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

> Okay, then is this 2 or 4 superfit points if there is no opener? xxxxx x xxx xxxx xxxxx xx xxx xxx < You say 2 or 4 ... well, it is 3 actually. WHY? Because each partner calculates his values INDEPENDENTLY. You don’t have to exchange any information to do that. So N has 1 additional trump on top of the promised 4 for either opening or responding and S has one by himself regardless of opening or responding. N has a singleton so HIS supertrump is valued at 2 and S has a doubleton so HIS value of the supertrump is 1. And 2 + 1 = 3 easily :-) > The idea of such a measure is that you can look at your hand and compute some number. Your partner looks at his hand and computes some number. < Not every method provides that simplicity though. In Lawrence you have to EXCHANGE information about your shortest suits so the partners can actually be able to calculate the critical value of (13 – d1 – d2) AFTER exchanging these d1 and d2 values with special bids. That’s why lots of experts consider Lawrence Points to be of theoretical value only. For the purposes of the different comparisons tough, I ignore this issue completely – I just assume that you somehow know. In Zar Points everything is independent so it is easy for at-the-table use. > By combining these two numbers together, without any other information about the hands, we can decide whether we have game, whether we have slam, and so forth with a reasonable degree of accuracy. < IF the method provides such independency – see above. > The goal in bridge is to find your best contract. The problem is, you don't have enough bidding space to exactly describe every card to partner. < Not literally true. One of my partners has proven mathematically that ALL the 52 cards of the 4 players can be known 100% by the “6 Clubs” bib-pip IF all the 4 players cooperate. That means if they bid via a specially-designed bidding system that cooperates among all the 4 players towards the common goal of revealing ALL the 52 cards. Unfortunately, in bridge the nature of the game is not cooperation between the opponents, but rather tough battle for capturing the bidding space. > Zar has designed a method of hand evaluation which he believes to be good. < We all try to believe in what we are doing :-) > This method counts as follows: Start with your standard 4-3-2-1 point count. Add two points for each ace and one for each king (controls). Now add the sum of the lengths of your two longest suits. Now add the difference of your longest suit length and shortest suit length. This gives you the "number" described above. < Is is actually essential to realize that this (a – d) difference between your longest and your shortest suit does NOT come out of the blue but is rather the SUM of all 3 differences of the 4 ordered-by-length suits (a – :rolleyes: + (b – c) + (c – d). This will make you understand the logic behind easier. > Zar claims that you should bid game if your number plus your partner's is 52. < Actually it’s Culbertson rather than Zar that makes that claim. His rule states that “Two opening hands make a Game” (IF they have a fit). And an opening hand contains 26 Zar Points (now THAT’s the claim of Zar Points :-) As I mentioned once before, Zar Points encapsulated the COMBINED REQUIREMENTS of WBF for an opening hand: - The Rule of 18; - The Rule of the Queen. That’s something no other method comes close to and that’s the reason why Zar Points constitute the absolute minimum for a “Legally”- opening hand. > (1) Zar's method of counting distribution by adding/subtracting suit lengths is actually less accurate than adding points for singletons and voids. < You are free to believe that :-) Some people still believe that the Earth is flat :-) > (2) Do the additional fit/misfit points Zar adds when distribution is known accurately reflect these sorts of features? Here less seems to be known; Tysen points out that Zar's scheme of adding fit/misfit points seem to weigh things differently depending on who opens (with two identical hands) which seems kind of odd. < See above comments for that INDEPENDENCE issue. As for the accuracy, there are already SEVERAL different approaches that and the results are pretty much in-line. > (3) There is also some debate about what is simple to compute at the table, and what is reasonably simple to explain to opponents. < I think that what you presented would be a good summary of what this discussion thread is about indeed. ZAR P.S I’ll catch-up with the rest of the replies later today.

> I mentioned earlier that I tried reading Mr. Zar but could not understand page one let alone the rest. < Page one is the title, Mike – not much to understand there :-) I have lots of requests to provide a “short” and “no-data-please” presentation of the material. Even requests like “Zar, I unconditionally trust you about any information you present – no NEED to give me proofs and traces of changes of the data so I can even follow the tendency. Just strip the damn thing from any tables and numbers that make me dizzy and give me the conclusions for me to use”. Mike, I believe you have the same type of request AND I am planning to do a “stripped-down-version” for people that do not need proof and trace of tendencies. That is a perfectly fine request and I will honor it. > Am I alone on this site regarding not understanding this debate? What is the hypothesis that is being tested, assuming there is one? If so could some one post it not only in Math terms but also in plain bridge english terms? Both would help me. Thank you in advance. < The general “Debate” is actually along the lines of a “pursuit for perfection” in the good sense of the word and as I have said several times “nobody’s perfect” so ... it boils down (apart from the pure Zar-Points-approach discussion) to trying to measure the methods used by “normal people” at the table and see which one makes more sense (and the meaning of that by itself is a partial matter of the debate). It started with my attempts to test Zar Points against popular methods and see is it is worth even worth presenting it here and there. It measured “aggressiveness” only and I was rightly accused that this is just ‘one side of the coin”. Then I decided to make a “complete coverage” of the spectrum and test all the 3 important boundaries (Game, Slam, and Grand) each from BOTH sides of the fence – overbidding and underbidding. It was a “match” of all the 105,000 boards that have between 9 and 13 tricks in Spades (out of 1,000,000 boards) in the NS direction and see what happens. In my view that was the “ultimate test” that everyone would understand – measured in IMPs, everything on the table, nowhere to hide. Then the debate was pushed into the area you don’t like with all the Variances, Standard deviations, Means etc. (if you think you cannot understand the book, wait until I publish all the data and analysis from THIS exercise :-) Is all this good? Absolutely. I think we all learn a lot in the process and the thread itself is very active which to me means that the stuff discussed is interesting. ZAR

