Zar points, useful or waste of energy

[cherdano]

Zar and Ben, I think you should take Tysen and Richard's criticisms more seriously. If you read Tysen's RGB thread (for me the all-time best systems thread on RGB), you have seen that he has done more serious work on bidding system evaluation (and thus implicitly on hand evaluation) than you have seen anywhere else. Richard brought up many valid points.

 

Instead of answering their issues, you react every time as if Zar had been unfairly attacked.

 

Arend

[han]

>

I think that this is absurd.

<

 

My point exactly :-)

 

I doubt that we agree on this one.

>

When Zar compares Zar points with HCP he uses Goren points the way people used them a zillion years ago, while Zar points are used in the most optimal way. No fair!!!

<

 

Hannie, your sense for fairness is killing me :-) Here it goes again - I am typing SLOWLY so you can understand :-)

 

We take ALL the hands out of the 1,000,000 boards section of the 5,000,000-board database.

 

We extract ALL of them which make 9 tricks in Spades.

 

We take each ONE of them and look at it "carefully". IF its Goren count is 26 or more, we flag it as an OVERBID for Goren. IF its Zar Count is 52 or more, we flag it as an OVERBID for Zar.

 

Clear enough? Fair enough? Let me know.

 

No, not fair enough. Not fair at all. The number 26 that you take here is completely arbitrary, taken from a very old book. Use the optimal number for Goren points to get a fair comparison.

 

>

Zar claims over and over again that he does research for "at the table", but no modern pair needs 26 points to get to game.

<

 

WHAT points are we talking about here, Han? Goren points or HCP? If one of the partners has 7600 with 7 HCP he can open since he has 13 Goren Points DESPITE the fact that he has only 7 HCP, do you realize that? And if HIS partner has 6070 and 7 HCP, HIS count is also 13 and they reach a GAME with 14 HCP total (13 + 13 = 26 Goren Points). Nevermind the fact that they have a GRAND with those 14 HCP as you can guess (if you have read about misfit points).

 

Yes, I understand very well what Goren points are, thank you very much. This discussion is not getting nicer if you keep pretending that I'm extremely dumb, I'm not.

 

<

 

3) Add a quarter times the number of tens minus the number of jacks.

 

Tada, done!

<

 

Tada - Quarter times of what? Quarter of a teaspoon may be? You lost me here ... :-)

 

Also, the discussion does not get nicer if you keep pretending that you are very dumb, I expect that you are not.

[Zar]

>

Zar and Ben, I think you should take Tysen and Richard's criticisms more seriously.

<

 

I take any criticism seriously. Seriously! :-) No, really, I do ...

 

I have been through at least 15 methods and some of them like Drubble, Binki, etc. were droped in the process for different reasons. If you have noticed, I have also included the newest method – the Lawrence Points. You think Mike doesn’t know about Binki or Zar? We have discussed those 3 years ago when the first Zar Points ideas were talked-about in emails only. YET, he has come up with a SIMPLE method which makes so much sense that it beats everybody else but the 3 variants of Zar Points.

 

You think that’s just “by chance”? Simplicity at the table matters.

 

Still, IF you come up with a method that adds three quarters of the value of your sevens to the predominant color of your Queens, AND you “feel” that it’s great, by all means – go ahead and use it. We play this game to get satisfaction out of it, whatever that means.

 

>

No, not fair enough.

<

 

I’ll try harder ...

 

>

Not fair at all.

<

 

Killer :-) Have some mercy, Han ...

 

>

The number 26 that you take here is completely arbitrary, taken from a very old book. Use the optimal number for Goren points to get a fair comparison.

<

 

I admit you have to enlighten me here ... Which book would you recommend? Better yet, why don’t you just TELL me what number to use rather than going by these “optimized” secret numbers? I will, since it would be still a simple Goren method, right? Please do not ask me to add quarters to the Goren points.

 

>

you keep pretending that I'm extremely dumb, I'm not.

<

 

I have never said that. Furthermore – I have never THOUGHT that. I don’t think Tysen or Richard are either. I respect the opinion of each and everyone on this discussion forum and I only hope we would drive it to a more productive discussion:

 

ZAR

[inquiry]

Arend

 

I compared ZAR points to hand evaluation as the way ZAR wrote it up. Tysen did Zar plus "FIT" and did not do it the way ZAR wrote it up. And then published, look, ZAR + Fit sucks (well, ok, that is unfair, ZAR + FIt is better than simply ZAR, but not as good as FLAVOR of the day).

