Zar points, useful or waste of energy

[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

[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

[tysen2k]

>

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 :-)

So are you saying that you've never actually tested misfit points to see if they work?

[awm]

Okay, ignore my examples, since obviously I'm not up on how to compute Fit/Misfit points. But the major points are these:

 

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. 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). 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. But the par spot is frequently identical regardless of whether you have this ace. This is what LOTT models.

 

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.

 

(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). If you hear 1♦-3M or 1♦-4M you are very very fixed.

 

(3) Four card majors which could be balanced or two-way canape (any of 5cM+4cm, 4cM+5cm, or 4cM balanced okay). 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. 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.

 

(4) Preempts. Is it really losing bridge to open with less than 26 ZAR? 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, 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.

[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

[1eyedjack]

>

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 :-)

All "forcing pass" systems require you to open the bidding with fewer than 13 HCP and fewer than 26 Zar points. Some of them have been quite successful, although whether that is because defensive methods have yet to complete their evolution is debatable. Their success has sadly never been properly tested because of licensing restrictions by sponsoring organisations.

 

I am no expert on forcing pass systems but I understand that the theory is that provided that the opener is limited and the system enables you to bale out at a low level in something close to a fit you are protected by the law of total tricks. If that theory is valid it is excessive to claim that it is "really losing bridge to open with less than 26 Zar", even when lacking preemptive distribution. Perhaps the original point envisaged a wide range opener, in which case I may agree.

[david_c]

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).

OK, let's compare Zar's strong club (which includes distributional strength) to a traditional strong club (which is based mostly on HCP without much allowance for distribution). My intuition is that Zar's version will be much more vulnerable to interference than the traditional version. Partly this is because partner cannot rely on much defensive strength when 1♣ is opened. But mainly the problem is that when you have a "distributional" 1♣ opener, this is precisely the sort of hand where you would prefer to start by showing a suit, as if you don't show a suit immediately you have no hope of showing your distribution in competition.

 

That's not to say that a strong club should be based solely on high cards. But the weighting Zar gives to distribution seems too much.

[Chamaco]

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).

OK, let's compare Zar's strong club (which includes distributional strength) to a traditional strong club (which is based mostly on HCP without much allowance for distribution). My intuition is that Zar's version will be much more vulnerable to interference than the traditional version. Partly this is because partner cannot rely on much defensive strength when 1♣ is opened. But mainly the problem is that when you have a "distributional" 1♣ opener, this is precisely the sort of hand where you would prefer to start by showing a suit, as if you don't show a suit immediately you have no hope of showing your distribution in competition.

 

That's not to say that a strong club should be based solely on high cards. But the weighting Zar gives to distribution seems too much.

Ditto.

In a strong club context, I think it makes more sense to use 1C for "power" hand (e.g. "real" hcp), and use ZAR to evaluate light 1-level openings and distributional weak 2s (one- two suiters)

[hrothgar]

>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.

[hrothgar]

> 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.

Strange... the Europeans seem quite happy with assumed fit preemptive methods.

They happily open 2♥ on hands like

 

♠ KT92

♥ Q987

♦ 642

♣ 32

[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

[hrothgar]

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.

I readily admit that I haven't spent enormous amounts of time wading through the volumes of data that you produce. Your writing style is at best idiosyncratic and often verges on obtuse. I suspect that its largely the whole English as a second language issue. I certainly can't compose well in German and certainly have no knowledge of Bulgarian. With this said and done, if you're writing for an English speaking audience, the burden is on you to effectively organize and present your information.

 

Going back to the key point:

 

Tysen raised a simply question. I would hope that you could provide a simple answer rather than trying to dismiss the issue with hand waving and a joke.

 

In much the same way, Tysen suggested that BUMRAP + 531 is more accurate that ZAR points. We've never seen an adequate response to this. Equally significant, it seems strange that you exclude this comparison from all of the additional work that you've done since then.

[inquiry]

ZAR and MISFIT and FIT points.

