Zar points, useful or waste of energy

[mishovnbg]

 

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

Hi Zar!

 

 

-------

Welcome to forum! Will be nice if you join to our discussiond here too! You can explain for example you realy bidding ideas in thread about unnatural systems for example...

Will you be so nice to add sveral typical examples of Zar counting with detailed explanation?

 

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

Misho

[Zar]

*** Ben wrote:

>

I have been testing your hand evaluation methoid against a fair number of tough hands, and it is holding up very nicely. As the initiator of this thread I haven't formed a final decision yet on rather I am gong to use it every day or not, but I have decided, for me, the answer to the question of useful or waste of energy seems clear, it is useful. On the other hand, it does take a while to get use to all the counting.

<

 

I certainly hope it is useful - thank you. As with anything new, it takes awhile to get used to it, but soon you will not be counting points from distribution often, since you memorize the Basic Shapes themselves, so you know that if you see a 5-4-3-1 it's 13, if you see a 4--4--3-2 it's 10 etc. I first add the Shape and the Controls then go "back" to the HCP which you count anyway. This gives me a perspective on how the OTHER tables would treat this hand and how different the Zar Points view is. A 5-4-3-1 with 2 A and a K is already 18 Zar Points ahead, while a 4-3-3-3 with a K is HALF that (only 9) even though they might have the same amount of, say, 13 HCP. The first hand is in the "Second Division" of opening (31+ Zar Points) while the other one belongs to the garbage bin :-) I'd take advantage of both, since the field will threat them as 13 HCP hands basically, plus a couple of points from distribution either by Goren or Bergen. So they ALSO see these hands differently, but by 2 points, while I see them different by DOUBLE that, or 4 of "their points"(since Zar Points are roughly 2 times lighter than Goren, like the requirement of 52 for a Game against 26 for Goren - you adjust to 8 Zar Points to 4 of the "other" points).

 

Do you make adjustments as the bidding progresses? Sure - you just use your head as usual :-)

 

*** Misho wrote:

>

Welcome to forum! You can explain the bidding ideas in a thread about unnatural systems for example...

<

 

Thank you. I may post here the BASIC ideas of the Zar Points Bidding and get an earlier feedback actually. That would be great! I may post a short description of the ideas - like 20 lines for example. You'll see the basics immediately without the need to jump into the sophisticated relays and footprints and "non-rounded coefficients" (for example an A is 6.18 Points etc.). Just the fundaments on which the system stands (besides the Zar Points Evaluation which you already know) – easy to understand indeed.

 

Make it a great day:

 

ZAR

[Zar]

Hi all:

 

I found another thing worth commenting on:

 

*** Erick wrote

... you open 1♠ on this hand ♠AQxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Qxx ♣x (zar point 27), and partner responds 2♣. I think the value of this hand has gone down... I suspect that subtracting a trick (5 points?) for a singleton opposite length would improve their accuracy.

<

 

This is an IMPORTANT consideration, which I have discussed with a number of former and current world champions indeed. So should we DECREASE the hand's value by 5 points, should we leave it AS-IS, or should we INCRESE the value by 5 points? The answer is (as usual) simple - it depends :-)

 

Depends on 2 things:

- side fit in the partnership;

- footprints in clubs (there are many more things on the website besides the "Never Miss a Game Again" article).

 

 

1) The side fit.

Let us consider these 2 hands of the player who bids 2C after the opening of 1S:

 

- ♠xx ♥QJx ♦KJ10 ♣KQxxx, with 12 HCP: bids 2C and rebids 2NT to show the values in the unbid suit and NT orientation

 

- ♠KJ10x ♥AJx ♦--- ♣Axxxxx, with 13 HCP: bids 2C to enable his PD evaluate his club holdings and rebids 3S.

 

With the first hand you'll have a hard time moving the cards around on any contract ...

 

With the second one, the SINGLETON is golden - it puts you at a GRAND with 87%, assuming that either trumps are not 4:0 or you have the filler trumps (10 and 9) if they ARE 4:0. Here is where the percentage comes from - [ 84% (36% for the 3:3 clubs + 48% for 4:2) + 3% (the heart-fines' 50% in half of the 5:1 (14%) when the singleton is after the A so you don't get overruffed) for a total of 87%]. Do you play 87% GRANDS? :-)

 

 

2) The clubs footprint.

 

The first hand has a footprint of 1, while the second one - 0. "Misfit" with 0-footprint and a side fit is a powerhouse.

