Another One for ZAR points

[Trpltrbl]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=skj9732hxdxxck9xx&s=saxxhq109xxdjxxcax]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

According to ZAR calculator this hand has 4.2 S. Seems about right to me. you have 3 losers and the rest should be able to be made in X-ruff.

BUT does opps bidding going to make a difference on this hand. Yes, East opened the hand 3♣.

My question now is, if there is going to be any adjustments made based on opps bidding ?

 

Mike ;)

[Zar]

*** Mike wrote: “According to ZAR calculator this hand has 4.2 S. Seems about right to me. you have 3 losers and the rest should be able to be made in X-ruff. BUT does opps bidding going to make a difference on this hand. Yes, East opened the hand 3♣. My question now is, if there is going to be any adjustments made based on opps bidding ?

<

 

Well, you certainly are in a defensive bidding territory and despite the fact that I don’t know the EW cards, I am pretty sure we can have his guts out on the table on 3C doubled :-) I’ll lead my 3/5 heart and let the declarer make his plan. Realistically though, he’ll play 3C not doubled – on most of the tables at least. Zar Points won’t help much here, I am sorry to say.

 

ZAR

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat873hjtdat632ck&s=skq652ha976dcaqt2]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Here is another one for ZAR believers and disbelievers alike. Two tables played this hand with all gold stars at one table, and a self-professed “world class” and a teaching pro at the other. Both reached small slam in spades easily enough, but neither even made an attempt to find the grand slam. What does ZAR points say?

 

South has a great opening hand, with 5440, he gets 14 distributional points, plus 15 hcp, plus 5 control points for a total ZAR count of 34. His partner’s hand, also has 14 distribution points, 12 hcp, 5 control points for a total of 31 Zar points. But in addition, after hearing a 1♠ opening bid, WEST can count two more points for the ♠AT, and North knows that a superfit exist, so he can add 6 points for the minimum 10 card fit. In addition, with a superfit and a singleton, he gets to add 2 more points for the singleton. So responders “minimum” hand of 12 hcp has ballooned to a ZAR monster of 45 ZAR points. Wowie, can this be right? 45? Even dropping a point or two for doubleton J or singleton K, this is a monster. 26+45 = 71. The ZAR points “needed” for grand slam is only 67. So even if opener is minimum, there maybe reason to think about grand slam, and opposite an opener whose hand is nearly two tricks better than an opening bid (at least by ZAR analysis), it is hard enough to see how both pairs missed the laydown grand slam, it really hard to imagine how they didn’t even try to investigate bidding seven. And of course, opener gets some fitting points as well, in the form of two for the spade honor, and three for the void, so his 34 point hand goes up to the neighborhood of 38, making this hand really, really rich in ZAR points (38+45 = 83... maybe should bid 8 spades... oddly enough 5♠ in north, 4♦ ruff, ♦A, ♣AKQ, and ♥A comes to 14 tricks... :-) ).

[EricK]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat873hjtdat632ck&s=skq652ha976dcaqt2]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Here is another one for ZAR believers and disbelievers alike. Two tables played this hand with all gold stars at one table, and a self-professed “world class” and a teaching pro at the other. Both reached small slam in spades easily enough, but neither even made an attempt to find the grand slam. What does ZAR points say?

 

