Zar

I am afraid we are running in circles here ... Or in parallel tracks ... The ability of a STATIC distribution to make tricks INCREASES with the HCP content - that's the reason why you COMBINE them. I have stated in a number of ocasions that a SINGLE hand does NOT take tricks - it's the COMBINED power of the 2 HANDS that makes tricks. Your KJx can make 0 tricks against xxx with 25% chance, or 2 tricks with the same 25% chance, and in the same time 3 tricks with 100% CHANCE against AQx. HOW can you incorporate that in the evaluation of the SINGLE hand? You evaluate YOUR hand (and re-evaluate during the bidding) an make only probability-based conclussions about the other 3 hands as the bidding progresses. I certainly agree that the trick-taking POTENTIAL of KJxxxx is much bigger than the potential of KJx, but this IS reflected in ANY method (more or less). If we shove here the influence of fits, misfits, double-fits, super-fits etc., where does the point-of-discussion go? In that respect the misfits and superfits, double-fit etc. points are MUCH more relevant than the distribution-value-change of a SINGLE hand (whatever that means IF it means anything at all). ZAR

> Average is the sum of all hands divided by the total number of hands. This is likely close to but not exctly the same as a 10 HCP hand. < Average Hand in Milton sense is a hand with 10 HCP (25% of the 40 HCP total in the deck). Average Hand in Zar Points sense is a hand with 24 points (10 HCP + 3 CTRL + 11 Distributional points). Average hand in Goren Sense is a hand with 11 Goren Points (10 HCP + 1 for the doubleton). Note that ALL these comply with the WBF “Rule of the Queen” – they are all 1 Queen (2 points in terms of the corresponding “points” definition) BELOW the opening hand (12 HCP, 13 Goren, 26 Zar Points). > A 5422 hand has "x points" of distribution when it has honors but is worth "y points" of distribution with fewer/no honors, where y>x. < A 5422 hand has a distribution of … 5422. Don’t see how the DISTRIBUTION would change as the HCP changes. The RATIO between the distribution and the HCP will change obviously, but the DISTRIBUTION is just THERE for you to enjoy or suffer. Not only the RATIO, but the overall POTENTIAL will change, of course. The only thing that REMAINS unchanged is ... the distribution, hence the distribution POINTS. Am I missing something here? > If you define a yarborough as 0 working HCP, then the second hand has 10 "points" of working strength for initial evaluation since the second hand is worth 10 more points than the first. However, once partner opens 1♠, the second hand is now worth only 7 more points than the first. < Wait a min... we are now talking RE-evaluation in the light of PARTENR’s opening. These are apples and oranges ... > ♠ AKQxx ♥ AKQ ♦ xx ♣ xxx ♠ xxxxx ♥ ♦ xxxx ♣ xxxx With AKQ against void the issue is DUPLICATION and is also a subject of RE-evaluation rather than evaluation. I am not dismissing the RE-evaluation at all. We just have to be careful not to MIX these issues. > Using trick taking capability to measure trick taking capability seems fruitless. < May be we should try trick-losing instead :-) I am measuring IMP-winning capability based on trick-taking potential. This is different from what you are suggesting. Making 10 or 11 tricks is not that important on the background of bidding or missing the game, right? That’s why the “match” measures UNDER and OVER bidding on the boundaries, rather than trick-taking by itself. ZAR

