Zar points

[fred]

he's been playing bridge longer than I've been alive.

You know you are getting old when... :lol:

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[babalu1997]

My comment was a suggestion that you not even think about Zar Points.

 

Even though have not used Zar Points in any fashion, you have been thinking about them. It sounds like you are still thinking about them.

 

If the reason for your thinking about Zar Points is because you think they are interesting, that's your business. But if you are thinking about Zar Points because you think they might help you become a better bridge player, I (and several other knowledgable posters) are telling you that you this:

 

Studying Zar Points now will actually contribute to making you a worse bridge player than you otherwise might have been. Quite possibly significantly worse.

 

So unless this is a purely intellectual exercise for you, just get it out of your head and pay attention to all the important things the other posters have mentioned.

 

I hope you are not perplexed anymore.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

i hear fred.

 

And the others, like declarer play, study, study etc...

 

All these are lonely activities, including hand valuation.

 

The best thing one can do to better their bridge is think about partners cards.

 

support partner suit and he will be happy.

 

keep bidding your own hand and soon you will not have a partner.

 

i bumped into oen of these zar palyers the other day, they complete ygnore your passes, your nt bids, and in fact rob you of the contracts you have been waiting for for a very long time because they must play the hand.

 

by the second round, the td had mercy and removed me at my request.

[helene_t]

Sorry for hijacking but here in Lancaster lots of people have an obsession with LTC. Which is somewhat similar to ZAR points if you adjust, i.e. you subtract half an LTC for each non-sec ace and add half an LTC for each queen. (You can also subtract fractional LTCs for honors which are not accounted for, i.e. a quarter of an LTC for a working jack or Qc or stiff K). You should also subtract for extra trump length and ideally reduce the value of shortnesses if you only have an 8-card fit but now it because mind-boggling.

 

This is completely ridiculous. Once I saw a player who had enough experience and playing skills to exercise reasonable judgement make a limit raise in spades based on Qxx-xx-Qxxx-Qxxx because it is only 8 (unmodified) LTC. Then a told her about modified LTC. No that was too complicated. Sigh. If the uncomplicated version is worse than a gozzila's judgment and the complicated version is, well, too complicated, then maybe it was an idea to trash the method. And they even teach this nonsense to beginners. Sigh.

[ArtK78]

Sorry for hijacking but here in Lancaster lots of people have an obsession with LTC. Which is somewhat similar to ZAR points if you adjust, i.e. you subtract half an LTC for each non-sec ace and add half an LTC for each queen. (You can also subtract fractional LTCs for honors which are not accounted for, i.e. a quarter of an LTC for a working jack or Qc or stiff K). You should also subtract for extra trump length and ideally reduce the value of shortnesses if you only have an 8-card fit but now it because mind-boggling.

 

This is completely ridiculous. Once I saw a player who had enough experience and playing skills to exercise reasonable judgement make a limit raise in spades based on Qxx-xx-Qxxx-Qxxx because it is only 8 (unmodified) LTC. Then a told her about modified LTC. No that was too complicated. Sigh. If the uncomplicated version is worse than a gozzila's judgment and the complicated version is, well, too complicated, then maybe it was an idea to trash the method. And they even teach this nonsense to beginners. Sigh.

Sounds like the old adage "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" applies here.

 

I happen to like modified losing trick count (MLTC) as described by Rosenkranz in his Romex books. But one must understand that Qxx-xx-Qxxx-Qxxx is a lot different than Axx-xx-Axxx-Axxx, even if the losing trick count is the same.

 

:lol:

[peachy]

You being new to bridge, I would recommend other ways to improve your bridge where the impact is much greater than using Zar points for hand evaluation. YOU DO NOT NEED ZAR. Judgment comes from experience, analysing hands afterward, watching top level bridge, reading bridge books, paying full attention while playing or kibitzing.

 

We defend on average twice as many hands than we declare. That is where a wealth of improvement is available and even some very good players still find defending difficult. Counting the hands (partner's as well as declarer's, or both defenders' when declaring) as early in the hand as possible is a surefire way to get more tricks. That's what it is all about, tricks! You can practice declarer play alone, there are programs for that.

 

Good luck and have fun!

[jdonn]

If you are advanced enough to understand and apply zar points, then you are advanced enough to have good judgment and not need them. They would only come in handy for someone not experienced enough to benefit from them. In short I consider them a waste of time for practical use and believe their only interest is academic.