South has a great opening hand, with 5440, he gets 14 distributional points, plus 15 hcp, plus 5 control points for a total ZAR count of 34. His partner’s hand, also has 14 distribution points, 12 hcp, 5 control points for a total of 31 Zar points. But in addition, after hearing a 1♠ opening bid, WEST can count two more points for the ♠AT, and North knows that a superfit exist, so he can add 6 points for the minimum 10 card fit. In addition, with a superfit and a singleton, he gets to add 2 more points for the singleton. So responders “minimum” hand of 12 hcp has ballooned to a ZAR monster of 45 ZAR points. Wowie, can this be right? 45? Even dropping a point or two for doubleton J or singleton K, this is a monster. 26+45 = 71. The ZAR points “needed” for grand slam is only 67. So even if opener is minimum, there maybe reason to think about grand slam, and opposite an opener whose hand is nearly two tricks better than an opening bid (at least by ZAR analysis), it is hard enough to see how both pairs missed the laydown grand slam, it really hard to imagine how they didn’t even try to investigate bidding seven. And of course, opener gets some fitting points as well, in the form of two for the spade honor, and three for the void, so his 34 point hand goes up to the neighborhood of 38, making this hand really, really rich in ZAR points (38+45 = 83... maybe should bid 8 spades... oddly enough 5♠ in north, 4♦ ruff, ♦A, ♣AKQ, and ♥A comes to 14 tricks... :-) ).

Are you meant to add 6 points for the ten card fit AND 2 points for a singleton? I thought that because your short suit was a singleton you just add 2 points for each card over an eight card fit. So you get only points for the superfit, rather than 8 (6+2)

 

Eric

[inquiry]

Are you meant to add 6 points for the ten card fit AND 2 points for a singleton? I thought that because your short suit was a singleton you just add 2 points for each card over an eight card fit. So you get only points for the superfit, rather than 8 (6+2)

 

Eric

Well, I am no ZAR expert, and my reading of the rules seems to be wrong. I confused the first part, where Zar said in part, when discussing fits (super fits)

 

  Here is how you re-evaluate the hands in terms of additional Zar Points for the main fit:

  9th card - 3 pt

 

10th card - 6 pt, i.e. a 10-card fit brings you 3+3 = 6 points total just from the length.

 

11th card - 9 pt, i.e. an 11-card fit brings you 3x3 = 9 additional points from length

 

see http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/TheNeverM...ml#_Toc52183049

 

But I forgot the caveat that the extra points only count if you have a void, with a singleton they are worth two, and with doubleton they are worth one. Ok. So north's hand is not worth 45 (thank goodness, that seemed a lot), but rather a much more realistic 37. Of course, south with a void, gets even extra points. Thanks for the correction.

 

Ben

[Zar]

** Ben wrote: But I forgot the caveat that the extra points only count if you have a void, with a singleton they are worth two, and with doubleton they are worth one. Ok. So north's hand is not worth 45 (thank goodness, that seemed a lot), but rather a much more realistic 37. Of course, south with a void, gets even extra points. Thanks for the correction.

<

 

What you are talking about is the Zar Ruffing Power which calculates the value of the supertrumps (above 8) depending on the shortest suit (rather than automatically assigning +3 points).

 

I just posted the preliminary results from a parallel comparisson between the Zar Points and the 1-3-5 calculation (also includes straight Goren and the WTC - Winning Trick Count) in the Grand Slam boards. In those 7,000++ Grans Slam boards the calculation is +3 points for every trump above 8, rather than via the Zar Ruffing Power, and only the TRUMP suit is calculated, rather than both suits in case you have a double superfit (say, 9 cards in each of 2 suits).

 

Eric is right about counting only the superfit points when you have both a superfit AND honors in the suit (to avoid duplication - see other posts on that subject).

 

Cheers:

 

ZAR

[GijsH]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat873hjtdat632ck&s=skq652ha976dcaqt2]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

All very interesting this ZAR discussion, but it is a bit theoretical as long as it is not related to a real bidding system. Jon Drabble's "A New Approach to Bidding" has been criticized by you guys, but at least he has been able to make his theories practicable. Let's see how MIDMAC would deal with the hand, combined with some common sense:

 

South has [6] tricks, North has [6] tricks after South's 1♠ opening.

 

S N

1♠ - 2NT (5card major; 4card support and 4+ controls)

4♣ - 4NT ([6] tricks, 5 controls; RKC)

6♦ (odd number of keycards (3) and ♦ void)

 

now N knows we have 10 controls (plus a void) and all keycards, that is enough for a grand according to the table Drabble provides on required controls.

