Zar

There is a bit of improvement - I guess I'll try the HTML if you cannot read this. Make it a great day: ZAR

OK Ben - thanx. Hope that will work. Thanx to Hrothgar too - I'll try the html if this doesn't work. Cheers: ZAR

Hm ... The tables columns get screwdup ... Tell me if you can copy-paste them in a document and get the numbers lined-up. I'll also try to post all these on the website when I get the time (hopefully this weekend). Cheers: ZAR

Hi, guys: Here are the offensive bidding numbers, AFTER partner HAS OPENED, There were several parallel runs by different people and the numbers below are the direct results of the runs made by John Gallucci (thanx, John!). The corresponding numbers for the DEFENSIVE bidding are published in the Zar Points defensive bidding thread. ======================== ZAR POINTS DISTRIBUTIONS Total hands with 26 Zar Points or more = 468043 or 46.8043% Total hands with 25 Zar Points or less = 531957 or 53.1957% 1,000,000 Total Hands HCP 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 Total Percent --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----- ------- 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 5 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 6 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 567 0.1 7 3224 2 0 0 0 0 0 3226 0.7 8 10042 43 0 0 0 0 0 10085 2.2 9 22368 265 0 0 0 0 0 22633 4.8 10 39225 1131 1 0 0 0 0 40357 8.6 11 53707 5721 43 0 0 0 0 59471 12.7 12 57037 11149 213 0 0 0 0 68399 14.6 13 45935 18435 594 1 0 0 0 64965 13.9 14 29820 24890 1682 6 0 0 0 56398 12.0 15 11336 27565 5204 58 0 0 0 44163 9.4 16 3649 21338 7683 173 0 0 0 32843 7.0 17 845 13418 8980 494 1 0 0 23738 5.1 18 76 6591 8559 946 7 0 0 16179 3.5 19 1 2251 6941 1282 9 0 0 10484 2.2 20 0 537 4297 1557 39 0 0 6430 1.4 21 0 71 2101 1481 81 1 0 3735 0.8 22 0 0 816 1252 117 0 0 2185 0.5 23 0 0 172 748 112 2 0 1034 0.2 24 0 0 34 370 141 2 0 547 0.1 25 0 0 5 176 102 2 0 285 0.1 26 0 0 0 36 71 4 0 111 0 27 0 0 0 7 26 3 0 36 0 28 0 0 0 1 12 8 0 21 0 29 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 6 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----- 277976 133407 47325 8588 721 26 0 468043 59.4 28.5 10.1 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 % using base of 468043 27.8 13.3 4.7 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 % using base of 1000000 RAW COUNT ------------- Responder's Range ------------- Opener's Range 10- 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31+ -------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26 - 30 1221 18075 60273 81550 38047 20371 31 - 35 894 12476 36132 40612 15422 6174 36 - 40 458 5999 15069 14574 4355 1305 41 - 45 116 1573 3145 2375 583 120 46 - 50 21 174 297 160 31 3 51 - 55 0 13 10 2 1 0 PERCENTAGE'S ------------- Responder's Range ------------- Opener's Range 10- 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31+ -------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26 - 30 0.12 1.81 6.03 8.16 3.80 2.04 31 - 35 0.09 1.25 3.61 4.06 1.54 0.62 36 - 40 0.05 0.60 1.51 1.46 0.44 0.13 41 - 45 0.01 0.16 0.31 0.24 0.06 0.01 46 - 50 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 51 - 55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56 - 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table below shows the spread of probability of 8 to 57 Zar Points 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 493 973 10 > 2376 4491 7642 10674 15948 19875 26738 32751 39695 45235 20 > 51738 55273 59379 60652 62067 35957 82255 56361 51201 46710 30 > 41449 35847 30814 26166 22115 18465 14934 11738 9171 6683 40 > 4799 3253 2237 1502 969 627 334 201 114 41 50 > 31 13 6 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 60 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table below shows the spread of probability PERCENTAGES of 8 to 57 Zar Points 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 > 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 10 > 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.0 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.5 20 > 5.2 5.5 5.9 6.1 6.2 3.6 8.2 5.6 5.1 4.7 30 > 4.1 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 40 > 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 > 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60 > 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Opener's Range Game 52+ Small Slam 62+ Grand Slam 67+ -------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- 26 - 30 74825 7.48 7200 0.720 1369 0.137 31 - 35 66540 6.65 7624 0.762 2202 0.220 36 - 40 28791 2.88 6914 0.691 2094 0.209 41 - 45 3920 0.39 2807 0.281 1137 0.114 46 - 50 150 0.02 284 0.028 252 0.025 51 - 55 0 0.00 9 0.001 17 0.002 ---------- ------------ ------------ 174226 17.42 24838 2.48 7071 0.7 = 20.6 % Compared to the case when OPPONENTS open, the numbers for Game + Slam + Grand were only 16.5% (see the research on the cases when we are in DEFENSIVE bidding). Defensive bidding numbers are posted in the defensive bidding thread. Cheers: ZAR