 

Ok, I said, fine and well.. but how about comparing systems the way they are described. With points off for misfts (shorness in what ends up as trumps), and add points only with the distributional features ZAR advocates. Tysen's reply is this is the way Zar did it. Well, sorry, this is not the way he writes it up in his methods, nor the way I evaluate it when studying hands, nor when bidding. What good is it to use a method you call ZAR + FIT when it is not what is advocated by the author as ZAR + FIT?

 

I am more than willing to be shown a better way. While I pay fairly close attention to ZAR points, I do my own pluses and minuses as the auction develops. But I want fair comparisons. Let me say one unfair comparision in the published tysen study, I pointed out earlier. He assumed all contracts were NOT VUL when comparing. This disadvantages an agreesive system like ZAR. IF you overbid and you are vul, the rewards for overbidding are better when right then if you overbid when not vul. In fact, we all know you should overbid more at imps when vul. Then Tysen calculated the imps for the overbidding.

 

So there were at LEAST three errors in his calculations.

 

1) He ignored vuln issues in calculating the ave imps won or lost with the methods

2) He incorrectly automatically added three points for every extra trump

3) He didn't subtract anything for misfits and horrible misfits.

 

All three of these are mistakes either in his basic premise (all contracts calculated as non-vul), the evaluation of ZAR Fit points (adding three for each extra card, rather than conditional 1, 2 or 3 based upon short suit), and not taking off for misfit points.

 

Now, then, after AT LEAST these three errors, he very carefully and no doubt very accurately calcuated the means and SD of imps won or lost based upon ZAR points which were correct at most 1/4th of the time, and probably less than that (no subtract for bad fits,and the +3 is the maximum with good fit but requires a void, other times it should be plus two, plus one, or maybe plus none).

 

I would certainly like to see this be done correclty and fairly for each evalaution method. I think the general approach is sound, if the "points" are counted in a uniform way according to the instructions of the advocates for each method. This should be fairly straight forward. IT is clear to date, tysen has not applied this fairly. It is like his MISFIT points. He shows a chart a few pages back, but was this with superfit? With no fit? What the heck does that chart mean? I have looked at it and looked at it, and can honestly tell you that it means nothing to me... but I do know if I ahve super fit, misfit points are a huge HELP...

 

It should be noted I have asked ZAR to do the same precise calculations of his ZAR point methods (for example, as Tysen notes, ZAR was using short crude estimate to figure contracts as well). Such is really not necessary, when you have computers that can apply the metric automatically. Let the best method win, and who knows, the discussion might lead to improvements in all methods if fators that have big effects can be quantified.

[tysen2k]

The number 26 that you take here is completely arbitrary, taken from a very old book. Use the optimal number for Goren points to get a fair comparison.

<

 

I admit you have to enlighten me here ... Which book would you recommend? Better yet, why don’t you just TELL me what number to use rather than going by these “optimized” secret numbers?

Use whatever number gives that evaluation method the best score. This should be done for all evaluation methods. Very simple.

[tysen2k]

It is like his MISFIT points. He shows a chart a few pages back, but was this with superfit? With no fit? What the heck does that chart mean?

It says right above it that it is for hands with no fit. Very clear.

 

I think the general approach is sound, if the "points" are counted in a uniform way according to the instructions of the advocates for each method.

 

I agree. I might be able to do this in the next few days, but I really have been spending too much time here when I really should be working... :) But really, I'll see if I can modify my counts so that it uses the right Zar adjustments.

 

Tysen

[1eyedjack]

Can someone point me to a link to Lawrence points? Google didn't quite hack it for me.

[Zar]

>

Use whatever number gives that evaluation method the best score. This should be done for all evaluation methods. Very simple.

>

 

??? Like how ... I use whatever the AUTHORS dictate. I call Harry Freeman, he sends me the formula, I run 1,000 boards evaluations, send all the hands over, he writes back they are all good, and I go ahead. HOW can I interfere and say “You know what, the AUTHOR says it is 10, but I’ll go ahead and use 12 since I know better, and STILL say that this is HIS method ???

 

What’s the point of twisting? We all want to see what works best, right? How can I “optimize” or “twist” just like that? May be this was what Han meant saying “That’s absurd” :-)

 

ZAR

[tysen2k]

Okay, I want to make sure I'm counting Zar points the right way...

