tysen2k

I've done some research on system design and explored this kind of opening bid. I'm using it to develop a system I'm calling the "Shape System" for now. It's a system that emphasizes shape over strength for its opening bids. Flame is right, limiting it to 12-18 w/ no 5cM is too rare. I played around with a few different definitions and 12+ or something like 12-21 are both much better. Including 5cM I think is a plus since now your 1M bids are always unbalanced. This allows you to use all NT rebids for some artificial purpose. Tysen

Okay, how about this. The only criteria for limiting the hands is that "our side" can take equal or more tricks than "their side." No limitations on 9+ tricks or no NT contracts, etc. Sound good?

Ah, I have seen this before. But knowing Richard, this is just what the article says it is: a way to quantify freakness. It's not meant to be a point count. It was never meant to be added to HCP or any derivative of HCP to approximate hand strength.

I will, but not for a few days at least. I just inherited a new project, so I'm pretty busy. Work has to come first sometimes... B)

I had no idea this was the case. I derived mine on my own. Zar, do you have a direct link to that article? Pavlicek's website is www.rpbridge.net, (not .com) and I've searched the whole site, but I can't find it. There is a "pavlicek count" mentioned on his site, but that uses shortness points only, not length.

I did subtract 3 points for the Zar hands if there was no 8-card fit. I'm not sure if Zar did this for his studies or not.

I know this is the way that Zar fit point are usually counted. I have read the articles. But in all of Zar's computerized tests he uses the "simplified" Zar fit count of a straight +3 per trump. So I'm just doing it the same way he does so we can compare. There is also no bonus for honor's in partner's suit, etc.

I just used the simple fit method that Zar uses on his tests. +3 for each extra trump. Maybe extreme, but I wanted to use the same thing that Zar uses. With regard to the vul/not thing. Yes I agree. The best thing to do would actually be to have different point requirements for bidding game depending on vulnerability (say 52 when vul, but 53 when not). However, it also depends on the scoring system since it doesn't pay to be as aggressive at matchpoints. I used total points here since it's something that everyone can actually see. IMPs and MP involve comparisons and can't easily be posted. I pointed out on my original TSP post that the requirements for game, slam, etc. should be modified depending on the vul & scoring system.

I'm just taking a closer look at the data... Looks like others were right when they guessed TSP might be too conservative. Bumping the requirement for game down to 38 TSP gives some more points, bringing the average points up to 21 per hand better than Zar. There aren't enough hands to say what the slam ranges should be; I'll have to look at the larger database.