 

First, let me remind everyone that ZAR has posted so many hands complete with ZAR points statistics and double dummy analysis of what contracts makes (compared to GOREN). They are freely available. The "mistake" he did was he didn't calculate fit and non-fit points. Of course, ZAR points were much, much better than goren. Zar also didn't apply the metric of control checking (off two aces? Off AK in a sut? Still no checking. I am a bridge player, I know how to first determine if I am in slam ZONE and then check if I have sufficient controls of suits to bid slam. So when I evaluated ZAR's methods, I applied "fit points" and "control checks" to see if the method worked. In my evaluation (by admittedly poor technique of looking at the hands rather than using a computer), I found the ZAR method to be extraordinarily effective when you apply the FIT (and now MIS FIT) points to it. Anedotal? Yes. But I am neither a statitistian nor computer guru. I do what I can, and this is it. I look and evaluate for myself. Another problem I found with ZAR's analysis is he used double dummy play calculator to find the best contact. IF a grand slam makes because of three finessees and an evn split in two suits, it still is a grand slam. For my evaluaiton, I preferred the self-guided assessement of what contract would I Like to be in not seeing the opponents cards (of course, to look at 100's of thousands of hands, this approach is not workable, you need computer analysis). Sp fpr Richard, ZAR methods will never be good enough, because no one can devise a method to see "what" contract should be bid statistically accurately enough for him. For me, looking at hundreds (not thousands) of hands, I find ZAR easy to implement and accurate. I also know when to ignore it.

 

So if you know how to caluculate zar points, here is his FIT and MISFIT rules.

 

1) Zar says to subtract MISFIT points when you lack a fit. I take lack a fit to mean no eight card fit. Zar says to add the greater of “fit points” or “MisFit” points when you have a superfit (a superfit is a ten card fit or better).

2) Fit points are extra points for “face cards” in partners suit(s) and extra points for shortness if you have “extra length”. Add 3 points for every “extra” card in trumps above what you promised for a void, 2 points for a singleton, and 1 point for a doubleton. (SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENT BELOW)

 

To see what I am saying about ZAR's analysis, let me show three hands where "ZAR METHOD" failed to find the best spot in his view. These are all taken from his file, 7GRAND27hcp.txt. Here is a Grand Slam from ZAR’s notes where NS miss the slam on evaluation according to ZAR…. This is Board #3. He says, this hand has 62 Zar Points (suggesting contract of 6), and 31 GOREN Points

 

North:

KQJT43

---

A72

AJ87

 

South:

A8

Q74

KQJT8

963

 

North = DP = 16, CP = 5, HCP = 15 = Total = 36

South = DP = 11, CP = 3, HCP = 12, Total = 26

 

Total = 62.

 

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.

 

Fit points, North 3 for void and three trumps, plus one for Diamond ACE, South one for SPADE ACE = bonus five points,

 

FIT points = 5,

GRAND TOTAL = 68

 

MISFIT POINTS, Ms=4, Mh = 3 Mc = 1, total 8

 

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: A word about the “extra length”. Why does north get 3 bonus points for his HEART void when, in fact, he has no extra diamond length? The answer lies in the theorem that if the difference between your trump support (for partner) and your short suit is two cards, take the extra point(s) even without the extra card. This hand also has another feature not yet taken into account, it is a double-fit (two eight card fits). North should add 3 points (imho) for is sixth spade too boot, when played in diamonds.

 

Since there is not SUPERFIT (10 card fit), but there is a fit (actually 2 fits), ignore superfit points, and apply normal fit points. 67 hcp needed for the slam. Note, the value that makes grand slam possible is the three points north gets for the void in hearts when played in ♦. When played in ♠, north would have promised 6, so that no bonus points are added for the diamond void there. ZAR point suggest 6♠ is the limit in ♠ (it is), and 7♦ is ok, and it is.

 

So rather than a “miss” as shows up on ZAR’s (and tysen’s) statistics, this hand should be a hit, and should always have been one EVEN BEFORE Zar introduced the concept of adding MIS-FIT points when you have a superfit.

 

Here is another “ZAR Miss” from this file, Board #25. The Zar Points for this Board are 62, The GOREN Points for this Board are 31

 

North:

A98

Q753

8632

Q2

 

South:

KQJT752

---

A

AKT93

 

BEST contract, actually played on double-dummy, is 7SP

 

North, DP = 10, CP = 2, HCP, Total = 20

South DP = 19, CP = 6, HCP = 17, total = 42

 

Total is 62, Zar listed this one as small slam (62 points after all). What does Fit points say? Superfit here, so to 62, add the MISFIT points, (3 in Clubs, 3 in diamonds, 4 in hearts = whooping 10, total = 72 Zar points. Instead of a miss, the theory is dead on.

 

But even not knowing the superfit, North gets two bonus points for his two black honors, and when spades are raised, south gets fit points for his extra long spades and heart void, easily topping the required 67 for grand slam.