 

Since there is no bidding in these evaluation methods, how do you determine who is opener and who is responder for the various adjustments? Because there are still a few cases where you get different points for the combined hands depending on who is opener.

 

1) Ben showed a 5-5 fit example that was solved using Misfit points, but there are still other cases such:

 

AJxxx

x

xxx

xxxx

 

xxxxx

xx

xxx

xxx

 

This only has 2 Misfit points. If South opens, North gets 2 bonus points for honors, plus 4 for the two extra trumps with a singleton. That's 6 bonus points. But if North opens, South only gets 2 bonus points, by either the Misfit method or the supertrumps. So how do you deal with this 4 point difference?

 

2) You get similar results sometimes when you have two 9-card fits. Who is the opener in that case?

 

3) Also, why is this pair of hands:

 

KQx

xxx

xxx

xxxx

 

xxxxx

xxx

xxx

xx

 

worth 2 more points than this pair of hands:

 

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxxx

 

KQxxx

xxx

xxx

xx

[tysen2k]

??? Like how ... I use whatever the AUTHORS dictate. I call Harry Freeman, he sends me the formula, I run 1,000 boards evaluations, send all the hands over, he writes back they are all good, and I go ahead. HOW can I interfere and say “You know what, the AUTHOR says it is 10, but I’ll go ahead and use 12 since I know better, and STILL say that this is HIS method ???

Judgement evolves. Goren may have said 26 back in the 30's, but most people bid them on 25 today. And that 25 includes extra fit points (+2 per extra trump is pretty good, try adding it to your comparison). 24 might be even better, especially since you are only testing vulnerable.

 

If the author says 10 and you find that 12 gives a better score, let the author know. He might thank you.

[Zar]

>

You get similar results sometimes when you have two 9-card fits. Who is the opener in that case?

<

 

I am surprised that you are surprised that there is no bidding, and no opener – I guess you should have known that if you have run computer simulations actually. And as stated in the book, there is no adjustment for Misfit Points or Honors in primary or secondary suit or anything. Everything is kept simple and to the extent possible equal for all the methods. Superfit points are calculated straightforward – 0123 for the Zar Ruffing method and straight 3 for the ZP3. Obviously regardless of “opener” – since there is simply no opener. On the Misfit Points – you cannot even guess who would show which of the suits so that part is also in the “hard to simulate” department. As I mentioned already, in a bidding like 1S – 4S you actually neither know nor care about misfit points.

 

>

Judgement evolves. Goren may have said 26 back in the 30's

<

 

One of my Goren books is from **November 1985** “featuring Goren’s newest changes”. It states “where the partnership totals the equivalent of 26 points – or two opening bids – game is attainable if fit is found”. This is quote.

 

1985, not 1930.

 

>

but most people bid them on 25 today. And that 25 includes extra fit points (+2 per extra trump is pretty good, try adding it to your comparison). 24 might be even better

<

 

So Game with 24 including 2 per extra trump ... boy, you are ready for Zar Points with that aggressiveness :-)

 

With 10 trumps and 2 doubletons you would have 18 HCP – that is two 5332 hands with 5-5 fit and 18 HCP; the super-aggressive method of Lawrence would shoot for ( -1 + 13 – 2 – 2) = 8, that’s parts-core. Zar Points would have 11 + 11 + 1 + 1 = 24 from distribution and ruffing-superfit in both hands, plus 18*13/10 = 23 from Controls and HCP for a part-score also.

 

So where BOTH Lawrence Points and Zar Points are playing part-score, you say Goren is all-the-way into a Game!!! Why don’t you try to test that first. See what happens ...

 

>

If the author says 10 and you find that 12 gives a better score, let the author know. He might thank you.

<

 

I cannot really improve every available method – but I am flattered by your faith in me :-)

 

ZAR

[hrothgar]

You keep chasing these Binky 521 and 741 and 321 etc. like a dog chasing its tail :-) When was the last time you used Binky or RUP or Gib or any of these AT THE TABLE?

 

BUMRAP + 531 is based on

 

A = 4.5

K = 3

Q = 1.5

J = .75

T = .25

 

plus adding points for shortage...

 

Personally, I find this much easier to calculate than Zar points...

Its easy enough to apply this structure at the table.

