Zar

> BUMRAP + 321, BUMRAP + 531, and Binky points < You keep chasing these Binky 521 and 741 and 321 etc. like a dog chasing its tail :-) When was the last time you used Binky or RUP or Gib or any of these AT THE TABLE? All the 741, 531, and 321 are covered in the Zar Count Machine – go to the website and play with them. The problem with all of these (BESIDES using fractions etc. ) is that they MERGE important distributions like 4441 being equal to 6331, 4432 being equal to 6332, 5440 being equal to 7330 etc. Doesn’t a difference of 2 TRUMPS make any difference to you? Now, pushing it to an STD evaluation only worsens the result since while taking an average may provide some “neutralization”, when taking the STD there is ONLY ACCUMULATION and nothing ever gets “neutralized”, I am sure you understand that. All the errors coming from “merging” distributions with 2-cards-difference in the longest suits will ACCUMULATE – it doesn’t take more than a couple of brain-cells to figure that out and I am sure you have more than that. Make you own research and see for yourself – I have described the way to do it in simple and straightforward terms, I tend to believe. Haven’t I? > Once this is done, we can start worrying about adding more complexity - fit points, misfit points, whatever. < Man, your “priorities” and “worries” are ... well … your priorities and worries – feel free to check them. My computer chokes when it starts calculating fractions :-) ZAR

> It looks liek ZAR intends to use the Median is the less descriptive way which may distort the finding. I believe I would want to know the average number of tricks with the SD rather than the median. But he is giving us both, and he is showing the way he chooses to calculate it. < I mentioned in my previous post that it is a simplistic (the "simistic" is a typo there) way to look at the Median for symetrical distributions. And I agree with David that calculating the Median is not "in the heart" of this research but rather just to allow a reader to have another view (when comparing it to the Mean for example). The correct deficintion is exactly the way you present it, Ben. I may actually even discard the Median at the end, since there is too much info there anyway, and the Median is not dirctly related to the "core" stuff - the Mean, Variance, and STD. Hey, let's start suggesting possible candidates for DOWNGRADES / UPGRADES so I can include them in the calculations and give you back the numbers - rather than telling me later "yeah, but you didn't consider the most important one" :-) Cheers: ZAR

> The actual numbers seem rather unlikely. < Sorry - forgot to mention that the Goren numbers in the example 2 lines are indeed just for explanation purposes. Pleas do not use them at the table :-) On the median and the mean - it does make sense to compare "how far" the two numbers are and see how "shifted" the sample is. But I do agree that it is not THAT important here. In fact, I even gave kind-of "simistic" view of some of the terms (the median itself would be an example - I used just the symetrical case) in order to make it easier for the "normal people" (as I tagged them :-) to understand the idea of the exercise. Cheers: ZAR

I am currently going through a different exercise which would be of interest to you. To understand what’s going on, let’s have a real-quick crash-course on statistics for “normal people”. The subject is how you evaluate a set of observations and draw behavioral conclusions. The Max and Min are the corresponding maximum and minimum values within the observation set and determine the Range of the observed values. The Median is the middle between the Max and Min. The Mean (Average) is the sum of the observed values divided by their number and is used to calculate the central tendency of an observation, while the Variance is a measure of how spread out the observed data is – it is the average of the squared deviations from the Mean, engendering that the unit of measure is also squared. Taking the square root of the variance gets us back the units used in the original scale (tricks in our case) and results in called standard deviation (STD). Standard deviation tells you how tightly a set of values is clustered around the average of those same values. It's a measure of dispersal, or variation, in a group of numbers. Since STD measures spread around the mean, for data with the same mean, the greater the spread, the greater the standard deviation - if on the other hand all the values are the same, then the mean equals this “same” value and the STD is 0 (the absolute min). Err of Mean or Coefficient of Variation gives us some sense of how much the Average represents the set of numbers it comes from – it is calculated as Standard Deviation / Mean. Finally, the Mode is the most frequent value in the observation set. For discrete values (like tricks in our case), measuring the above summary statistics is typically done via Frequency Tables. Here is the frequency table for Goren Points (rows for only 26 and 27 shown) where the columns are the possible tricks taken with the corresponding points for that row: Goren 9 tricks 10 tricks 11 tricks 26 50% 50% 0% 27 22% 73% 5% Now the squared deviations are multiplied by each frequency's value, and then the total of these results is calculated before dividing to the sum of the frequencies. Let us see how all this works based on the example Goren table of 2 rows above. Pay special attention to the Variance calculation. Max = 10 tricks Min = 9 tricks Median = 1/2 * [ 9 + 10] = 9.5 tricks Mean = (50*9 + 50*10) / 100= 9.50 tricks Var = [ (9.5 – 9)**2*50 + (10 – 9.5)**2*50]/100 = [ 12.5 + 12.5]/100 = 0.25 tricks**2 STD= Sqrt( 0.25) = 0.5 tricks (rather than tricks**2 – you don’t measure distance in square ft, right?) Mode = 9 Err = 0.5 / 9.5 = 0.05 Max = 11 tricks Min = 9 tricks Median = 1/2 * [ 9 + 11] = 10 tricks Mean = 1/100 * (22*9 + 73*10 + 5*11) = 9.83 tricks Var = 1/100* [(9-9.83)**2*22+(10-9.83)**2*73+(11-9.83)**2*5]=1/100*(15.16+2.11+6.84)=0.24 tricks**2 STD= Sqrt( 0.24) = 0.49 tricks Mode = 10 Err = 0.49 / 9.83 = 0.05 So we obtain the following extended table: Goren 9 tricks 10 tricks 11 tricks Min Max Med Mean Var STD Mode Err 26 50% 50% 0% 9 10 9.5 9.50 0.25 0.50 9 0.05 27 22% 73% 5% 9 11 10 9.83 0.24 0.49 10 0.05 We will do these stat calculations for every point-amount of every method and compare the results. After that we will see how we can use these findings to tune-up the methods depending on IMP vs. Match points, Vulnerable vs. Non-vulnerable etc. We will study the Value of the Aces and Kings (rounded to 6 and 4 respectively now in Zar Points) and find the ones that minimize the STD thus maximizing performance. We will also see how we can “squeeze” the STD further by pushing the Variance towards the Mean, thus making the method optimized for precision. The way to do that is to study the influence of upgrading and downgrading considerations on the STD, like Concentration of HCP, Duplication of Distributional and Honor Values, short honors, honors in opponents’ suits, etc. To that end, I am preparing a list of Upgrade / Downgrade features to evaluate the influence of. You can post here YOUR view on what MAY be important to consider. You suggest a consideration, I post back the Value of the this consideration (for example, “Singleton Ace” is worth a Downgrade of 2 Zar Points or 1 Goren Point and this adjustment reduces the initial STD by 6%). Feel free to post all the features you want to see evaluated. We will prepare a Common List and after that I’ll post the results here. Cheers: ZAR