 

I am sure we all realize the difference of the value of this singleton in the partner suit. Bottom line - re-evaluating at the first round is a no-no. Wait for the second round in such forcing situations and then re-evaluate. And yes - Zar Points make deductions in various situations and re-evaluations on as-you-go basis.

 

 

Cheers:

 

ZAR

[inquiry]

I have been playing with Zar's Bidding machine using hands grabbed from the myhands site at part score, game, and slam level (and from fairly large tournments with lots of participants).

 

To use it yourself, get hand info quickly from www.bridgebase.com/myhands, and fiind the ZAR bidding machine at the following link.

 

Zar's cool bidding machine

 

Ok. First, thing. As pointed out in his article, when using Zar points and the like, you must pay attention to controls in suits, and the like. Here is a slam hand that Zar's machine says the correct contract is 6.8♠'s, but of course, you are off an ACE so clearly the correct contract is 6♠. We all know how to use blackwood. I find the estimate is off frequently with one losing ACE in form like this example.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=saq83hj64djckt765&w=s952ht7daq9732c43&e=s64h9852dt865cj92&s=skjt7hakq3dk4caq8]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     2NT

 Pass  3♣    Pass  3♦

 Pass  3♥!   Pass  3♠

 Pass  4NT   Pass  5♣

 Pass  6♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

ZAR points = 66, Zar contract 6.8♠ by south

 

Here is a "partscore" one using the bidding machine.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=saq83hj64djckt765&w=s952ht7daq9732c43&e=s64h9852dt865cj92&s=skjt7hakq3dk4caq8]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♣

 Pass  3NT   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

What did the machine say? It said north had 25 ZAR points and recommended opening. If you swap South's spades and diamonds, the points still is 25, but the machine recommends pass. This follows the concept expressed in the article to open with 25ZAR points and four card+ in spades, I guess. The combined ZAR points is only 49, not enough for game. Here the bidding machine seems to fall down. It recommends a contract of 0.0♣, it seems like 2♣ is makable. In the actual event, however, overbidding was rampant NS. With 3NT a very popular contract (and as you can see, even 2NT can not make on a ♦ lead). This hand was played at 75 TABLES, at which 2NT/3NT was played at 26 tables, and 4♣/5♣ at 12 more tables, and 3♣'s at a ton of tables. At my table, we played 2♥NS when my partner choose to open 1♥ playing 5 card majors with south hand.. After a negative double, and my partner's pass, I balanced back in as north to 2♥'s. But here, ZAR's bidding machine clearly warns against overbidding.

 

This next hand shows a somewhat problem with the ZAR machine as presented. It ignores the location of honors/controls/points.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=saq83hj64djckt765&w=s952ht7daq9732c43&e=s64h9852dt865cj92&s=skjt7hakq3dk4caq8]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

West North East South

 Pass  Pass  1♣    1♠

 Pass  Pass  Dbl   2♦

 2♥    2♠    3♥    4♠

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

Having said that, the Zar points LOVES south's hand (32), and the suggested contract is 4.6♠. Even though the ♣K is totally wasted, it takes a ♦ lead and the ♠K off side doubleton (instead of tripleton) to beat this given the ♦Q is falls. And practically, everyone in ♠ made at least 10 tricks. Also note, the EW pair does very well in ♥ as well, with 4H played from one side laydown, and 4♥ from the other requires ♣ lead to set.

 

All in all, it was fun using ZAR machine and it seems to be a quick and dirty reasonable approximation, but as the three examples above show, the machine ignores some logis. In first, the fact that you are off an ace, in the second, that a part score is availabe in 2♣ (hard to stop there), and in the third? Well you want to be in 4♠ anyway, but it points out this mathematical machine doesn't factor into its calculations the location of honors.

[Flame]

About these example.

The first one, i would like a hand estimating machine to tell me that these hands is 6.8, because there are 13 tricks here, Id give the system 100% here.

hand 2 - oviously the system is wrong giving it only 0.0

hand 3 - i think 4.6 is a bit higher but not too much.

[inquiry]

About these example.

The first one, i would like a hand estimating machine to tell me that these hands is 6.8, because there are 13 tricks here, Id give the system 100% here.

hand 2 - oviously the system is wrong giving it only 0.0

hand 3 - i think 4.6 is a bit higher but not too much.

Well on hand one, they will take their ♦A, or at least could take their ♦A, so I think 13 tricks is going to be tough to take after that one.