 

If the fractions are too complicated for the almighty bidding machine, you can always just multiple everything by 4...

[hrothgar]

I think that this is absurd.

 

When Zar compares Zar points with HCP he uses Goren points the way people used them a zillion years ago, while Zar points are used in the most optimal way. No fair!!!

 

Zar claims over and over again that he does research for "at the table", but no modern pair needs 26 points to get to game.

As I noted earlier, start with a firm foundation and then add complexity:

 

In this case, I would suggest starting by determining which hand evaluation metrics are the most accurate. Once you have this information, you can then use this same data to study secondary issues like how many points are necessary for game...

[inquiry]

You keep chasing these Binky 521 and 741 and 321 etc. like a dog chasing its tail :-) When was the last time you used Binky or RUP or Gib or any of these AT THE TABLE?

Do you bother to pay any attention to other people's work?

 

BUMRAP + 531 is based on

 

A = 4.5

K = 3

Q = 1.5

J = .75

T = .25

 

plus adding points for shortage...

 

Personally, I find this much easier to calculate than Zar points...

Its easy enough to apply this structure at the table.

Well Richard, I don't want to get too techinical about this, but as I point out several times before BUMRAP + 531 and ZAR points for "honors" is essentially the same. What you say? Look for yoursefl...

 

Card ZAR BUM

ACE   6     4.5

KING  4   3.5

QUEEN 2  1.5

JACK  1   .75

TEN   0    .25

 

If you normalize each of these to a scale using ACE as worht "1" point you find both have ACE evalauted as "1", King as "0.667", Queen as 0.333. Jack as 0.1667, That is the "evalaution" for ecah hcp is the same in both methods. Now BUMRAP counts TEN's as worth 0.056, while ZAR counts them as either "0" or "1" depending upon if they are in suiit wth fit for partner or not, and if they ARE in suit with fit with partner, they have to NOT have two higher cards to earn that 1.0. So on average,they are worth well less than 1.0. In other words, you can JUGDGE for yourself rather you have a useful TEN or not. AJT, I add vallue for the TEN, QTx, I add small value for the the, three tens in my hand, I add value for the three of them.

 

But REALLY, since the evaluation here is IDENTICAL, Richard ou your really find it easier ot add 0.75. 0.25, and the like together rather than using whole numbers? Even BUMRAP + 5+3+1 approaches ZAR distribtution point evaluaiton (see below). I don't, and I don't see how you can argue it is. When you throw the 5+3+1 in with BUMRAP, again you approach ZAR method...he adds a poiit for ech

 

In Feb 2004 Tysen Advocated Blinky (Evolving Blinky Points).

 

In May 2004, he came up with TSP or BUMRAP 5+3+!, I can't not exactly tell the difference, but this is taken from his thread on this on Yahoo groups... Improving Evaluation, Pt 3

 

HONOR POINTS (HP):

A = 6

K = 4

Q = 2

J = 1

(This is just HCP + Controls)

 

 

* Add 1 point for every suit that has 2+ honors (including the Ten)

* Doubletons: Don't add the point for 2+ honors and subtract one

additional point for QJ. (Don't subtract one for Qx or Jx as these are

already valued low enough)

* Singletons: Honors are valued as the next weakest honor (A=4, K=2,

Q=1, J=0)

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

Add points for both shortness and length

* Shortness points: 5/3/1 for void/singleton/doubleton

* Length points: 1 point for each card over 4 in a suit

 

Not to get too technical this is ALMOST identical to ZAR. The point count "is". The add point for SUITS with 2+ honors is close. Zar does this with CONCENTRATION of VALUES in two suits (not all suits). So here this method is a little more aggressive than ZAR when adding pts. Zar removes one point for Qx, Jx, QJ, where this method which normally adds points for doubletons doesn't add one. Singleton honors, Zar devaluates, this method more heavily devaluates. Distribution, this method adds 5/3/1 for short suit and +1 for legth (counting both). Zar adds point for difference in legnth in the begiinning (distibutional poiints), and then adds further points for short suit and extra trump legnth if a fit/super fit is found.

 

So for instance... 5-3-4-1 is counted in this method as +1 for the five card suit, and plus 3 for the for net + 4. If one realizes that ZAR has to have 8 "dp" for 4333 (the worse), and use that as a base, this hand is worth 13-8 or +4 (over the miniumum base).