> I am most certainly not saying that HP / DP is a constant... I am, however, noting that you use a fixed scale to determine whether two hands produce game. 52 Zars for Game at level 4 57 Zars for level 5 62 Zars for level 6 This same scale applies regardless of the ratio of HP to DP in the two hands. < IF you come up with some “ingenious” flexible schema (whatever that means), HOW are you going to communicate it to your partner? It’s loike changing the system you play without your PD knowinf about it :-) > If a hand holds 15 HP and 5521 shape, it evaluates as 27 Justin points If a hand holds 10 HP and 5521 shape, it evaluates as 24 Justin points < These must be some magic points :-) In Zar Points a hand that goes down is worth less that a hand that makes the contract :-) > I don't think ZAR would disagree with the assessment, as stated by justin, that distibution is more valuable to weaker hands than stronger hands. < I actually posted specific numbers for that rather than just agreeing or disagreeing. > Cool Tysen. Could you post a link to the RBG thread? < Looks like you’ve been waiting for these “cool” numbers all your life :-) Did you remember all of them – that’s important ... I am just missing the point of all this “science” – it’s not bad to have a point when you dump numbers on top people’s heads (look who’s talking about dumping numbers :-) > 5422 shape takes 0.61 tricks more than a 4333 hand, but a 5422 yarborough takes 0.75 tricks more than a 4333 yarborough. < This goes beyond my mental abilities ... – if you are trying to say that shape and HCP are NOT constant, this is reflected in a much simpler way by the % numbers I posted on the previous page. Have a look. Cheers: ZAR

> I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong. < You are a rare bird in this “expert” section of the BBO :-) > The problem that I have is that on hands containing strong high-card values, distributional aspects have less proportionate relevance to the total trick-taking potential. < YES. Let me repeat, just in case: YES, YES, YES. :-) OF COURSE it will have DIFFERENT proportional value. In a hand with 10 HCP and 7600 the amount of GOREN points is 10 + 6 = 16 and the distributional part 6/16 = 38%. In a hand with 10 HCP and 4441 the GOREN points are 10 + 2 = 12 and the distributional part is 2/11 = 17%. In a hand with 10 HCP and 4333 the GOREN points are 10 + 0 = 10 and the distributional part is 0/10 = 0%. Do you make a difference between 38, 17, and 0? > To take a contrived and extreme example: < Each hand in the “semi-balanced” hand (the second one) has 26 from HCP and CTRL plus 10 distributional points for the 4432, totaling 36 ZP each. This means the pair has 72 Zar Points, with 67 needed for 13 tricks. Thus, hand #1 has 17 tricks while hand #2 has “only” 14 tricks. Are you convinced? :-) > I think that there is still a difference of opening < There is ALWAYS a difference of opening :-) > If a hand holds 15 HP and 5521 shape, it evaluates as 27 Justin points < I honestly have no clue what Justin points are (or Tysen or Hrothgar points for that matter) and I cannot give an opinion on something I have not studied in advance. > Assume that you have two hands, each worth 24 Zar points. One hand holds 10 HP and 14 DP... The second holds 14 HCP and 10 DP... The same boundary condition applies to both hands. If it is calibrated accurately for one, its going to be off for the other... < “Calibrated accurately” ... Are you suggesting that: Honor Points -------------------- = CONSTANT ??? Distribution Points Let me know if this is what your statement actually manifests. Can you please have a look at my example with GOREN above in this posting? I guess this example covers your concern. Cheers: ZAR

> Distributional strength is inversely related to honor strength. Extremely weak hands benefit from distribution much more than strong hands. < We are back in the area of stating the obvious ... Of course weak hands will benefit more from distribution, simply because the MAX honor power in short suits is VERY limited: - 0 HCP in a suit which is void; - 4 HCP in a suit which is singleton; - 7 HCP in a suit which is doubleton; - 9 HCP in a suit which is tripleton. Thus the MAX HCP strength is the LEAST limited in the 4333 distribution: 10+9+9+9 = 37 HCP as we all very well know. As we go “wilder” in the distribution patterns, this MAX value diminishes accordingly: - 4432 is limited by 10+10+9+7 = 36 HCP; - 5332 is limited by 10+9+9+7 = 35 HCP; - 4441 is limited by 10+10+10+4 = 34 HCP; - etc. - 7600 is limited by 10+10+0+0 = 20 HCP; - etc. - 13000 is limited by 10+0+0+0 = 10 HCP; and 10 is the “minimal maximum” HCP strength possible. So the MAX-HCP-Strength varies from 10 to 37 HCP for the 39 patterns. NOTE also, that the MORE the HCP the LESS the possibilities to “cover the ground”: – the 37 HCP are ONLY possible with 4333 distribution; – the 36 HCP are ONLY possible with 4333 OR 4432 distribution; – etc. Obviously, there are HCP-max values which are covered by MORE than 1 distribution simply because there are 39 patterns and only 28 MAX values from 10 to 37, so the statement follows directly from the Dirichlet Principle. Is this reflected in Zar Points? Of course! With a 37 HCP hand you can NOT get more than 8 Distribution Points, with 36 HCP you can NOT get more than 10 Distribution Points, etc. And in order to reach certain point-boundary like 26 ZP, 31 ZP, etc. with weak distribution you have to have MORE HCP to let you reach the boundary: - with 4333 you need 26-8=18 CTRL+HCP to open!!! That’s about 14 HCP when discount the controls; - with 4432 you need 26-10=16 CTRL+HCP to open. That’s about 12 HCP when discount the controls; - etc. Note that there is also the REVERSE dependency: - with 13-0-0-0 you need 26-26 = 0 HCP + CTRL to open, but you WILL actually have “at least” 10 HCP + 3 CTRL in the hand (all honors in the 13-card suit); - with 12-1-0-0 you need 26-25 = 1 HCP + CTRL to open, but you WILL actually have “at least” 6 HCP + 1 CTRL in the hand (only the A missing in the 13-card suit); - etc. Hope that helps – please let me know if you have something else in mind. Cheers: ZAR

