Zar

*** mike wrote: "so I will simply treat "52" the way I treat "26" now, a target, not a minimum standard that I must not go even slightly below. < Yes, if you play a "natural" system. If there is "invitational" bids involved, you have to build a "feel" about when to invite, when to jump strait to a Game, when to accept/decline an invitation etc. Certainly you can have artificial sequences where you know whatever need to know (through your system of transfers, asking bids etc.). Zar Points give you a "strict" tool to HELP you with these decisions, rather than making a machine out of you :-) ZAR

*** DrTodd13 wrote: "I'd say that in expert circles this is accomplished more by feel (after having played 10,000+ hands) than by a strict accounting. < That's the problem - they teach you to use the 4-3-2-1 but they don't use it themselves :-) > I'd thought about doing something like ZAR for a while but never had the time. It takes into account all the things that experts upgrade or degrade a hand for and derives valuations for each such feature... < "For each such feature" is a bit too ambitious, but I believe for MOST of the IMPORTANT ones. AND it is not a CLOSED system, nither THE perfect one by any means - it's just the best there is, as I mentioned once :-) And always trying to get better :-) ZAR

*** hrotgar wrote: "Any number of different evaluation schemes contraindicate a 2♥ opening. Losing trick count Rule of 20 BUM-RAP ... < You can add "common sense" here easily ... I guess if you give this hand to 10 experts, 10 of them will open 1H even if they have never heard of Zar Points in their life. ZAR

*** csdenmark wrote: "I haven't read those articles - maybe pity. < You haven't read them, but you write about them :-) This reminds me another "perl" from one of the Zar Points threads here, which read something like "I have never read this Zar Points thing, but sadly, I have never seen anything better than 4-3-2-1 ..." Sadly indeed. Because in order to see, you have to look. If you don't look, you'd see nothing :-) It's probably better to stay with the "4-3-2-1, let's have bridge for fun" - most of the bridge players are quite happy with it, that's a fact. Sadly :-) ZAR

Wow - a new thread with 14 postings already and I didn't even know about it ... Sorry I was away for 10 days and have a bit "catch-up" to do, but I'll go through all the questions and try to answer them. *** chamaco wrote: "So I came to the conclusion that an approximate transformation of ZP-> usual assessment scale is simply DIVIDE BY 2 This may not be 100% accurate but it is simple to explain to your partner if you want to convince him to try Zar Points evaluation ! < Zar Points are 2 times lighter than the "normal" points indeed. That means that you need 52 for a game (as opposed to 26 in Goren terms), you need 26 to open (as opposed to 13) etc. This in turn means that the precision is also doubled, meaning that (since ALL the points ranges are covered) in Zar Points you "capture" the hands with hapf-points valuations, like a hand that has 14 1/2 normal points (correspondind to 29 Zar Points, or a hand with 18 1/2 points (corresponding to 37 Zar Points) etc. The "conversion" is not mechanical, though. I am sure you realize that. Another (trivial) way to look at the Play Level determination is to simply divide the SUM of the points by 5 and see what the whole-part of result is. For example, if you have 53 points combined, you divide by 5 and the result is 10, meaning you will make 10 tricks with this 2 hands. Again, it is an "approximation" that will just give you an idea where you stand. In practice, since your standards are based on 26 Zar Points for opening, 16 for responding etc, you catually are "forced" to go to the right limits. Direct conversion always results in loss of precision, of course. It's like having counted the coins in a bag, saying "well, it's one bag of coins" :-) I'll go through the rest of the questions here also: ZAR

*** Mike wrote: "6-6 hands are offensive. Don't know many people that going let opps play at 4 level in a major when you have 6-6 in minors. I know I won't.. < Exactly - that's why I mentioned that the "orientation" of the hand is of primary importance and Zar Points capture this "attitude" very well on the background of cooperative doubles. With 6-6 you are not going to be willing to sit calmly in defence anyway, with or without Zar Points. ZAR

