Zar points, useful or waste of energy

[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

[Guest Jlall]

this thread is so old...

[inquiry]

this thread is so old...

Zar has actually put an incredible amount of new work into ZAR fit counts, that is well worth the new read.

[Guest Jlall]

im not saying he didnt put work into it or that he shouldn't post. sorry let me clarify.

 

It's unusual to see a thread this old come back to life :)

[dogsbreath]

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. 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

[hrothgar]

Zar has actually put an incredible amount of new work into ZAR fit counts, that is well worth the new read.

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.

 

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. 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, 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

 

Equally significant, the bidding system that he derives runs count to an awful lot of established work. 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:

 

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.

 

2. Zar is devoting enormous amounts of bidding space to hands with 26-30 Zar points. As far as I can figure this describes (roughly) 28% of all hands. 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. 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.

 

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... 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)

 

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.

[inquiry]

Dont worry about his bidding structure, that is for others to decide. It wouldn't be for you and it is not for me either, I like mine just fine.. But I am referring here to his FIT adjustments. That is new and worthy of taking a look and considering.

[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

[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

[Guest Jlall]

woah, a ZAR smackdown. it's like WWF (I guess it's WWE now)...ok sorry showing my age.

[hrothgar]

We can leave it right here though, if it is tough for you :-)

Maybe my problem is that I haven't been able to see this wonderous system in action...

If its as good as you say, I'm sure I'll rush right over to adopt it.

 

I'd be happy to arrange a match some time. I'll play MOSCITO with Free or The_Hog. You can this use this thing.

 

As I noted, I think the structure is badly flawed. I expect that you'll have large losses on your Pass/1♣/1♦/1N openings. You're gonna need to score amazingly well with the rest of your structure, especially given that those openings occur slightly more than 25% of the time... However, I've been wrong before. I might be wrong this time around.

[hrothgar]

>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 ...

The issue is NOT whether there is a response structure over the 1NT opening, but rather, whether responder is well positioned to make an intelligent decision.

 

Here, we have a case where

 

1. Opener is either balanced or unbalanced

2. Opener has between 26 and 31 Zar points (please note: this is the same range width as the rest of your constructive openings - this is a fairly wide range, especially compared to the tradional 3 HCP ranges for natural NT openings. I understand that your 1NT opening is an artifical bid, buts its an artifical bid that doesn't preclude balanced hand patterns

3. You're already at 1NT, so you have precious little bidding space to decide whether this is a reasonable contract

 

Once again, its difficult for me to understand how responder can make an intelligent decision

[han]

This heated discussion inspired me to read part of the Zar book again (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.

 

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. For this conclusion to hold, 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.

 

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. 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.

 

If you are a gullible reader then you might be better of not reading this book. However, if you are willing to think carefully about what Zar says, then this book can give you plenty new information.

 

That's my book review based only on the section on the law of total tricks :unsure:. I was never interested in the bidding system (sorry Zar) so I didn't read that part. I'm very sceptical 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.

[han]

>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 ...

The issue is NOT whether there is a response structure over the 1NT opening, but rather, whether responder is well positioned to make an intelligent decision.

 

Here, we have a case where

 

1. Opener is either balanced or unbalanced

2. Opener has between 26 and 31 Zar points (please note: this is the same range width as the rest of your constructive openings - this is a fairly wide range, especially compared to the tradional 3 HCP ranges for natural NT openings. I understand that your 1NT opening is an artifical bid, buts its an artifical bid that doesn't preclude balanced hand patterns

3. You're already at 1NT, so you have precious little bidding space to decide whether this is a reasonable contract

 

Once again, its difficult for me to understand how responder can make an intelligent decision

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.

 

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.

 

3) If (1) and (2) don't hold then this should also not be a problem, right?

[pbleighton]

"woah, a ZAR smackdown. it's like WWF (I guess it's WWE now)...ok sorry showing my age."

 

For the very first time! :unsure:

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

I'm not going to attempt to pass judgment on this system as a whole, but I agree with Richard about the 1NT opening. I can see that a good response scheme could bid games pretty accurately (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. 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.

 

Peter

[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

[POJC]

We can leave it right here though, if it is tough for you :-)

Maybe my problem is that I haven't been able to see this wonderous system in action...

If its as good as you say, I'm sure I'll rush right over to adopt it.

 

I'd be happy to arrange a match some time. I'll play MOSCITO with Free or The_Hog. You can this use this thing.

 

As I noted, I think the structure is badly flawed. I expect that you'll have large losses on your Pass/1♣/1♦/1N openings. You're gonna need to score amazingly well with the rest of your structure, especially given that those openings occur slightly more than 25% of the time... However, I've been wrong before. I might be wrong this time around.

