[VM1973]

---

Assess blame for the failure to reach 6.

[Zelandakh]

I think I know the answer you are looking for here...North has 21 zars so is clearly far too strong for 4S?

[VM1973]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-August-25, 15:14, said:

I think I know the answer you are looking for here...North has 21 zars so is clearly far too strong for 4S?

Actually I figured that for a pass he could have as much as 25 ZPs. Since I held 36 ZPs that adds up to 61, which isn't enough for a small slam... so I passed.

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-August-25, 15:14, said:

I think I know the answer you are looking for here...North has 21 zars so is clearly far too strong for 4S?

But what else does he bid ?

4♦ or 3♥ (fit) are pretty fruity on a 3 count, but will get you to a slam. You have a powerful offensive hand and partner is marked with a good hand as both opps have passed, but KJxxx, Axx, AKJ, Qx which is not impossible and you're not making 4, you haven't actually made 3 yet, partner is likely to get excited if you take an action that you might take on a stronger hand.

Should south bid on ? No he requires either the hand N has or Axxxx, xxxxx, x, xx to give him a chance, I don't think that's all that likely.

No real blame.

[aguahombre]

LTC for beginners.

7+5=12

subtracted from 18=6

bid 6

[Flameous]

lol, for once I'd want to be playing bergen (or really just a mixed raise). Could bid 3D+4D to show the void.
It's pretty close if this is enough for passed hand fitjump. If N hadn't passed, I'd definitely be missing this.

[JLOGIC]

Just one of those things

[rduran1216]

 aguahombre, on 2011-August-25, 18:15, said:

LTC for beginners.

7+5=12

subtracted from 18=6

bid 6

unlike contrived hands of LTC haters, this hand simply illustrates the power of LTC.

[aguahombre]

 rduran1216, on 2011-August-26, 00:27, said:

unlike contrived hands of LTC haters, this hand simply illustrates the power of LTC.

I really do hope you were joking as I was.

[jdeegan]

Thanks for introducing me to ZAR points. zarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................. Certainly, no blame here. The big hand didn't (couldn't) open 2♣, and its inconceivable for responder to bid anything but 4♠ even with his approximate 21 ZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR points. By the way, how does LTC, which I am familiar with, recognize that pard has four small diamonds opposite my void?

[shevek]

East. Clear 1♦ or 2♦ opening in 3rd seat, non-vul.
West's failure to make a passed hand double of 1♠ deserves mild censure too.

[Free]

 aguahombre, on 2011-August-25, 18:15, said:

LTC for beginners.

7+5=12

subtracted from 18=6

bid 6

LTC for advanced players almost gets you in grand slam, with all the extra trumps North sure has less than 7 losers.

[whereagles]

Seems like normal to me... swap North's minors and all would be well.

This more or less makes me conclude that a way over-streched splinter by North is the only way to bid it.

[VM1973]

I've given it a lot of thought and I've decided that I am to blame. With Zar Points his hand reevaluates to 27 ZPs in support of spades as he gets 2 points for each spade beyond the 8-card fit (with a void). I was wrong to assume he couldn't have 26+ ZPs. As I had more than an ace more than I had shown, it was up to me to take further action.

[Cyberyeti]

 VM1973, on 2011-August-26, 08:33, said:

I've given it a lot of thought and I've decided that I am to blame. With Zar Points his hand reevaluates to 27 ZPs in support of spades as he gets 2 points for each spade beyond the 8-card fit (with a void). I was wrong to assume he couldn't have 26+ ZPs. As I had more than an ace more than I had shown, it was up to me to take further action.

Yes but he also bids 4♠ with the same hand with the minors reversed where 10 tricks is the limit. Just write it off, you'll have plenty of company in 4♠.

Also, do you not wonder why very few decent players use ZAR points ?

[the_clown]

Blame the system. Playing strong ♣ you would easily be in 6. 1♣-1♦-1♠-3♦. If the oponents interfere with their ♦ even better, S will quickly figure out he has a monster

[wyman]

Anyone else think this was about 4♠ making 10?

[pooltuna]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-August-26, 00:17, said:

Just one of those things

Okay so you are playing in the Bermuda Bowl against the EBU champion and since this is "Just one of those things" you bid 4♠?

[mikeh]

anyone who uses this sort of hand as justification for the adoption of a particular method of hand evaluation and/or bidding method is misguided. I have read about a very large number of valuation methods and bidding systems and as far as I can tell there never has been and imo never will be methods of either that handle freaks well while also handling well the infinitely more important normal hands.

I think many students of the game get hooked, hopefully only temporarily, on the search for the perfect methods. Imo the fundamental problem is that the rules of bidding so constrain the number of sequences available that it becomes impossible to accurately describe all possible holdings. So it behooves a theorist to accept this and then to focus his or her efforts on maximizing the ability to bid the common hands with maximal effect and leave the freaks to some combination of judgment and luck.

Let me suggest, also, that if you spell out for any decent player an approach to bidding, that decent player will very quickly come up with hands that cause the users of that approach some difficulty. The more uncommon those hands are, the better the method. I freely admit that every method I have ever played would cause me to miss slam on this hand. But I don't care, because this hand type rarely arises. I might play 100 sessions of bridge and not see one that is comparable. In the meantime, I want to be able to maximize my performance on the vast range of hands that I can actually anticipate holding.

[VM1973]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-August-26, 08:58, said:

Yes but he also bids 4♠ with the same hand with the minors reversed where 10 tricks is the limit. Just write it off, you'll have plenty of company in 4♠.

Also, do you not wonder why very few decent players use ZAR points ?

He might have also bid 4♠ holding:
♠108654
♥K8732
♦A
♣97

Or he might be holding:

♠10865
♥K8732
♦AK
♣97

Or the minors might have been reversed and I might have held:
♠KQJ97
♥4
♦8654
♣AK5

...and I'd be down 1 in 4♠.

OR I might be up against an inspired defense. I once kibbitzed a game where the opening lead was a diamond... ruffed. After a long thought a diamond was returned and ruffed. That might happen to me.
-----------------------------
I still think that holding more than an ace above an opening bid, I should have taken further action.