> Ok Mr jokster answer this: How much better a priori is it to play 3NT than 4M with a 5-3 fit What are the percentages? No feelings involved ;-) < I see about the feelings :-) The point is not in the joke, POJC. The point is in the POINT of the joke :-) No joke shows-up on an empty space. As I mentioned before, run your own tests (seriously) and eyeball the results – point being that it is a bit counter-intuitive (and most of the time our intuition is wrong) since you “feel” (your favorite word) safer holding a 5-carder than a 4-carder and a 5-carder looks “more like a trump-suit”. Admit it – if you have a 5-card Spade suit and your PD supports you, it probably doesn’t even cross your mind to play 3NT. And since in football, automobiles, and bridge everybody’s an expert, it is hard to convince anyone that in football you basically kick the ball with your foot throughout the field while in handball you throw it with your hand, if your intuition tells you otherwise (for whatever reason). My observations about the 5:3 vs. 4:4 as well as 5:2 vs. 4:3 (with the percentages you are interested in) are presented in the tables which you can find on pages 74 - 77. Not ducking the question – just don’t want to pollute the space with tables which are readily available and wouldn’t even print properly here (tried that before). You’ll even find how the percentages change in the cases of double-fit, the dependencies on side-distributions etc. It’s hard to give “one number” for a multi-dependency thing because you can always say “You are wrong, dude (no feelings involved) – look at this hand. I found a counter-example” :-) Cheers: ZAR

> 1. I have wondered about Zar's statement that 5-3 plays better in 3NT, 4-4 in suit. How do you guys feel about this? < Feelings don’t cut it here, POJC. It’s all about testing and observation (if you are not blind :-) I am just communicating my observation and provide the supporting data. Yet, you do NOT have to trust me – just make your own testing and observations and see for yourself. > Simply take a look at world class hands from top events, and see how weak people open hands with a serious bid (7 hcp? 9 hcp?), and if they occasionally open weak, when do they pass 12 hcp hands (never? when balanced? when points are in short suits? with buncho queens and jacks?) and see what ZAR evaluation for opening bid would have done. < Ben, this reminds me of my definition for expert’s opening (from my first “Zar Points Hand Evaluation” book). It goes like this; 1) if an expert fails to open a 26-count, the expert is asleep. 2) if an expert opens a hand with a below-26-count, the expert is drunk. Zar Points are being considered as a replacement of the standard for opening hand since they encapsulate the COMBINED RESTRICTIONS of the WBF (the Rule of 18 AND the Rule of the Queen) – not for ACBL of course, where basically you have to have 15 HCP and a 6-carder to open (since this is what constitutes the minimum that makes a beginner comfortable opening). > Your writing style is at best idiosyncratic and often verges on obtuse. < My style is for intelligent readers – that means people who are: 1) readers; 2) intelligent I hope you fit the bill. > World class players don't need ZAR, this discussion isn't how to improve world class player judgement. < This is actually explicitly stated in the book despite the fact that I think it goes without saying. > I think ZAR would work much better in a limited bid system a la Precision instead of a wider ranging 2/1 setup. < Agree 100%. Simply a matter of “2-levels-wide” opening range vs. a “4-levels-wide” opening range. > I agree with Ben; ZAR in its aggressiveness with shape also attempts to depict in a rather linear way double fits, misfits, and so on. I rather like it, and I use ZAR without my pard knowing it. < I know people who did exactly that on the Bermuda Bowl finals 2 years ago when Zar Points were at their infancy, really. > This hand is a “miss” according to ZAR’s statistics, that is he reports no grand slam bid. This hand is a miss also, when Tysen studies hands. In fact, this hand is a “hit” or possible “hit” if FIT points are applied. < All the files you are referring to are from the first book, Ben. You are correct – no fit / misfit points and no Blackwood. HOWEVER, the 105,000 board match DOES apply Blackwood for ALL the 9 methods evaluated AND has 2 types of fit calculations (marked as 2 different entries) so people can see the behavior in either case, and chose accordingly. I have to tell you that I am surprised by the emails I get where people claim they continue using the “3-points-per-trump” DESPITE the fact that they see that this method is #2 and refuse to calculate the Zar Ruffing Power points which you discuss in your post (which is #1 in all categories and sub-categories as you may have already noticed). > If I see how you did it, then it's quite possible that I can see some sort of mistake I've made. < I have no idea how YOU did it, but I know the mistake you made (boy, do I see through :-) The problem is that to use Misfit Points you should be able to “calculate” the M2, and from there to approximate M4 (as described in the book). Now, the computer can ALWAYS do that directly, no questions asked. To do a relevant for “at-the-table” test though (if a theory is not for at-the-table use, I don’t even want to hear about it), you should test ONLY boards that can show the misfit during the bidding process. I know this sounds a bit idiotic so let me elaborate a bit. Please read through the entire thing first, rather than shooting off-the-hip. 1) First, what is the goal of introducing the Misfit points? The answer is – to let you better evaluate your trick-making potential in a “crazy” distribution. Keep this in mind when we are going through the eval of both NT and Trump trick-making potential (based on misfit) below. 2) Let’s focus on the M2 (since M4 is a derivative anyway). Can you tell me the value of M2 after a sequence like 1NT-2NT-3NT? Or on the trump-contract side 1S-2S-4S? The answer is no. Do you care about misfit in either case? The answer is no again. The Misfit points come into play where: a. for NT contracts you end-up in NT just because “nothing better is in sight”; b. for Trump contracts you are in “invitational mode” (Game or Slam) and at least one of the partners (NOT the guy that makes the decision for the Slam) has shown his side suit during the bidding. Quick example: 1S – 2S – 3C – 4S. Note that guy that MAKES the decision to jump to a Game has NOT shown his side long suit – and there is no need to. BUT he is in a position to calculate the M2 since he can project the differences in BOTH side suits (say, + or – 1). c. finally, please note that for NT contracts you have to calculate the entire M4, while for Trump contracts you only need to calculate the M2. Why? Because in NT ALL suits are equal and participate in the trick-making (or trick-losing for that matter) process, while in trump contract you do not care for the misfit value coming from the TRUMP suit itself and sit #4 that you don’t even know the difference of. In other words, in a trump contract, the trick-making “duo” are the 2 side suits of the 2 partners so you only calculate the M2 for these side suits. d. If you calculate M4 for trump contract by a computer, you’ll jump way off on the trump contract and will be disappointed. Admittedly, the book doesn’t pay enough attention to these considerations and focuses on the idea of the Misfit points rather than the details mentioned here. Hope this helps: ZAR