Okay, prepare yourself for another massive data dump. The table below takes the 13,094 hands posted on my yahoo group, looks at how many Zar points there are and how many tricks are actually taken. I’ve also been able to isolate the situations where the points predict slam, but the partnership is missing some top tricks so that Blackwood, etc. would enable you to stay out of slam. ACTUAL TRICKS TAKEN Zar+fit 9 10 11 12 13 Score Ave 40 1 0 0 0 0 140 140 41 6 0 0 0 0 840 140 42 10 0 0 0 0 1400 140 43 22 0 0 0 0 3080 140 44 36 1 0 0 0 5210 141 45 87 5 0 0 0 13030 142 46 146 12 0 0 0 22480 142 47 195 29 1 0 0 32430 144 48 285 44 5 0 0 48380 145 49 387 91 7 0 0 71050 146 50 473 134 12 0 0 91400 148 51 478 232 34 2 0 113620 152 52 495 297 43 5 0 121740 145 53 526 341 89 5 1 159880 166 54 419 409 111 18 0 209420 219 55 381 404 140 14 0 220350 235 56 286 418 192 22 1 258730 282 57 235 408 255 45 1 296470 314 58 149 312 255 66 2 271040 346 59 105 275 282 86 6 281490 373 60 67 190 256 83 3 233020 389 61 48 199 226 107 15 241890 407 62+ no cntl 58 208 335 1* 0 123430 205 62 4 46 116 111 11 98290 341 63 2 23 99 98 11 94300 405 64 5 19 65 96 18 100810 497 65 0 8 64 97 18 107640 576 66 0 9 28 79 16 89480 678 67+ no cntl 8 20 118 159 0 139920 459 67 0 2 1 28 26 36560 641 68 0 1 5 10 17 23170 702 69 0 1 3 6 26 37560 1043 70 0 0 2 12 14 19940 712 71 0 0 2 6 11 15710 827 72 0 0 1 3 13 19180 1128 73 0 0 1 1 6 8710 1089 74 0 0 0 1 3 4480 1120 75 0 0 0 0 6 9060 1510 76+ 0 0 0 2 4 5940 990 Total 3631270 275 These hands only include those which can take at least 9 tricks. There would be many more hands that take 8 or fewer if this were allowed. The SCORE is the sum total of points that would be won on these hands if bid to the level predicted by the points (not vul). AVE is the average score per hand. So for example, the 52-point Zar hands have 495 going down (-50) + 297*420 + 43*450 + 5*480 = 121740 points or an average of 145 points per hand. Note that if I had allowed hands that can only take 7 or 8 tricks, this score would be even lower as you include hands that go down multiple tricks. I was also generous in allowing the 57-61 point hands to bid only 4M and never 5M. The hands separated out under “62+ no cntl” means that there were 2+ top tricks missing and I assume the pair could stop at 5M. There is one hand in the bunch that has 2 top tricks missing, but the slam still makes since the defense can’t cash them due to blockage. Now let’s look at the numbers for TSP: ACTUAL TRICKS TAKEN TSP+fit 9 10 11 12 13 Score Ave 26 3 0 0 0 0 420 140 27 8 0 0 0 0 1120 140 28 18 0 0 0 0 2520 140 29 39 1 0 0 0 5630 141 30 81 1 0 0 0 11510 140 31 142 8 0 0 0 21240 142 32 226 22 1 0 0 35580 143 33 356 50 2 0 0 58740 144 34 401 82 8 0 0 71680 146 35 502 129 9 0 0 94010 147 36 498 227 22 0 0 112710 151 37 543 308 35 3 0 136070 153 38 523 398 75 5 0 157030 157 39 421 417 104 11 0 206170 216 40 375 460 150 12 0 247710 248 41 240 420 224 19 1 274830 304 42 191 383 229 40 2 274580 325 43 118 340 278 70 1 296110 367 44 81 280 290 70 4 279690 386 45 57 195 275 107 3 255690 401 46 29 142 228 94 5 208460 419 47 22 99 212 105 13 192910 428 48 14 68 168 107 9 159410 436 49+ no cntl 13 51 173 0 0 71400 301 49 0 12 61 110 28 129430 613 50 3 11 50 99 15 104870 589 51 1 10 34 78 23 94470 647 52 2 1 20 71 27 94550 781 53 0 2 10 54 18 70000 833 54+ no cntl 0 5 30 78 0 73440 650 54 2 12 16 22960 765 55 1 7 20 29550 1055 56 1 4 19 28190 1175 57 1 0 2 7 9970 997 58 1 7 10520 1315 59 2 3 4430 886 60 1 0 3 4230 1058 61 2 2 2920 730 62+ 3 4530 1510 Total 3859280 294 TSP scores about 19 points per hand more than Zar. Most of these points come from Zar overbidding on many of the games and slams, even when all the controls are there. I limited the hands (by request) to 9+ tricks because that makes Zar look better. If we lower that requirement Zar looks even worse when it goes down multiple tricks. Tysen

Zar, I did read your article. I don't know how this quote is an argument to the point I raised which is that the test that you wrote pages and pages about is essentially worthless.

Read Mike Lawrence's "Complete Book on Hand Evaluation." He has a whole section of the book dedicated to just singleton aces.