 

** Commercial Break** BTW, if you played MisIry, bidding seven here is piece of cake…Starting with south…

3C – 3D

5C – 7S

 

Where 5C shows black 2 suiter, 2 losers, no need for ♦ cover. North looking at spade ace, three spades, and the club queen, simply bids the grand. ** end of commercial **

 

One final short look… this is Board #1621, The Zar Points for this Board are 55, the GOREN Points for this Board are 25

 

North:

JT874

---

942

AKQ76

 

South:

AK965

852

A86

92

 

Ok, this I pick as it is tough… and this hand bothered me for a long, long time. Here is why. NS have combined 55 ZAR points, before fit calculated. But north, who raises Sout's opening spade bid, has two extra and a void, that is worth 6 more fit points, he has spade JT, that is two more too. That is 8, based upon that criteria alone, bringing total to 63, at least justifying slam try. But what if North had opened 1♠? If North opens 1♠, he has no extra length, so he can not add the six points for the void nor the two points for the JT of spades. This is what always bothered me about ZAR fit points. And south gets only two points for spade AK and two points for doubleton club with two extra spades. Bring the 55 intial ZAR total plus 4 is only 59 ZARS, not enough for slam. This is what always bothered me about ZAR's method, How can this evaluate to slam values if south opens and not if north opens?

 

This was a huge problem for me with ZAR evaluation before misfit points showed up. The solution here becomes MISFIT points, of course. How about MISFIT points (since this is superfit)? When north opens, I still add the values for fitting spade honors (plus two), but know the misfit points come into play. After north shows 5-5 hand, south knows the misfit points must total at least six (three in clubs, and at least three in the red suits, as north has at most 3 red cards to south's six). And since we ADD misfit points with superfit, we are back to adding the same 8 points that north added in "FIT" points if south opened. MisFit points mean slam can be bid despite which side opens the bidding.

 

The fact that 7 SPADES makes on this hand is immaterial to me. ZAR evaluation method suggest values for small slam (his evalution didn't find this, because he used straight points, not fit points). So this was a "miss". But in fact, it is right on. I would want to be in 6♠with these hands, and that is what level teh evalation says to play. It is only because clubs were 3-3 allow seven to make, but I would, again, to my satisfaction that ZAR evaluation method is right on target here again.

[hrothgar]

Sp for Richard, ZAR methods will never be good enough, because no one can devise a method to see "what" contract should be bid statistically accurately enough for him.

This a near complete misrepresentation of my position. Tysen and I independently proposed near identical methods to statistically evaluate the accuracy of hand evaluation metrics.

 

The critique of Zar points is a very simple one:

 

1. The Zar point metric is not as accurate as other existing structures.

2. Zar has been unable or unwilling to to show where Tysen's analysis is flawed.

 

At least we've finally been able to move past the whole "aggresive" versus "accurate" issue

[tysen2k]

It is an inside joke between me and Tysen.

I am relieved to hear it was a joke too. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

 

But seriously, I would like to see what tests you ran that show how Misfit points help your performance. All I'm saying is that when I ran my numbers it was worse with the misfit points than without. If I see how you did it, then it's quite possible that I can see some sort of mistake I've made.

 

Tysen

[inquiry]

2. Zar has been unable or unwilling to to show where Tysen's analysis is flawed.

 

Well, I think I have pointed a huge finger at where both method of analysis are flawed (see topic of last post by me, complete with example hands). But it would seem to me, that anyone who cared can do their own evaluation. IF they are capable of doing it by computers with pie charts and Mean plus minus the Std Dev, great. If not, just LOOK... take as many hands as you like, or as few, and say, "this looks very reasonable" or "this is a load of bunk". You should never just accept what is said and supported by "statistics" anyway. That was the reason why I started this thread soooooo long ago. I read ZAR's stuff, and I ran a short reality test and it looked pretty good. Since then, I have used it every day, it still looks very good to me.

 

If you are not up to analyzing ahands on your own, let the pro's do it for it. 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 occassionaly oopen 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. IT is also good to see when a world champ level player bids aggressively with minimum values at his second bid. What feature do you see? What is his ZAR count?

[hrothgar]

If you are not up to analyzing hands on your own, let the pro's do it for it. 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 occassionaly oopen 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. IT is also good to see when a world champ level player bids aggressively with minimum values at his second bid. What feature do you see? What is his ZAR count?

Another case of apples and oranges

 

Issue 1: How accurate is hand evaluation metric X, Y, or Z

Issue 2: What is the minimum strength that various World Class players require for "constructive" openings

 

Currently, I haven't seen many "World Class" systems specified in terms of Zar points. If this starts to happen, I can see good reason to start using Zar points to study them. Until it does happen, it would seem reasonable to select a more accurate metric.

