[cherdano]

I agree, Bart Bramley should read up about Zar points, or Justin should try to find a decent partner if he doesn't do his homework.

[han]

I actually agree with Ben that this is a very nice 18-count. If partner does have a 2-4-3-4 distribution then I think it makes sense to bid slam, while if partner is 3-4-2-4 then slam does not look nearly as good. I imagine that it was possible to find out if this was the case.

Of course responder could say that opener knew about his 4-2-5-2 shape (which is probably true) but opener didn't know that responder had such a prime suit-oriented hand. I really don't think that opener should act over 4NT.

[inquiry]

cherdano, on May 21 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

I agree, Bart Bramley should read up about Zar points, or Justin should try to find a decent partner if he doesn't do his homework.

Not that it matters, but Justin suggested it was Bart Bramley who held the opener's hand. In that case, he bid exactly what ZAR points would suggest he bid over the leap to 4NT. Pass is also what essentially everyone in this thread is bidding. To be honest, with openers hand, I can't see any other decision but pass of 4NT.

On the otherhand, we don't know who held responder hand. Maybe Justin, as he played with Bart Bramley in the Cavendish. Maybe this was a cavendish hand. Or maybe Bart Bramley's partner wasn't justin. Justin suggested that rebidding 1♥ on this hand was "your style" in one post and "our system" in another suggesting that he was a participant on this auction, but I don't think he has said for sure.

No one has to bone up on ZAR points, and I could care less if anyone plays them. I just point out for people that might use them that they support the supports the view that 1) opener has a clear pass of 4NT jump, and 2) the slam was missed because of a "zar-underevaluation" by responder.

I suspect that if this was justin-bart, then it was Justin "who should read up on Zar points" not Bart. But then, this is a question of evaluation. Did opener underevaluate his "slam suitable minimum" or did Responder underevaluate his "slam forcing minimum". Of the two, I know where I would point the finger, regardless of who the players are. We all make mistakes (not that anyone made one here), even Justin and Bart (if this was them).

[inquiry]

Jlall, on May 21 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

Right, I was responder (this was online). I do not think forcing to slam was reasonable without a fit (doesn't zar downgrade without a fit?). Just construct some hands where partner has 2425 or 3424 and slam is not very good. I agree I have a slam force opposite 3 diamonds.

Zar does downgrade opposite misfits by subtracting what he calls misfit points (BTW, he adds misfit points when there is a fit!!!). If partner was 3424 and you are 4252 there are a lot of misfit points. 1 in spades, 2 in hearts, 3 in diamonds, 2 in clubs. I use the M2 method, the sum of the two largest differences. In this case, 2+3, which comes to 5. So opposite these patterns, ZAR suggest subtracting 5 ZAR misfit points, or 64-5 = 59 (62 needed for slam). Can 1 diamond make the equivalent to a king plus a jack difference? This is a fuzzy area with ZAR points, that seems a bit heavy, but the slam goes from a pretty good chance needing 3-2 diamonds, to needing a 3-3 diamond split plus some squeeze possibility (club-spade, or the like) opposite a doubleton diamond by just moving a diamond to a spade. Maybe Zar is onto something, the removal of one diamond makes a huge difference.

Not only subtract misfit points with no 8 card fit, only add misfit points with at least a nine card fit. You will always have at least one 7 card fit.

[kenrexford]

I never did learn that ZAR points stuff; my head started to explode.

That being said, I did learn and have liked what some of us call "the three and a thirds" count. I think maybe Klinger. The idea is to re-evaluate the high-control hand by adding up the controls (here, 8), multiplying that by "three and a third" (here 26 2/3), and subtracting from this the actual HCP count (26 2/3 minus 18 = 8 2/3). Then, if the difference is 2-5, add (or subtract if negative) a point, if 6-9 two, if over nine, 3.

With this count, Responder's hand is worth about 20, and a high 20 at that. The hand also features a five-card suit headed by AK, which seems to tip slightly up.

That being said, I also will open several trashy 11-counts, which still yields only 31, with no assured fit. So, I get back to no certainty of a slam, as you decided, Justin.

Looking at the "three and a thirds" for Opener, he has 12 HCP's and four controls (13.33). This gives him almost enough for an upgrade to 13, but not quite. Change Opener's hand to five controls, even AAK with a Jack somewhere, and he can upgrade to 13 and accept.

So, it seems like Opener is likely to have 11 to a four-control 12 for a pass of 4NT. Meaning, even upgrading to 20 for Responder, this hand features 31-32 net points, with no assured diamond fit. Hence, the same analysis -- slam with a diamond fit but not without a diamond fit, and no good way to find out. Passing 4NT seems right, as does bidding 4NT, ultimately (assuming that partner can have relative trash for the 1♣ opening).

This may simply be a zone hand, in a systemic gap that cannot be resolved. Note also the lack of body (as noted by others), removing any real ability for either partner to take the leap. Had Responder held some body, that extra 1/3 might be there. Had Opener had body, with three-card diamonds (a good feature as well), he might get two additional 1/3's and enough. But, no one has body.

Tough hands. Very unlucky.