Hello: Bellow is a message CLOSELY related to the Fine Tuning not only of Zar Points, but bidding systems in general. 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 once are in the “Competitive Bidding” thread for Zar Points. IF you are interested, the corresponding numbers for: - Goren offensive; - Goren defensive; - Milton (HCP) offensive; - Milton (HCP) defensive; 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. Let me know if this wouldn’t be “too much” for the purposes of this forum: ZAR

Todd: The ranges not only for balanced but for all possible distributions evaluated in Zar Points are published as listed below. The direct translation of Weak and Strong NT is a bit tricky because of the fact that the more HCP you have the less the relative portion of distribution you have - we can get deeper in this if you are interested. 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 once are in the “Competitive Bidding” thread for Zar Points. IF you are interested, the corresponding numbers for: - Goren offensive; - Goren defensive; - Milton (HCP) offensive; - Milton (HCP) defensive; 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. Let me know if this wouldn’t be “too much” for the purposes of this forum: ZAR

Hello: Bellow is a message CLOSELY related to the Fine Tuning not only of Zar Points, but bidding systems in general. 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 once are in the “Competitive Bidding” thread for Zar Points. IF you are interested, the corresponding numbers for: - Goren offensive; - Goren defensive; - Milton (HCP) offensive; - Milton (HCP) defensive; 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. Let me know if this wouldn’t be “too much” for the purposes of this forum: ZAR

Good morning, guys: This is a short message just to let you know that 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 once are in the “Competitive Bidding” thread for Zar Points. IF you are interested, the corresponding numbers for: - Goren offensive; - Goren defensive; - Milton (HCP) offensive; - Milton (HCP) defensive; 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. Let me know if this wouldn’t be “too much” for the purposes of this forum: ZAR

Good morning, guys: This is a short message just to let you know that 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 once are in the “Competitive Bidding” thread for Zar Points. IF you are interested, the corresponding numbers for: - Goren offensive; - Goren defensive; - Milton (HCP) offensive; - Milton (HCP) defensive; 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. Let me know if this wouldn’t be “too much” for the purposes of this forum: ZAR

*** FrankC wrote: "Zar doesn't claim to be accurate in notrump evaluation and Zar doesn't claim to work (without adjustment) for low partscore hands. < I promissed to get back to this thread and never did, sorry. Actually I have never said Zar Points do not work on part score contracts. In fact, as some of the posted sets of boards indicate, they behave very well in partscore AND in respect to not going overboards when there is no prospect for a higher play - one of the Japan articles discussed that too. As far as the sets of boards for testing, I agree with the majority of the posters that the "right" thing to do is to go over a "standard" and "public-access" sets of boards rather than generating "targeted" sets where you can twist things the way you please. In any event, the bottom line is that you have to feel comfortable with the method you use from any perspective of the game - even if you feel uncofortable with a "side effect" like the chance that a very light opening caries risks for your partnership understandings (and penalty-doubles on low-level part-scores), you may decide to go with STRONG openings JUST for that reason alone - nothing wrong with that. ZAR

*** free wrote: "Yeah, imo North and East should open. However, East is in second hand, and if you don't suspect light openings problems will start. A 2-level opening might be better, but not sure." < Free, you are free not to open :-) However, if these 2 hands are kinda "shaky" for you, let's have a look at the currently running finals between Nickell and Welland: Kxxxxxx Axxxx x - Just 7 HCP, but opened on BOTH tables. I didn't ask them if they did think about the potential problems :-) Cheers: ZAR