>>So are you saying that you've never actually tested misfit points to see if they work? > Tested? I never do this kind of stuff - why bother? Just put it out there and go to the next big thing. If you are wrong, people will let you know – you’ll patch it and keep going. Testing is for people with low self-esteem. You have to have confidence in yourself. ZAR << I am assuming that this is a joke. PLEASE tell me that this is a joke... If it is a joke, perhaps you cold provide a serious reply to the original question. < It is an inside joke between me and Tysen. I was referring to his everyday-attempts to come-up with new and new hand-evaluation schemas, claiming that “this new one already beats Zar Points”. And if YOU think that I don’t test and re-test everything I put on the web, you don’t deserve any better – you probably have also spent “a couple of hours reading all Zar’s stuff”, if that much. ZAR

> So are you saying that you've never actually tested misfit points to see if they work? < Tested? I never do this kind of stuff - why bother? Just put it out there and go to the next big thing. If you are wrong, people will let you know – you’ll patch it and keep going. Testing is for people with low self-esteem. You have to have confidence in yourself. > Any scheme for computing the making spot will fail when asked to compute the par spot, and vice versa, simply because these spots are frequently not the same. < I actually posted an answer to Mike’s question along those lines just above. However, after that I kept thinking about it and came to the conclusion that they ACTUALLY may be related. The example I gave with pulling 3 Spade cards from West’s hand and exchanging them for 3 Heart cards from East’s hand made me think about all the consequences of that. Your 26 cards stay the same but the suit-breaks changes dramatically. The point though is that this would affect BOTH the par and your top-contract (due to the unfriendly breaks you introduce). I’ll run some tests with the Dealmaster and the Deeepfiness (the database is not gonna cut it here). I’ll let you know – there are might be deeper relationships here than the ones that meet the eye ... > To relate this to ZAR points, an ace is worth something like 6 ZAR (4 for hcp + 2 controls). If you take a pair of hands and change them by replacing an ace with a small card, you will get a pair of hands with 6 ZAR fewer. This would seem to be true regardless of Fit/Misfit points (which are based upon the distribution of the hands and not how big the cards are). < That is certainly correct. > Thus ZAR would predict that you should be about one level lower (actually slightly more) on the hand pair without the ace. Very accurate in terms of what you can make. < True again. > But the par spot is frequently identical regardless of whether you have this ace. This is what LOTT models. < Again – I don’t want to talk off-the-top of my head, but I’ll do some runs and let you know. Definitely the subject is worth studying. > Here are the competitive problems with the bidding backbone: (1) Strong ♣ is a loser in competition. Partner has some idea of the combined potential of the hands (what we can make), especially if 1♣ is not a pure hcp bid, but has very little idea of how high to compete or when to double. Of course, this effects all precision-like systems and there are compensating gains. < Actually the Backbone is just SEAMINGLY like the Strong 1C systems. I guess you touch on the issue by saying that “1♣ is not a pure hcp bid”, but I’d like to put just a couple of words around that. When you open 1C before me, I know that you have 16+ HCP and that chances are that IF we have to compete (referring to vulnerability here), it PROBABALY would be in the sac area. When I open 1C before you, you have no clue what’s going on really. I may have 28 HCP in Aces and Kings and cut your head off if you dare to shove it under the sword. BUT I may also have as little as 10 HCP for that Strong 1C opening (please see page 20 for reference). So what do you do – sacrifice or construction? Or it doesn’t matter :-) (referring to our previous conversation). > (2) The multi-way 1♦ will be very difficult to deal with in competition, since you could have a minor suit super-fit (almost always right to bid five over four) or opener could have a chunky balanced hand with enough controls/hcp to boost it into the 31-35 ZAR range (almost never right to compete, almost always right to double). < You can NEVER have a balanced hand when you open 1D. It’s important to realize that. > If you hear 1♦-3M or 1♦-4M you are very very fixed. < Aren’t you? :-) I am actually much less fixed than you due to the point mentioned above – when I open 1D you know that I just cannot have a balanced hand. And when (and if) I open my mouth again, you can count easily where we belong. > (3) Four card majors which could be balanced or two-way canape (any of 5cM+4cm, 4cM+5cm, or 4cM balanced okay). < The length-restriction is well stated – it is impossible to open 1M and have ANY 6-card suit, be it major or minor. It targets again the negative inferencing. > These tend to do very badly in competition -- I know people who play them and honestly they don't do well. The issue is that it's very hard to work out how much of partner's strength is offensive or defensive, or how big your major suit fit might be in a competitive auction. < Oh, we are back to the 5-card major again. This is discussed with numbers in the book. I’ll point you to the proper place – around page 30 (just to save space, I am not ducking the question). > It can also be difficult to get to the right partscore even unobstructed, another issue which the simulations don't seem to much deal with. < Can you please elaborate here? I may be missing something... > (4) Preempts. < What da heck is that? :-) > Is it really losing bridge to open with less than 26 ZAR? < The answer is YES if you have a balanced hand. If you have 13 HCP and less than 26 Zar Points, let your opponents suffer instead of going down. Check any records of any tournament, you might be surprised. Now, if you have UNBALANCED hand ... I’ll keep my mouth shut :-) As mentioned in a previous reply tough, you are FREE to use preempts and overload the corresponding (to that suit) bids. > If neither you nor partner can make a game, you still need to bid to the par spot to stop opponents from running all over you. It's quite possible that you can make 2♠ with less than 52 ZAR, < Very true. > and that's all you usually need to sacrifice over opponents' making 4♥. This is ignoring the pressure value of the opening preempt as well. < I have nowhere to go here. I did agree before and will agree now. But I still believe that it’s a matter of style and priorities more than being a vital part of the construction. Overload one level down and adjust according to your preference. I may do it myself :-) ZAR