What about tricks: N can count 12 hard tricks: 5 ♠, 1♦, 1♥, 2♣ and 3 ruffs after pulling trumps.

S must be 5-3-0-5 or 5-4-0-4 and must have some extras even counting ♠KQ, ♥A and ♣A for his 18 points (equivalent to [6] tricks). If the extra is ♣Q or ♥K, 13 tricks are there. Worst case is ♥Q as extra, then the ♥finesse might succeed or a 4th ♦ ruff might survive without an over-ruff.

All in all the grand is almost a certainty and N can bid 7♠ confidently.

[Zar]

*** GidjsH wrote: Jon Drabble's "A New Approach to Bidding" has been criticized by you guys, but at least he has been able to make his theories practicable. Let's see how MIDMAC would deal with the hand, combined with some common sense...

<

 

 

Drabble is one of three methods assessed in the Zar Points book (free for download from the site). It boils down to “add the 2 longest suits, divide by 3, and subtract the length of the shortest suit, rounding downwards”. This divides the 39 shapes into 6 groups which have respectively 2, 3, 12, 8, and 13 distributions in them. When 2 of the 6 groups have 2 and 3 while the other 2 have 12 and 13, you wouldn’t expect an “even” performance, plus imagine what kind of different hands go as “equals” in the 12 and 13 distributions-per-group sets. And the performance is as low as the Goren performance – but I can run it through if you insist.

 

By the way, the “1-3-5 method” suffers the same “merging” deficiencies as Goren (since they assign values to the SAME parts of the 39 shapes. Not as bad as Drabble, but still 6-3-3-1 is same as 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-3-1 for example, or 5-4-4-0 is the same as 7-3-3-0 etc. meaning having 2 additional cards in a suit may not be reflected in any way.

 

 

ZAR

[Zar]

** Mikestar wrote: the fact that I am considering such a radical overhaul of my methods is a testimony to the great merits of Zar points...

<

 

I am happy to see a “hardliner” like you doing it, Mike – thank you.

 

>

As a side note, I find it interesting that 1-3-5 even without a fit adjustment is so much better than Goren 1-2-3: you would think it would be more widely played, as the adjustment from 1-2-3 is so simple.

<

 

I mentioned in another thread (read all the 3 threads on Zar Points here) that “...the “1-3-5 method” suffers the same “merging” deficiencies as Goren (since they assign values to the SAME parts of the 39 shapes). Not as bad as Drabble, but still 6-3-3-1 is same as 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-3-1 for example, or 5-4-4-0 is the same as 7-3-3-0 etc. meaning having 2 additional cards in a suit may not be reflected in any way.” I am sure you wouldn’t like someone to pull-out 2 cards from your longest suit from time to time, while you are playing a high-stake rubber bridge :-)

 

Another VERY important point that remains unnoticed. If you check the records from the experiments and read “The Research” section of the book, you’ll see that Zar Points is #1 in the “Not OVERBIDDING” comparisons!!! Being #1 is a 2-side coin – bidding the most Games and Slams and NOT OVERBIDDING part scores on Games and Games on Slams. I would have never published Zar Points if they didn’t demonstrate their ability to NOT overbid and I was happy to see Zar Points leading the comparison in the “NOT-overbidding” contest (see the records on the site).

 

Otherwise here a system for the previous “GRAND-slam” experiment that will beat both Goren 5-3-1 AND Zar Points – just bid a GRAND every time the bidding comes to you :-)

 

ZAR

[Trpltrbl]

*** Mike wrote: “According to ZAR calculator this hand has 4.2 S. Seems about right to me. you have 3 losers and the rest should be able to be made in X-ruff. BUT does opps bidding going to make a difference on this hand. Yes, East opened the hand 3♣. My question now is, if there is going to be any adjustments made based on opps bidding ?