Sorry I was away for awhile ... I have no idea how we ended up calling Richard Pavlicek's points TSN or TSP or ... Richard adds 1 pt for every suit length above 4 and the 1-3-5 points for shortness, which is exactly what we discuss here (besides the HP + CTRL or 6-4-2-1 for honors). You can download the Richard Pavlicek article from his website www.rpbridge.com and the article has some coded name of “7Z70.pdf”. The problem with the Pavlicek points is that it doesn't reflect the impotence of the flat 4333 pattern. Even Goren subtracts 1 pt for the 4333 shape, making the difference between the 4432 pattern and the 4333 be 2 points, while the difference between 5332 and 4432 is “virtually” non existent, each valued at 1 pt (no pattern actually gets 0 points and everything after that is linear). If you say that the great Goren lived in different times and you happen to rely on the so called trick-taking potential, you'll end up in the same mud-spot: 4333 - 7.76 4432 + 0.31 5332 + 0.06 meaning that the first difference is 0.31 while the second difference is 0.06, highlighting a similar "drop" in value for the 4333. In Zar Points the flat pattern is 2 points below the linear “pack” with 1-point difference which follows after that. Make it a great day: ZAR

*** tysen2k wrote: "I've said many times that if my system says to bid a grand on 0+ points I'd score perfectly on Zar's tests. Zar has never had a reply to this. < Well, let’s have a look at the VERY first sentence of the Zar Points article (I’ll allow myself to quote because you’ll obviously never read anything about “those other points, the bad ones” :-). Please do not treat this as a promotion of Zar Points :-) “Never Miss a Game Again? That’s easy – just bid a game on every board! :-)” I hope you’ll read at list this sentence from the Zar Points stuff :-) ZAR

*** Mike wrote: "Too many names to name. Mike :-) < I guess you put the "smily" on the right place :-) ZAR

*** mikeb wrote: “It is quite worrying that you do not consider yourself a "Statistical Man", as creating and comparing evaluation systems is totally based on Statistics!” Thanx for the lesson :-) People learn every day :-) *** hrothgar wrote: “As I noted earlier, I have no way to evaluate whether or not the statistics that tysen produced are accurate.” < You are not alone here, that’s the point. NOBODY knows anything, yet “that’s the thing!” ... It’s “statistics” we are talking about here, not blah-blah-blah ... Real science ... Don’t you dare to think – it’s whatever I say :-) I say it’s 0.21 vs. 0.08 – almost three times better, period. No more discussions :-) And what is really amazing, nobody cares – the important thing is the claim. BTW, I just finished the statistical analysis – it showed that Goren has 0.23- so we are back in square 1. “4-3-2-1, let’s play bridge for fun” :-) ZAR

*** hrothgar wrote: " will make the same suggestion that I have several other times. Start with your database of hands. < It is a sound advice, but I am afraid you are answering a question that was not asked. The kind request was to explain the "STATISTICAL METHOD" that was used to determine the claim which basically sais: "Here is a method that is 3 times better than anything known to man" showing that "indeed" its has a "score of 0.21" against a "score of 0.08" whatever that means. So, can we have SOME KIND of explanation about the way this "achievement" was "scorred"? That was the question that anyone in "the Statistical Camp" :-) tends to avoid. Or is it enough for you someone to start a thread sayin "Here is method which is STATISTICALLY 3 times better than anyone known to man" and you jump head-first just because you are a "statistical man" too? :-) ZAR

*** hrotgar wrote: “I very much admire your enthusiasm for your point count method and all of the effort that you are making to promote it. < I am not promoting anything – I just reply to questions. I have started 0 threads out of the 15 or so discussing different aspects of Zar Points here on the BBO forum. Neither have I started any thread on any of the other forums where Zar Points are discussed. > Zar, the "magic" is nothing more than basic statistics. < So you are the one that is going to explain to us (since there are no other volunteers) the “statistics” that Zar Points “score” almost 3 times worse – 0.08 vs. 0.21. MikyB started and I thought we finally will have something, but ... So go ahead – you have my undivided attention: ZAR

