mikestar

Reopening the Polish vs Precision case. Expert pairs interfere very aggresivly against Precison 1C, but don't go quietly against SAYC 1C. I suspect the optimal defense to Polish 1C is to be more agressive than vs SAYC and less agressive than vs. Precision. Looking at a specific sequence as an example: 1C-(2S) and for the sake of argument 2S is natural. The frequency of this sequence will be higher after Precision 1C than Polish 1C, but the Polish 1C itself will be more frequent than the Precison. My guess is that the overall probabilty of the sequence will be about the same. So the question of advantage here is which system copes with this intervention less badly--personally I'd rather be playing Precison here. The big win for Polish vs. Precision is its handling of primary club hands (nobody loves the precison 2C). On the other hand, Precison wins on major suit openings because it limits the strength better than Polish. The one diamond opening depends on the type of Precision--if nebulous, this is a win for Polish, if natural a win for Precision but paid for by bigger losses on the club hands. I think that overall, Polish may be slightly superior (a grudging concession from a dedicated Precisionista) but that it isn't nearly so clearcut as some earlier posts imply.

In Journalist Leads Jeff Rubens writes (discussing lead conventions) that all methods have losing cases and a partnership must choose which mistakes it prefers to make. I believe that this applies at least equally well to bidding systems and that the quest for one best system is futile. Every system will shine at something and do something else badly--which mistakes do you prefer to make? Certainly the quest for a partnership's preferred system is fruitful--it is possible to find a bidding system that works better than others for two particular players: there will be something that fits their skills and temperaments better than some other system does.

Whether South's pass is reasonable depends on his systemic alternatives (what does 2D show in this partnership?), but leaving in the double is an abomination--even placing partner with a singleton, its too likely 1S won't go down enough to pay for the extemely likely 3NT (never mind the slam actually available.)

To clarify my own policy--it is not quite Sontag's published one, but close--I will only make self-evident claims that require no statement; in other words, cases where I can't lose a trick by any legal play of the cards including irrational ones. The legal standard of "careless or inferior but not irrational" is equitable but it leads to absolutely endless wrangling over disputed claims. At one time I directed two games at a senior center--an ACBL sanctioned game run strictly by the book, and a non-sanctioned game run mostly by the book but with several house rules. One such house rule required all hands to be played out. The games drew the same players (at least 80%). The non-sanctioned game was always faster--the time lost by playing out the hands out never exceeded the time saved not having to adjudicate disputed claims.

Zar, OK--deduct 3 points for the missing trump, then count as if I had normal support. Looks like that leads to a very reasonable evaluation.

I bid 5D--partner won't bid spades over this and he may have the right cards to make it. If he has the wrong cards they may not know it and take a phantom save in 5H.

Alan Sontag advocates an even more restrictive policy in Power Precision: "Always play a hand out." If my understanding is correct, he will accept an opponent's correct claim or concession but never claims or concedes.

Just as a matter of personal preference to avoid this kind of hassle, I never claim if there are any outstanding potential winners. In this hand, knowing the location of the spade Queen, I pick it up and then claim.

Balance 0%: Partner doesn't have shape, or is weak, or has wastage in spades. Just too much risk. I have some sympathy for an action on the previous round, but I would have passed. 2S making whatever it makes might won't be horrible at imps and may be a big gainer if they balance at the other tables and it's wrong.

The complete text of the relevant law: LAW 70 CONTESTED CLAIMS A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1. Require Claimer to Repeat Statement The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 2. Require All Hands to Be Faced Next, the Director requires all players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. 3. Hear Objections The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. C. There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. Failed to Mention Trump claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. Was Probably Unaware of Trump it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play. D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. E. Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop) The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational.

2 spades. Your hand is worth 36 Zar points before any adjustments for fit. This is two full tricks better than a mininum opening bid. Partner must have at least 8 Zars even with 0 HCP and is unlikely to be that weak and 4-3-3-3. If he has 4-4-3-2 and 6 HCP with no controls, or 5 HCP with one control, he has 16 Zars for 52 total=game in a major--plus that spade void is worth something when we find the fit. I don't like double on a void when game is so likely--we won't set then enough.

