big spade fit

[Bbradley62]

Slightly agricultural but...

Is that what happens when you translate and translate-back "pedestrian"? :P

[mike777]

Is that what happens when you translate and translate-back "pedestrian"? :P

 

 

 

This is totally correct English.

excellent use of Idiom. :)

 

I start with 2nt strong raise.

[the hog]

Not strong enough? Come on, this is a slam opposite just about any decent min, e.g.

 

AKxxx

Axx

xx

xxx

 

For the record, I echo Rainer and would also take the risk of bidding the KISS 4NT because the alternatives are pointless:

 

2♦, bar some unexpected struck of luck, is bound to create more confusion than enlightenment.

 

2NT, in its standard variant, has such a ridiculous follow up structure that we can't get anything worthy out of it.

 

4♣/♥ splinters will leave you in the dark if pard bids 4♠, as he probably will with most min hands. Still, it's the only bid besides 4NT that has some technical merit... if you can bring yourself up to pass a 4♠ rebid, that is.

 

So what's left? 4NT. Slightly agricultural but it will work fine most of the time.

 

cf Mikeh's hand: KQxxx KQx xx KQx

 

Sorry for stealing your hand, Mike.

[whereagles]

Ron, if you wanna be picky, I'd open that one 1NT :) Anyway, I wouldn't worry about that one because it's quite cherry-picked. I'd be more weary of something like

 

AQxxx

KQx

x

Qxxx

 

5 is on a finesse and hands like this are pretty common. I'd still bid 4NT most of the time because it's a practical bid with only a slight risk attached. If I'm in Zia's "heat 3" I'd try the more cautious splinter (and pass pard's 4♠ rebid, of course). Certainly not 2D or 2NT, whose only merit are to please a cookie-cutter pard.

[VM1973]

Not strong enough? Come on, this is a slam opposite just about any decent min, e.g.

 

AKxxx

Axx

xx

xxx

 

For the record, I echo Rainer and would also take the risk of bidding the KISS 4NT because the alternatives are pointless:

 

2♦, bar some unexpected struck of luck, is bound to create more confusion than enlightenment.

 

2NT, in its standard variant, has such a ridiculous follow up structure that we can't get anything worthy out of it.

 

4♣/♥ splinters will leave you in the dark if pard bids 4♠, as he probably will with most min hands. Still, it's the only bid besides 4NT that has some technical merit... if you can bring yourself up to pass a 4♠ rebid, that is.

 

So what's left? 4NT. Slightly agricultural but it will work fine most of the time.

Zar Points: A=6, K=4 Total: 20

Plus 5 Points for the Spade Suit: 25

Plus 3 Points for the Heart Suit: 28

Plus the difference between the longest and shortest suit: (5-2):31

And probably one point for concentration of your honors into two suits = 32

 

Since you need 26 to open and a king is worth 4 points the hand you've posted is 1.5 kings above a minimum opener. A minimum opener looks much more like this:

♠KQxxx

♥KQx

♦xx

♣Qxx

For honors: 14

For shape: 11

Spade Suit: 1 = 26

 

And slam is definitely not on opposite this hand.

 

Plus assuming that you're determined to ask for aces off the bat, it certainly can't hurt to bid 2NT first, setting the spade suit as trump, and THEN bidding RKC as you'll also know if partner has the K and Q of spades. The lack of the ♠Q would be good here as you'll know partner must have more outside to justify his bid and so slam will be more likely, but the lack of the ♠K would definitely not be a good thing.

[gwnn]

VM you counted a king twice, AKxxx Axx xx xxx is only 28. Actually you really shouldnt count another point for "concentration" because Zars slightly overvalue controls as it is. So it's 27. Edited August 19, 2011 by gwnn

[Free]

Ow boy, a new ZAR freak. Where's Ben? :P

[mikeh]

cf Mikeh's hand: KQxxx KQx xx KQx

 

Sorry for stealing your hand, Mike.

You're welcome....besides, much as I'd like to claim ownership of certain hand types (I 'own' all 4=4=3=2 28 counts!), I don't think the laws of bridge allow it :D

 

As for the hand being cherry-picked, it wasn't....if I had spent more than 5 seconds typing it out, I would have not chosen it, since I would open 1N....but there are many, many hands on which we lack 5 level safety, which was the point I (and you) were trying to make.