> Zar's use of standard deviation of number of tricks is the exact method I used a year ago when this thread started. < Zar’s use of standard deviation has nothing to do with your measures. For the first time STD is used for OPTIMIZATION of evaluation parameters (rather than just measuring the STD) with SPECIFIC RESULTS on Honor Points assignment, Fits Evaluation, Double-fit Evaluation, Honor Combination Evaluation etc, and then TESTED BACK in the Match, thus pushing the best performer ZP Ruffing from the 0.93 STD to 0.90, then 0.89, then all-the-way-down to 0.82!!! I hope that’s clear enough. > the 2you are by far the most arrogant: very nice and kind to the player you consider strong, and arrogant and sometimes verbally violent with posters that disagree with you without having any recognized achievements. < I have no clue how you think I determine that Jlall or Hrothgar (I don’t know neither her nor him) are weak and Xyz is strong ... I couldn’t be able to make any difference – “on Internet nobody knows that you are Dog”, remember? Besides, I share Mike Rosenberg’s opinion on Bridge – “In this game nobody’s any good – winners only make fewer mistakes, that’s all”. > Of course I might be wrong, as I do not know you,... < That sounds more like it ... > Zar points calculates distributional strength using the formula 2a + b – d. This formula is based solely on hand pattern. It does not change based on the number of honors held in the hand. < Don’t see how stating the obvious contributes to progress – of course the formula for the Distributive Part does NOT change with the Honors – that’s why it is CALLED Distributive Part ... > because he makes statements, and doesn't explain the reasoning, < That’s what they call “judgement”, dear :-) Judgement with reasoning is an oxymoron :-) “It’s my judgement, damnit – why should it be based on something other than my “experience” and “gut-feeling”, and why should I explain it when I cannot even articulate it” :-) > I still thank him for coming with Zar points, they certainly helped improve my judgement < This meaning of “judgement” is new to me ... :-) These guys use “Judgement” for “shooting from the heap” :-) > Where did Zar go personal ? When he said "if there were two of you it would be perfect?" If this is the crucial point, I think it is no offense < I certainly did NOT have anyone personally in mind, that’s for sure. This was a general statement to make a point. Even now I don’t know Jlall and have never seen her playing anywhere in any shape or form, bridge or nonbridge alike – plus even if I new her, I’d never involve someone’s personal skills in a general discussion anyway. > IMO Zar was trying to communicate that "good judgment" is harder to quantify than a given metrics, therefore - I myself would argue - harder to teach to weaker players. < AND harder to COMMUNICATE, if you have missed that point. > I do not think ZAR points are useful for players of Justin's caliber... < If you mean Justin Hackett, I doubt that too. But he is just one of two twins from the top of the British League rather than being representatives for the intermediate and advanced players, right? I have stated many times (including in the books) that players like the Hacketts, Zia, Rosenberg etc. don’t need ANY method to help them out, Zar Points included. I just came back from a trip to Europe and next week will finish the optimizations of the High-card points and the comparison of 4321 vs. 6421. I’ll certainly let you know when you can download the entire research. Cheers: ZAR

