[inquiry]

Dealer: South Vul: All Scoring: IMP

♠ KJ9632 ♥ KJ ♦ Q53 ♣ J6

I had this hand. Until reading about ZAR points, I would happily open this 2♠ or multi 2♦. However, by ZAR points (without corrections), this is an opening hand. Let's count...

13 for distribution (6S+3D+(6-2))
11 for HCP
2 for controls (one for each king)
------
26 ZAR points.

Even if we subtract a point for Jx of clubs, we come to 25 and ZAR's system calls for opening with 25 if you have the spade suit. So, against my better judgement, I opened 1♠.

Partner bid 2NT. We play this limit raise plus. So figure partner for minimum of about 10 hcp, maybe 11 with 4 card support. Our response schedule is 3♣ = no game interest opposite limit raise, and 3♦ = game force but no slam interest. With this bare bones opener, what do you think I bid? Nope, not 3♣, but rather 3♠, showing extra. Why? We have a "super fit" of at least 10 ♠, so I get to count some more points here. For instance, I get to add two points for my ♠ honors. So my 26 has grown to 28. I also get to add 3 points for my 6th spade, so that now brings me to 31 ZAR points, well more than a minimum. There is some issue about the extra trump not being worth as much if there is no short suit, so it is in theory only worth 1 point if I have a doubleton, but still, 29 is more than minimum, and I know we have 10 card fit, so maybe that should be 30.

So, not only did I open this piece of junk, I then said I had more than a minimum. A few minutes later, I was resting nicely in a laydown 6♠ and quick 6 imp pickup...

[FONT=Courier]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♠
 Pass  2NT!  Pass  3♦!
 Pass  3♥!   Pass  3♠
 Pass  4NT!  Pass  5♦
 Pass  6♠    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

2NT = limit raise or better
3D = game going value, no slam interest (better than minimum)
4N = RKCB
5D = 1 or 4 Keycards

So I score this one as a victory for ZAR points... althought I don't feel that comfortable about it.. .BTW, my partner pointed out that I don't have a 1♠ opener and I should open 2♠. 16 times this hand was played, only 2 pairs opened 2♠ with my hand (neither reached slam).

Ben

[Free]

I knew you'd post this one!! Ofcourse, here I was the victim...

[inquiry]

Well. I am making a study of ZAR stuff.... I have to admit, I don't have the expertise or computer know-how to study millions of hands. So I just do like I always do, and try something out. No fancy stastics. I just keep good and bad results (if not, you remember just the good oir just the bad, depending upon you bias). So far, Zar has been pretty darn good, I must admit. But still early.

I guess the zar issue here isn't so much 1♠ or 2♠, I think vul even Zar might think this is 2♠. But, the issue is rather or not counting this as more than a minimum when partner shows limit+ raise is the right thing to do. That is the interesting point, I think.

Ben

[1eyedjack]

Well I don't know squat about Zar points. Instinctively I tend to upgrade my hand with a big fit, and with a ruffing value, and with a second suit etc etc. Who doesn't? My instinct is then enough to tell me if we are in the game zone, or slam zone, or whatever. And if we are in the slam zone I ain't relying on any total valuation system.

Now, what is instructive about this hand? I might open it 2♠ or I might open it 1♠. Jury's still out on that, but it doesn't take a Zar system to tell me the marginal nature of that decision. But If I opened 1♠ and followed up by showing a MINIMUM opener I would still expect responder in this case to force to the 5 level.

Opener's ♥J, ♦Q and ♣J are almost entirely wasted. As trumps break 2-1 (which is heavily odds on) even the ♠J adds little to the play. Likewise responder's ♦K is of little value. So the question I would ask is, would Zar evaluation get you to 6♠ on the following hands:

---

Here I would rather favour a 2♠ opener over 1♠.
OK, a 3-0 trump break will defeat you. Give opener ♠J if that possibility bothers you.

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally, I am curious if Zar's rule about reducing the opening requirement for 1♠ opener anticipates Pass as the only alternative. If the alternative is opening 2♠ then the added value of getting the ♠ suit in early in the auction with a 1♠ opener is perhaps beasd on a flawed assumption.

[1eyedjack]

Final comment before I concede the floor! :-)

Would the Zar valuation and bidding have been the same had opener held, instead:

♠KJ9632
♥KJ
♦Q5
♣J63

Slam still has play, and indeed is probably one to be in, but it has significantly reduced odds. Pay for ♣Qx to fall doubleton, and when that fails rely on ♥finesse. Still fail on 3-0 trumps offside. On this occasion both the Jacks are worth their full weight.
What made the other slam so good is that responder's shortage is opposite opener's longest side suit. Was this factor brought to light in the auction?