> Comment 1: Could you provide definitions to accompany the acronyms... For example, I THINK that GP is Goren points and that BP are Binkie Points but some confirmation would be nice. < Sorry, forgot you don’t want to read the book – all the acronyms are from there (sicne I just cut and paste from the generated tables). GP is Goren Points, LP is Lawrence Points, BP is Bergen Points, ZPR is Zar Points with Ruffing, ZPB is Basic Zar Points, etc. > Comment 2: I don't see any calculations for BUMRAP + 5/3/1 Really? :-) Shall we talk about this again? You have to try reading, man :-) > If we remove the honor point count from Zar and BUMRAP, we're left with the question of how one should account for distribution. Guess what? Zar's system of accounting for distribution isn't as accurate as the 5/3/1 scale... < 5-3-1 rocks, man. It’s a good to idea to check out first though – just for yourself so you don’t get embarrassed in public. You can go to the website and check automatically the 7-4-1, 5-3-1, and 3-2-1. Yeah ... it will take some reading, sorry. > Zar has slowly started to use more reasonable metrics to evaluate his own work. > Slowly? As slow as my 3GZ computer is :-) I presented the IMP-based comparison, now the STD-based comparison. Anything else? > Comment 3: If GP is "traditional "Goren", it seems strange that its scoring so well... < To be honest, I was surprised myself. In fact, I am surprised by BOTH Goren and Bergen, since BOTH also peak for 10 tricks EXACTLY where they say (26 Goren and 40 Bergen). Aggressive methods like Lawrence and Zar peak at 11 while very-conservative ones like WTC and LTC peak at 9. You’ll see all that in the document when I post it. ZAR

> Do you bother to pay any attention to other people's work? < Nope ... why waste time reading when I can use it for writing? Plus, reading is a degrading activity – as if they are smarter than me ... You have to manage your time wisely and project some dignity ... (end-of-quote :-) > BUMRAP + 531 is based on A = 4.5 K = 3 Q = 1.5 J = .75 T = .25 plus adding points for shortage... > Aha … 1.50, 0.75, 0.25 ... may be 0.07 for the 9? Makes sense ... fits the downhill slope ... I’ll publish the detailed STD amounts point-by-point and all the rest of the stats actually, but here are the overall results for the Standard Deviation. Since all functions are Bell-shaped and peak at the Game level (an interesting finding by itself), we can present the peak only: 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 Losing Trick Count is by far the least accurate method, be it Classic or Modern (measured by the STD rather than IMP). Again, I am preparing a detailed presentation and analysis and I’ll let you know when it is on the webpage. ZAR

> You get similar results sometimes when you have two 9-card fits. Who is the opener in that case? < I am surprised that you are surprised that there is no bidding, and no opener – I guess you should have known that if you have run computer simulations actually. And as stated in the book, there is no adjustment for Misfit Points or Honors in primary or secondary suit or anything. Everything is kept simple and to the extent possible equal for all the methods. Superfit points are calculated straightforward – 0123 for the Zar Ruffing method and straight 3 for the ZP3. Obviously regardless of “opener” – since there is simply no opener. On the Misfit Points – you cannot even guess who would show which of the suits so that part is also in the “hard to simulate” department. As I mentioned already, in a bidding like 1S – 4S you actually neither know nor care about misfit points. > Judgement evolves. Goren may have said 26 back in the 30's < One of my Goren books is from **November 1985** “featuring Goren’s newest changes”. It states “where the partnership totals the equivalent of 26 points – or two opening bids – game is attainable if fit is found”. This is quote. 1985, not 1930. > but most people bid them on 25 today. And that 25 includes extra fit points (+2 per extra trump is pretty good, try adding it to your comparison). 24 might be even better < So Game with 24 including 2 per extra trump ... boy, you are ready for Zar Points with that aggressiveness :-) With 10 trumps and 2 doubletons you would have 18 HCP – that is two 5332 hands with 5-5 fit and 18 HCP; the super-aggressive method of Lawrence would shoot for ( -1 + 13 – 2 – 2) = 8, that’s parts-core. Zar Points would have 11 + 11 + 1 + 1 = 24 from distribution and ruffing-superfit in both hands, plus 18*13/10 = 23 from Controls and HCP for a part-score also. So where BOTH Lawrence Points and Zar Points are playing part-score, you say Goren is all-the-way into a Game!!! Why don’t you try to test that first. See what happens ... > If the author says 10 and you find that 12 gives a better score, let the author know. He might thank you. < I cannot really improve every available method – but I am flattered by your faith in me :-) ZAR