I’ll follow Ben’s approach of “mix-n-merge” to reduce the number of posts. > I have tried to use ZAR points in some borderline decisions, and found out that using LTC with some commonsense would lead to more or less the same. < Common sense differs, Chamaco :-) That’s actually why we are doing all these “artificial” gymnastics. You can even use commonsense ONLY and determine the value of the hand better than Zar Points – I even know one such guy who does this all the time (I can’t believe he’s doing it constantly better than me – just makes me mad). His name is Garozzo. > The thing is, when I did a quick study of it's performance, the Zar+Fit/Misfit was actually worse than the Zar+Fit. So I decided to look into the Misfit points. < I see – you first did the study about the Misfit points and then decided to look at the subject :-) There is an explicit note that misfit points (AND other things) are kept out to make the “battle” on as equal footing as possible, but when you have “spent a couple hours reading all of Zar's stuff” it’s hard to see everything, I guess :-) > I believe that even the drawback of ZAR points is the same of LTC: the offensive power is well represented *if we find a fit*, but: - the defensive power in terms of defensive tricks is not well represented and - there is a high risk of ending in 3NT based solely on distributional bidding and not hcp. < I tend agree with both, but your partner will be AWARE of that also, right? He wouldn’t expect you to have 4 defensive tricks just because you have opened and Zar Points value the availability of Controls, when you are limited with 30 Zar Points. Having said that, to say that Zar Points are “just like” LTC (and I am not projecting that the LTC is truly bad or something) you must have an imagination bigger than mine :-) Which is possible, after all :-) > For starters, all of these hand evaluation schemes are discrete. That is to say, they only take on certain integer values. < You can take (for example) an Ace for its “face value” in Zar Points (which is 6.18 points). How is that going to help you AT THE TABLE though? I believe we have to make some compromises and come up with something good enough for “at-the-table” use rather than presenting you with the opportunity to call the Director as ask if you can use your calculator just for the opening bid. > The key point here is that the distribution of the hands will determine the par spot almost regardless of the actual values. This is something ZAR (and the bidding backbone) don't seem to take into account. It might be interesting to try designing a hand evaluation method around the par spot instead of the making spot. < That would be nice – it constitutes the art of bidding, Mike, since it definitely takes in consideration the EVOLUTION of the bidding as it progresses (meaning the information you get from your opponents bidding). Unfortunately it is impossible. Here is why. I’ll just take 3 cards from West’s Spades suit and exchange it for 3 cards of East’s Hearts suit. You know the rest of the story. Cheers: ZAR

> I remember a post from rgb from a player playing against a well known star. The poster partner asked: 'How many points does your partner have for that bid?' and got the answer from the star: 'You're in the big leagues now, sonny!, we don't use points to evaluate hands' Ok, this was obviously somewhat rude, but you get the point. < If you give me a description of this method, I’ll run it through the database also :-) And post the results. > In terms of distribution, and assuming you play the purer version with 4 card majors, Zar's 1NT excludes: 1. a 4 card major 2. a 6 card minor 3. two 5 cards minors You won't have #3 in a regular 1NT opening, but you could well have #1 or even #2. Obviously you can tell your opponents more about your partner's hand than you will be able if he opened a SAYC, 2/1, or Precision 1NT. < Unfortunately though, it has the frequency of a Strong NT though rather than a Weak NT – but you can not have it both ways. > In terms of HCP you won't be too vague either. If I have understood the bid correctly your partner will have 13-22 HCP + points for high card controls (A=2, K=1). So you can tell that he can't have 4 Aces, and if he has 3 Aces he won't have more than a King besides and nothing else. Again, you are able to supply your opps with more info regarding your partner's opening than they would be able to do if they had opened 1NT. All that assuming they won't be bothered with Zar points. < I tend to believe that the important thing to communicate to your opponents is the INFORMATION that you have received rather than the meaning of each and every bid (excluding the deductions you have made looking at your own cards). There is nothing wrong in having a SINGLE LINE at the top of your CC stating that: ZP = HCP + CTRL + (a + B) + (a – d), Opening 26+ points, Game 52+ points. and explain the boundaries of your partner’s bid AND the promised length of the suits. Don’t you think it’s OK? ZAR P.S. I am answering a bit off-tact but I have lots of emails too, so I hope you’ll tolerate the delay. ZAR

> Now as to the bidding system, I think some things may have been ignored. On many competitive hands, it is essential to evaluate the degree of fit early in the auction. This is actually more important than figuring out the combined level. < Completely agree on the importance of the FIT (and the MISFIT for that matter), and completely disagree on stating that those “have been ignored”. Zar Misfit Points and Zar Ruffing Power address EXACTLY this important issue. Please see the first 15 pages of the Backbone Book for the Misfit and the last chapters of the first Zar Points Hand Evaluation book for the Ruffing Power calculations (the first and second download items in the Download Section of the website). > It's often the case that you can figure out that you want to bid 4♠ on a hand, without actually knowing whether the contract will make or be a good sacrifice. < Agree again. This is usually the case in competitive bidding (and you find this out a bit too late :-) > This is where the ZAR bidding system seems to have a lot of holes. Artificial bids like the 1♣ and 1♦ calls tend to make it hard to find the best fit right away. Four card majors are also weak in this regard. The tight limits on the ZAR strength of opener's hand help you figure out what you can make, but in competitive auctions the goal is the par spot, not necessarily the making spot. < Amazingly enough, I agree again (on the importance of the par). I fail to see though HOW knowing your play level would hamper your ability to compete (including your sac decisions). > I'd argue that precision style openings (accurate to within two levels) are sufficiently precise in terms of playing strength to reach a good spot in most constructive auctions. This is also the reasoning behind the preemptive openings that ZAR bidding seems to ignore. How can partner know whether to raise to game if I open 3♠ on a wide range of hands? In general he cannot know whether game will make. But whether bidding 4♠ is right, is not necessarily the same thing as whether 4♠ will make! < So you are trying to project that when your PD opens 3S and you bid 4S, you have no clue whether you are going to make it +1 if not +2 or you are going to go -3 doubled. Either way it’s gonna be a good result :-) This reminds me of a VERY SIMILAR issue discussed on another Zar Points threads here on this forum (there are some 15 threads about Zar Points here – the one we are currently on is just 1 of these 15). The thread is called “One for Zar Points fans”. Your PD opens 4S and you hold: ♠ AJ9 ♥ AK932 ◆ JT ♣ A95 What do you do? ... It’s gonna take some ”inferencing” on the information he communicated so clearly. Take your time - I’ll not call the Director :-) Cheers: ZAR