> you know, you really are a pompous [deleted]. maybe if you bothered to not take my comment out of context of the quote that i was replying to which was: < You are furious for ... nothing! I quoted EXACTLY and COMPLETELY. You didn’t say any additional word. Can you check again, just not to embarrass yourself. Just a humble suggestion :-) Plus, my comments do not have anything PERSONALLY directed to you – you are not the only one who’s trying to hide behind “judgement”, are you? > Measured in, human judgement knows that weak hands gain from shape more than strong hands. My human partner will also know this. Your ZAR point controlled robot will not. < We are talking evaluation methods, you are saying that it’s raining outside ... I don’t get the picture completely, may an ESL issue :-) > Now maybe instead of being a stubborn [deleted], you will actually read what people say... < I copy and paste. Always. I don’t change anything – plus indeed your personality is something that nobody’s interested in here, you may start a thread “Justin’s personality” :-) > Completely agree with Justin's edited post. < OK – start a thread called “Justin’s and Hannie’s personality then :-) > Good judgement is measured in IMPs. < Exactly – that’s the way I MEASURE it. All these “stubborn” and “pompous” posting are irrelevant really – I didn’t target ANYONE specifically by my comments on “judgement” and “cricket play” etc. and I just wonder why you actually did chose to identify yourself with those. Take it easy and don’t read this thread – read the threads on “judgement” instead :-) ZAR

> I think there is a little of something in there for everyone who is interested in means, mediums, standard deviations, and the like. Just print it out, it takes some time to digest. < It would take some reading and thinking, I agree. BUT it will show a new focus on the game and hopefully result in a step-up in the game. > ... except good judgement. < Good judgement ... HOW good, and measured in WHAT, and how MUCH, and how do you COMMUNICATE it (to your partner, forget opponents etc.)? The end-result is a “conversation” with your PD where you explain him that you are in a league by yourself and he just doesn’t have a clue, only wasting your golden chances ... :-) If only there were “TWO of YOU”, it would have been the perfect pair :-) > Why bother with Aggressive research when the General one would be enough? < The point is that it’s the aggressive Games and Slams that make a difference. If it is a 39 HCP GRAND or 35 HCP Slam or 29 HCP Games, you’d bid it regardless of what kind of cricket you are actually playing at the table, so it’s gonna be a wash anyway ... > What happens if we accept that mean-variance optimization isn't sufficient? < Well ... it’s actually the first attempt at real optimization to begin with, rather than saying “Mr. X thinks that a value of Y here is optimal”. “Isn’t sufficient ...” – it is never sufficient really :-) You want to get closer and closer to “perfection” and any attempt that results in BOTH optimization from modeling point of view AND in “real-life” optimization too (that’s why AFTER the statistical optimizations I run the match AGAIN and see how the optimized method actually performs) should be more than welcome (I think). The problem with “isn’t sufficient” also kind of reflects the controversy with the so called “intuition” and the actual reflection on the STD, and from there on the Performance. We were able to see that having an 8-card SECOND fit does NOT actually have an impact on performance (rather, the 9-card, 10-card etc. secondary fits do). The same way it turns now out that Jxx doesn’t project a deduction (of say, 1 pt) while Qx or singleton K do etc. We will also see that “6421 is better than 4321” without any reference to context (i.e. how you count distribution, fits, superfits etc.) is just another misconception by itself – 6421 is better for Zar Points [ (a+:rolleyes: + (a-d) ], but 4321 is better for Goren [ 3*voids + 2*singletons + 1*doubletons ], and if you switch them, in BOTH cases you get catastrophic performance, etc. ZAR