[VM1973]

VM you counted a king twice, AKxxx Axx xx xxx is only 28. Actually you really shouldnt count another point for "concentration" because Zars slightly overvalue controls as it is. So it's 27.

Ok, apparently I did count a king twice. My bad.

 

However, I disagree that Zar points overvalue controls. I googled "zar points overvalue controls" and I didn't find any webpages that made a case for that. Really the system is not substantially different from what the Aces used (3-2-1-½) or what the Modern Losing Trick Count uses (Missing Ace = 1.5 losers, King = 1, Q = 0.5) so basically several sources indicate that an ace should be worth triple a queen.

 

Secondly, the idea that you shouldn't add 1 point for concentration is also suspect. Surely you must agree that:

♠AKxxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣xxx is better than ♠xxxxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AKx

 

Thirdly, considering that the system calls for someone to open with as low as 25 ZPs as long as they have the spade suit (as a measure of the value of the preemptive effect) then surely the hand in question cannot be considered a minimum opener.

 

Finally, it doesn't address the problem that possession of the ♠Q is a liability as AKxxx opposite xxxxx doesn't usually result in a trump loser. The opening hand could be: ♠AQxxx ♥AQx ♦xx ♣xxx for the same number of ZPs, one more HCP, and still be unsuitable for slam purposes. Accordingly I maintain my view that even if your strategy is just to ask for controls it surely must be worthwhile to establish spades as the key card suit in order to ensure that the controls are there.

 

I also note that the actual hand opener held contains 32 ZPs (without counting extra for concentration) though in all fairness the ♠Q is wasted but even at 30 ZPs it's a full king better than a minimum opening bid and you're not cold for 13 with it.

[gwnn]

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Controls are nice but they aren't so nice as Zars tell you. Of course AKxxx Axx xx xxx is better than xxxxx Axx xx AKx, but I don't think

 

AKxxx Axx xx xxx is equally good as AQT9x KQT xx QT9, which is what Zars would tell you.

 

To make my objection to controls slightly more scientific, I'd like to cite the logistic regression analysis made by helene_t a few years ago, which got to the conclusion that hcp+controls are very close to accurate in suit contracts, but for 3NT it is much closer to reality to look at 4321 (and add in about 0.4 hcp for tens).

[Phil]

VM, there's been a lot of discussion about ZAR's, LTC, Binky, Little Jacks, KNR and about every other conceivable hand evaluation method on the forums.

 

ZARS tend to overvalue distributional hands with good controls. ZARS pay no attention to intermediates nor honor placement. Personally I think Zars are better than Work-beans however, and when I'm faced with a marginal decision, I sometimes find myself counting "x points + x controls + (x+y) + (x-y)" especially when my RHO is thinking :)

[mikeh]

More to the point, I don't know any expert who, in the post-mortem, ever says words to the effect of 'I had 'x' number of points, and I added 'y' for my shape and came up with 'x+y' as my hand evaluation.

 

It's more often something like:

 

'It was a minimum hand, but I really liked my shape, and the auction suggested that my K was well-positioned, and partner showed me such and such, so I bid 'a''

 

or

 

'I only had 15, but it was loaded with controls, and I liked my stiff club on the auction. Partner suggested he had 6 spades, so I could see a source of tricks'

 

We're all taught to use numeric metrics when we try to value hands, and there is no doubt but that they are very useful, but focussing on them as a means to bid well is like travelling around a scenic area looking only at the map, rather than the countryside. You'll get a rough idea of what the landscape looks like, but you will miss out on much of the experience.

[xxhong]

I think it's simple to just play 1S 3NT as RKC to solve this problem. The 4-3-3-3 shape can usually be bid in a slower way. 3NT as RKC may land you at many 4 Ms when you miss two KC, which is very valuable IMO.

Are you suggesting that after a 2N forcing raise, I will miss grand opposite 4 keycards?

 

Using 2N to set trump is a precursor to, not a means of avoiding, the use of keycard.

 

I agree that the hand on which one wants to know Aces and not keycards is rare, but it really isn't esoteric bridge science to agree that 4N caters to that hand while J2N then Ace asking is keycard. Anyone who uses Texas and jacoby, for example, already uses a similar sort of approach: 2 level transfer then 4N is quantitative, 4 level transfer then 4N is keycard. How tough is that to remember?

 

 

As for interference, while the odds are that we won't need 4N as just Aces very often, I don't find the chances of a 5-level bid by 4th hand over J2N to happen very often either B-)

 

I find it funny that people who advocate keycard 4N seem to think that those of us who don't ask for keycards on round one of the bidding intend never to ask later.