From the ACBL General Convention Chart: 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points. Moscito's 1D showing hearts needs an aprroved defense becuase it has a lower limit below 10 HCP. Note that I am not defending the ACBL's regulations, just stating what they are to the best of my knowledge.

I could argue for using a Precision defense against a Polish 1C. If my hand is weak, it is more likely that the 1C opener is strong (or his partner is). A typical precision defense should be modified in two ways: Just be aggressive/very agressive, don't imitate Marty Bergen. Both intervenor and advancer need ways to show strong hands without having to lie in wait--though the prime focus will still be on preemption.

It can't be played exactly as given in many countries. Rule of 18 would require 9 points minumum for most of the unbalanced spade hands--but the French Bridge Federation, for example, relaxes the requirements to Rule of 16 in third seat which would allow the spade opening on 7 in this seat. For the ACBL, the minimum would be 8 in all positions. However in the ACBL at the GCC level or the Midchart level the minor openings would require 10 HCP, because they don't promise 3 cards in the bid suit. Even with the restrictions, you should be able to play anywhere with small modifications. The only place you can't play it that I know of is in a ACBL Limited Convention Chart game (these are always beginner games and you can't even play Precision with a nebulous 1D or Precision 2D.)

Let's say I open with 1D with S- Axx H-xxx D AKxxx C-xx (27 ZP) and partner responds 1S showing 4. If I choose to raise to 2S (I really don't want to bid 1NT with no fillers and both unbid suits wide open) what is my ZP count now, allowing for having 1 trump LESS than partner expects? With Zar Fit Points would it be 24? (-3 to compensate for the +3 partner would count for five spades, mistakenly believeng he has the ninth trump) What would be the correct total with Zar Ruffing Power?

Tysen, So the singleton and void case sparate more but the singleton and doubleton cases come closer together? Interesting. I had been suspicious of the 5-3 vs 4-4 part of the advice.

With regard to the very small difference Tysen found between a singleton and a void when comparing three card support to four card support, I wonder if the difference is wider when comparing four card support to five card support. I read somewhere that it isn't wise to give a void full value if you have less than 5 trumps--and to prefer a 5-3 fit to a 4-4 fit when you are 5-4-4-0. If this idea is valid, it could explain the surprise result.

Zar, Thanks for the clarification of the two-card difference. I beleive your logic is correct. This wasn't my real concern, I just needed correct understanding. Let me make clear exactly what troubles me. Opener has 5-5-3-0 with 5 spades and responder has 4-3-3-3 (so no points for the eight trump will be at issue) with 4 spades. In basic Zar Fit, playing 5 card majors opener counts 0 and responder counts 3, while with four card majors opener counts 3 and reponder counts 0--the total count of each hand shifts according to who knows about the ninth trump, but the total or both hands is stable. But with Ruffing Power playing 5 card majors opener counts 0 and responder counts 0, while playing four card majors opener counts 3 and responder counts 0 for a 3 ZP =.6 trick discrepancy based on the bidding method rather than the cards. Clearly with 4-3-3-3, your ninth trump is worth less than if you were 4-4-4-1, but it should be worth something--it increases the value of partner's five card suit (less prone to bad breaks, etc.) I don't have a good idea how to deal with it. Of course maybe I could stick to basic Zar Fit, but for balanced hands the 3 points per supertrump seems a little high.

OK, opener gets nothing for 5-3-3-2 when he had promised 5, but were he 6-3-2-2 he'd get 1 point. The special case of counting a supertrump with only an 8 card fit if there are at least 2 more trumps than cards in the shortest suit only applies when raising--this was the example you gave, but your text does not explicitly restrict the rule to that case--hence my question. It certainly makes sense that this additonal count would apply only to the short trump hand. In any case the anomaly remains with Ruffing Power--in my example hand with five card majors opener counts 0 and responder counts 4, with with four card majors opener counts 1 and responder counts 2. I could devise other hands where the anomaly is larger (5-5-3-0 opener opposite 4-3-3-3 responder). By comparions, with basic Zar fit points in the five card major case opener counts 0 and responder counts 3, while in the four card major case the opener counts 3 and the responder counts 0 for the same total.

