Precision with Zar

[jtfanclub]

I am currently using:

1C=16+

1D=4+ diamonds, 11-15

1H/1S= 5+ card suit, 11-15

1NT= 12-15 balanced.

2C=5++ clubs, 11-15

2D= Both majors (usually 5-4 or better, can be 4441) 11-15

2H/2S= Weak

 

An immediate bid of 2/1 is generally not forcing, so 2♦ over 1♥ shows invitational strength. Jump shifts are weak. 1NT over 1M is almost always 10+.

 

No snide remarks about how awful this system is, please. It's not what I'm writing about.

 

My question is, will such a system work with Zar points? It would evaluate to:

1C=36+ Zar points or 17+ HCP.

1D= 4+ diamonds, 26-35 Zar points.

1H=5+ hearts, 26-35 Zar points.

1S= 5+ spades, 25-35 Zar points.

1NT= 12-16 hcp, 22-35 Zar points (Brute Force opening).

2C= 5++ clubs, 26-35 Zar points (might be better to make this 28-35 or so).

2D=Both majors, 26-35 Zar points

2H= Weak 2, 21-25 Zar points

2S= Weak 2, 20-24 Zar points.

 

2D over 1H would show 20-25 Zar points. 3D over 1H would show 11-20.

1NT over 1H would show 20+ Zar or 10+ HCP. The "almost" goes away- a hand with 1=2=5=5 distribution and 7 hcp in the minors has at least 20 Zar points.

 

My questions are...

1. Do you foresee any problems if we were to switch to Zar points, that we don't already have using a Goren count?

2. Would you change the ranges on any of these to better reflect the HCP?

[tysen2k]

For what it's worth, in both simulations and at the table, I've found that I like including distribution count for my strength, even on artificial strong openings. So using a standard Precision system, I'd prefer 17+ or 18+ counting distribution for my 1♣ opening rather than 16+ HCP.

 

My only suggestion is to not use definitions that are "either X Zar or Y HCP" and stick to one or the other. For your 1NT opening you might want to stick to just HCP.

 

Tysen

[pclayton]

Initially, I think 36 is a little high for the 1♣ opening. If you assume a prototypical minimum semi-balanced 1♣ opener (with a 17+) looks like: AQJTx, Kxx, Ax, QJx, which is also 17.1 in KNR, this represents 34 ZARs.

 

I've used loser count with strong club (16+) openings. This happened after we missed games with my pard opening AKxxx, AKJxx, x, xx with 1♠. We (compromised) on 15 count with 5 losers or 14 count with 4.

 

But you can't go nuts with this theory. I can't ever see myself opening AQxxx, Axxxxxx, x, void with 1♣ even though it contains 33 ZARs. You need to have some baseline minimums with HCP in my opinion.

 

By the way, don't get too upset if you don't have a clean cut-off point for ZARs. Some hands that are 18-20 might have less than your ZAR requirement, and many of your one bids might have more.

[jtfanclub]

My only suggestion is to not use definitions that are "either X Zar or Y HCP" and stick to one or the other.  For your 1NT opening you might want to stick to just HCP.

 

That's a good idea.

 

From pclayton:

 

Initially, I think 36 is a little high for the 1♣ opening. If you assume a prototypical minimum semi-balanced 1♣ opener (with a 17+) looks like: AQJTx, Kxx, Ax, QJx, which is also 17.1 in KNR, this represents 34 ZARs.

 

Interesting. That's a pretty limited opening already.

 

Right now, we end up with a range of over 3 tricks: both xx AKxxx Axx xx, and -- AKxxxxx AKxx xx get opened 1 heart, even though the first has 7 losers and the second 4 1/2. To limit it to effectively less than two tricks was already a huge improvement, I thought.

[EricK]

When you play eg 1♣ as 16+ HCP, the result is that minimum unbalanced 1♣ bids are, on average, stronger than minimum balanced 1♣ bids (because they have extra distributional strength). If you switch to something like Zar points then, if the theory behind Zar points is sound, you are making all your minimum 1♣ openings have the same overall strength regardless of their shape.

 

This has an effect on your response structure to 1♣. You will need to raise (possibly by quite a lot) the minimum required for a positive response because if the shape of the hands are misfitting, opener will not have compensating high card values.

 

This has the further effect, that your negative responses become more wide-ranging so you need better methods to determine whether game is likely.

 

It might, therfore, be wise to play a positive GF 1♦ response (or possibly 1♥), and split the negative hands into semi-positives (which are immediately differentiated) and double negatives (which are lumped into a single bid - either 1♥ or 1♦).

 

Eric