> Zar, < Hi. Hannie (apologies for misspelling your name in the previous post – just an innocent typo really- forgive me). > I'm not sure why you respond with "I have to go to the bathroom now" < It was just a quote from Beavis and Buthead, Han (easier than Hannie). It says “Oh, I think I have to go to the bathroom”. It’s a common quote in the software circles (you may guess why :-) Nothing worth the space we devoted already to. > (twice in your reaction to some of my comments that were intended seriously), or with "This is getting grotesque now, I'll stop here" (half a dozen times in response to Richard's post). < Your counting is good! I did say that once :-) Points was I just don’t’ want to get involved in personal “pseudo-attacks” for nothing, when I hoped we could discuss more interesting stuff (I think). Don’t you? > I thought that Richard's point (opening 2M with 5-6 distribution and 5 levels of Zar-points is quite restrictive) was interesting and I would enjoy seeing a better answer. < It was Free’s question and I did address it with the answer to POJC. I don’t know what you mean by “5 levels of Zar Points” – really. The 2M openings should not be considered “isolated” but part of the entire length-related structure. It’s not like you scratch your head and start thing “well, what should I put here ... why not 5-7 two-suiters both headed by a K? Sounds exotic enough ...”. Rather, it covers its “portion” of the “negative-inference” structure of the bids. As with the openings at level 3, you are free to make your own modification (like dropping the 7-card suits down a level) but you should take in consideration what happens with the OVERALL structure of lengths that you want to maintain clear for your partner and enable him to do the negative inference. > You did give a reason for these openings in a later post (to make sure that 1M is exactly a 4-card suit I believe), but this does not counter the argument that 2M is made with a very low frequency. < Please let me know if the above short addition is not enough. > Let me respond to a couple more of your reactions to my post: "Hennie, you told everybody that you didn’t read the system :-)" I didn't read the whole system, but I'm always eager to respond to any topic I think I understand. < You are taking all this jokes very seriously. OF COURSE you should be eager to respond – these are free discussions HOPEFULLY for the benefit of the Game in general, and to improve our skills in one or another direction. > I don't know the numbers as well as you do, but I think my response was basically the same as yours. < Don’t quite get that, but again – please take it easy and ask ANY question or express ANY opinion you want, that’s why it is called “Discussion Forum”. I personally don’t think it is a good place for personal attacks especially ones based on “air”, but it looks like even that’s OK here, so ... > "Did you manage to catch your eyeballs, Hennie :-)" Not sure what you mean by that expression, < Han, that’s just my style. I meant that you probably are VERY SURPRISED by the length of the interval. I just write what naturally comes to my mind, translating to English from Bulgarian on the fly :-) > I'm not a native English speaker. < That just makes two of us :-) Seriously! I don’t know how to talk anymore ... :-) You knocked me off my feet :-) > I think I catch my eyeballs on anything related to bridge (hoping I used the expression in a correct manner). < I am afraid you didn’t actually – as silly as it might sound from the mouth of another ESL guy like me (ESL is English as a Second Language, nothing offending). Unlike you tough, I have some confidence in my grasp of the English Language (among other things :-) This does NOT matter though - the important thing is that YES, you are obviously a serious player and please feel free to ask any question at any time. There is nothing wrong in being an ESL person like you and me. That’s what the Discussion forum is about – exchange of ideas, questions, and opinions. Ben, did I explain the BBO policy well here or am I stepping on someone’s toes (yours or Fred’s obviously). I enjoy reading your posts and questions and have never had anything “behind” my jokes - that’s just my style. > "I don’t really do any calculations, Hennie, Seriously. I just copy and paste from the computer output. If you think that I am drawing tables and typing in numbers in a calculator, you are putting much more faith in me than I deserve." Ouch, did I make such a naive impression that you had to write this??? I sure hope that this was another one of your jokes. < I guess you have deleted the word “dumb” in front of the word “jokes” from your initial response :-) I give you a personal card-banche to take anything that offends you in any shape or form as a joke. Never meant to hurt you in any possible way. > BTW, my name is Hannie, or actually Han. Think that makes us even when it comes to typos < It does :-) Please let me know if you have any question on any Zar Points related matter – I’ll try to answer it the best way I can (I think I am qualified to do that). Cheers: ZAR

> I have a question for Zar. I don't understand the "preempts", in your proposed system. < I don’t either, to be honest, POJC :-) I just read my book – didn’t find any :-) However, please read below for the real answer to your IMPORTANT question. > ♠ KQTxxxx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ xxx That's around 22 ZAR so no 3♠ opening in Zar. This i would normally open 3♠ in favorable < This topic is discussed WITH the corresponding numbers in the book so you can make you OWN choice looking at these numbers. IF you decide to stick with your “normal” opening of 3S above, you can CERTAINLY do so – you just have to push the opening (meaning 26 ZP+) with any 6+ cards into the opening of 2S (or 2H correspondingly) – this also addresses the question of Free. You are absolutely free to do so AND to modify/add anything you decide. That’s why it is NOT called Zar Points Bidding System, but Biding BACKBONE – there are almost no conventions even, if you have noticed. The point is the balance between a bid where your PD knows that he can RELY on 26 ZP and 7-card suit (thus being able to IMEDIATELY take the appropriate intelligent action) vs. opening 3S pre-emptive with all kinds of hands, lengths, and holdings (which again is just fine if that’s your choice – and your PD knows about it :-). Opening with 26 ZP and 7-card suit is just geared towards the most important thing in the Backbone – limit yourself early and use negative inference. When your opening is 4-Levels wide and the suit-lengths are between 2 and 13, almost the only “negative” inference your pd can make is “OK – my PD opened, so he doesn’t have less than ... 13 cards – otherwise he would have called the Director”. “Would-have” is the key to negative inference, right? I believe it is important to enable your pd to think on INFORMATION rather than just letting him scratch his head staring at the back of your cards fully concentrated in an effort to “see-through” and make an “expert judgment” :-). Do you have a point in the importance of pre-empts though? Absolutely! And it’s up to you and your PD to decide what best fits your style and priorities. > I wonder why you waste your 2M bids on hands which VERY rarely come up: 5M, 6+m and constructive strength. Is it to fill a whole or something? < Free, please read the answer to POJC above - hope that helps. > Tysen and I have critiqued this evaluation scheme since day one. In particular, Tysen has some rather telling statistics that suggest that Zar points aren't particularly accurate compared to a variety of alternative hand evaluation metrics. < The “variety of alternative hand evaluations” has been put to a match of 105,000 boards. A total of 9 methods, including 2 flavors of LTC – the Classic and the Modern style. I know you are a writer, not a reader, but try to download the results and have a look – just glimps over, rather than “wasting your time” in detailed reading and thinking :-) 105,000 boards of Part-scores, Games, Slams, and GRANDS is a LOT – you have nowhere to hide behind “critiqued this evaluation since day one” (you obviously were quick to critique at “day one” back then also, as you admit – don’t know why that rush). And you will see what is and isn’t “particularly accurate” (to use your “scientific statistical” term). Is it OK to keep using LTC instead of reading about something else? Absolutely! You can keep counting HCP only if that’s what constitutes bridge-fun for you. Different people enjoy different things. ZAR