[inquiry]

Well, I can't speak for ZAR, but his article does say sound preempts in the range of 22 to 25 zar points. So if you in fact subtract a point for the short honor, then this would drop to 25... but the 25 rule with spades would still be a standard opener, I think. And yes, I think three clubs to J and doubleon ♦Qx would be same points.

[Flame]

I would open this 1♠ way before i ever heard of Zar points.
You have 11 hcp, 12 hcp is an opening, doesnt 6 card suit worth 1 point ?
it is an opening in the rule of 20, or goren's count.
also i dont like opening premptives with hands that doesnt look like a premptive, too much defense.
Showing extra later was the impressing part.

[hrothgar]

Dealer: South
Vul: All
Scoring: IMP

♠ KJ9632
♥ KJ
♦ Q53
♣ J6

The hand in question isn't considered a constructive opening playing MOSCITO.
You only have 5 slam points and MOSCITO requires 6 to open.
All the Jacks in the world aren't going to make up for a missing control.

with this said and done, this hand clearly qualifies for a preempt.
I think that 6S should be reached after 2S (or the equivalent)

[Zar]

The first thing I do is going to the Bid Machine (http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/) and see what the machine bids.

Goren bids 5.67 Spades, Bergen bids 5.00 Spades, Zar bids 7.00 spades (provided you have all the right controls). I already hear you screaming "What 7S, man - I draw my A of diamonds on the lead" :-) The machine doesn't use Blackwood and that's why the 7S, but note that if I get rid of the K and Q of Di and put A instead, the grand is there.

I hope you have no problem with the Grand.

Since we are missing an A, and since neither Goren nor Bergen bid "even" a small slam, this slam would be a "tasty" small slam that a lot of people wouldn’t bid (provided you make it, though :-)

The opening of 1S - yes, you have 10 HCP (after deduction), 2 ctrl and 13 distributive points so you open 1S. Sure, if your suit were H, then the bid would have been 2H.

"I guess the zar issue here isn't so much 1♠ or 2♠, I think vul even Zar might think this is 2♠."

Not really Ben - I'd open 2H if the suit were H, that's for sure. If you hold the spades, you ALREADY have pre-empted the opponents (since they have the suit below :-)

"But, the issue is rather or not counting this as more than a minimum when partner shows limit+ raise is the right thing to do. That is the interesting point, I think."

Limit raise you say. So - let's see. N has the ASTONISHING amount of 8 controls, 17 HCP (after degrade), 11 distribution, a supertrump (with a side singleton if you care to use Zar Ruffing Power calculations) for a total of 39 Zar Points. If I had the A of Di instead, that would have been 41 points and on your opening of 26 ZP I’d just pull the 7S card so we’d have been in a grand before you get a chance for a re-bid :-)

Seriously, your partner’s hand is so strong after your 5-card major 1S opening that I am surprised neither Goren nor Bergen bid a slam. It’s not a matter of you being min or max for the opening. Not only that, but when I changed the K of D to Ace, Goren went to 6.33 but Bergen still was at 5.50 S!

After that, I left the A and got rid of the Q of Diamond in the other hand (still a GRAND) and Goren went back to 5.67 while Bergen to 5.00 S. This only comes to show us the importance of controls (and the lack of :-)

Cheers:

ZAR

[inquiry]

Zar, on Apr 12 2004, 04:38 PM, said:

"But, the issue is rather or not counting this as more than a minimum when partner shows limit+ raise is the right thing to do. That is the interesting point, I think."

Limit raise you say. So - let's see. N has the ASTONISHING amount of 8 controls, 17 HCP (after degrade), 11 distribution, a supertrump (with a side singleton if you care to use Zar Ruffing Power calculations) for a total of 39 Zar Points. If I had the A of Di instead, that would have been 41 points and on your opening of 26 ZP I’d just pull the 7S card so we’d have been in a grand before you get a chance for a re-bid :-)

We play 2NT as limit raise + (the plus is unilimited), and 3♣ by me showed willingness to go to game opposite a limit raise (think 23 Zar points). Of course, partner could have a lot more than limit raise, as he did here, and with me showing extra values, he had visions of grand slam over 3♦, but blackwood slowed him down. :-)

[Trpltrbl]

This is a minimum ZAR opening, but the 6 card ♠ suit is nice. But I think if I open 2♠ we still be playing 6♠. Pd has the world, and this is one the of the reasons i play decent preempts in first or second seat.