 

What I am getting at is this BUMRAP + 5/3/1 is, and always has been a MINOR TWEAK to ZAR. The difference comes in that that 5-3-4-1 the evaluation is over. With ZAR, if a fit is found, the evalaution goes up. Imagine, for instance you find your partne has five in your suit with four. In ZAR, you can add pt for honors in the four card suit, and you can add 2 points mor for the singleton since you have an extra trump.

 

I don't want to say tysen has re-invented the Zar wheel, but the similarties here are very close. The intial evaluaton is almost IDENTICAL, the place where the difference comes into play is when fit is found.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Well Richard, I don't want to get too techinical about this, but as I point out several times before BUMRAP + 531 and ZAR points for "honors" is essentially the same. What you say? Look for  yourself...

 

I don't want to say tysen has re-invented the Zar wheel, but the similarties here are very close. The intial evaluaton is almost IDENTICAL, the place where the difference comes into play is when fit is found.

Get a bloody clue Ben. You've drunk WAY too much of the Kool Aid...

 

First of all, lets consider the whole honor point count "issue": I'm well aware that both Zar Points and BUMRAP evaluate the relative strength of Aces/Kings/Queen/Jacks using a near identical ratio. Indeed, I've made posts in the past which stated directly that I suspected that the accuracy of ar's hand evaluation scheme was largely a function of this ratio. [Personally, I don't credit this "innovation" to either Zar or Tysen. The earliest reference that I've been able to track down is contained in "The Four Aces System of Contract Bridge" which dates back to the 1930s...]

 

If we remove the honor point count from Zar and BUMRAP, we're left with the question of how one should account for distribution. Zar advocates (a+B) + (a-d). BUMRAP +5/3/1 counts 5 points for a void, 3 for a singleton, and 1 for a doubleton. Guess what? Zar's system of accounting for distribution isn't as accurate as the 5/3/1 scale...

 

As for the claim that Tysen is "re-inventing" Zar's work. I recall when Zar originally started posting his work on the web. Remeber those days long ago when Zar was talking about "aggressive" hand evaluation and Tysen and I were trying to explain the concept of "accurate" hand evaluation. To the extent that anything has drifted back and forth, its been the fact that Zar has slowly started to use more reasonable metrics to evaluate his own work.

[Zar]

>

Do you bother to pay any attention to other people's work?

<

 

Nope ... why waste time reading when I can use it for writing? Plus, reading is a degrading activity – as if they are smarter than me ... You have to manage your time wisely and project some dignity ... (end-of-quote :-)

 

>

BUMRAP + 531 is based on

A = 4.5

K = 3

Q = 1.5

J = .75

T = .25

plus adding points for shortage...

>

 

Aha … 1.50, 0.75, 0.25 ... may be 0.07 for the 9? Makes sense ... fits the downhill slope ...

 

 

I’ll publish the detailed STD amounts point-by-point and all the rest of the stats actually, but here are the overall results for the Standard Deviation. Since all functions are Bell-shaped and peak at the Game level (an interesting finding by itself), we can present the peak only:

 

ZPR 0.93

ZPB 0.94

GP 0.96

BP 0.96

ZP3 0.98

LP 1.05

WTC 1.09

LTC 1.22

LTM 1.23

 

 

Losing Trick Count is by far the least accurate method, be it Classic or Modern (measured by the STD rather than IMP).

 

Again, I am preparing a detailed presentation and analysis and I’ll let you know when it is on the webpage.

 

ZAR

[inquiry]

Well Richard, I don't want to get too techinical about this, but as I point out several times before BUMRAP + 531 and ZAR points for "honors" is essentially the same. What you say? Look for  yourself...

 

I don't want to say tysen has re-invented the Zar wheel, but the similarties here are very close. The intial evaluaton is almost IDENTICAL, the place where the difference comes into play is when fit is found.

Get a bloody clue Ben. You've drunk WAY too much of the Kool Aid...

 

First of all, lets consider the whole honor point count "issue": I'm well aware that both Zar Points and BUMRAP evaluate the relative strength of Aces/Kings/Queen/Jacks using a near identical ratio. Indeed, I've made posts in the past which stated directly that I suspected that the accuracy of ar's hand evaluation scheme was largely a function of this ratio. [Personally, I don't credit this "innovation" to either Zar or Tysen. The earliest reference that I've been able to track down is contained in "The Four Aces System of Contract Bridge" which dates back to the 1930s...]