> Use whatever number gives that evaluation method the best score. This should be done for all evaluation methods. Very simple. > ??? Like how ... I use whatever the AUTHORS dictate. I call Harry Freeman, he sends me the formula, I run 1,000 boards evaluations, send all the hands over, he writes back they are all good, and I go ahead. HOW can I interfere and say “You know what, the AUTHOR says it is 10, but I’ll go ahead and use 12 since I know better, and STILL say that this is HIS method ??? What’s the point of twisting? We all want to see what works best, right? How can I “optimize” or “twist” just like that? May be this was what Han meant saying “That’s absurd” :-) ZAR

> Zar and Ben, I think you should take Tysen and Richard's criticisms more seriously. < I take any criticism seriously. Seriously! :-) No, really, I do ... I have been through at least 15 methods and some of them like Drubble, Binki, etc. were droped in the process for different reasons. If you have noticed, I have also included the newest method – the Lawrence Points. You think Mike doesn’t know about Binki or Zar? We have discussed those 3 years ago when the first Zar Points ideas were talked-about in emails only. YET, he has come up with a SIMPLE method which makes so much sense that it beats everybody else but the 3 variants of Zar Points. You think that’s just “by chance”? Simplicity at the table matters. Still, IF you come up with a method that adds three quarters of the value of your sevens to the predominant color of your Queens, AND you “feel” that it’s great, by all means – go ahead and use it. We play this game to get satisfaction out of it, whatever that means. > No, not fair enough. < I’ll try harder ... > Not fair at all. < Killer :-) Have some mercy, Han ... > The number 26 that you take here is completely arbitrary, taken from a very old book. Use the optimal number for Goren points to get a fair comparison. < I admit you have to enlighten me here ... Which book would you recommend? Better yet, why don’t you just TELL me what number to use rather than going by these “optimized” secret numbers? I will, since it would be still a simple Goren method, right? Please do not ask me to add quarters to the Goren points. > you keep pretending that I'm extremely dumb, I'm not. < I have never said that. Furthermore – I have never THOUGHT that. I don’t think Tysen or Richard are either. I respect the opinion of each and everyone on this discussion forum and I only hope we would drive it to a more productive discussion: ZAR

> I think that this is absurd. < My point exactly :-) > When Zar compares Zar points with HCP he uses Goren points the way people used them a zillion years ago, while Zar points are used in the most optimal way. No fair!!! < Hannie, your sense for fairness is killing me :-) Here it goes again - I am typing SLOWLY so you can understand :-) We take ALL the hands out of the 1,000,000 boards section of the 5,000,000-board database. We extract ALL of them which make 9 tricks in Spades. We take each ONE of them and look at it "carefully". IF its Goren count is 26 or more, we flag it as an OVERBID for Goren. IF its Zar Count is 52 or more, we flag it as an OVERBID for Zar. Clear enough? Fair enough? Let me know. > Zar claims over and over again that he does research for "at the table", but no modern pair needs 26 points to get to game. < WHAT points are we talking about here, Han? Goren points or HCP? If one of the partners has 7600 with 7 HCP he can open since he has 13 Goren Points DESPITE the fact that he has only 7 HCP, do you realize that? And if HIS partner has 6070 and 7 HCP, HIS count is also 13 and they reach a GAME with 14 HCP total (13 + 13 = 26 Goren Points). Nevermind the fact that they have a GRAND with those 14 HCP as you can guess (if you have read about misfit points). < 3) Add a quarter times the number of tens minus the number of jacks. Tada, done! < Tada - Quarter times of what? Quarter of a teaspoon may be? You lost me here ... :-) ZAR

> I don't remember mentioning HCP anywhere, just points. If I'm wrong, then tell me how you determine if a Goren bidder bids game. < Goren needs to reach 26 Goren Points. This may come from as little as 20 HCP, but may need as many as 26 HCP. I certainly only measure the Goren Points themselves: ZAR

> Let's focus on the Goren Points (GP). On the hands game was possible, GP underbid 13,088 times and bid game 2,564 times. On the hands where there was no game, GP bid the partscore 23,000 times and bid game 1,107 times. GP loses 130,000 IMPs on the game hands and only 6,600 IMPs on the partscore hands. This is a huge imbalance (20x more IMPs in partscores), whereas the Zar is much more evenly distributed. This is because Zar requires the GP bidders to have 26 combined points to bid game. If this were dropped to 25, 24, 23, etc., I bet Goren's performance would improve dramatically. < The problem with both you and hrotgar is that you don't read. "because Zar requires the GP bidders to have 26..." How can you say that? In the Aggressive Bidding section they are limited to 21HCP!!! Does 21 equal 26 in your arithmetics? ZAR