*** notbutter wrote: "Name Names ..." So, you think that Names need lectures on Hand Evaluation ... I duscuss hand evaluation issues with Names all the time, believe me - and "both sides" are perfectly clear on the issue that Names don't need Hand Evaluation lectures :-) If you think that Zia, or Meckstroth, or Hamman scratch their heads adding 3 points for void, or 5 points (or 16 points for that matter :-) when they make a decision about whether to invite, or to jump to a game, or to accept an invitation, or to make a slam try, I am afraid I have to disappoint you. They know what a hand is worth the moment they pick the pile of cards off the table, more or less. And the re-evaluation process is also not based on subtracting SPECIFIC amounts of points or ADDING specific amounts of points - if I have to make a parallel here, I'd say that Names operate in an analog world, while we are trying to digitize the damn thing so it is CONVENIENT for NoNames to make an adequate decision without the 20, or 30, or 40 years of everyday play experience that the Name has. And while they do NOT need digitized and formalized methods for THEIR OWN purpose, Names are open for discussions that lead to "digitizing" their analog world and I am very grateful for that. The idea that Names are unfriendly and selfish and closed and nasty and intentionally "keep their secrets" from the public is untrue - I have plenty of examples here. So the question "to Zar or not to Zar" is still very important, but ... not for Names :-) I hope we are on the same page here with most people: ZAR

*** mikestar wrote: "and 1 for each card over 4 in any suit ... < You are correct - I missed this one, so here is the new calc: if ( TSN // HCP + CTRL + 2*( max( 0, L[0][fitCol] + L[1][fitCol] -8) ) // FIT points + max( 0, getAbcd("N", "a") -4) // Karpin Points a N + max( 0, getAbcd("N", "b") -4) // Karpin Points b N + max( 0, getAbcd("S", "a") -4) // Karpin Points a S + max( 0, getAbcd("S", "b") -4) // Karpin Points b S + dN123 + cN123 + dS123 + cS123 // 1-3-5 for N and S > 53 ) TSNfit++; // check for Grand and TSN indeed went above Goren 5-3-1 as you predicted due to the HCP + CTRL. ================Overall Results ============================ GOREN 3-2-1 ( HCP+3-2-1> 36 ) got 1427 contracts The WTC ( number of tricks > 12) got 1543 contracts GOREN 5-3-1 ( HCP+5-3-1> 36 ) got 2913 contracts Fit TSN Points ( fit points >53) got 3616 contracts Basic Zar Points (no fit points>66) got 3753 contracts Fit +3 Zar Points(+3 extra trmp>66) got 5729 contracts So still this combination of HCP + CTRL + FIT + Karpin + 1-3-5 is worse than BOTH the basic Zar Points and the Fit Zar Points. How come we cross-post "magic" results with no explanation showing: HCP HCP+321 HCP+531 Zar BUMRAP+321 BUMRAP+531 TSP Binky What kind of "calculation" was made to "suddenly" put the combo-method WAY above when it manifests 3600 against 5700 on the Standard GIB boards? And the "score" is 0.21 vs. 0.8, almost 3 TIMES better when it is almost 2 times worse? What's the "magic"? ZAR

*** Ben wrote: “Now, to begin with, I seriously doubt if the "score" thing that tysen has published here is right. < I am surprised you get these results seriously with no explanation HOW they have been “scored ”, WHAT was programmed and what BOARDS were fed in. No information whatsoever, just plain words and BOOM – we have a GREAT result :-) Since you already noticed that, I’ll just post the usual results for the Standard GIB boards for Game and Slam, and as usual all records are available for checking. If you pay attention a bit, you’ll easily see the THREE FUNDAMENDAL mistakes made in this “yet another method” as it was called, which is the natural reason for the catastrophic results on the Stndard GIB boards – both slams and games. If cannot see these three fundamental mistakes, let me know. Here are the results. For the Games from the Standard GIB boards (63,057 boards total) ================Overall Results ============================ The WTC ( number of tricks > 9) got 19666 contracts Fit TSN Points ( fit points >38) got 27610 contracts GOREN 3-2-1 ( HCP+3-2-1> 25 ) got 32688 contracts GOREN 5-3-1 ( HCP+5-3-1> 25 ) got 41045 contracts Basic Zar Points (no fit points>51) got 49794 contracts Fit +3 Zar Points(+3 extra trmp>51) got 55802 contracts For the Grands from the Standard GIB boards (10,344 boards total) ================Overall Results ============================ GOREN 3-2-1 ( HCP+3-2-1> 36 ) got 1427 contracts The WTC ( number of tricks > 12) got 1543 contracts Fit TSN Points ( fit points >53) got 1587 contracts GOREN 5-3-1 ( HCP+5-3-1> 36 ) got 2913 contracts Basic Zar Points (no fit points>66) got 3753 contracts Fit +3 Zar Points(+3 extra trmp>66) got 5729 contracts And to have no doubt, here is how the calculations were done: /////////// GRAND slam requirements if( ZPnow > 66 ) ZP++; if( ZPnow // HCP + CTRL + 3*( max( 0, (L[0][fitCol] + L[1][fitCol] -8) ) ) // FIT points > 66 ) ZPfit++; // check for Grand if( Gor > 36 ) Goren++; if( Wtc > 12) WTC++; if( p135 > 36) G135++; if ( TSN // HCP + CTRL + 2*( max( 0, (L[0][fitCol] + L[1][fitCol] -8) ) ) // FIT points + dN123 + cN123 + dS123 + cS123 // 1-3-5 for N and S > 53 ) TSNfit++; // check for Grand /* 34 for the 3-level 39 for the 4-level 44 for the 5-level 49 for the 6-level 54 for the 7-level */ Cheers: ZAR