 

If we remove the honor point count from Zar and BUMRAP, we're left with the question of how one should account for distribution. Zar advocates (a+:) + (a-d). BUMRAP +5/3/1 counts 5 points for a void, 3 for a singleton, and 1 for a doubleton. Guess what? Zar's system of accounting for distribution isn't as accurate as the 5/3/1 scale...

 

As for the claim that Tysen is "re-inventing" Zar's work. I recall when Zar originally started posting his work on the web. Remeber those days long ago when Zar was talking about "aggressive" hand evaluation and Tysen and I were trying to explain the concept of "accurate" hand evaluation. To the extent that anything has drifted back and forth, its been the fact that Zar has slowly started to use more reasonable metrics to evaluate his own work.

Nothing wrong with Kool-Aide, per se, as long as it Black Cherry...

 

I specically said, "I don't want to say" that tysen re-invented the Zar wheel... and I know the hcp + control count didn't start with ZAR (as he says so himself in his documents). I just wanted to point out two issues... first, BUMRAP honor points are identical (or essentially identical) to ZAR honor points. And there is VERY little difference between between 5+3+1 distributional points and ZAR distributional points.

 

But ZAR has stuck with his Distributional points, Tysen has evolved his. Now, again, if you subtract 8 Distributional points from ZAR's total, and compare 5+3+1 to ZAR points you will find the Difference is very small, essential 0 or 1 for virtually all normal distributions, and remember "1" is the full value for a random JACK... A few examples...

 

4333 = Zar = 0 (8-8), 5+3+1 = 0

4432 = ZAR = 2 (10-8), 5+3+1 = 1

4441 = ZAR = 3 (11-8), 5+3+1 = 3

5332 = ZAR = 3 (11-8), 5+3+1 = 2

5431 = ZAR = 5 (13-8), 5+3+1 = 4

5521 = ZAR = 6 (14-8), 5+3+1 = 5

6322 = ZAR - 5 (13-8), 5+3+1 = 4

6331 = ZAR = 6 (14-8), 5+3+1 = 5

6430 = ZAR = 8 (16-8), 5+3+1 = 7

7330 = ZAR = 9 (17-8), 5+3+1 = 8

7420 = ZAR = 10 (18-8), 5+3+1 = 9

 

As you can see, ZAR is "slightly" (by one "zar point" more aggressive than 5+3+1) on most hands. This is actually a function of the fact (as ZAR has pointed out) that 4333 is overevalauted at a count of 8. If you "use" 9 as the starting point (being worth -1 DP rather than 0 when corrected), and serves as a more accurate marker when doing these system comparision. (That is 4333 is not worth "8" or zero DP, it is worth -1... .. note to hannie, see why I pass some surprising 4333 hands?( making the methods of initial evalaution essential IDENTICAL).

 

So where you claim "Guess what? Zar's system of accounting for distribution isn't as accurate as the 5/3/1 scale", At least for the inital evalaution I claim that HAS TO BE entire BS. The reason being these methods are darn essentially identical for initial evaluation.

 

The place where the differences comes into play is in what ZAR terms the aggression and if I remember correctly the anti=aggression. That is, in re-evaluation. ZAR will start heaping extra points onto the hands if a FIT exist that it is not clear happens with 5+3+1 (no great write up of the method compared to ZAR where he goes into great details). Now, come on richard, admit when using BUMRAP 5+3+1, when you have a fit, you upevalaute something..... and when you have a misfit you down evaluate. We all do this "automatically" with or without a point scale telling us what to do. It depends upon our experience. I down evaluate hands with 4333 for instance, and those with misfits.

 

So what ZAR has done is to try to figure out how much to down-evaluate misftis (misfit points) and to up-regulate fits (fit points), and superfits (add misfit points rather than subtract them). That is to place a quantitative value on certain features. Now this is where ZAR and BUMRAP 531 as identified by Tysen begin to part company. Tysen adds a point for suits with two honor in them. ZAR adds one point for each honor in PARTNER suit (up to two), and one point for "concentrated" honors in two suits. BUMRAP is slighly more aggressive here on the majority of hands, but this is very small. But the real parting of company is the FIT (or lack of it) calculations that seem to be missing from the other method. Zar is hyper aggressive and hyper=conservative based upon fit or lack of it.