I'm starting this thread to discuss how to use Zar points (inculding refinements and advanced technique), rather than advocacy/criticism. I have some questions about Zar Ruffing Power. Let's assume I have a 5-4-3-1 shape and partner opens 1S showing five. If I have 3 spades, I can add 2 points for the singleton as I have two more trumps than cards in the short suit. If I had 4 spades, I would count 4 points, if I had 5 spades I would count 6 points. But if my shape were 4-4-3-2 and I had 3 spades, I can't count 1 for the doubleton because my trumps are not two cards longer than my short suit. So if I had 4 spades, I would count 1 point total. Is my understanding correct so far? Now let's assume opener is 5-3-3-2 with five spades. Does opener count 1 point for the doubleton after the raise? Now put the 5-3-3-2 opener opposite the 5-4-3-1 responder (with responder having 4 spades). If as we assumed we are playing five-card majors, resonder will count 4 extra points and opener will count 1 after the raise, for a total of 5. But if on the same hands the partnership were playing 4-card majors, would the opener count 2 points and the responder 2 for a total of 4? Am I missing something? Note that the basic Zar superfit points are not affected by the system shift. With 5 card majors, responder counts 3 for the ninth trump, with four card majors opener counts the 3 point for the same 3 point total.

I would think that the system to teach beginners is the simple verison of the most common national system. That would be a simlified SAYC for the US (as bad as that sounds) Acol for England, and Precison for China, etc. The problem with teaching a system different from the national norm is that you limit your beginners' choice of partners when they play outside of class.

[Mikestar post] I'm inclined to think that putting up with the brain cramp while changing my ways might be worth it. [Zar reply] I hope it’s not a typo and you didn’t mean “brain crap” :-) [mikestar reply] Not a typo (for once!) [mikestar post] It is also possible that the targets should be one point lighter--American beginners are taught 26 for game and European beginners are taught 25. [Zar reply] I am taught 24 :-) [mikestar reply] Always were an agreesive game bidder, weren't you? ;-) [mikestar post] I wouldn't be surprised to see that Zar is still superior even with these adjustments to 1-3-5, but for me the test is how much superior--how much improvement do I get in exchange for the mental effort. [Zar reply] I have the feeling I am pulling your teeth with these Zar Points :-) Have you ever worked harder? :-) [mikestar reply] Well, yes--not at bridge however. It seems I always resist a new idea most strongly before adopting it. You show both the ability and the willingness to defend your ideas with excellent supporting data--that counts for a lot. Many new ideas never got adopted by me because their inventors couldn't defned them or couldn't be bothered to do so. [mikestar post] For anyone who can adjust to using Zar at the table easily, I'm sure the effort is worth it. I can envision that many people would find changing the targets easier than using half points as I advocate or quarter points as in BUM Rap. [Zar reply] These quarters and halfs and rounding stuff ... How come none of them is a brain cramp for you? Cannot seize to wonder :-) [mikestar reply] I don't actually count them: noticing a couple of aces and no queens, I add a point. My bridge history with regard to hand evaluation has involved many different point count methods (plus non-PC methods like the LTC). All of the methods had 26 for game, however much they differed otherwise (with the exception of a couple which clearly had no merit--for example, one with a 5-4-3-2 scale for honors). So the equation of 26=game is more firmly rooted in my unconsious than any method of counting to 26. I think it fairly likely that my experience is atypical. In any event, the fact that I am considering such a radical overhaul of my methods is a testimony to the great merits of Zar points--I don't have the time or mental energy to waste wrestling with something merely above average. As a side note, I find it interesting that 1-3-5 even without a fit adjustment is so much better than Goren 1-2-3: you would think it would be more widley played, as the adjustment from 1-2-3 is so simple.