 

On hand 3, you go down on a ♦ lead. As the defense can manage a ♠, a ♦ ruff and two ♥'s. Fact is, not an easy defense to find. But they can start with two ♥ and then switch to a ♦, but the temptation to lead through ♣s was just too great.

[Zar]

>>> ZAR points = 66, Zar contract 6.8♠ by south

<

Conventions are often barred in many bridge clubs, but even in the high-stake clubs in London the one convention allowed everywhere is … Blackwood. Zar Bid Machine doesn’t “allow” even Blackwood, though :-) It just calculates points (Goren, Bergen, and Zar) and shoots. No “if”s, “but”s, and “about”s, so ... have mercy, please :-)

 

>>> What did the machine say? It said north had 25 ZAR points and recommended opening.

<

You probably mean SOUTH here ...

 

>>>If you swap South's spades and diamonds, the points still is 25, but the machine recommends pass. This follows the concept expressed in the article to open with 25ZAR points and four card+ in spades, I guess.

<

 

Correct – with 25 (only) you get an upgrade of 1 pt (just enough to open) if you hold the spades suit. I have to tell you that I was really surprised that several world champs mentioned that 1 Zar Point for holding the Spades suit is NOT enough! They thought (independently of each other) that 2 Zar Points is the correct upgrade.

 

>>>The combined ZAR points is only 49, not enough for game. Here the bidding machine seems to fall down. It recommends a contract of 0.0♣, it seems like 2♣ is makable.

<

 

Thank you for pointing this out – I am going back to Toronto for Easter and I’ll fix that. With 49 Zar Points and 8-card fit it will certainly give you 3.40 in the longest fit. Thanx again (no idea off the top of my head why it’s doing it, but I’ll fix it by the end of the week – I noticed that if you increase the Controls of N from 2 to 4 it gives you correctly 3.80 Clubs ...).

 

Cheers:

 

ZAR

[Flame]

About these example.

The first one, i would like a hand estimating machine to tell me that these hands is 6.8, because there are 13 tricks here, Id give the system 100% here.

hand 2 - oviously the system is wrong giving it only 0.0

hand 3 - i think 4.6 is a bit higher but not too much.

Well on hand one, they will take their ♦A, or at least could take their ♦A, so I think 13 tricks is going to be tough to take after that one.

 

On hand 3, you go down on a ♦ lead. As the defense can manage a ♠, a ♦ ruff and two ♥'s. Fact is, not an easy defense to find. But they can start with two ♥ and then switch to a ♦, but the temptation to lead through ♣s was just too great.

Zar points imo arent suppose to tell you what is the right contract, they suppose to help you estimate the hand potential. the machine is giving you aresult like 6.8S is a cool thing but the machina shouldnt be alowed to transfer information like number of aces , or else it will be 100% accurate and 100% useless, I was happy with the 6.8 result because the machine got it right, there are 13 tricks to take.

At least in natural system this kind of estimate is just what you need. The process in slam bidding is usually, first check if there is slam potential (and this is what the machine answer for was yes) then if that exist check if we dont have 2 losers , meaning missing two aces, or missing a control in a suit. and same idea for grand.

[inquiry]

Well, Zar and Flame, I do not accept your characterizations of what I said as fair interpretation. It is true you can't make 7, and I noted not once but twice that this is understandable and not a real problem. First I said....

 

"Ok. First, thing. As pointed out in his article, when using Zar points and the like, you must pay attention to controls in suits, and the like. " This not only proved that I read his articles, it shows that I understand that making sure you are not off two quick tricks in one suit or an ace in grand slam is important.... This was a point he made in his articles, and on I repeated. I followed it up with, "Here is a slam hand that Zar's machine says the correct contract is 6.8♠'s, but of course, you are off an ACE so clearly the correct contract is 6♠. We all know how to use blackwood." Clearly stating we would not bid to Grand Slam even if we are the most ardent ZAR points supporter without checking.

 

Now Zar's sarcasim about using conventions aside, which I found humorous, a second post point out that Blackwood would have prevented bidding grand slam is hardly needed... since I said that myself, as a way of pointing out the obvious to anyone who plays with the ZAR bidding machine... I assure you, I already understood this limitation in the bidding machine and in the point counting part without the machine.

 

Ben

[Flame]

Well, Zar and Flame, I do not accept your characterizations of what I said as fair interpretation. It is true you can't make 7, and I noted not once but twice that this is understandable and not a real problem. First I said....