 

I don't know about you, but I have EXAMINED actual hands with my eyes (not software mathematical calculations)... I realize the sample size could be too small, but the plus evalaution and minus evaluation used by ZAR seems to be accurately reflect what one would do by "feel" and seems to greatly both improve the accuracy when fits and misfit occur.

 

Since BUMRAP 5+3+1 is (as I noted above) essential identical to initial ZAR evluation (especially if you consider 9 DP as the "base" zar DP schedule rather than 8, so as to properly devaluate the value of 4333), there can be little doubt in my mind that if BUMRAP doesn't include a re=evaluation tool based upon fit or no fit, it can not be as accurate as ZAR +/- fit points. Now, I maybe I have missed the re-evaluation tools with 5+3+1, if there are some, someone needs to explain.

[hrothgar]

I’ll publish the detailed STD amounts point-by-point and all the rest of the stats actually, but here are the overall results for the Standard Deviation. Since all functions are Bell-shaped and peak at the Game level (an interesting finding by itself), we can present the peak only:

 

ZPR 0.93

ZPB 0.94

GP 0.96

BP 0.96

ZP3 0.98

LP 1.05

WTC 1.09

LTC 1.22

LTM 1.23

Comment 1: Could you provide definitions to accompany the acronyms... For example, I THINK that GP is Goren points and that BP are Binkie Points but some confirmation would be nice.

 

Comment 2: I don't see any calculations for BUMRAP + 5/3/1

 

Comment 3: If GP is "traditional "Goren", it seems strange that its scoring so well...

[han]

BUMRAP honor points are identical (or essentially identical) to ZAR honor points.

 

Of course, exactly identical, except for two things:

 

1) Zar honor points ignores 10's.

 

2) Zar points has to be normalized to compare with traditional HCP's, BUMRAP doesn't.

 

Of course, Zar is very much aware of this, and has done these to avoid fractions. I suspect that multiplying BUMRAP by 4 also avoids fractions.

[han]

I’ll publish the detailed STD amounts point-by-point and all the rest of the stats actually, but here are the overall results for the Standard Deviation. Since all functions are Bell-shaped and peak at the Game level (an interesting finding by itself), we can present the peak only:

 

ZPR 0.93

ZPB 0.94

GP 0.96

BP 0.96

ZP3 0.98

LP 1.05

WTC 1.09

LTC 1.22

LTM 1.23

 

 

Losing Trick Count is by far the least accurate method, be it Classic or Modern (measured by the STD rather than IMP).

 

Again, I am preparing a detailed presentation and analysis and I’ll let you know when it is on the webpage.

 

ZAR

 

Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster

Top

 

Thanks, this is interesting indeed. I do hope that you will include more modern point counts besides Zar (try 18-12-6-3-1 for BUMRAP plus 20-13-4 for shortness if you want to avoid fractions).

[Guest Jlall]

Thanks, this is interesting indeed. I do hope that you will include more modern point counts besides Zar (try 18-12-6-3-1 for BUMRAP plus 20-13-4 for shortness if you want to avoid fractions).

yikes... I can't add that high :)

[inquiry]

Of course, exactly identical, except for two things:

 

1) Zar honor points ignores 10's.

Well, ZAR doesn't ignore all ten's now does it? If you have a ten in partners suit, you can add 1 zar point (on the correct scale of an ACE being worth 1 point, a TEN in partners suit s worth 0.16666, whereas each TEN in bumrap is worth 0.056.

 

Of course in ZAR, if you have QJT, KJT, AJT, KQT, AKT in partners suit, the ten becomes valuableless again.

 

Now it is an academic exercise to determine if a random 10 is worth 1/3 the value of a ten in partner's suit. ZAR adds weight to the fittign TEN's BUMRAP adds less value to fitting tens, but adds values for all of them. In the scheme of things, the value added for a ten (0.25) is not enough to sway a decision I think, so you probably do as I do, and go that is "a" plus value, but what minuses do I have. To me, counting 10's in our suit, and ignoring 10's in other suits makes sense. Probably 1 ZAR point for such a TEN is a tad too much, at least I think so. So I ignore the point from a ten when not vul, and count it when vul.

 

2) Zar points has to be normalized to compare with traditional HCP's, BUMRAP doesn't.