<

 

Well, you certainly are in a defensive bidding territory and despite the fact that I don’t know the EW cards, I am pretty sure we can have his guts out on the table on 3C doubled :-) I’ll lead my 3/5 heart and let the declarer make his plan. Realistically though, he’ll play 3C not doubled – on most of the tables at least. Zar Points won’t help much here, I am sorry to say.

 

ZAR

It's a great hand to defend, but I don't know many that will pass if pd X. If we can only find out pd has Ax of ♣ hehe too bad we can't.

 

Mike ;)

[Trpltrbl]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat873hjtdat632ck&s=skq652ha976dcaqt2]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

I think you will get there even with a regular system and point count as long as you play specific Kings ;)

1♠ - 2NT

4♦ - 4 NT

5♥ - 5 NT

6♣ - 7♠

 

4♦ = another long suit ( just what you wanted to hear )

4NT = RKC for ♠

5♥ = 2 Keycard without Queen of trump

5NT = asking for specific Kings, start bidding the lowest

6♣ = King of♣

7♠ I can count at least 13 tricks, let's go and win 13 Imps :D

 

Mike :D

[GijsH]

I think you forgot that S opens the bidding Mike.

[Trpltrbl]

I think you forgot that S opens the bidding Mike.

Hehe, I knew I was stupid.

Now it's getting, of course, a lot harder to to get to the Grand, I think with conventional systems it's impossible to find out about the xx of ♥

 

Mike :lol:

[inquiry]

Dealer: East Vul: NS Scoring: IMP ♠ KJ9 ♥ T9765 ♦ Q ♣ A965

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  Pass

 Pass  1♦    Pass  1♥

 1♠    2♥    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

Here is one where I failed to follow ZAR points and suffered teh consequences, causing my team a very close match.

 

Misho and I recently started playing transfer advances on this auction, so over 1♠, he has two ways to raise ♥ with weakish hands. He can bid 2♥ with four, or bid 2♦ with three. Sadly, I treated 2♥ and 2♦ as if over a takeout double, with 2♥ being weaker than 2♦... but in my defense, other than in discussions this is the first time this particular auction came up.

 

I don't have a great hand, and thinking him weak and being not vul, I choose the safe way out and passed. IF I had been counting ZAR points, what would I have done? Well, I have 10 hcp + 3 control points. I have 13 more points in distribution. I didn't open becasue I discounted a point for stiff [di[Q, but now I think the ♦Q in partners suit might be useful, and I get one point for the ♥Ten, and I have one more ♥ than promised, so I can add two points. What does this total too? 10+3+13+1+2 = 29 points. And partner would not open "too light" in fourth chair. Misho suggested that with a fifth trump I should invite to game. Zar tells me I should blast to game. Zar would have been right.

 

I hope to quit finding examples of when I should have used ZAR points and didn't that support his theory. Either I had better start using them on every hand, or they had better turn around and start showing that he is wrong (I don't think the latter will happen often enough).

 

Dang nab it.

 

Ben

[Zar]

*** Ben wrote: I don't have a great hand, and thinking him weak and being not vul, I choose the safe way out and passed. IF I had been counting ZAR points, what would I have done? Well, I have 10 hcp + 3 control points. I have 13 more points in distribution. I didn't open becasue I discounted a point for stiff ♦Q, but now I think the ♦Q in partners suit might be useful,

<

 

Might be, or will be? Make up your mind :-)

 

>

and I get one point for the ♥Ten, and I have one more ♥ than promised, so I can add two points. What does this total too? 10+3+13+1+2 = 29 points. And partner would not open "too light" in fourth chair. Misho suggested that with a fifth trump I should invite to game. Zar tells me I should blast to game. Zar would have been right.

<

 

As a responder (and a PASSed hand on top everything :-) you have a VERY strong hand, but it depends on your agreements for the 2H bid of your PD – in general it sounds like he’s competing, rather than making a constructive bid. One thing is clear though – since he has opened in 4th seat (rather than 3rd) and competes with 2H, he certainly has an opening hand and fit. That’s basically enough.