I'm not sure what this proves. Sure there will be hands where hand B would be worthless and hand A could be golden, but there are many more hands were the opposite is true. What you have to do it take the improvement/loss you get across from all of partner's possible hands and weight it by the probability that they actually have that hand. If you do this, you get the values calculated by Binky, and thus TSP. If you actually believe that high cards are better in short suits, then why aren't you adding points for these stiff honors?

Ben, the point I was trying to make was that it's not just based on extra trumps and your own shape (shortness) but on partner's shape as well. Your extra trump (with a void) is worth a different amount if partner is shapely rather than balanced. Way back in Part 1 of my Hand Evaluation series, I talk about how much the extra trump is worth, with and without shortness. If you convert the tricks I talk about there into a TSP or Zar scale, you see that your should make the following adjustments: Shape Adjust 3=4-3-3 1 3=4-4-2 1 3=5-3-2 1 3=5-4-1 0 3=5-5-0 0 3=6-2-2 0 3=6-3-1 0 3=6-4-0 1 3=7-2-1 0 3=7-3-0 1 4=3-3-3 2 4=4-3-2 2 4=4-4-1 3 4=5-2-2 2 4=5-3-1 3 4=5-4-0 3 4=6-2-1 2 4=6-3-0 3 5=3-3-2 3 5=4-2-2 3 5=4-3-1 3 5=4-4-0 5 5=5-2-1 3 5=5-3-0 4 It's not as simple as just saying that an extra trump is worth x when you have a singleton, and y when you have a void.

A flurry of activity over the weekend that I wasn't able to participate in. :blink: Let me just highlight and comment on a few things on the last few posts. Zar keeps pointing out "0.24 vs. 0.08" and saying that I'm claiming TSP is 3x better than Zar. I've never said such a thing in my life. As I explained many times before, this was the predicted number of IMP's improvement over HCP+321. All I'm saying is that TSP scores 0.16 IMPs per board better than Zar when compared to a team playing HCP+321. This is a far cry from a 3x better system. These evaluators are very very similar. Since the two methods bid the same thing over 90% of the time, who could claim such a vast difference? This is one reason why I suspect Zar's tests since they produce such different results with practically identical evaluators. And again, I'm echoing the fact (as others are pointing out too) that Zar's tests are really just picking up agressiveness, not accuracy. I bet this is why Zar sees such a difference between our evaluators. I've said many times that if my system says to bid a grand on 0+ points I'd score perfectly on Zar's tests. Zar has never had a reply to this. The point is that I could be wrong about the number of TSP points needed to bid a small slam or grand. One of the strengths of my tests is that it only looks at accuracy of the system, not accuracy of the "steps." About the fact that TSP doesn't add as much for a fit. TSP was designed to require the minimum amount of "post adjustment" as possible. Since sometimes the bidding won't let you know everything about partner's hand, it's an attempt to adjust before the bidding starts. I try to be more accurate initially so that you won't have to change as much later. As those who have read my rgb posts know, my main interest is not really in finding the perfect evaluator, but in studying how valuation changes during the bidding. How does our evaluation change when partner opens 1♠? How does it change again when RHO overcalls 2♦? These points are actually very complicated and not easy to put into rules. Let me give you an example: In my original TSP article at the top of this thread, I hinted at the fact that adding 2 points for each trump over 8 was very simplified, since the real answer was complicated. I've been finding in my studies that the values for honors change a lot depending on how distributional partner (and the opponents are). For example, if partner shows a 5+ suit, he is much more likely to be unbalanced than an "unknown" hand. Our shape becomes more important and our high cards lose importance. Everyone "knows" this, but we don't really have a quantitative feel about how much of an adjustment to make. If I wanted a more accurate evaluator after partner opens 1♠, I would actually subtract 1/3 of all TSP points outside of spades and then add in a constant of 4 points. Weak hands become stronger and strong hands weaker. The value of those high cards outside of trumps becomes less. However, if I'm going to do this, I'll likely have to lower the requirements for my slams by a few points since it's going to be harder to have two strong hands together. I could do this now at the table (thirds are easy to round off) but there's more. The amount that our high cards change depends on how distributional the other 3 hands are. If partner has a balanced hand, our high cards are now worth more, not less. Let's say partner is balanced with 4 spades, our valuation with 5 spades is going to be different than if partner is unbalanced with 4 spades. So the value of the extra trump not only depends on our shape, but on partner's shape as well. (and the opponents too!) No system takes this into consideration yet. I'm working on it. So you can see that the 2 points for an extra trump is just a placeholder for now. Tysen