 

"Ok. First, thing. As pointed out in his article, when using Zar points and the like, you must pay attention to controls in suits, and the like. " This not only proved that I read his articles, it shows that I understand that making sure you are not off two quick tricks in one suit or an ace in grand slam is important.... This was a point he made in his articles, and on I repeated. I followed it up with, "Here is a slam hand that Zar's machine says the correct contract is 6.8♠'s, but of course, you are off an ACE so clearly the correct contract is 6♠. We all know how to use blackwood." Clearly stating we would not bid to Grand Slam even if we are the most ardent ZAR points supporter without checking.

 

Now Zar's sarcasim about using conventions aside, which I found humorous, a second post point out that Blackwood would have prevented bidding grand slam is hardly needed... since I said that myself, as a way of pointing out the obvious to anyone who plays with the ZAR bidding machine... I assure you, I already understood this limitation in the bidding machine and in the point counting part without the machine.

 

Ben

Ben

Let me expain maybe i wasnt clear.

I would like my hand evaluation process to give me a 6.8 result on these pair of hands, because this is the potential of pair, therefore i said that for me on this hand the zar machina was 100% accurate.

[inquiry]

Let me expain maybe i wasnt clear.

I would like my hand evaluation process to give me a 6.8 result on these pair of hands, because this is the potential of pair, therefore i said that for me on this hand the zar machina was 100% accurate.

Ah, I stand corrected... yes. I am happy with the 6.8 ♠ estimate myself. I don't see this as a problem at all. I am not bdding the grand slam without asking for controls here...

 

Ben

[Zar]

*** Ben wrote:

>>> Now Zar's sarcasm about using conventions aside,

<

 

No, I am not sarcastic, Ben – I just talk this way :-) I really truly appreciate and think on any input on Zar Points and I assure you I take them all seriously (despite the fact that I cannot address them all the way I’d like to).

 

>>> I already understood this limitation in the bidding machine and in the point counting part without the machine.

<

 

No doubt.

>

I would like my hand evaluation process to give me a 6.8 result on these pair of hands, because this is the potential of pair, therefore I said that for me on this hand the zar machina was 100% accurate. I am happy with the 6.8 ♠ estimate myself. I don't see this as a problem at all. I am not bidding the grand slam without asking for controls here...

<

 

Yes, I also think we paid too much attention to this one. Going beyond Game without having an idea about Controls and Aces is not worth discussing :-)

 

 

Cheers:

 

ZAR

[hrothgar]

As I have noted before, I think that much more analysis is required before we can make a meaningful assessment regarding the accuracy of Zar points.

 

From my own perspective, I would very much like to see some "pure" research.

 

For example, consider the following experiment.

 

Step 1

Randomly deal a million hands in which North holds

 

AT63

K952

Q84

J7

 

and South, East, and West are unconstrained.

 

Step 2

Use a double dummy engine to sort the hands based on the number of tricks that North South can take.

 

Step 3

Bucket 1 = the set of all hands where N/S can take 13 tricks

Bucket 2 = the set of all hands where N/S can take 12 tricks

...

 

Step 4

 

Look at all of the South hands in Bucket 1

Calculate hand strength using a range of hand evaluation techniques

[Zar Points, Bum Rap, Goren Points, Losers, ...]

 

Repeat for bucket 2, bucket 3, ...

 

Step 5

 

Calculate a standard set of summary statistics [Max, Min, Standard Deviation, interquartile range] for each hand evaluation technique.

 

I argue that the shape of the probability density function of hand strengths can be used to measure the accuracy of the evaluation technique.

[Fluffy]

Think you all missed an important point, regardless you distribution having some HCP has huge importace on competitive biddings because Opponents do not have your high cards!, ZAR´s can be more accurate on not competitive but... is it better on competitive, its agresiveness can deceive opponents? or maybe help them to play when you failed to bid?: finding you are strong->balanced hand or shaper ->poor hand.

 

Anyway there is no better good hadn evaluating system by itself, I just use HCP at start so I don´t differ from the rest tables, but when very unbalanced or finding a fit and trying for a game/slam I quickly switch to either count losing tricks or missing Key cards, mixing systems is probably the best system.

[tysen2k]

For example, consider the following experiment.

 

Step 1

Randomly deal a million hands in which North holds

 

AT63

K952

Q84

J7

 

and South, East, and West are unconstrained.