[VM1973]

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Controls are nice but they aren't so nice as Zars tell you. Of course AKxxx Axx xx xxx is better than xxxxx Axx xx AKx, but I don't think

 

AKxxx Axx xx xxx is equally good as AQT9x KQT xx QT9, which is what Zars would tell you.

Well I think that's a strange argument to make considering that the first hand has a reasonable shot at slam opposite the posted hand while the 2nd hand might not even take 10 tricks.

 

Don't get me wrong... I like having 10s around while playing 3NT just as much as anyone else. I just don't see them being that helpful when I'm trying to make 6NT.

[MrAce]

 

Don't get me wrong... I like having 10s around while playing 3NT just as much as anyone else. I just don't see them being that helpful when I'm trying to make 6NT.

 

You obviously haven't played with Haspel as partner. When he puts you in a slam, you bet you will need every single T and 9 out there :D

[gwnn]

Well I think that's a strange argument to make considering that the first hand has a reasonable shot at slam opposite the posted hand while the 2nd hand might not even take 10 tricks.

 

Don't get me wrong... I like having 10s around while playing 3NT just as much as anyone else. I just don't see them being that helpful when I'm trying to make 6NT.

I think you developed a healthy habit of not reading all the lines of my posts. It is probably good for your time management, but makes communication less efficient. Like I said, controls are not bad for suit contracts, but 4321 are much better for NT. And when I get a 5332, many times we will be in NT.

 

It is also a little bit funny that you responded in 1 line about the king that you counted twice - your bad. That was a 4 point difference in Zars!! You wanted to prove that AKxxx Axx xx xxx is not nearly a minimum opener, and were overjoyed when your favourite evaluation method confirmed your view. You weren't even a little suspicious of your findings, 32, doesn't that sound a little too much? No no, that's what Zars told me! So 90% of your previous post was about the arbitrary 1 zar point you included for concentration, but you forgot about your whole point, that AKxxx Axx xx xxx has a lot of extras (1.5 kings!). So we can agree to disagree on Zar and controls, I don't want to argue about it. If you want to use Zars all the time, you're welcome to do so. However, it is very inaccurate for no trump.

[VM1973]

I think you developed a healthy habit of not reading all the lines of my posts. It is probably good for your time management, but makes communication less efficient. Like I said, controls are not bad for suit contracts, but 4321 are much better for NT. And when I get a 5332, many times we will be in NT.

 

It is also a little bit funny that you responded in 1 line about the king that you counted twice - your bad. That was a 4 point difference in Zars!! You wanted to prove that AKxxx Axx xx xxx is not nearly a minimum opener, and were overjoyed when your favourite evaluation method confirmed your view. You weren't even a little suspicious of your findings, 32, doesn't that sound a little too much? No no, that's what Zars told me! So 90% of your previous post was about the arbitrary 1 zar point you included for concentration, but you forgot about your whole point, that AKxxx Axx xx xxx has a lot of extras (1.5 kings!). So we can agree to disagree on Zar and controls, I don't want to argue about it. If you want to use Zars all the time, you're welcome to do so. However, it is very inaccurate for no trump.

No, actually, I've just discovered them and although they seem to work extremely well I am having problems applying them. For example, we all "know" that if your partner makes a negative double and you have 10+ that you're supposed to jump... but what's that in ZPs? Again, the takeout doubler shouldn't bid again unless he has extras... let's say 17+ considering that his partner should have jumped if he had 10+ so what's that in ZPs? Assuming that you want to play ZPs for NT then how much is 15-17 in ZPs?

 

As for thinking that AKxxx Axx xx xxx that I added up and came up to a number that was bad and I should have known that was too much... that's what comes from being unfamiliar with something. Previously I would never have thought of opening holding:

Axxxx Axxx xxx x as I always used the rule of 20 (8+9=17 ... not even close). Nevertheless ZPs says it's an opener (12 for aces, 13 for shape, 1 for concentration...and even if you don't count concentration you can still add 1 for having the spade suit).

 

Anyway I read an article written by the author of Binky points in which he basically admitted that ZPs were statistically within 1 trick of the actual trick taking power of the hands (using double dummy play) but that his system was within 0.79 (statistically better) so Binky points are definitely on my reading list, but until then I'm experimenting with ZPs but I feel encouraged that even the detractors of the system (Binky adherents) have to admit that it does work.

