[SteelWheel]

So one of my pards has discovered ZAR and is very enamoured of the concepts. Currently we play a Precision type approach (mostly Berkowitz-Cohen stuff, although we play the Kokish-like 1♥ relay, to handle all the NT ranges). It works ok, but he's never really been a "Precision guy" so when he stumbled across this, he suggested we give it a whirl. Of course, there's always the issue of what is optimal versus what Big Brother in ACBL-land will let you actually play. He came up with the following--basically, he trashed the either-or two level openings, and made them all sort of like Trent style "weak" two bids, which also took the "26-30 ZP with a 6-card minor" meaning out of the 1♦ opener. At the time he drafted it, he was unsure as to whether Kaplan Inversion is Mid-Chart or GCC, so he offers two versions. Interested in two separate issues--one is how good or bad the system is, and second is whether or not people think it will pass muster with The Powers That Be in North America. Thanks.

>>
GCC ZAR SYSTEM

1C 36+ Zar Points
Same Club System
<17 ZP Min
17+ Pos Min

1D 31-36 Zar Pts (Not sure 1S forcing is legal. But redo is below)
1H 4+ Hearts, min. (<14 ZP) can play
1S Forcing NT hand. Diamond bidder can bid.
1N Shows intermediate balanced hand
Pass
2X Forcing to at least 2NT (>14 ZP) with 4-5 cards in Major, 5+ in Minors.

1N 4 Spades Minimum (<14 ZP)
2C 6+ Clubs Minimum (<14 ZP)
2D 6+ Diam Minimum (<14 ZP, did not feel like letting 1 level go)
2M 6+ Major, >14 ZP
2N Minors, > 14 ZP.

1H (4-5 Card, Not 3-4-3-3 if 1S forcing is not legal)-
1S Relay to 1N
1N
P To play
2m Forcing.
2M Forcing with a major
2m Freebid
2H To play
2N Jacoby
3 level (Fit showing I think would play best)
1S (4-5 Card, not 4-3-3-3)–
1N forcing
2m To play in a minor
Pass - OK
2D Forcing, Diamonds
2M Forcing with a major (to 2NT)
2m Freebid
2S To play
2N Jacoby
3 level (Fit showing I think would play best)


1N – 26-31 ZP (No shortness, 4 card spades (4-3-3-3). Note: Its possible we want to put 3-4-3-3 wih hearts in here, but not necessary because you can get out in the auction 1H-1S-1N if 1S as forcing is legal.

2C Asks
2D 5 card minor (May have other 4 card minor)
2H Asks
2S Clubs
2N Diamonds.
2H 2-3-4-4
2S 3-2-4-4
2N 4 card suit (4-3-3-3, maybe 4 spades)
3C Asks
3D 4 Clubs
3H 4 Diamonds
3S 4 Hearts (If playing it)
3N 4 Spades (Since you know he is 4-3-3-3, better to have your hand shown)
Transfers, no need to super accept since if partner has 4 in a major, 4-3-3-3.


Note: Give up on showing 6-5 two suiters which is OK, since they are not that frequent anyway.



2m Shows (5-6 m, if 5m must have singleton or void, If 5-4-2-2, either have 4 card major and open a major or 2-2-4-5 open 1NT. 26-31 ZP)

Over 2C, Play Precision 2C system.
Over 2D, Play our pre-empt system, just redefine what minimum means (26-28 ZP).
New Suits: Non Forcing

2M Shows (6 Major Unless extreme distribution 5-5 to get the less than 10 HCP hands in), 26-31 ZP)

Over 2M, Play our pre-empt system, just redefine what minimum means (26-28 ZP).
New Suits: Non Focing

2N (5-5 Minors, 26-31 ZP).
3m to play
3H Hearts, forcing
3S Spades, forcing
3N to play

3X (7 Cards, 26-31 ZP)
The usual stuff.

3N Gambling

4X (8 Cards, 26-31 ZP)

Question of whether 1S showing forcing NT is still legal (Can’t find it in any Convention chart). If not, the following adjustments need to be made.

Openers:
1D: If 1S as forcing is not legal.
1H: Min (<11 ZP)
1S: Min (<11 ZP)
1N: Forcing
Natural Rebids, should have safety in 2N anyway. Just lose 1 level of room with balanced intermediate hand (and possibly wrong side the contract, but I sometimes find that overrated. If big hand holds all the Aces and I hold the queens, where do I want the lead.
2X: to play

1M: No 4-3-3-3
1N forcing so person opening 1M has at least 2 4 card suits. 4-4 in majors open 1S so you can rebid 2H.

>>

[akhare]

Seems interesting, but the formatting makes it difficult to quickly identify the opening bids and responses.

Also, it will be good if you can translate ZAR points into the HCPs for the uninitiated...

[awm]

Kaplan Inversion is not GCC (it's mid-chart).

I'm somewhat confused by this bidding structure, since even the ZAR document acknowledges that hands with a big fit and working shortage are a lot better than hands with a 7-8 card fit and shortage opposite slow cards. It seems like in this system you're often making a nebulous opening call on intermediate hands (1♦ showing any 31-36 ZAR), you have no easy way to distinguish between four and five card major suit openings (both 1M) or five and six card minor suit openings (both 2m), and you often open in a major holding a minor which is two cards longer. This approach doesn't seem ideal for quickly locating your big fits (or identifying your misfits).

[Gerben42]

I don't know about the legality of the system, but you have to explain it to the opponents in terms of things they understand, and that is NOT Zar points.

[helene_t]

Yes, use HCPs and then add the comment that unbalanced and/or control-rich hands are upgraded aggressively. Or some such (I'm not familiar with ZAR myself).

[SteelWheel]

@Akhare: Yeah, I just tried to copy and paste the Word doc I had, and couldn't get the formatting to carry over, sorry..If anyone has a suggestion as to how to make the presentation a little cleaner, I'll re-post (or edit my original post).

@awm: Yeah, I know that Kaplan Inversion is mid-chart--pard wasn't sure when he took his first shot at it, that's why he did two alternate versions.

As for the canape aspect--so far, we've just been rebidding the major to show a five-bagger (six-baggers are covered by the "weak" two bids), and ignoring the four-card minor; I know this must be wrong, but this is still a work in progess...

@Gerben and Helene: So far, we've been telling our opponents that 1♣=approx 18+ HCP, 1♦=approx 15-18 HCP (any), 1NT=approx 13-16, etc. It's the easiest "shorthand" I can come up with to give people some idea of what hand type to expect.

[dake50]

Zar Petrov expression: hcp +Neapolitan controls +(longest + 2nd long lengths) +(longest -shortest length).
His claim is that if enough 'stuff' is considered, better evaluation arises. I note immediately no consideration to Majors over minors.
And since I open 10hcp with Majors +DT; pass 12hcp with minors +quacks believing I am correct, his theory does not mesh with mine!
Rather than Zar, Majors v minors need be systemically distinguished.

[han]

How about spot cards? How about honor location?