Mike

[Zar]

*** Ben wrote: We play 2NT as limit raise + (the plus is unilimited), and 3♣ by me showed willingness to go to game opposite a limit raise (think 23 Zar points). Of course, partner could have a lot more than limit raise, as he did here, and with me showing extra values, he had visions of grand slam over 3♦, but Blackwood slowed him down. :-)

Yes, I do realize that, Ben - basically you pd could jump into slam regardless of Zar Points and (more over!) regardless of your opening of 1S or 2S (as long as you haven't opened in 3rd seat when there could be some doubts). The real question here is what would your pd do if you change the K of diamonds with A. That's the interesting question, while the small slam should not be an issue I want to believe.

*** Mike wrote: This is a minimum ZAR opening, but the 6 card ♠ suit is nice. But I think if I open 2♠ we still be playing 6♠. Pd has the world, and this is one of the reasons i play decent preempts in first or second seat.

Yes, my point exactly – as long as you have a sound 1st or 2nd seat opening of 1S or 2S, Small Slam shouldn’t be a problem for anybody. Which in turn may NOT be the case with the Grand.

ZAR

[inquiry]

Zar, on Apr 14 2004, 03:01 PM, said:

Yes, my point exactly – as long as you have a sound 1st or 2nd seat opening of 1S or 2S, Small Slam shouldn’t be a problem for anybody. Which in turn may NOT be the case with the Grand.

ZAR

Well, after my "extra value" showing bid we were on our way to 7♠, until we were off an ace. :-)

As far as samll slam not being a problem, here are the results of this hand, as you can see 10 or 16 bid the slam, one managed to go down....

Result - -Points- - Score
6SE-1- --100------15.07
2SE+4 -230 11.8
4SE+2 -680 6.27
4SE+2 -680 6.27
4SE+2 -680 6.27
5SE+1 -680 6.27
5SE+1 -680 6.27
6SE= -1430 -6.47
6SE= -1430 -6.47
6SE= -1430 -6.47
6SE= -1430 -6.47
6SE= -1430 -6.47
6SE= -1430 -6.47
6SE= -1430 -6.47
6SE= -1430 -6.47
6SE= -1430 -6.47

[Zar]

Juts finishing Helgemo’s book and a hand was kind of “in concert” with the one discussed here – do we open “bordersome” hands and what exactly is bordersome. The hand (the second one below) has 11 HCP and 2 Controls – and still passed by Eric Rodwell – a player that is not famous for passing hands easily:-)

To set the stage, here is a hand from the last Bermuda Bowl, again Rodwell in action. Actually both Rodwell and Lauria opened this 10-count-hand with 1D,

2
A J 9 3
K Q 10 9 8 6 5
5

but Rodwell passed this 11-count with all-honors-working and 2 CTRL here:

Qxxx
Qxx
Qxx
AJx

The first one has 10+3 from HCP and controls and 7+4+7-1=17 from distribution for a total of 30 Zar Points – well into the opening range, while the second one – the 11-count with 2 controls has 13 from HCP+Controls and only 8 from distribution for a total of bare 21 Zar Points.

Quite a difference between 30 and 21 indeed.

ZAR

[1eyedjack]

There is a fundamental assumption being employed that I wish to call into question: The assumption is that there is a single cut-off point in the playing strength of a hand below which the bidding should not be "opened" (at least in a constructive sense, ie preempts aside), and above which the bidding should be opened.

I have, for example, over the years come to the conclusion that hands with extremely 2-suited distribution are better controlled by passing in first or 2nd seat and following up with aggressive competitive bidding.

It is only by convention that when partner passes we expect him to have less than a particular limit of playing strength. My regular partners appreciate that this limitation no longer applies after I "come out of the bushes".

I appreciate that there is a risk of the auction being passed out if you start by passing with strength. In practice that has never happened to me yet when I have an extreme 2-suiter.

[inquiry]

Well, I am going to respectifully disagree with this approach. If a hand is wildly distributional, I open on less and less hcp. If you wait to bid, several bad things might happen (I am not worried about passing out).

1) The bidding may be at an unacceptibly high level on your next time to bid
2) Your partner will have a hard time envisionally distributional-based slams and such a strong playing stregnth if you passed initially.. that is, it is very difficult to catch up on stregnth.

I open 8, 9 hcp if the shape and controls are right. And it turns out, ZAR points do a good job of meeting my own opening requirments. I started these light openings playing precision, where I was protected by a cap of 15hcp when I open simple bid in a suit. And when I switched back to 2/1, I hated to give up on these light openings, becasue they worked so well in precision, and I have found a way to squeeze them successfully into a 2/1 type bidding structure. Give me wild two suiters, and I will BID.. .and gladly...