*** mikestar wrote: I believe that Zar points are the best offensive evaluation for suit contracts on the market, that doesn't imply that Zar's bidding theory is better than anyone else's--these are separate issues. < Agree 100% (with both parts of the statement :-) Bidding and evaluating (be it in the initial opening stage or re-evaluating at a later stage) are different parts of process. > partner won't be making those competive decisions base on the assumption of defensive strenght. < Also through – doubles on the lower level are cooperative at best (primarily oriented towards strength, support, negative, etc. ) > This the sort of difference of opinion that makes a horse race (or different bidding systems). < True again – I have had long discussions with the older generation of experts (both from the Blue Team and from the American World Champs) and they all tend to be supporters of VERY strong openings (as opposed to Zar Points, that means). These conversations are priceless treasures and I DO intend to publish them AND I have their permission to do that (they didn’t give me the time to do it, though :-) In facts, a lot of the Zar Poinst adjustments were suggested by some of these true experts in our truly enjoyable and respectful conversations. > I see that Zar is not in disagreement with mainstream theory in that he will open a hand with 26+ Zar points with something other than a one bid if the system has an appropriate alternative opening bid that shows the hand type. I assume this applies to shapely two-suiters with no defense as well if the system has a bid for them. < Even MORE so with a 2-suiter – you will never have the TEMPO to bid your suits. As Pietro Forqett use to say (the teacher of Garozzo, Arturo Franco etc.) “This game is played on suits”. *** eric wrote : “That doesn't mean opening them is wrong, it just means that you need to have partnership agreement.” < By all means, and in general it means orientation (attitude) as the one mentioned above. Cheers: ZAR

*** mikestart wrote: “Let's say that the auction for our side is 1S-3S (limit) and further suppose that the Zar point range for 3S is 21-25 Zar points as shown on your website. After revaluation, if opener has 31 or more Zars, he bids game--the combined total is at least 52. But let's say he only has 30 Zars--should he bid and risk a 51-point game or pass and risk missing a 55-point game? With 29 should he bid and risk a 50-point game or pass and risk missing a 54-point game? < I see the point – sorry I delayed the answer, Mike. First, note that the 5-point difference in Zar Points is almost corresponding to 2 Goren points difference – a far cry from the virtually 9-10 points difference you have in the “natural systems” between maximum and minimum. This means you are in a much CLOSER interval than the interval of 4-5 Goren points that the “min” hand would fall in itself. Having said that, you “accept” an invitation the “normal” way, that is if you are in the upper range (meaning 2 Zar Points interval or 1 Goren point!); or decline if you are at the bare minimum. The same way, the responder simply jumps to a Game with 25 Zar Points, not risking an invitation. As I usually say - just use your head :-) Hope that helps, Mike (I mean not only the last sentence :-) ZAR

*** Ben wrote: “First question is does this apply to REAL hcp, or hcp+control points? (am I counting Aces worth 6 to climb to 15 or not). < No. It’s just concentration of the “pictures” so to say. Please note, that the 15-HCP boundary is there more as a guideline rather than “splitting hairs”, meaning that when you look at your hand, based on your overall HCP power, you know if the “pictures” are spread or concentrated – it’s an Yes/No question which gives you the 1 pt. > Then there is two additional problems, what if I total the right kind of 15 or so points, in three suits, but one of the suits is a singleton ACE (I have not been counting that, as I find it hard to beleive singleton ACE is helping me set that suit up). Think... ♠AQxxx ♥AJxxx ♦A ♣xx < Again – do you think you have spread honors here or not – I think the answer yes, you get 1 pt which you wouldn’t get with the hand ♠Qxxxx ♥AJxxx ♦A ♣Ax. This takes care of the AQxxx and the AJxxxx combinations of honors (which is the goal of the entire exercise :-). > Next, is if I have 15 hcp in three suits, and then more points in the third, of if I have 14 points in two suits, but them more points spread throught out the other suits. would I still bump up the count (here I have been, because they do help set up the suit of course). < I am not sure I get it exactly what you mean, but again – it’s an Yes/No question which you can answer yourself and decide to get the 1 pt upgrade. Hope that helps, Ben: ZAR

*** chamaco wrote: "♠Kxx♥Jx ♦ QJT98xxx♣void I showed this hand on another thread on BBF ("1st hand preempt or not ?"). I think this hand has the same problems: good playing tricks on offense, no defense at all. ZAR p = 7hcp+ 1 control + 11 (length) + 8 (shortness) = 27 = full opening hand Now, discarding ruling problems (the 8hcp for a minimum opener), the problem is that if I open 1D and they compete in clubs, pard is likely to double, just like as described in example hand 1. Opening it as a preempt avoids this problem but may result (paradoxically?) in an underbid, and pass is also an underbid. < Another good point - in Zar Point system the hand opens with 4D, showing 26-30 Zar Points and 8-card suit. The same way when you open 3S I know you have 26-30 Zar Points and 7-cards in spades. NOTE that the pre-epmtive effect is STILL there, but I know you have 26-30 Zar Points and the corresponding length in the corresponding suit. This clarifies the matter immediately at ANY level since I can calculate +-1 your distributinal Zar Points and can deduct the values you have in terms of HCP+Controls. If you play naturally (whatever that means :-) the problem you stated is there (even if you use Zar Points). ZAR