This is exactly what Binky points do, except that instead of taking just the one North hand in your example, it was based on over 700,000 hands. Additionally, you don't want an evaluation method that is best opposite an "average hand", you want one that is weighted over all the hands that partner can have. Binky takes the evaluation method that is best simultaneously for both players instead of just one.

 

Binky and other double-dummy evaluators can give some insight into competitive bidding as well. Based on your own hand, you can make some estimations about how many tricks the opponents can take as well. Not as accurate as our own tricks, but still... You can generate a sort of "total tricks" estimate and use that for preemptive or competitive bidding. So if you have a shapely hand, you may not have that many "points" but you see that you have no defense and can bid it up.

[tysen2k]

A few questions for those of you currently using Zar to evaluate. Did you go through your system and convert all your point ranges? Is a weak 1NT now like 25-29? You have to go through all your response structures too and convert those too, right? What do you do when opponents ask you for an explanation?

[hrothgar]

A few questions for those of you currently using Zar to evaluate. Did you go through your system and convert all your point ranges? Is a weak 1NT now like 25-29? You have to go through all your response structures too and convert those too, right? What do you do when opponents ask you for an explanation?

I've always favored technology overkill.

I am especially enamoured by high tech solutions to non-existant problems.

 

With this said and done, long term I think that the best way to explain methods is to provide the opponents with a sample of "X" hands consistant with the bidding so far.

 

At this point in time, the opponents can use whatever mechanism they want to create summary statistics based on the hand sample. For example, assume that my partnership used Zar points to evaluate opening bids but you are most familiar with Binky Points.

 

You should be able to use a software program to reduce the hand sample into a PDF describing the expected Binky point holding for my 1NT openings...

[Zar]

Hi all:

 

*** Hrothgar wrote: From my own perspective, I would very much like to see some "pure" research. For example, consider the following experiment. Randomly deal a million hands in which North holds ...

<

 

I put all the initial databases of boards for the research of about half-a-million games (2 million hands) and their analysis. Contains separate ZIP files with the corresponding targeted research (the Hands, Goren and Zar Valuations, Controls and Control Points, Fits and their distribution among partners, Best DD-contract, etc.). This was the first set of boards, followed by many more targeted generations which wouldn't be of general interest. Here is what the corresponding ZIP files contain (in “Support”->”Downloads”):

 

- File 3ntDBs.zip contains:

...... File 3NT2K with over 2,000 contracts in 3 NT

...... File 3major70K with over 70,000 contracts in 3 Major

 

- File 4majorDBs.zip contains:

...... File 4Major63K_set1 with over 63,000 contracts in 4 Major

...... File 4major42K_set2 with over 42,000 contracts in 4 Major

...... File 4major63_db1 with over 63,000 contracts in 3 NT in TAB-delimited format

 

- File 5minorDBs.zip contains:

...... File 5minor27K_set1 with over 27,000 contracts in 5 minor

...... File 5minor43K_set2 with over 43,000 contracts in 5 minor

 

- File SlamDBs.zip contains:

...... File 6Slams35K with over 35,000 contracts in Small Slam

...... File 7grand10K with over 10,000 contracts in Grand Slam

...... File 7grandHCP27 with contracts in Grand Slam with 27 HCP

...... File 7grandHCP29 with contracts in Grand Slam with 29 HCP

...... File 7grandHCP31 with contracts in Grand Slam with 31 HCP

...... File 7grandHCP33 with contracts in Grand Slam with 33 HCP

...... File 7grandHCP35 with contracts in Grand Slam with 35 HCP

...... File 7grandHCP37 with contracts in Grand Slam with 37 HCP

...... File 7grandHCP40 with contracts in Grand Slam with 40 HCP

 

Hope that helps.

 

There were several posting about explanations of Zar Points to opponents and changes of bidding systems. There is no need to change your bidding systems to reflect Zar Points intervals – you simply use Zar Points as Hand Evaluation and Critical Judgment tool – the way several national teams used it in the last Bermuda Bawl. One of the players even used them without his partner knowing what Zar Points was ... The Zar Points bidding system is something very few people know about and none of the posters here is among them, so there is no need of explanations about something you don’t use :-) The one thing I regularly do, however, is warning the opponents (and partner if playing with a casual partner) that I may open lighter than expected (since I am not very keen on counting :-)

 

Cheers:

 

ZAR

[Zar]

Hy guys:

 

Just a quick note that I fixed the Bid Machine so it calculates the right contract of 3.40 Clubs - this was regarding a post from several days ago.