cnszsun wrote: "After south raise spade, North can upgrade his hand to 30 (2x1 extra trump and one honor in turmp), 37+30=67, we may have a grand slam. In fact, we really have a grand slam, interesting? < The area above 3NT is easy to prove by whatever means you chose, Mike. The only concern about Zar Points is actually related to Part Scores (as opposite to the Grands you are talking about :-) and NT contracts. For this reason, I just ran the Part Score and 3NT boards from the Standard GIB boards and you can have a look at the base thread "Zar Points - useful or waste of energy". Games, Slams, and Grands you can check the way you please :-) Cheers: ZAR

Ben, The performance in the Game, Slam, and Grand areas in something nobody ever doubted or challenged - the Zar Points scores are times rather than percentages better in these areas. The only concern so far was the expected relatively poor performance in the Part Score and the NT areas. So, I just ran the Part Score and 3NT boards from the Standard GIB boards and you can have a look at the base thread "Zar Points - useful or waste of energy". Actually, the only area where the demonstrated performance is about 10% below the best performer are the 3NT GIB boards, while in the Part Score area Zar Points still perform better (very slightly though, as expected). Have a look - it's all Standard GIB boards rather than generated boards for one purpose or another. Cheers: ZAR

Going back to Partscore and NT boards which were identified as worse for Zar Points, I just ran the Part Score and 3NT boards from the Standard GIB boards and you can have a look at the base thread "Zar Points - useful or waste of energy". Cheers: ZAR

I just ran the Part Score and 3NT boards from the Standard GIB boards and you can have a look at the base thread "Zar Points - useful or waste of energy". It sheds a light on the impact of distributive points in the evaluation. Cheers: ZAR

Hi, guys: I ran the worst-case scenarios for all the Standard GIB boards (part-score and 3 NT contracts that is). As expected, as we get down to the part-score area, the methods get really close to each other. Here are the results (and the way they have been calculated in parans): Part score results ( All Standard GIB boards for 3H and 3S contracts) ================Overall Results ============================ The WTC ( 10 > number of tricks > 8) got 22057 contracts GOREN 5-3-1 points( 26 > HCP+5-3-1> 22 ) got 29432 contracts GOREN 3-2-1 points( 26 > HCP+3-2-1> 22 ) got 32262 contracts Fit+3 Zar Points ( 52 > +3 extra trump > 45) got 30957 contracts Basic Zar Points ( 52 > no fit points > 45 ) got 35090 contracts The only area where Zar Points demonstrated slightly WORSE performance were actually the 3NT Standard GIB boards. Here are the results (and the way they have been calculated in parans): 3NT results ( All Standard GIB boards for 3 NT contracts) ================Overall Results ============================ The WTC ( number of tricks > 8) got 292 contracts GOREN 3-2-1 ( HCP+3-2-1> 25 ) got 1042 contracts GOREN 5-3-1 ( HCP+5-3-1> 25 ) got 1127 contracts Basic Zar Points ( no fit ) >51 got 952 contracts Fit Zar Points (+3 extra trump)>51 got 968 contracts Again close results, but this time Zar Points are slightly worse than the Goren counterparts - on average about 10% less. And the performance of Fit and Basic is virtually the same, as should be expected. The outperformance in the areas of Games, Slams, and Grands though runs in the order of times rather than percentages, as you can remember from the previous postings. As usual, I'll post the results ZIPped on the website so you can look at every board separately if you have the time. Make it a great day: ZAR