*** chamaco wrote: "♠void ♥x ♦ KQxxxx♣QJxxxx If I am correct this hand is 8 hcp + 1 control + 12 length p + 6 p (length- shortness) = 27 hcp, a full opening hand. This is true if we buy the contract, but if THEY buy the contract in a major, the hand is worthless, no defensive tricks. < First - VERY interesing discussion topic. Thank you. The question here actually is "WHERE do you want to be with this hand - do you want to sit in defence or do you want to play in a minor". That's the question, and I am sure you have the answer. Two minor Aces and some kind a fit in PD's hand wil get you far ahead, right? With 16 HCP total on your side. And these 2 Aces are the 2 defensive tricks you PD might have for the double (which the dummy will ruff with its lowest spade:-) Anyway, let me go through the rest of the topic - an important issue, no doubt. ZAR

*** hongjun wrote: "Sorry Zar, no offend intended. Thanks for your tolerance. < No offence taken - I understand that you take the title of the article "Never Miss a Game Again" literary, but when you follow the discussions and the comparisons, you'll see that nobody actually thinks that any method is that perfect. In fact if there were such a method, we'll all stop playing bridge :-) ZAR

*** hongjun wrote: "Ben, why waste your time on it? < We just do it for fun, Hongjun :-) > I jsut dont believe any sys which claim they never miss any slam or game. < I don't either, my friend. We are in the same wagon here: ZAR

*** Ben wrote: "First hand liberated from ZAR's slam download page. Here is how ZAR described the count. BEST contract, actually played on double-dummy, is 7SP, Controls = 10, ControlPoints = 32 N - Zar Points (a+ + (a-d) = 13 Controls N = 3, HCP N = 7------------------------> N Zar Points = 23 S - Zar Points (a+ + (a-d) = 16 Controls S = 7, HCP S = 16------------------------> S Zar Points = 39 =============================================> NS Zar Points = 62 ============================================> Zar Points + Fit= 66 < Ben, This hand is from the comparison analysis boards. This means that I count ONLY basic Zar Points OR Basic Zar Points plus fit ( simple +3 per supertrump). Actually, it's the computer who does this, of course. This means that ALL YOUR thoughts above are corect, but the computer does no adjustments IN THIS comparison case. The reason is "fair comparison" meaning that the OTHER methods I compare against are with a coparable SIMPLICITY. I cannot put all the adjustments for Zar Points and leave the Goren, Bergen, 5-3-1 etc. methods "bare-bones", right? Certainly, any guy who plays Zar Points will do the adjustments like you and bid the GRAND the way you suggest. ZAR

*** tysen2k wrote: "The fact that some have only 5&4 card suits and others 7 card suits doesn't seem to make much of a difference on their trick taking ability. < OK man - we just run on different stadiums then ... ZAR

*** mikestar wrote: “I am currently converting some of my old system notes to use Zar points, and I need a clarification. < Any time, Mike – nice to see one more “convert” :-) > Currently I use a 26 point game target. Ideally, we bid all 26 point games and stay out of all 25 point games, but this level of accuracy is not possible. I set my point ranges on the assumption that it is equally inaccurate to bid a 25-point game or to miss a 26-point game, it is equally inaccurate to bid a 24 point game or to miss a 27 point game, etc. So although the target is 26, it is usually correct to bid game when certain of 25, because you may miss a 27 point game if you don't. < This strategy is questionable, I believe- meaning that not-bidding a 27-point Game is equally “sinful” as bidding a 25-point Game. But I wouldn’t like to open another discussion here :-) > Does similar reasoning apply to Zar's 52 points? Is is right to bid game when sure of 51 to avoid the possible miss of a 53 point game? To bid game when sure of 50 to avoid the possible miss of a 54 point game? < I don’t know how you can be sure of 51 or 50, to be honest with you. This means that when you decide to NOT bid a Game now, you know that you have exactly 25 and THAT’s why you stop short of Game. If you do that, you must be some kind of a genius :-) This job is MUCH easier in the Zar Points system because I know your 5-point Zar Limit at any time. And since Zar Points a twice cheaper (meaning that you need 52 rather than 26 for Game, for example) this means that if I know your boundaries within 4 Zar Points, it would translate of knowing your Goren points within 2-points margin! I am sure you see the point. If you want to stay in your 2/1 bidding system, for example, the main thing to do is to rework your invitational and Game forcing schemas. I mean conventions like the Bergen/Jacoby pair of Major raises (both become MUCH more aggressive in terms of HCP, as you might guess), your limit raises etc. Once BOTH partners know what such fundamental bids mean, it gets easier. AND, as always, you can use Zar Points to ONLY judge your hand better in invitational or competitive bidding situations, plus the “to open or not to open” decision. I guess you’ll enjoy the transition – at least you are not going to fall asleep at the table because you have some additional work to do :-) Cheers: ZAR