I don't know how to interpret this either. Don't forget about the 1 point for having 2+ honors in the same suit. That's usually about 4 points on most game hands and even more for slammish hands. Once again Zar's tests are really only testing aggressiveness, not accuracy. If I said to bid a grand every time I have 0+ points, I'd score perfect on Zar's test. If you're forgetting the 2+ honors rule, no wonder the TSP hands are falling short of slam so often.

Of course... I was hoping to separate accuracy from aggressiveness. I love aggressive methods as well. This post was also for rgb, and when I've posted what I considered to be "borderline" hands there before I distinctly got a lot of pushback that what I considered borderline was "not close to the average poster." So when I published my guildlines for what is opening strength, game strength, etc. it was more in line with what a standard bidder would be used to, not my own personal methods. As I said earlier in this post, my current methods allow me to open 1♥ on xx KTxxx xx AJxx (not close to an opening bid for either method ;) )

2 average hands together will have 3-4 suits that they get the 2+ honors bonus. Stronger hands will get 4 or more bonus points, so it's not more conservative at all.

Yes, it is suit oriented. Looking at Thomas Andrews' Binky count for NT, the hand posted originally is worth 3.58 Binky. The averages for balanced hands are: 10 HCP = 3.07 11 HCP = 3.58 12 HCP = 4.09 So this is an exactly average 11-count. So if you want a good 11 to open, this does not qualify.

Thanks for your support, mikestar. My only hope is more people actually give this a try and see if they like it. Feedback (positive and negative) is always appreciated.

They are practically the same evaluator, just with different scales. When I've looked at it, the value of the Ten is pretty insignificant. TSP and BUM+531 are very close in performance, but of course TSP doesn't use fractions, which was the whole point. To each his own. It depends on what you think the point of an opening bid is. If you use sound methods and your goal is to be constructive so you can reach the best games and slams, then that's great. My personal philosophy is to use opening bids to get the first word in before the opponents do. Shapely hands (especially 2-suiters) need the most bids to adequately describe themselves. You've got to start describing as soon as possible while the bidding is low. If your opps find a fit before you do, it may be too late. I'm personally fond of light opening systems on shapely hands and will gladly open 1♥ on xx KTxxx xx AJxx. But partner knows I will have hands like this and won't blindly go to 3NT. But he can preempt much more often in hearts since I'm opening much more often than other pairs...

Unfortunately, yes, but all evalutators are treated the same.