> I can see that a good response scheme could bid games pretty accurately < If your PD has the balance of the power to drill towards Game, of course. Then you will be happy that you have opened 1NT since in a sec he’ll know your exact distribution, and from there - your HCP + CTRL power (deducting the points that come from your exact distribution). I suspect that we will be discussing the other case though :-) > (I play a 10-13 NT so I'm not so concerned about the wider range), but I see two problems with part score contracts. With unbalanced hands 1NT will often be a quite inferior contract. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of the 1NT opening versus 1 of a suit is that you will actually play your opening bid a lot. < Very true, Peter. The question is what happens after you open 1NT and your PD passes (see below the case when he doesn’t pass). The worse case scenario is you go down 2 vulnarable undoubled – your opponents do not have a game and collect 200. Cannot help that – just swallow the pill IF your PD has passed (correctly, of course). If they double, then you bid your 5-card-suit if you have one (5332 or 5431), and simply pass with 4432 and 4333 (the 4-cards again can NOT be in any Major by definition – that’s why it is also much easier to maneuver after double since he knows that your 4-card suits are the minors). Your pd manipulates adequately, knowing your distribution. Note that you may use the rdbl as a reflection bid too. Now, you realize that as a response to the 1NT opening, ONLY the 2C “Zar Stayman” response is forcing – even 2D from your PD is to play. As Mike Rosenberg said once “the important thing is your PD to know what you open with”. > If the response scheme usually takes you past 1NT with a weak responder, then you have big problems with the balanced hands which form the majority of the 1NT openers. Bailing into 2M with a weak hand is also much dicier. < Weak responder can get you past 1NT only with his own playing suit as discussed above. His only forcing is 2C. Hope that addresses the question – as I mentioned in the reply to Hennie, 1NT is geared towards negative inference (regarding the Majors) and towards pre-emptive effect (barring the 1H and 1S opening from the opponents at a moment when you don’t have any Major yourself). Cheers: ZAR

> This heated discussion inspired me to read part of the Zar book again < That was the point of the heat, Hennie :-) Hopefully some other people would follow your simple approach towards the truth :-) > (I've read older versions of the book in the past, but there's much more in it now). I think that it is a very interesting read, but you have to be very very careful in accepting the conclusions that Zar draws from his calculations. < I don’t really do any calculations, Hennie, Seriously. I just copy and paste from the computer output. If you think that I am drawing tables and typing in numbers in a calculator, you are putting much more faith in me than I deserve. > For instance, here is an interesting quote from the Zar book, page 117: "So in favorable vulnerability your opponents' chances to have a succesful sacrifice against a game are a good 70%!" This is a very dangerous quote that should not be taken seriously imo. < It was just a joke, Hennie– thus, it was not supposed to be taken seriously :-) > all of the following must be satisfied: 1) We are playing in our best strain. 2) We have exactly 10 tricks in this strain. 3) Our best sacrifice is at the 4 level. < You are right with 1) and 2). And that is actually what the study suggests. On 3) though you can see the exact numbers for ANY kind of sacrifice. And I am sure you understand that these 70% do NOT translate to the Nike’s slogan “Just Do It” - it simply means that if you have a fit yourself, you would have a good sac 7 out of 10 attempts (I wish you play against me in the other 3 :-) Also, the 70% refers to the COMBINED probability, right – down 1, 2, or 3 in favorability. Plus, this is kind of “insurance” for me, so if you come and say “Zar, I followed your Rule and failed”, I’ll be able to reply “Sorry, Hennie, you are in the 30% bracket :-) Ask the statistics experts, they’ll explain :-) > So basically, it is only a useful guide when they know that their best fit is spades and we are playing in their best fit, namely hearts. < I assume the second “their” is a typo. BUT the sac is not necessarily in hearts, right? Sine you are going to be “overboard” anyway, the suit doesn’t really matter – the only thing that matters about the suit is if it is below or above their suit (aka, the level you’d need to go to). > Furthermore, they have to know that we can make 4H but not 5H. If they know all of this, surely they have a good idea already of how many tricks they can take in 4S. < I am not sure I am following you here, but there is a separate table that shows the exact numbers for any combination. This certainly does NOT mean that “they know that we can make 4 but not 5”. In this respect you can consider that the study for the sacrifices is made “after the fact” rather than being a guideline of what to do once they reach 5 Hearts – it can only help you if you don’t have other pointers and considerations from the bidding. Just like you would fines a missing Q against the hand which you have counted to have 4 cards instead of the 2 his partner has (in lack of any other indication for the position of the Q). > If you are a gullible reader then you might be better of not reading this book. < You make feel like I am trying to trick some innocent girls :-) And you are trying to protect them :-) > However, if you are willing to think carefully about what Zar says, then this book can give you plenty new information. < That indeed is the absolute goal, honestly. I am not trying to change your MOSCITO system and trick you into playing ELEPHANT or something ... just use your head, that’s all. > That's my book review based only on the section on the law of total tricks . I was never interested in the bidding system (sorry Zar) < Oh, I think I have to go to the bathroom ... :-) > so I didn't read that part. I'm very skeptical about the idea that good statistical ideas alone will lead to a good bidding system. I don't know anything about Zar the bridge player (so please take no offense), but I think that good bidding systems are made by good bridge players. < Actually, may I kindly ask to move the previous sentence here? Thanx :-) > 1) Is the variety of hands really so much greater than in standard? For instance, opener can have 1, 2 or 3 cards in each major, while in standard you can have 2, 3, 4 or 5 cards, wider by 1 level. You might say that 5 is quite rare, but 1 is also quite rare for Zar. In a minor you have 2-5 cards as in standard, but there is only one possible distribution for 2 (3-3-5-2 for clubs), compared to 3 in standard. So the number of cards in each suit is better known at Zar-1NT than in standard. < Hennie, you told everybody that you didn’t read the system :-) The exact distribution may be known at Level 2, if you read the answers to the Responder’s “Zar Stayman” of 2 Clubs. However, the 1NT opening is geared towards NEGATIVE inference rather than towards direct manifestation of values. Actually, the entire system is geared towards negative inference. When you open 1S I know that you cannot have more than 5 cards in the suit (since you would have opened at Level 2 with 2D or at Level 3 with 3S), and if you have 4 cards, you cannot have a 6-4 with a side 6-dars suit (since again you would have opened 2D and on the transfer bid would have bit 2NT to show 6-4). When you open 1NT I know that you do not have any 4-card Major. That’s the vital information here, rather than the fact that you can tell me your exact distribution on your next bid – that’s just an added bonus. > 2) The 6-Zar point range is not much wider than the 3-HCP range. Remember that an ace or king gets more Zar points than HCP's, and Zar gives extra points for distributional values. I'd estimate that 6 Zar points is about the same size as the 14+-17 range often used by 2/1 players, if they evaluate their hands properly. < They never do evaluate their hands properly, Hennie :-) I am not sure what 6 Zar Points you are talking about ... may be you have in mind 5 – that’s the range. To see EXACTLY what the ranges are and what probability, you can go to page 20. The probabilities for every HCP holding are given in the right-hand-side column. Having said that, from COMPARISON view point, Zar Points are 2 times LIGHTER than the “normal” points (I’m tempted to say the “abnormal points” :-) Meaning that in Goren terms you need 26 points for a Game, while in Zar terms you need twice that amount (52). However, that 2:1 ratio may be very misleading as you very accurately pointed out. Since you are talking about the 1NT opening, the MAX distributional point you might possibly have there is 13, leaving you with 13 for HCP+ CTRL or an expected minimum of 10 HCP! You have to face that (not you personally since you don’t give a demn about the system :-). The max HCP would be when the distributional points are minimum, that is 8 at 4333. Then at 30 Zar Points (the MAX for the 26-20 interval) you would have 22 from HCP and CTRL, so an expected MAX of 18 HCP. So theoretically you may hold anywhere between 10 and 18 HCP. Did you manage to catch your eyeballs, Hennie :-) > 3) If (1) and (2) don't hold then this should also not be a problem, right? < Not sure what you mean exactly, but I hope I addressed the issue – let me know if there is anything unclear. Thanx, Hennie: ZAR