Hi guys: Just put the data nad analysis of the STD research for all the methods AND the Optimization. You can download the same document (the first one in the download section) and see the new section at the end called "Performance Optimiztion". After re0running the 105,000 borad match, here are the results: ZP Optimized 164,000 ZP Ruffing 166,000 ZP Basic 176,000 ZP 3points 178,000 LTC 181,000 LTM 183,000 MLP 192,000 GP 210,000 WTC 212,000 BP 217,000 The only new result is that oifr the Zar Points Optimized (ZPO) which popped-put in front of ZPR with more than 2,000 IMPS, and 28,000 IMPS before the Lawrence Points, and 53,000 IMPS before Bergen. The ZPO is the new methid which dropped the STD below 0.90 - at 0.89. All the data is in the "Performance Optimization" section of the book. Next I'll find the values of AKQJ that minimize the STD - tehse ate more than 70 possible combinations with an increment of 0.5 points, starting from 4321 all-the-way to 8621 so we will find (for example) that 7421 is the one that minimizes the STD (or it may turn out that the current 6421 IS the optimal - we'll see). Enjoy the reading (if you practice this activity :-): ZAR

I pushed the research in the Optimization area actually – and the results are really good! The result is Zar Points Optimized (ZPO) where all the extra fit points are calculated to bring the minimal Standard Deviation – both the for the primary and the secondary fit. The experiments with ZPR0023 (0 points for 4333, 0 for doubleton, 2 for singleton, and 3 for void) resulted in STD = 0.94 which is worse than the initial Ruffing Power result of STD = 0.93. The experiments with ZPR0013 (0 points for 4333, 0 for doubleton, 1 for singleton, and 3 for void) resulted in STD = 0.91 which is worse than the results for ZPR0012. Meaning that when I assigned 0 for super-trump to both 4333 and doubleton, 1 point for Singleton, and 2 points for Void, the STD dropped to 0.90 !!! No, with that value a proceeded to iterations regarding the SECONDARY fit. There if we assign: - 0 points for having an 8-card side suit fit, - 1 point for having a 9-card side-suit fir, - 2 points for having a 10+ card side-suit fit, the Standard Deviation for the First Time is brought below 0.90 – it is 0.89! For the other experiments the results were: - STD of 0.90 for 123 points assigned to secondary fit; - STD of 0.90 for 124 points assigned to secondary fit; So we finally were able to reach the numbers for the Zar Points Optimized with - Super-fit points assigned according to the 0012 scale (2 for void, 1 for singleton); - Side-fit points assigned according to the 012 scale (2 for 10+, 1 for 9-cards); Here is how the new ZPO fairs against the old scores that ypu already know about: ZPO 0.89 ZPR 0.93 ZPB 0.94 GP 0.96 BP 0.96 ZP3 0.98 LP 1.05 WTC 1.09 LTC 1.22 LTM 1.23 Now I’ll run BACK the IMP macth between the 10 participants to see how the new Zar Points Optimized scores. ZAR

> uhh I know it deducts but sometimes you find out about misfits too late, especially when you open 5-5 8 counts routinely. Partner will immediately know there is no fit? < As immediately as with any other system actually :-) > interesting. Especially when auctions get competitive, you cannot know your degree of fit sometimes until it is too late. That is what you have been missing. < Thanx for opening my eyes :-) Just don’t see how’s this related to your idea of assuming that the 15% is what “usually” happens really. It’s also a good idea to read about the Zar Misfit Points which a directly related to your concern. > Exactly. I do open 5-5 8-counts at the 1-level, because my system allows for it. < Do you play Zar Points? > But it's not because I think it's as strong as a balanced 13. < You have a good judgment then. > It's because I know the auction is going to be competitive as so I need to speak up early. Your "strength" shouldn't be the main/only reason why you choose to open or not. < I often miss your philosophy indeed. My “strength” ... like measured in what? And how much?