 

Still, I can't help but think that YOUR posts are the ones lacking. You said ZPs overvalue controls. As soon as you said that I opened a second tab and Googled it to try to confirm what you said and I came up with nothing. How do you know ZPs overvalue controls? A deep feeling in the pit of your gut or can you actually link me to a webpage or post that indicates how, when, and why they fail under certain circumstances?

 

Additionally, I can't help but think that you're the one who isn't reading my posts. If you read back you'll see that my original post was: "I really don't think slam is there unless the opener has extras and I think that just asking for aces is a bad idea because you can always set the spade suit as trump first before asking and find out about suit quality." From there we're off on English teachers living in Peru often can't do math even with a calculator in their hand. Well, if I were good at math, I would be an engineer not an English teacher.

 

Finally, even if 5-3-3-2 often plays in NT I'm thinking it's not going to play in NT opposite the hand in question... just a theory of mine but you're welcome to play it in NT as often as you'd like.

[VM1973]

You obviously haven't played with Haspel as partner. When he puts you in a slam, you bet you will need every single T and 9 out there :D

I'm certain Haspel cannot be any worse than the normal partners one gets when they go on this website and sit down with a random partner.

[gwnn]

I wasn't posting about this particular hand, I was posting about Zar points in general and the Zar evaluation of AKxxx Axx xx xxx in particular. That is why I only replied to your second post, which I disagreed with and not your first post, that I agreed with. I agree with you that 4NT is too much on this hand.

 

How do you know ZPs overvalue controls? A deep feeling in the pit of your gut or can you actually link me to a webpage or post that indicates how, when, and why they fail under certain circumstances?

I know that Zar points overvalue controls because in NT 4321 is very close to reality and the most common game in bridge is 3NT. This is the third time I wrote this down, this is why I said Zar points overvalue controls. Let me write this down a fourth time: Zar points overvalue controls because controls are not as valuable in NT as in suit contracts and you do not know when you open 1♠ that you will play 4♠.

[Zelandakh]

I think it's simple to just play 1S 3NT as RKC to solve this problem. The 4-3-3-3 shape can usually be bid in a slower way. 3NT as RKC may land you at many 4 Ms when you miss two KC, which is very valuable IMO.

I agree with you when comparing RKCB with a natural 3NT response. However, whether RKCB is as useful here as, for example, a void splinter is another question entirely. If you are going to look at conventional responses then you need to compare with other possible conventions and not only against "natural".

[whereagles]

lol.. ZAR wars.

 

@VM: my issue with 2NT is that unless you have your own souped-up version of the convention, you're going to get absolutely nothing useful out of it :)

[ArtK78]

Previously I would never have thought of opening holding:

Axxxx Axxx xxx x as I always used the rule of 20 (8+9=17 ... not even close). Nevertheless ZPs says it's an opener (12 for aces, 13 for shape, 1 for concentration...and even if you don't count concentration you can still add 1 for having the spade suit).

I want to preface this post that I know next to nothing about ZAR points.

 

However, if it is true that ZAR points evaluate Axxxx Axxx xxx x as an opening one bid then that is all the argument that I need for the statement that ZAR points overvalue controls.

[Zelandakh]

VM, Zars advocates opening very light so Rule of 19 is closer than Rule of 20. Secondly, if you are convinced of the 3-2-1 ratio then the equivalent in Milton is 4.5 - 3 - 1.5. That makes Axxxx/Axxx/xxx/x 1 point short of an opening, as indeed it is in Zars until you adjust for spades. I think if you think in this way wrt Milton it will make your comparisons with Zars better/simpler. What is more, this "adjusted Milton" method is generaly better at handling NT hands than pure Zar points. My understanding is that the few top pairs that use Zar points do so in combination with other evaluation straegies and not the pure evaluation scheme from the website.

[JLOGIC]

In the last 6 months I've had two hands that responded 4NT to 1M to ask for aces (one of them was written up in the Daily Telegraph later, we gained a big swing on it for slightly complicated reasons).

I've had no hand where the auction started 1M P and I wanted to ask for keycards directly.

 

No sarcasm intended in this question, are you trying to argue that straight ace ask hands are more common than keycard hands after 1M p, or are you just saying it as an interesting side note?

[jdeegan]

:P If I have a laydown slam opposite the right minimum, then I should make a strong jump shift. So wtf is the problem?