 

>

I hope to quit finding examples of when I should have used ZAR points and didn't that support his theory. Either I had better start using them on every hand, or they had better turn around and start showing that he is wrong (I don't think the latter will happen often enough).

<

 

Take a “permission” of your PD for certain events and simply declare “in this session I’ll use Zar Points no matter what” and then just do it. Better yet, get the printouts of a PREVIOUS session and go through ALL the 26 boards of the session – with and without Zar Points. And just compare the results. Simple.

 

And let me know :-)

 

ZAR

[Zar]

Hi guys:

 

 

I cannot find the thread where we discussed the 5-3-1 method versus Zar Points, WTC (Winning Trick Count) etc. To avoid duplicate posting, I just want to say that I posted the extended results in the original thread "Zar Points - Useful or waste of energy".

 

I'll go through this thread tomorrow and see if there are any unanswered questions.

 

Make it a great day:

 

ZAR

[inquiry]

Two interesting hands from a team match yesterday. I was a defender on both of these back to back slam hands. The slam was not bid at either table. But after these hands, after looking at cavendish, after looking at my own hand records, it is ZAR points for me.

 

[hv=d=e&v=a&n=sak3hak9dkq2ck862&w=s98ht76dj643cat54&e=s74hqj832d95cj973&s=sqjt652h54dat87cq]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  2♦!

 Pass  2NT!  Pass  3♠

 Pass  3NT   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

On this hand, 2♦ was multi, 2NT an asking bid, 3♠ better than minimum 2♠ opener, 3NT was a huge underbid. 2♠ opening should show what, around 20 to 24/25 ZAR points (yes Zar would open 1♠ with 25). South's hand is actually a ZAR 1♠ opener (when will the rest of the world learn :-) ). North with a ♠ fit, is worth a whopping 40 ZAR points. 40 + partners promised "maximum" for 2♠ is something like 40+23 or 24 = 63/64 before your partner gets fit points. Six ♠ after asking for key cards seems approapriate, just to make sure you are not off two aces. And if South actually opens 1♠? Well, slam is no problem what so ever. One table played 3NT, the other 4♠.

 

 

[hv=d=e&v=a&n=sak3hak9dkq2ck862&w=s98ht76dj643cat54&e=s74hqj832d95cj973&s=sqjt652h54dat87cq]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 -     -     -     2♣!

 Pass  2♦!   Pass  3♣

 Pass  3♠    Pass  3NT

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

South gets 14 DP, +14 hcp + 5 control points for 33 Zar points

North gets 11DP, +16 hcp, +5 control points for 32 Zar points

 

Once the club fit is established, NS get some more fit points and honor points, climbing into the grand slam range. It takes a ♦ lead to defeat 7♣ (as it knocks out an entry to dummy needed for the squeeze on EAST), but practically speaking EAST will be fiercely pseudo-squeezed and may throw away ♥ quard anyway. But needing a finessee and spade split or squeeze to boot, this "grand slam" is not so great, the key thing is that neither team even sniffed out the slam. One playing 5♣ making 6 even after the ♥ opening lead, the other 3NT.

[Zar]

Ben,

 

The performance in the Game, Slam, and Grand areas in something nobody ever doubted or challenged - the Zar Points scores are times rather than percentages better in these areas. The only concern so far was the expected relatively poor performance in the Part Score and the NT areas.

 

So, I just ran the Part Score and 3NT boards from the Standard GIB boards and you can have a look at the base thread "Zar Points - useful or waste of energy".

 

Actually, the only area where the demonstrated performance is about 10% below the best performer are the 3NT GIB boards, while in the Part Score area Zar Points still perform better (very slightly though, as expected).

 

Have a look - it's all Standard GIB boards rather than generated boards for one purpose or another.

 

Cheers:

 

ZAR