> Zar's may have invested enormous amounts of additional work, however, his analysis suffers from the same flaws as always: Zar doesn't seem to have any real background in statistics or information theory both of which are very helpful for any kind of serious work in this field. < My PhD is actually in Mathematical Modeling and statistics. Information theory ... let’s not even get there :-) > Case in point: Look at the following quote from page 16 "The first comparison is something that we have already done - the STRONG opening bids in the Strong 2♣, the Strong 1♣, and Zar Point Bidding - Strong 2♣: the Span of the normal opening bids spreads across 4 levels (since Goren Levels are 3 HCP strong) - Strong 1♣: the Span of the normal opening bid spreads across 2 levels (since Goren Levels are 3 HCP strong) - Zar points: the Span of the normal opening bid spreads across 1 level (since the Zar Point level are 5-points strong)" I understand what he's trying to say, however, he is creating his own volcabulary while ignoring standard statistical methods. < We are talking just 2+2=4 here rather than statistics actually... In Strong 2C the hand can spread within an interval of 12 HCP while in Strong 1C – within an interval of 6 HCP. Divide by 3 and you will see the phenomenal result :-) > He is then using this vocabulary to make straw man comparisons about other bidding systems. Furthermore, I admit that I've only skimmed his work, < You may enjoy it – try reading it. I’ll never ask for your credit-card info :-) > however, I've never been able to find some very basic pieces of data such as frequency distribution showing what percentage of hands have 10/11/12/13 etc. Zar points. < That just confirms you have never read it. I’d never discuss something I haven’t read – be it in a positive or negative way, but especially in a negative way. That’s just beneath me ... sorry. I encourage you to open it and read it first. > Equally significant, the bidding system that he derives runs count to an awful lot of established work. < Who has ever denied that? I assume that’s your way of joking :-) > For simplicity, lets "just" consider the structure of opening bids: 1♣ = 36+ Zar points, any distribution 1♦ = 31-35 Zar points, any distribution or 26-30 with a 6 card minor 1♥ = 26-30 Zar point, 4+ ♥ 1♠ = 26-30 Zar points, 4+ Spades 1N = 26 - 30 Zar points, no 6+ card suit, no 4 card major, no 5-5 in minors 2♣ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 6+ ♥ 2♦ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 6+ ♠ 2♥ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 5♥ and 6+ minor 2♠ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 5♠ and 6+ minor 2N = 26 - 30 Zar points, 5+♣/5+ ♦ 3♣ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 7+ Clubs 3♦ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 7+ Diamonds 3♥ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 7+ Hearts 3♠ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 7+ Spades I hardly know where to begin: < A good starting point would be reading the book actually. We can leave it right here though, if it is tough for you :-) > 1. There are a number of existing bidding systems that use 2 tiers of strong/artifical/forcing openings. Most of the ones that I am familiar with use 1♣ to show the "intermediate" strength hands and 1♦ to show the strong openings. The Swedes are VERY good at system design. I'd like to see a good reason why Zar has inverted the "traditional" treatments. < I am afraid we are running an different stadiums ... Nobody has ever denied the existence of the 2-tier strong openings. There are even systems with tiers as low as 0 HCP ! > 2. Zar is devoting enormous amounts of bidding space to hands with 26-30 Zar points. < Difference is that the book explains WHY that is. It is not because “I think so because I am wiser than you”. > As far as I can figure this describes (roughly) 28% of all hands. < No need to figure it out – it’s in the book. > In order to accomplish this, he is forced to open with nebulous 1♣/1♦ openings on close to 18.5% of all hands and pass with 53%. Personally, I don't like those odds. < Who cares what you or I like? It’s a matter of NUMBERS? Was that you who said “Zar doesn't seem to have any real background in statistics or information theory”? Boy, oh boy ... > I'm also not fond of the fact that he's shoved hands with 6 card minors into the 1♦ openings. It seems like a kludge. < Ever thought about the reason? Just kidding :-) I know you haven’t :-) > 3. The 1NT opening could be made on anything from a 3=3=3=4 to a 1=3=5=4 hand. I can't understand how responder is expected to understand what to do... < It’s getting grotesque so I’ll just stop here ... > I'm fond of offshape NT openings that clarify strength, but not when they clarify a range equal to 28% of all hands. (Its worth noting that Zar's 1M openings don't have any kind of NT ladder to clarify range with balanced hand patterns) < Hm ... OK ... I said I’ll stop here :-) > 4. I'm not even going to start on the 2M openings... I can't image that they'd come up more than once in a Blue Moon. < No need to imagine – just read. Hm ... OK ... I said I’ll stop here :-) Actually this posting was not AT ALL about ANY system. It was about the last section regarding the Match of 105,000 boards, remember? ZAR