 

Please let me know if you experience any problem.

 

Happy holidays:

 

ZAR

[EricK]

I have a few questions about ZAR points:

 

1) If partner bids a suit, I add a point for each honour I have in his suit (up to maximum of two). Now, if my hand has an honour in each suit, can I add the point at the start before partner bids a suit, since I am bound to have a fitting honour?

 

2) If I open a suit, and partner raises it, do I add points for honours in my own suit?

 

3) If I bid a suit and partner supports it, then he adds extra points for any shortage he has. If I understand correctly, when he does support it, I now only add points for shortages as well if I have extra length in the suit. Since the points one adds are dependant on how short your shortest suit is (3 for void, 2 for singleton, 1 for doubleton), it seems that if only one person adds points, then in the case of say a 4-4 fit, the total number of ZAR points would depend on which player bids the suit first!

 

4) It is claimed that one should open balanced hands with 13 HCP, even if the ZAR points are less than 26. Does this mean that ZAR points don't rank balanced hands correctly? eg ♠KQJx ♥KQT ♦ Qxx ♣xxx has 13 HCP but only 23 ZAR points and ♠Kxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axx ♣xx has only 10HCP but 24 ZAR points. Which hand is actually stronger?

 

5) Should I discount 1 point for the J in a suit KQJ? Clearly the J is worth more in KQJx, but equally KQJ is worth more tha KQx.

 

6) Do the levels i.e 52 points for the 4 level, 62 for 6 level etc, depend on vulnerability? IOW, should I bid to eg 4S on only 50 points (or whatever) if vulnerable at IMPS?

 

Eric

[Zar]

*** Erick wrote: I have a few questions about ZAR points:

 

1) If partner bids a suit, I add a point for each honour I have in his suit (up to maximum of two). Now, if my hand has an honour in each suit, can I add the point at the start before partner bids a suit, since I am bound to have a fitting honour?

<

 

Thanx Eric – very good questions indeed. And the answer to the first one is “who told you that your PD would open his mouth on this board?” IF he bids a suit, THEN you add, because if you didn’t have the honor, guess who would – your opponents, not me :-)

 

2) If I open a suit, and partner raises it, do I add points for honours in my own suit?

<

 

Yes again. The basis is the same with the suit lengths – both partners add points for “superfit”. If you have 6 and your bid has promised 5 (say you play a 5-card major), you get 1 supertrump, AND your pd gets one if he has 4. There is NO chance of duplication. BUT the limit is 2 points to avoid “duplication” (oops, there is a chance of duplication :-) meaning “too much upgrades” if you have ALL the honors between the two of you. ALSO, you do not count honor upgrades AND supertrumps – in other words in your pd opents 1S and you have Kxxxx in spades, you only count the supertrump, since your holding of Kxxxx is like KQJ10x against 5 trumps, right (you’d answer that you HAVE the Q of trumps if asked Blackwood).

 

3) If I bid a suit and partner supports it, then he adds extra points for any shortage he has. If I understand correctly, when he does support it, I now only add points for shortages as well if I have extra length in the suit. Since the points one adds are dependant on how short your shortest suit is (3 for void, 2 for singleton, 1 for doubleton), it seems that if only one person adds points, then in the case of say a 4-4 fit, the total number of ZAR points would depend on which player bids the suit first!

<

 

You are talking about the “Zar Ruffing Power” calculation where you do not blindly add 3 points for every supertrump, but ad 3 if your shortest suit is void, 2 if it’s sing, and 1 if it’s doubleton – you do NOT add “shortness” if you don’t have a superfit! It’s all ALREADY calculated into your distribution points, right? WHO bids the suit first doesn’t matter since EACH one calculates superfit ACCORDING to HIS own “promises” of the bid. See above.

 

4) It is claimed that one should open balanced hands with 13 HCP, even if the ZAR points are less than 26. Does this mean that ZAR points don't rank balanced hands correctly? eg ♠KQJx ♥KQT ♦ Qxx ♣xxx has 13 HCP but only 23 ZAR points and ♠Kxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axx ♣xx has only 10HCP but 24 ZAR points. Which hand is actually stronger?