I wanted to share something I came up with during my mental meanderings aroung Zar points. Here is a formula for converting HCP/Goren point/Bergen point etc. bidding requirements to Zar points. First determine an appropriate base shape for the bid. For bids such as opening one bids that can be unbalanced but don't show extreme shape, I would suggest using 5-4-2-2: note that its 12 Zar DP is halfway between 11 Zar DP for 4-4-4-1 (the weakest unbalanced patern), and 13 Zar DP for 5-4-3-1 (the most common unbalanced pattern). We assume that the point count requirement applies to a hand of the base shape with a normal number of controls. Proceed as follows: 1. Convert the requirement to HCP if it isn't already in HCP, by deducting the distribution points for the base shape. 2. Multiply the HCP by 1.3 to convert HCP to Zar honor Points. 3. Add the Zar DP for the base shape. Some examples: Goren opening one bid (13 Goren points): Subtract the 2 Goren DP from 13 yielding 11 HCP. Multiply 11 HCP by 1.3 yielding 14.3 Zar HP--round to 14. Add the 12 Zar DP for 5-4-2-2 shape to the 14 Zar HP, yielding 26 Zarpoints B) A Rule of 18 opening: 18 - 9 (Bergen value of 5-4-2-2) = 9 9 * 1.3 = 11.7, round to 12 12 + 12 = 24 Zar points Precision 1C (with unbalanced hand): 16 HCP, no subtraction. 16 * 1.3 = 20.8, round to 21 21 + 12 = 33 Zar points Romex Dynamic NT (with unbalanced hand): (Converting Rozenkranz's more complex requirements to "Rule of 27") 27 - 9 =18 18 * 1.3 = 23.4, round to 23 23 + 12 = 35 Zar points This technique might be useful for setting Zarpoint standards for premepts (with different base shapes, of course). For example, thet's say our partnership's minumum weak two is something like KQxxxx xxx xx xx. We chose 6-3-2-2 as our base, giving 13 Zar DP. Now 5 * 1.3 = 6.5, round to 7 7 + 13 = 20 Zar points Note that we don't do any of this calculating at the table--this is done when we are coverting our system notes to using Zar points. At the table we just count Zars.

I'm inclined to think that putting up with the brain cramp while changing my ways might be worth it. Did you also allow for +1/2 HCP for each ace and -1/2 HCP for each queen in the 1-3-5 calculations? If not, then part of Zar's superiority is the more accurate honor count. A fit version of 1-3-5 is easily defined-- add 2 points per extra trump instead of Zar's 3 to reflect the different size of the scales. I suspect these two changes (or one if you already did the HCP adjustment) will bring 1-3-5 closer to Zar. It is also possible that the targets should be one point lighter--American beginners are taught 26 for game and European beginners are taught 25. I wouldn't be surprised to see that Zar is still superior even with these adjustments to 1-3-5, but for me the test is how much superior--how much improvement do I get in exchange for the mental effort. For anyone who can adjust to using Zar at the table easily, I'm sure the effort is worth it. I can envision that many people would find changing the targets easier than using half points as I advocate or quarter points as in BUM Rap. For me I find it harder to change targets.

I've tried my hand at designing a 4cM Precision, and the problem is the Flannery hands: 4=5=x=x, insufficient values for a reverse. If it isn't worthwhile to sacrifice 2D for Precison 2D, do we want to use it for Flannery? 4=5=2=2 isn't so bad, you can open 1H and pass 1NT; on 4=5=3=1 2D over 1NT isn't so bad; but 4=5=1=3 is a major pain oven 1NT--2C becomes fairly nebulous: are we 5-3 in hearts and clubs or 5-4 or 4-5? Is there a good conventional way to resolve this sequence? I've never liked opening 1S with 4-5 majors, though K-S advocate it with stong spades and week hearts--I seem to always end up in the wrong partial after 1S-1N-2H. Then again, maybe my thinking is distorted by the desire to keep it GCC legal--Kaplan Inversion solves all of these problems.