 

Of course, Zar is very much aware of this, and has done these to avoid fractions. I suspect that multiplying BUMRAP by 4 also avoids fractions.

 

Not exactly sure why this is an issue. Telling your oppoents that you have 19 BUMRAP 531 points is hardly helpful if 5 of those are from controls and 4 from 531 additions. That means you 19 points is really only 10. Saying "19 with distribution" is not right either. Or you could you the more complicted scale (ACE worth 4.5, king 3, etc). Now you say 19 pts with discibution is closer for them, but still not as useful to them. Will they know your kings are aces are worth 4.5, your queens only 1.5, your jacks 0.75.. how are they to count your hands even after you disclosed.

[tysen2k]

You guys are all pretty much right. I just want to state that:

 

1. Zar, BUMRAP, and TSP all yield very similar results. That is because the main benefit from these methods comes from shifting the HCP values from a 4-3-2-1 ratio to a 3-2-1-0.5 ratio. The distribution is fairly minor compared to this.

 

2. Zar is a perfectly good system and much better than regular HCP. My single and only complaint about Zar has been that it's slightly more complicated to calculate than BUM+531 and it's not any more accurate. Plus it uses a completely different "scale" which some people don't want to use and makes it more difficult to explain to opponents.

 

3. The only reason I invented TSP was that I said to myself, "what is the most accurate point count method I can make using reasonably sized whole numbers?" And TSP came out of that. It's not that much better than Zar or BUM, but it's the best I could do. If you want a simple method that has the same scale, just use BUMRAP. After all, if you have this hand:

 

ATxxx

Axx

ATx

xx

 

It's much easier to explain that you've decided to upgrade this hand to 15 points rather than explain that you've got 29 Zar.

 

Tysen

[inquiry]

After all, if you have this hand:

 

ATxxx

Axx

ATx

xx

 

It's much easier to explain that you've decided to upgrade this hand to 15 points rather than explain that you've got 29 Zar.

I don't think you are REQUIRED to give your exact count (rather it is ZAR, Goren, Milton Work, or TSP). I think a general range is what is required. This hand would be described (no matter how you play it) as better than a minimum opening, or approxiametly a king better than a minimum opening, but that WE OPEN very light (as few as 8 hcp). In fact, I alert EVERY ROUND that I open very light.

 

Now, telling your opponents that you have 15 hcp when you hold 12 is likely to cause at the very least hard feelings.. "I would have bid if I had known he was so light" attitude. This is why I tell them I open very light (as few as 8 hcp) and then the range of the bid (better than minimum, not forcing, etc).

 

You might also try Marty's answer, Points? Smoints!

[Zar]

>

Comment 1: Could you provide definitions to accompany the acronyms... For example, I THINK that GP is Goren points and that BP are Binkie Points but some confirmation would be nice.

<

 

Sorry, forgot you don’t want to read the book – all the acronyms are from there (sicne I just cut and paste from the generated tables). GP is Goren Points, LP is Lawrence Points, BP is Bergen Points, ZPR is Zar Points with Ruffing, ZPB is Basic Zar Points, etc.

 

>

Comment 2: I don't see any calculations for BUMRAP + 5/3/1

 

Really? :-) Shall we talk about this again? You have to try reading, man :-)

 

>

If we remove the honor point count from Zar and BUMRAP, we're left with the question of how one should account for distribution. Guess what? Zar's system of accounting for distribution isn't as accurate as the 5/3/1 scale...

<

 

5-3-1 rocks, man.

 

It’s a good to idea to check out first though – just for yourself so you don’t get embarrassed in public. You can go to the website and check automatically the 7-4-1, 5-3-1, and 3-2-1. Yeah ... it will take some reading, sorry.

 

>

Zar has slowly started to use more reasonable metrics to evaluate his own work.

>

 

Slowly? As slow as my 3GZ computer is :-) I presented the IMP-based comparison, now the STD-based comparison. Anything else?

 

>

Comment 3: If GP is "traditional "Goren", it seems strange that its scoring so well...

<

 

To be honest, I was surprised myself. In fact, I am surprised by BOTH Goren and Bergen, since BOTH also peak for 10 tricks EXACTLY where they say (26 Goren and 40 Bergen). Aggressive methods like Lawrence and Zar peak at 11 while very-conservative ones like WTC and LTC peak at 9.

 

You’ll see all that in the document when I post it.

 

ZAR