<

 

Both are actually weak :-) Balanced hands are weak. Period. That’s why BOTH hands are not opening hands in Zar Points terms. Note, that in the Zar Points Bidding System you open 1NT with the first hand, saying “PD, I have a CRAPPY hand which is not worth opening (meaning I do NOT have 26 Zar Points) but I open weak 1NT so I pre-empt the opponents AND I am not going to open my mouth again unless you force me to”. Note how powerful the Zar Points weak NT is in terms of saying “I do NOT have 26 Zar Points” meaning my hand is very poor on controls, balanced, all crap... so PD knows it’s not worth taking the risk of exploring a slam in case he’s strong because I do NOT have the controls he would expect in an “average” weak NT.

 

5) Should I discount 1 point for the J in a suit KQJ? Clearly the J is worth more in KQJx, but equally KQJ is worth more tha KQx.

<

 

See above regarding how length compensates the low-level honors.

 

6) Do the levels i.e 52 points for the 4 level, 62 for 6 level etc, depend on vulnerability? IOW, should I bid to eg 4S on only 50 points (or whatever) if vulnerable at IMPS?

<

 

The answer is “unfortunately not”. BUT this is something included in the note that “you still have to use your head” :-) BTW, one important note in the form of a question: “Are Zar Points always right?” and the answer is “OF COURSE not!” They are just the best there is :-)

 

Cheers:

 

ZAR

[Zar]

Hi, guys:

 

Just posted a short report on the reseach on Zar Points in the other thread for Zar Points so this message is just to re-direct you there. The numbers are not "printed" in a TAB-ed format unfortunately - I didn't expect this "squeeze" :-)

 

Cheers:

 

ZAR

[mikestar]

Zar points are clearly more accurate than Goren 1-2-3 and Bergen (Rule of 20).

 

Bergen is not intended for overall evaluation, but for the specific purpose of determining whether to open. While Marty advocates requiring 11 HCP to open both 5-4-2-2 and 5-4-4-0, he never asserts anywhere in his writings that these hands have the same value once a fit is found.

 

And of course Goren has responder count 1-3-5 when raising partner. A modification of this I've used for years is to use the 1-3-5 count for the original suit bidder as well. This actually tracks fairly closely with Zar distribution points.

 

Comparing 1-3-5 with Zar in terms of the trick excess over the baseline 4-3-3-3 shape, for 1-3-5 we get tricks = count / 3; and for Zar we get tricks=(count - 8) / 5

 

Excluding extreme shapes (over 8 cards in one suit, over 11 cards in two suits), only the following shapes have a discrepency of over .133 tricks (the maximum discrepancy due to the different granularity of the two scales):

 

Shape (1-3-5 tricks minus Zar tricks)

4-4-4-1 +.400

5-3-3-2 -.267

5-4-4-0 +.467

6-3-2-2 -.333

6-3-3-1 -.200

6-5-1-1 +.400

6-5-2-0 +.200

7-2-2-2 -.200

7-3-2-1 -.267

7-4-1-1 +.200

8-3-2-0 -.200

 

Vs Zar, the 1-3-5 count overrates three suiters and more extreme two suiters and underrates most one suiters.

 

IMHO, the 1-3-5 ratings may actually be slightly more accurate. My experience is that three suiters play fairly well with a good fit and its very difficult to overvalue 6-5's (again with a good fit). I also find that one suited hands share some of the weakness of balanced hands because they are less flexible than two suiter.

 

Normalizing Zar's 6-4-2-1 HCP+Controls scale to 10 points per suit instead of 13 yields 4.6-3.1-1.5-0.8. A 4 1/2 - 3 - 1 1/2 - 1 scale is not a terribly bad approximation of this.

 

The point of all this is that here is a method a bright beginner could use which produces trick values close to Zar without using different point count targets than the 26/33/37 that less experience players tend to think in terms of.

[Zar]

*** Mikestar wrote:

>

Zar points are clearly more accurate than Goren 1-2-3 and Bergen (Rule of 20).

<

 

I have made a variety of experiments and proofs of that and never did I see any indication to the opposite, indeed.

 

>

Bergen is not intended for overall evaluation, but for the specific purpose of determining whether to open.

<

 

True. BUT you can always apply the Culbertson’s Rule stating that “Two opening hands make a Game” – to ANY opening-hand evaluation system actually. And this converts the evaluation system into ab overall evaluation system - think about it.

 

>

While Marty advocates requiring 11 HCP to open both 5-4-2-2 and 5-4-4-0, he never asserts anywhere in his writings that these hands have the same value once a fit is found.

<

 

No need to. He simply assigns 20 Bergen Points to EITHER of these hands. He may say “BUT I like the second one better” (which I am sure he does) but the ESTIMATE is 20 for both. So you cannot do anything about it.

