 2C-2D-3D-3S-3NT when partner has flat distrib and only ace of spades not being the best contract... The biggest problem is that we dont have enough tricks for the strong opening. =Solution don't open with a strong two. Just like in bridge.... After a 1♦ opening we have ways to discribe our hand more accurately without knowing nothing about p's hand. Fx i like Hannie rebid of 3NT after 1♥. After spades JS to clubs (better to lie about shape than strength) and rebid 3♦(which must be forcing) after 2♣. This makes our exchange of information much better, than opening strong. But true it's still ugly

That hand is definately not a 2♣ opener. I found that when i first found out about the 2♣ openings i used them far to often. Then i read this: http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/b_2c.htm Small excerpt: "Playing tricks -- at least 8 ½ to 9 tricks if your long suit is a major; 9 ½ to 10 tricks if it's a minor. Defensive strength -- a minimum of three (preferably four) quick tricks. Loser count -- your hand's quick tricks should outnumber its losers. The "two-queens" test -- Do you want to be in game if partner has two queens and nothing else? Rebid problems -- How difficult will this hand be to describe if you open it with a one-bid instead of 2C?" The hand fails on most of these questions. Also having diamonds is often the most expensive when u have to rebid since after a 2♦ u have use a lot of biding space. My plan in a natural system would be 1♦-1M-3♣ since a 3♦ rebid would be to little and 4♦ takes us beyond 3NT. I agree totally with Jlall that 2♣ is a judgement bid (but a very bad one). Don't abuse the 2♣ openings. I play controls after 2♣, an normally it works out fine since after the negative 2♦ response there is plenty biding space. 2♥ 2controls 2♠ 3controls 2NT 4 controls After a strong opening there will usually be slam interest after a 2♠ bid (9 tricks + 3 controls) so biding space will not be an issue. If one plays control showing responses responder needs to have some sort of relay bid avaible with bad hands to conserve biding space. Eg 2♣-2♥,3♣-3♦ (relay).

I would see a 3♠ bid as baiting for a 3NT (club control needed) or 4S contract on italian 4-3. It's never a good thing to start a cuebiding sequence in a naturally bid suit...