Ben

[Zar]

***1eyedjack wrote: hands with extremely 2-suited distribution are better controlled by passing in first or 2nd seat and following up with aggressive competitive bidding.
<

If the opponents bid the other 2 suit, yes. But this is not always the case. Plus – it matters who holds the “general power” too :-) With “extreme 2-suiter” as you call it, it is BOTH safe and natural to “name” your suits by bidding them. Otherwise you may not get a chance. And you carry the risk of “overbidding” with passed hand just to “show” how strong of a pass you had :-) I am sure you have seen such cases where the passed hand bids 3 times all-the-way to a Game just to “show a max-pass” :-) It’s hard to “compensate”.

*** Ben wrote: I open 8, 9 hcp if the shape and controls are right. And it turns out, ZAR points do a good job of meeting my own opening requirements.
<

I was just about to say that “if the shape and controls are right” is actually what Zar Points are all about :-) In Precision you are protected by a cap of 15 HCP, in Zar Points bidding you are protected by a cap of 30 Zar Points. Looks like the same (since ZP are 2 times “cheeper”) but it is not. I’ll post some tons of research on this subject soon, since this research is the basis of the bidding itself. To give you a feel – “normal” system PASS 66% of the hands (pre-empts aside), Zar Points – only 54% (with 10ns of millions of boards examined, of course). I’ll let you know when all the results are in good shape and posted (several people do these experiments independently and with different programs).

Cheers:

ZAR

[cnszsun]

inquiry, on Apr 12 2004, 12:37 PM, said:

Partner bid 2NT. We play this limit raise plus. So figure partner for minimum of about 10 hcp, maybe 11 with 4 card support. Our response schedule is 3♣ = no game interest opposite limit raise, and 3♦ = game force but no slam interest. With this bare bones opener, what do you think I bid? Nope, not 3♣, but rather 3♠, showing extra. Why? We have a "super fit" of at least 10 ♠, so I get to count some more points here. For instance, I get to add two points for my ♠ honors. So my 26 has grown to 28. I also get to add 3 points for my 6th spade, so that now brings me to 31 ZAR points, well more than a minimum. There is some issue about the extra trump not being worth as much if there is no short suit, so it is in theory only worth 1 point if I have a doubleton, but still, 29 is more than minimum, and I know we have 10 card fit, so maybe that should be 30.

Hi, I just studied Zar points, the following is my calculation:
South hand: 11HCP+2 control+13 distribution-1 Jx deprication=25
After partner show fit: +1x1 additional trump length=26
So, South has an opening hand (for spade suit 25 is enough), but not much upgraded after being supported, i thought trump honour points can only be added by responder (sorry, i'm wrong here, at another thread Zar has explained that both side can count fit suit honors, so South can add two more points for ♠ honors).
North hand: 15HCP+7 control + 11 distribution + 2x1 additional trump length +1 turmp honour=36 (i treat ♦K as wasted at slam contract)
So, north knows small slam is on the way even if his partner has a minimum opening (62 is needed for small slam contract).

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Apr 16 2004, 04:24 PM, said:

Well, I am going to respectifully disagree with this approach. If a hand is wildly distributional, I open on less and less hcp. If you wait to bid, several bad things might happen (I am not worried about passing out).

1) The bidding may be at an unacceptibly high level on your next time to bid
2) Your partner will have a hard time envisionally distributional-based slams and such a strong playing stregnth if you passed initially.. that is, it is very difficult to catch up on stregnth.

I open 8, 9 hcp if the shape and controls are right. And it turns out, ZAR points do a good job of meeting my own opening requirments. I started these light openings playing precision, where I was protected by a cap of 15hcp when I open simple bid in a suit. And when I switched back to 2/1, I hated to give up on these light openings, becasue they worked so well in precision, and I have found a way to squeeze them successfully into a 2/1 type bidding structure. Give me wild two suiters, and I will BID.. .and gladly...



Ben

We shall have to respectfully agree to differ :-)

"1) The bidding may be at an unacceptibly high level on your next time to bid"

I have not found this in practice. I am prepared for a high level if I choose this action. The flip side is that if I open partner will force me to an unacceptably high level on a misfitting hand in an uncontested auction if I open.

"2) Your partner will have a hard time envisionally distributional-based slams and such a strong playing stregnth if you passed initially.. that is, it is very difficult to catch up on stregnth"

Partner will only have a hard time envisioning if it comes as a surprise to him that you may pass initially with such strength. I am not suggesting taking this action without prior agreement. I generally find it rather easier to catch up on strength than put the brakes on.

I don't think that this is something that can be resolved by theorising. It just has to be tried a few times to see what happens. I have done this and may have had more than my fair share of luck. Who knows.