 

It’s exactly the elimination of “But this one I like better” what evaluation is all about. If you like it better, tell me HOW MUCH better – 3..., 5..., 8???

 

And how much WHAT :-)

 

<

Excluding extreme shapes (over 8 cards in one suit, over 11 cards in two suits), only the following shapes have a discrepency of over .133 tricks (the maximum discrepancy due to the different granularity of the two scales):

<

 

It is exactly these 0.1333 and 2.638 that Zar Points avoid. They use NO fractions and YET they are more accurate – a NICE combination :-)

 

>

IMHO, the 1-3-5 ratings may actually be slightly more accurate.

<

 

Certainly I do respect your IMHO, but this is the OTHER important thing to realize – NOWHERE in Zar Points I said “IMHO, this hand is better” or “IHMO, this bid is better”.

 

It’s only numbers. No fractions, easy to comprehend, easy to use, and nowhere to hide with IHMOs.

 

>

Normalizing Zar's 6-4-2-1 HCP+Controls scale to 10 points per suit instead of 13 yields 4.6-3.1-1.5-0.8. A 4 1/2 - 3 - 1 1/2 - 1 scale is not a terribly bad approximation of this.

<

 

It’s the “concert” of distribution, HCP and Controls that make Zar Points, not this or that component though.

 

>

The point of all this is that here is a method a bright beginner could use which produces trick values close to Zar

<

 

Where is that method? :-) Utter it and I’ll run it through the millions of boards I have run Goren and Bergen through. So you can substitute the “here is a method” with “there is no method” :-)

 

I’d be HAPPY to see a PROOF (as opposed to IHMO) that ANY other method is better.

 

Not only that – I’d USE it instead of Zar Points :-)

 

ZAR

[inquiry]

[Let me put the first ZAR point question into persepective...is a 26 point ZAR hand with 7 or 8 hcp worth an opening bid? Here I think from my study, the answer is an unqualified yes. I like opening light (by hcp standards), I have mentioned that many times well before I ever heard of ZAR points, and I have altered my bidding system to allow for these light opening bids.

1) What bidding system did you start with?

2) What alterations did you make?

 

For example, if you are opening 8 HCP with 5-5, then 17-18 balanced is just enough to force to game.

 

Thanks.

Sorry, I missed you question to me.

 

1) What bidding did I start with? I began opening 9 and 10 point hands when I played precision. Eventually, finding some 8 point hands were as "strong" as the 10/11 I was opening, I started opening them too. And eventually, I found with 6/5 distribution or so, or a good 8 card suit, 7 hcp would be enough. I wasn't worried so much aobut Controls at that time (Zar's point there is excellent), but I was worried about placement of the hcp (better in long suits, useless in short), and 9's and 8's in my long suits. I have since switched back to 2/1 GF.

 

2) What alterations have I made?

 

The modifications I have made to 2/1 GF are rather big. First, I use fit jumps even without competition as responder (limited hands to fit jump). Second, I use 1M-2M, and 1M-3M as preemptive raises (and alert these). Third, I use 2NT over 1M not as jacoby, but as Limit raise plus - with a modified responding scale to take into account we are not game-forced yet. Fourth, I use 1M-2C after a first or second seat opening bid as a modified "Drury" - there is another thread in this forum on this bid. Basically, it shows constructive 3 card support (or longer) not suited for 2NT limit raise or fit jump raise. In addition, this 2C bid can also deny support but show "good" balanced hand (10)11+, or it can be true 2/1 GF with clubs (rebid structure separates between each of these). Since I have removed the "good hands" from forcing 1NT response with the use of the 2C bid (for example limit raise with 3 card support now starts 2C, as does balanced 13/14 etc), my 1NT is now "semi-forcing" (as it can never have game forcing values), and my minimum 2/1 responses are stronger than typical 2/1 responses (I have freed up a number of rebids after 1M-2NT to allow easy separation of "strong" 1NT and "weak" 1NT responses.

 

I have also made some changes in the responding structure. For example

 

1C-1D

1S <<-- is no longer forcing, and maybe on three card suit

 

1C-1D

1N <<--- is now 17-19 hcp balanced

 

1C-1H

1S <<---- However is forcing (the 1M rebid not forcing only on 1C-1D auction),

 

and

 

1C-1H

1N <<--- is 11-13 balanced

 

Also, I play new minor by opener on his second round forcing 1 round, and maybe artificial.

 

Ben