SUMMARY: This is (yet another) evaluation method to help quantify hand evaluation and reach more accurate contracts. This is a simple and easy-to-use method, yet provides more accuracy than many other “improved” methods. This is an attempt to convert Evolved Binky Points into some formulas that are easier to remember than huge tables of numbers. This took a lot more work than I had initially thought. Trying to find a method that is more accurate that HCP, but doesn’t use a lot a complicated fractions is just about impossible. In order to keep things simple I’m avoiding fractions wherever I can, but it means there’s a slightly different scale of strength. I initially tried to make this scale to “normal points” so an average 13-point hand would be about 13 points in the new system. I just couldn’t do it without fractions that would be almost impossible to keep straight at the table. This new distribution has ~1.5 times the scale of normal points, so to convert these to “normal” subtract a third. To convert from normal to these values, multiply by 1.5. A typical opening hand for standard methods should have ~19 points. You should typically need: 34 for the 3-level 39 for the 4-level 44 for the 5-level 49 for the 6-level 54 for the 7-level Of course these are just guidelines, like the 26 points typically needed for game. Certain scoring situations (like vul at IMPs) may push you to change these recommendations. Here is my new method of hand evaluation: HONOR POINTS (HP): A = 6 K = 4 Q = 2 J = 1 (This is just HCP + Controls) * Add 1 point for every suit that has 2+ honors (including the Ten) * Doubletons: Don’t add the point for 2+ honors and subtract one additional point for QJ. (Don’t subtract one for Qx or Jx as these are already valued low enough) * Singletons: Honors are valued as the next weakest honor (A=4, K=2, Q=1, J=0) DISTRIBUTION: Add points for both shortness and length * Shortness points: 5/3/1 for void/singleton/doubleton * Length points: 1 point for each card over 4 in a suit REVALUATION (AFTER PARTNER BIDS) This is a complicated matter and I’m working on a lot of different things to try and come up with an easy to use metric. For now use this simplified way: * Don’t count shortness in partner’s suit (unless you find an 8-card fit elsewhere) * Give +2 bonus for each trump you have over an 8-card fit EXAMPLES: KQJxx - QJxxx AJT * Initially: 14 HCP + 3 controls + 3 suits with 2+ honors = 20 HP. 5 for the void and 2 for the 5-card suits = 27 total points. * Partner bids spades: +4 for the 10-card fit = 31 points. * Partner bids hearts: – 5 for the void in partner’s suit = 22 points. Kxx Qx JTxx ATxx * Initially: 10 HCP + 3 controls + 2 suits with 2+ honors = 15 HP. We get 1 distribution point for the doubleton = 16 total. * Partner bids spades: No change = 16 total. * Partner bids hearts: -1 for the doubleton = 15 points. For NT contracts you can still use these HP, but for distribution simply count 1 point if you have a 5+ suit. You should need about: 34 HP for 2NT 37 HP for 3NT 44 HP for 6NT 48 HP for 7NT Now all I need is a snappy name for my evaluation system. Since my initials are TS, I’ll call them TS points, or TSP. That will do for now I guess. COMPARING EVALUATORS I’ll extend my previously posted table of evaluator comparisons to see how much improvement you can expect by using this method: ERROR SCORE HCP 1.23 -0.49 HCP+321 1.07 0.00 HCP+531 1.05 0.07 Zar 1.05 0.08 BUMRAP+321 1.03 0.14 BUMRAP+531 1.02 0.21 TSP 1.02 0.21 Binky 0.99 0.32 ERROR is the average # of tricks there is in difference between how many tricks we think we can take and how many we actually take. SCORE is an estimation of the IMPs/board we expect to gain against a team that uses a simple HCP+321 evaluation method. It’s a measure of how much payoff there is for using a better evaluation system. HCP is A=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1 HCP+321 is HCP + 3 per void + 2 per singleton + 1 per doubleton HCP+531 is the same with more points assigned to shortness Zar is HCP + Controls + twice the length of longest suit + once the length of second-longest suit minus length of shortest suit. http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/ BUMRAP is a substitute for HCP: A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.5, J=0.75, T=0.25 TSP is the method described in this article. It’s an attempt to find the best evaluator using simple whole numbers. Binky is Thomas Andrew’s evaluator: http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/bridge/valuations/

I second hrothgar's reasoning.

Okay... well one of the goals is to use an unusual system so that you create swings, giving a weaker pair a chance to win against a strong field. The translation is a little klunky in places, but let me get this straight. Pass = 0-2 or 7-9 or 16-18, either 4333, 1- or 2- suiter with clubs, balanced with a club doubleton, or 3-suited short in clubs. 1♣= 0-2 or 7-9 or 16-18, either 3334, 1- or 2- suiter with diamonds, balanced with a diamond doubleton, or 3-suited short in diamonds. . . . 2♥ = 3-5 or 10-12 or 18-20, either 3433, 1- or 2- suiter with spades, balanced with a spade doubleton, or 3-suited short in spades. These 2-level bids seem very common and over half the time we'll have the balance of the strength... I'd say it meets its goals for design. :P