*** tysen2k wroe: "It's the distribution scheme of Zar that loses the accuracy. So my alternative is to use Zar's 6/4/2/1 for high cards and one of these distribution schemes: 8/4/2 for void/singleton/doubleton < Some people don't read, only write :-) I mentioned in a previous post that assigning points ONLY for short suit doesn't work, regardless of whether it is 3-2-1, 5-3-1, and even if you make it 10-5-1 it wouldn't work (because it makes 7-card suits look like 5-card, 6-card suits like 4- card etc.). Tysen offers now a new "perl" 8-4-2. Sorry I didn't mentioned this one :-) So, for Tysen (and Tysen only :-): 8-4-2 DOESN'T work. And 16-8-4 wouldn't in case you are thinking of pushing it further - just forhet it :-) ZAR

*** mikestar wrote: "My understanding is that we can be fairly confident that Zar is more accurate, but not as certain how nuch more accurate--the double dummy bias is highest at the grand slam level and this will tend to magnify small differences in accuracy. < Well ... what is the alternative? At least DD is VERY close to the actual play ata the table, meaning that the 1.0 more tricks that it makes (due to the fact that it "sees" all cards) are compensated by the 1.1 trick the average defender gives away statistically (I believe I have mentioned this somewhere in this forum). Bias in terms of uneven "performance" across levels - yes, but the question again "what's the alternative"? Anaysis of real-life events (see Ben's thread about the Cavendish) is clearly one way to compare and see ... but you'll never get an exact answer to the question "how much EXACTLY the method A is better than method B" I guess, in terms of making everybody happy :-) My take is that you have to personally be comfortable with it, whatever your personal criteria is. ZAR

*** denis wrote: “An equivalent mathematical form is (2a +b -d) which I find is much easier to calculate eg” < Well, this easier way was first suggested by Jeff Rubens when we were putting together the article for The Bridge World (Jeff is The Bridge World editor). The way he changed and squeezed the article was amazing. His command on the language is stunning – actually “stunning” is too weak of a word – you simply cannot change A WORD of what he’s writing, you just feel totally helpless :-) However, on the (2a + b – d) issue I was stubborn as a mule – “No, you cannot do that, period. You leave it as (a+:D + (a-d) so people understand what’s going on, they see that you add the length of your 2 longest suits to the difference in length of your longest and shortest suits – this reminds them that (a-d) is actually the SUM of the 3 suit-differences (a-:( + (b-c) + (c-d)”. So we decided that he’ll leave the (2a + b – d) as an editorial remark. BUT – most people use this short version of (2a + b – d) in life, actually – turned out Jeff was right again :-) After awhile though, you just stop counting shape points – when I open the cards and see 5-4-3-1, I know it’s 13, while 4-4-3-2 is 10 etc. You just “know” it the way you know that AKJ is 8, or KQJ is 6 etc. Just a matter of practice. ZAR