I'm sorry but your criticism really points out that u haven't READ what Zar writes. Try that out for starters...

 

What Zar has done is somewhat similar to magic diamond (reversed) but has shown a different way to evaluate hands, based much more on distribution and controls instead of mostly HCP.

Eg we all know that a very good 14HCP plus a good 5 card minor is not hurt by opening as a 15-17 1NT. Most of the time it won't be a problem, more often than not we will get a better score. What Zar has done is set this into system and proposed a biding system around it.

 

But by now you must know a most of your criticism was one helluva backfire. The question is are you man enough to try to look into what ZAR really has done ?

[POJC]

I have a question for Zar:

I don't understand the "preempts", in your proposed system.

Eg.

♠ KQTxxxx

♥ x

♦ xx

♣ xxx

 

That's around 22 ZAR so no 3♠ opening in Zar. This i would normally open 3♠ in favorable

[hrothgar]

What Zar has done is somewhat similar to magic diamond (reversed) but has shown a different way to evaluate hands, based much more on distribution and controls instead of mostly HCP.

Eg we all know that a very good 14HCP plus a good 5 card minor is not hurt by opening as a 15-17 1NT. Most of the time it won't be a problem, more often than not we will get a better score. What Zar has done is set this into system and proposed a biding system around it.

 

But by now you must know a most of your criticism was one helluva backfire. The question is are you man enough to try to look into what ZAR really has done ?

I hardly think that my criticism has "backfired" on me

 

Zar has placed two different items on the table:

 

The first is his "Zar Points" evaluation scheme. 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.

 

Zar has now proposed a bidding system. This system has three main characteristics:

 

1. It uses Zar points as its hand evaluation mechanism

2. It uses both 1♣ and 1♦ are strong artifical and forcing openings

3. It uses bids from 1♥ <--> 3♠ to show a variety of "common" hand types

 

I've enjoyed playing a lot of weird stuff in my day. I genuinely LIKE weird systems. However, his strikes me as badly flawed.

[POJC]

I hardly think that my criticism has "backfired" on me

 

Zar has placed two different items on the table:

 

The first is his "Zar Points" evaluation scheme. 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.

 

Zar has now proposed a bidding system. This system has three main characteristics:

 

1. It uses Zar points as its hand evaluation mechanism

2. It uses both 1♣ and 1♦ are strong artifical and forcing openings

3. It uses bids from 1♥ <--> 3♠ to show a variety of "common" hand types

 

I've enjoyed playing a lot of weird stuff in my day. I genuinely LIKE weird systems. However, his strikes me as badly flawed.

No backfire?

As in:

hrothgar: " you don't know anything about statistics"

Zar: "except for my Ph.d. in statistics" .........

 

There is no reason to go namecalling. You don't like Zar, fine he won't force it on you.

 

1. Yes. i try to do a few Zar point evaluations once in a while on interesting hands. Haven't had bad results yet. It's not weird it's just ONE way to do a SYSTEMATICAL evaluation.

2. Not weird, same principle as Magic Diamond. Does it work? I don't know.

3. See my above post, I agree that something is a bit strange here, maybe even flawed

[Free]

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?

[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

[inquiry]

For those of you struggling with the ZAR bidding system (I don't mean learning it, I mean trying to figure out why it is designed as it is), I think the answer is simplier than you might suspect.

 

Zar has determined to his satisifaction that counting ZAR points is a good start to any hand evaluation, but that you need to also calculate ZAR FIT and ZAR MISFIT points. To do the Misfit point thingee, you need a good idea of your partners distribution. Then you can easily apply his metric, and the correct level falls out the other end (sometimes with a reality check for missing ACES).

 

Until you appreciate the ZAR MISFIT calculations he proposes (and which I find very interesting), trying to appreciate or understand the reason for his choices in his bidding system is, well, confusing to say the least. But once you "grok" (am I showing my age?) the basic principle on which the system is built, it begins to make a lot of sense. Is it really playable? I don't know. Haven't tried it. But at least I can answer the questions most of you ask.. and if you think about his evaluation method, most you will be able too.

[han]

Zar,

 

I'm not sure why you respond with "I have to go to the bathroom now" (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). 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. 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.

 

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. I don't know the numbers as well as you do, but I think my response was basically the same as yours.

 

"Did you manage to catch your eyeballs, Hennie :-)"

 

Not sure what you mean by that expression, I'm not a native English speaker. I think I catch my eyeballs on anything related to bridge (hoping I used the expression in a correct manner).

 

"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.

 

BTW, my name is Hannie, or actually Han. Think that makes us even when it comes to typos :)