> hi Zar .. ..sorry if i've missed something ..but ... the examples I've seen seem to me to suggest that one should never open a weak 2-bid holding a hand with 2 Aces as such hands are often closer to a Zar opening bid. < “Close” doesn’t cut it. It’s either an opening bid or it isn’t. Zar Points present the absolute legal minimum of an opening hand according the WBF. There are 2 rules of the WBF that judge that: 1) The rule of 18 which Zar Points “just qualify”; 2) The rule of “A Queen worth above the average hand” where Zar Points also “just qualify” with the average hand having 10 HCP, 3 CTRL, and 11 Distributional Zar points for a total of 24. The opening hand must have 26, which is a Queen-worth above that (2 points). > This is in line with my own instincts .. i detest 'weak' openings with 2 aces ... are there any stats to back this up, or disprove it ?? Rgds Dog < I can run any stats you would like since I have a database of 5 Million normally-distributed hands (from statistical point of view), all played in both directions in DD – NS and EW. But I am not sure what you suggest me running. A hand with 2 Aces may or may not be an opener. A hand with 6-card suit and 2 a Aces though usually qualifies simply because it has 12 points from the 2 Aces and at least 13 from distribution (9 + 4). So even with 6322 and 2 Aces you have 25 Zar Points – very close to opening and ACTUALLY an opening of the 6-card suit is Spades. If you clarify what needs to be run I’d actually run it and let you know the answer. Cheers: ZAR

Hi again, guys: The Match of 105,000 boards between: - Goren; - Lawrence; - Bergen; - LTC Classic; - LTC Modern; - Zar; - WTC is posted at: http://www.zarpoints.com/TheDownloads.htm Download the FIRST item “Zar Points Backbone” and see the last Chapter “Performance Considerations. The match includes: - 37,691 Part-scores, Level 3 (9 tricks in Spades); - 56,019 Games, Level 4 and 5 (10 or 11 tricks in Spades); - 8,750 Slams, Level 6 (12 tricks in Spades); - 3,075 GRANDS, Level 7 (13 tricks in Spades);. These are all Spades contracts above level 2 which are found in the first 1,000,000 boards in the database – it means that the above numbers also present you with the probability to have to corresponding games – for example you should expect 5.6% of the time to have a Game in Spades (since the number of boards in the 1,000,000-bord DB is 56,000). And another 5.6% a Game in hearts etc. Certainly any feedback is more than welcome. Cheers: ZAR

ADDITIONS by popular demand: In many emails I was asked to ADD the reserach for The Law from the view point of BOTH pairs. I just put the new version at: http://www.zarpoints.com/TheDownloads.htm It contains: - The Law of Total Tricks (both pairs perspective): - The Law of Total Double-Fit Tricks: - The Law of Total A Priory Tricks: You'll find the additions useful, I guess. Cheers: ZAR

Hi, guys: I just posted the Zar Points Bidding Backbone, including the research on The Law of Total Tricks. Here is the direct link - just select the FIRST item on the list: http://www.zarpoints.com/TheDownloads.htm Please let me know if you have any questions / suggestions. It will take some time to read it through since there is lot's of data. Take your time. I also posted on another thread the Zar Count Machine - read it there to avoid cross-posting. The new site is WWW.ZarPoints.COM Make it a great day: ZAR

Hi, guys: Just to let you know that the Zar Count Machine can be tried on the new website: http://WWW.ZarPoints.COM You can play PBN files from various Championship and get the results from the "bidding" in LTC, Goren, Bergen, Laurence, WTC etc. You can also make your interpretations of the ACTUAL bids at the table and test it as you play round by round. I also posted the new Zar Points Bidding Backbone - see the other thread for details. Please let me know if you have any questions / suggestions. Make it a great day: ZAR

Well .... here are the numbers for competitive biding in quotes. Hope it is readabale - this Forum-editor software makes me feel I have never seen a computer before :-) Cheers: ZAR

Hi, Mike: This thread was staying kind-of "aside" from the main Zar Points threads. I am using it now to post the numbers for the probablities in the ranges of Zar Points for the 2 hands of the partnership once the OPPONENTS have opened, which means we are in the competitive bidding zone. The formal condition we use for the purposes of this research is that the Left-hand-opponent has 12 HCP (standard-opening). Have a look at the numbers below in the next posting. Hope that helps. Let me know if you need any elaboration in any direction. Cheers: ZAR

Oops ... Glad I tested the HTML posting with a short message first. Here is the text, and the results will be posted in the "Quotes" way that Ben suggested. Sorry again - check the Competitivie Bidding thread for the numbers posted. Cheers: ZAR

<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9"> <link rel=File-List href="./Good%20morning_files/filelist.xml"> <title>Good morning, guys:</title> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties> <o:Author>ZPetkov</o:Author> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:1407216997; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-1353935204 -1247485334 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:-; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US style='tab-interval:.5in'> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>Hi, guys:</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>I am trying to post the numbers in HTML this time so the tables are not screwdup – Hrothgar suggested this approach.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>The Offensive Bidding numbers for Zar Points have been posted to the main Zar Points thread “Zar Points – useful or waste of energy” while the defensive bidding numbers are in the “Competitive Bidding” thread for Zar Points.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>As I mentioned, IF you are interested, the corresponding numbers for:</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list .5in'><![if !supportLists]>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><![endif]>Goren offensive;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list .5in'><![if !supportLists]>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><![endif]>Goren defensive;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list .5in'><![if !supportLists]>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><![endif]>Milton (HCP) offensive;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list .5in'><![if !supportLists]>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><![endif]>Milton (HCP) defensive;</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>are also available. They would enable you to “check” the probabilities against the overloading of the bids in your system – you might be surprised by the picture.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>Let me know if this wouldn’t be “too much” for the purposes of this forum.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>Cheers:</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal>ZAR</p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> </div> </body> </html>