> zar overestimates shape when no fit is found yet. < Zar Points ASSUME that there is a fit of 8+ cards (85% of all boards). For the rest of the cases (15% overall) Zar Points have a deduction of 1 Level for NO-FIT (that’s 5 Zar Points). That is what you have been missing. > it's not clear to me that we should assume no fit < If it is OK with you to assume that 15% happens more often than 85%, then you can assume that there is no fit in general ... :-) I assume the 85% and make a deduction (penalty) of 5 Zar Points or 1 Playing Level IF in realiry we fall into the 15% chance of having no 8+ card fit. Simple stuff. > It might also be interesting to see data on the probability of various fits given various shapes. < You haven’t read the Zar Points Bidding Backbone book than. BOTH fit AND Double-fit are discussed with all the numbers. > Certainly assuming we will only have an 8-card fit when we have an 8-card suit is awfully pessimistic! < Depends on where you look at it from :-) ZAR

> If you do this, you will realize that TSP distribution points and Zar points are extremely close, maybe that TSP distribution points are slightly more accurate, and possibly you might also realize that mikestar has already done exactly this. Look on page 18 of this thread. < We are back to these TSP which we determined are the Richard Pavlicek points. And we also determined that they not "may be" or "probably" or "eventually" or "supposedly" lower in the runs :-) We start running in circles I suess :-) ZAR

> I have a question. Since "support" (either as trump or for helping to establish winners in declarer's hand) is important, which combination of hands is better for 3NT; 5332 opposite 2335 or 4333 opposite any 3 (334,343,433)? < This is something I haven't actually studied - but I will (have to figure out the exact restrictions needed). It is closely related to the question well-covered by the book with the exact numbers regarding the fact that 5:3 is better for NT than for Trump while 4:4 is better for Trump than for NT. Also, 5:2 is better for NT and 4:3 is better for Trump in general (obviously not for 4333 vs. 4333). I'll let you know when I do the run. I assume you understand that your question is related to a "choice" that you don't actually have at the table from the view point of playing the SAME contract of 3NT (rather than being able to chose from 3NT and 4S for example, based on the fit you have). ZAR

> He proposes his own evaluation method for NT (A=4, K=2.8, Q=1.8, J=1, T=0.4) < That’s the problem with all these Binki, Kinki, Rum etc. stuff that some people think that they are great and “PRECISE” because they use “PRECISE” numbers like 0.75, 0.15, 1.8 etc. If using such tiny fractions is what constitutes “precision” for you, hey – go ahead :-) > The first set of arrows shows hands that a 5-3-1 system counts as "equivalent." The second set of arrows shows some hands that Zar counts as equivalent. Which set looks more tightly clustered to you? < Here is what’s tightly clustered, so you understand once and forever. Dist. 531 Zar 4441 3 11 5431 3 13 6331 3 14 All of these are the SAME in 531 as they are in 321 and 741. Are they tightly clustered enough when they are ALL equal to 3? Is it just fine with you to pull-out 2 CARDS from your longest suit and say “Sorry, your longest suit will be 2-carsds shorter, but I know it’s OK with you since for you it doesn’t matter if you have a 6-card-suit as your longest or a 4-card-suit as your longest suit”. Dist. 531 Zar 5440 5 13 6430 5 16 7330 5 17 All of these are the SAME in 531 as they are in 321 and 741. Are they tightly clustered enough when they are ALL equal to 5? Is it just fine with you to pull-out 2 CARDS from your longest suit and say “Sorry, your longest suit will be 2-carsds shorter, but I know it’s OK with you since for you it doesn’t matter if you have a 7-card-suit as your longest or a 5-card-suit as your longest suit”. I know your “logic” that it doesn’t matter since “when I am short my partner will be long” but ... how to tell you ... I guess you just bid 4S when the bidding comes to you since “your partner will cover for your shortness in Spades” :-) > I'm still a bit confused regarding the accuracy of the Goren 4/3/2/1 point count... When Tysen provided standard error calculations for a variety of hand evaluation metrics he posted the following data: R2 Standard Error Zar + fit 0.74 1.05 HCP 0.65 1.21 It might be worthwhile to try to reconcile the difference... < I have posted the FORMULAS I am using, took you by the hand and walked you through, right? And all the data is available on the site. Nobody has a clue what Tysen and you are doing, so I just cannot judge. And you see from his previous posting that he doesn’t even know how fit is calculated so ... PLUS I use only contracts in Major, as you well know. ZAR