[keylime]

I think ZAR would work much better in a limited bid system a la Precision instead of a wider ranging 2/1 setup.

 

Then again, many attempts at 2/1 reeks of the stench of that of the wasteland called "modern bidding".

 

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've gotten to many fine scores with it over the regular 4321 count, which undervalues A's and K's and overvalues quacks.

 

If playing 2/1, I don't think ZAR is ideal. 2/1 was based on sound openings. Furthermore, I see often down 2 at 3NT when it's 10 on 12 when the ten count is on a 5-5.

 

In essence, I rather play a hyped up SAYC than 2/1 these days, and I'm proud to admit it.

[han]

"hyped up SAYC than 2/1"

 

You probably mean that you don't play a 2-over-1 bid as gameforcing. Refering to "Standard American Yellow Card" when you play a "hyped up" system seems a contradiction.

 

You can definitely use Zar point count and open more soundly, as you prefer when playing 2/1. Just increase the minimum needed to open. WTP?

[inquiry]

If  you are not up to analyzing hands on your own, let the pro's do it for it. 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 occassionaly oopen 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. IT is also good to see when a world champ level player bids aggressively with minimum values at his second bid. What feature do you see? What is his ZAR count?

Another case of apples and oranges

 

Issue 1: How accurate is hand evaluation metric X, Y, or Z

Issue 2: What is the minimum strength that various World Class players require for "constructive" openings

 

Currently, I haven't seen many "World Class" systems specified in terms of Zar points. If this starts to happen, I can see good reason to start using Zar points to study them. Until it does happen, it would seem reasonable to select a more accurate metric.

Apples versus oranges? I am sick and tired of people who don't want to look at a comparison or an idea of simply saying one is comparing apple to oranges as a method of not looking at it. This is poor device to avoid a comparision, so this trite device to say "That comparison is unfair" without advancing the discussion. You further do this by the non-sequitur about "world class systems based upon ZAR".

 

World class players have a judgement based upon thousands and thousands of hands being played, and based upon inferences they have learned from the bidding and lack of it with respect to the hands they hold. You simply can not teach that. World class players don't need ZAR, this discussion isn't how to improve world class player judgement.

 

The question is, for the gentle reader who feels uncomfortable doing hand analysis on their own, how can they evaluate for themselves the "validity" of a concept that says to open some hand at the one level with 8 or 10 hcp? Why look at what the pro's do of course. If pro's do occassionaly, what features seem to make them do it and how does that compare with ZAR's rules? To see if an world class opener with 10 to 12 hcp but a lot of zar points really does bid agreesively at their second turn or third turn? The answer to this is to look to see if World Class players bid this way and how successful they are with such methods. If they do or dont' these gentle readers will have satisfied their own question to their own satistaction. Not to yours of course, but then, nobody expected it would.

[keylime]

Hannie,

 

Agreed. I used "hyped up SAYC" to appease the sensitives some people get when you mention "2/1 not being game force?!" :-)

[pbleighton]

"Agreed. I used "hyped up SAYC" to appease the sensitives some people get when you mention "2/1 not being game force?!" :-) "

 

Dwayne:

 

I explain the responses to 1 bids in my "Chicken EHAA" system as "Modern Standard American".... that clears up everything nicely ;)

 

Peter

[POJC]

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?

 

2. Found these hands:Mike Lawrence

and did a Zar calc on them. As far as i can calculate both hands should be in 4S. Then i remembered 1. and well what do you know?

Hand 1, will actually win 3NT...

[ArcLight]

OFF TOPIC!

 

Zar DOES have a sense of humor!

I privately asked him a few questions and made a few observations.

His reply at first threw me, but then I saw he was kidding, and it was a joke.

On an electronic medium (chat forum) sarcasm and levity are difficulty to get across. Thios would not be a problem in a face to face discussion.

 

----------------------------------

>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.

 

 

YES THIS WAS A JOKE. :blink:

[tysen2k]

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?

I was wondering about this as well since it didn't seem intuitive, but it's actually right (sort of).

 

I looked into it and I forget the exact numbers but it was something like:

 

9% of hands with 4-4 in spades score the highest in NT

13% of hands with 5-3 in spades score the highest in NT

 

So, it would probably be more accurate to say that 5-3 is more likely to play well in NT, but both belong in suit (usually).

 

Tysen