*** mikestar wrote: “Finding the theoretical best method doen't entirely answer the question of which to use, complexity is a factor as well. Binky may be the best of all but it is unusable at the table. Zar is no more intrinically complex than the others, but it is unfamiliar. Teaching a beginner to count 1-3-5 instead of 1-2-3 isn't such a big step and will improve his accuracy. < I believe I mentioned somewhere in the threads that 5-3-1 has the SAME problems Goren does – it makes 7-card suits look like 5-card suit, 6-card suits look like 4-cards suits etc. Just an example – the 7-3-3-0 is the same as 5-4-4-0, 6-3-3-1 is the same as 4-4-4-1 etc. Even if you make it 10-5-1 instead of 3-2-1 or 5-3-1, it’s is not gonna change a thing. If you want to teach your students how to think in patterns and evaluate a hand (NOT in terms of Zar Points if you don’t like them, but JUST Goren and Bergen instead) simply let them use the Zar Bid Machine – it will teach them not only the patterns, but how to look at a hand as an entity of Controls, HCP, patterns etc rather than a bunch of 13 cards. Have a look at the home page of the website – you may like it. > Maybe in part Zar seems to perform best on grands and worst on partials because of this bias. < It’s not that Zar Points perform worst in part-scores, it’s that the LOWER the level the CLOSER the methods become in terms of performance. As I mentioned, for a contract of “1 Club” all methods are equal :-) As you can see from the posting of the comparison (well, not in terms of std deviation but simply counting the contracts, true) you’ll see that while HCP-5-3-1 gets 10 times less Grands from the standard GIB boards, the difference drops to 2 times of the GIB Games compared to the Zar Points performance, and it will go FURTHER down in the Level 3 partscores etc. But the point is that the HCP-5-3-1 does NOT become better than Zar Points in the partscore region – they just get closer and I am sure it’s natural from anyone’s perspective. ZAR

*** hrothgar wrote: "I think that you and I have a different definition of the world "normalize". Fixing one point on an axis does not normalize the distribution. More specifically, saying that Zar points are distributed along (.73, 1.0) while BUM_RAP points are distributed along (.67, 1.0) is does not normalize the distribution in any normal sense of the word... < Bum and Binki are not on the horizon anyway - we are talking about methods that have chances of being played at the table - the 5 methods that I compaere do qualify I believe (let me know if you have any other suggestions). We can certainly run computer-based methods and Zar Points will be happy to participate (not with the "human-version" that you know, though :-). So the normalization is also not an issue (I think). ZAR

*** tysen2k wrote: "Simply looking at hands that make grands and then seeing how many of those hands have at least x points is meaningless. < Actually this is EXACTLY what hrothgar suggests and exactly what I AM doind actually, all-the-way to using ONLY the Standard GIB boards rather than pulling out of hair bards with double and tripple misfits. So ... can we get this specified clearly? I hav the GIB boards (all of them) flagged in the DB and I am doing exactly what is suggested by hrothgar, bur tysen2k intefered again spreading the fog of uncertainty :-) The ONLY thing different is that I simply count the boards that the method "flags" as approriate to play at THE discussed level. Let me know: ZAR

Actually, this discussion led me to a very good idea. I'll start dropping the boundaries of both 5-3-1 and 3-2-1 down, untill they reach the level of Zar Points. Then I'll do the same for the GRAND slam hands. This will give us an indication of how aggresive the methods are indeed. CLEARLY it would NOT mean that if you start bidding games any time you have 21 Goren points (IF that turns out to be the "equilibrium") you will have the precision of the Zar Points bidding, though :-) I hope you realize that (if not, I'd love to meet you on a high-stake rubber bridge game :-) For the sake of these experiments I will use ONLY the standard GIB boards (which are part of my database) rather than generatiing dymanic hands. I guess it will be very indicative. Cheers: ZAR

***tysen2k wrote: "I often bid games with 25 including distribution. I'm just saying that maybe you should back down on your point requirements and see how that changes things in your study. We're trying to study methods of evaluation not simply aggressiveness. < I found a book of the great Charles Goren in my library and I am going quote word-by-word: "Where the partnership totals the equivalent of 26 points - two opening bids - game is ATTAINABLE if a FIT is found. If the prtnership totals 33 points, you have a chance for a slam... 37 points will normally produce a grand slam". This also kind-of addresses your set of hands with double-misfit. Anyway, Goren is not the subject in these series of experiments and I can certainly drop it to 25 or even below for that matter - let me know. Zar

*** tysen2k wrote: "I'm not saying that this kind of hand exists. It's simply the average value you get when you add up all the zar distributions on every hand and divide by the number of hands. Question: how did you come up with 11 as being the average value? < I took your research and got the whole part of it :-) Anyway, let's concentrate on something more meaningful in these discussions ... ZAR