[rhm]

mikeh, on 2011-August-18, 08:54, said:

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

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.

Fair enough.
The difference is that quantitative invites after notrump are needed and not uncommon. Asking for aces instead of key-cards on round one and that this difference will matter is seldom and I just dislike having to remember agreements, which may occur once or twice in my remaining life span.
I have enough trouble remembering all treatments, which occur twice per year.

Rainer Herrmann

[VM1973]

I cannot agree with 4NT because really your hand is not strong enough to put you into the slam zone. If partner doesn't have extras you're not safe at the 5 level. Both 2♦ GF and 2NT should get you off on the right track, though a lot depends on what systems you have in place over 2NT. I'd probably bid 2♦ and support spades later.

I'm assuming, also, that the person you were kibbitzing plays 5-card majors.

[FrancesHinden]

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.

[daveharty]

The two hands were:

---

At the table, the auction was:

1S - 4H
5C - 5D
6S - p

Easy game! When I asked him about the 4H bid, North cited its preemptive value (compared to a 4C splinter which he also considered), although I personally think the opps are MORE likely to find a heart fit after the heart splinter. In retrospect I think he likes 2D better.

I think the discussion regarding the meaning of 1M-4NT is interesting, but it almost leaves aside the question of whether this hand is appropriate for it, whatever your agreements. I think I would be more inclined to approach it more slowly with 2D, it seems like preventing interference isn't the primary consideration here.

[whereagles]

VM1973, on 2011-August-18, 11:42, said:

I cannot agree with 4NT because really your hand is not strong enough to put you into the slam zone. If partner doesn't have extras you're not safe at the 5 level.

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.

[Bbradley62]

whereagles, on 2011-August-18, 15:50, said:

Slightly agricultural but...

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

[mike777]

Bbradley62, on 2011-August-18, 16:13, said:

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

This is totally correct English.
excellent use of Idiom.

I start with 2nt strong raise.

[the hog]

whereagles, on 2011-August-18, 15:50, said:

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]

whereagles, on 2011-August-18, 15:50, said:

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.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2011-August-19, 07:43

[Free]

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

[mikeh]

the hog, on 2011-August-19, 00:20, said:

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

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]

gwnn, on 2011-August-19, 07:33, said:

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.

mikeh, on 2011-August-18, 08:54, said:

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

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]

gwnn, on 2011-August-19, 10:26, said:

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]

VM1973, on 2011-August-19, 18:14, said:

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