Zar points for opening bids

[inquiry]

Zar method is one of evaluation. Just as you can "add and subtract" points to numerous hands using goren count (take a look at the 1NT hand justin showed that others "devaulated", you can add and subtract ZAR points as well..... Evaluation where you "add up points" is just the first step.

 

In several thread on this forum, ZAR himself has mentioned negative evaluations. Shortness in partner's suit, honors in short suits, poorly placed honors in opponents suit (of course for opening bid, only honors in short suit counts, as you don't know which suit your partner or opponent holds). Roughly subtract one ZAR point for doubleton Q or J, discount singleton Q or J altoghether, and subtract one point from singleton K or A. Also, when deciding what to open (or as justin correctly points out, if to open) the availability of a suitable rebid should be formost in your mind. On marginal hands with no suitable rebid, the choice not to open is often the best.

 

With these guidelines in place, let's examine what I believe ZAR would say on the hands Justin showed.... (Zar reads this forum, so eventually, I suspect he will speak for himself).

 

The zar craze has caused me to look a little into the opening bid evaluation method. The method basically overlooks the most crucial aspect of initial hand evaluation: honor location. Also, it pays no attention to spots, or rebid problems. It pays too much importance to controls and short suits which only become really important ONCE A FIT IS ESTABLISHED. Initially, these are not as big as zar points makes them into. Lets look at a few hands:

 

A

KJxx

Jxx

Jxxxx

 

Initial count 26, subtract one for the singleton ACE = 25. ZAR says not open. Chance the club JACK to CLUB Queen, Zar would say to open, but if you are worried about a rebid over 1♠ response, pass is still not out of the question.

 

KQT98

AJT9

xxx

x

 

This is a ZAR 26 count. No subtractions. In fact, chance the heart JACK to the heart two and ZAR would still open this hand.

 

-

x

Kxxxxxx

Kxxxx

 

Sadly, it is not legal to open this hand. If it was, I am fairly sure zar would open it. I would pass this one myself, however.

 

QJT

KT9

QJT

KQJx

 

This hand shows a poor understanding of ZAR's bidding philosophy. He would 1) open this hand despite not having 26 zar point. 2) He would probably open this a weak notrump, as that is what he plays...as for the next one....

 

QTx

QJ9x

AT8x

Kx

 

He would definetly open this one a weak notrump. The 1NT opening bid is reserved for those balanced hands that are have too many hcp but not enough zar points to open (the way he plays).

 

I use a 14-16 1NT, so the first of the two balanced hands above, I would open 1NT, the second, I could not. However, one should not be a robot with ones evaluation. Sure this is only a 25 zar count but look at the quaility of the intermediates. And you have an easy 1NT/2♥ rebid if partner bids a major, and pass if he bids 1NT. So, as with any evaluation system, you would adjust this one upward and open 1♦

 

I assume that justin, while attacking ZAR evaluation, isn't pushing Goren. This is easy to say since I assume he openned the hand with five good spades adn four good hearts but only 10 hcp. And whatever "evaluation" system he is using, he is making adjustment for "honor location", suit quality, ease of rebid. The same adjustments, rather to goren, Tysen, dabble, whatever points are important parts of bidding.. Anyone who just counts points and use that as an excuse or reason for bidding without making the small pluses and minuses that are required as part of good bidding judgement, will find them whining to their partners all too often..."but partner, I had XX number of points, I had to bid"

 

I think what justin pointed out, is what ZAR preaches... don't leave Common sense at the door when you choose whatever evaluation system you pick. Zar is as good as any other as a starting point, and better in fact than many, just be sure apply some small amount of reason before you make the first bid, and adjust the hand up and down throughout the auction, as you would with ean evaluation system.

[tysen2k]

The best way to do hand evaluation is to see how they do opposite all possible hands partner could have. You can estimate this by simulating the number of tricks over thousands of hands. Doing this gives you the average value of the hand. You'll upgrade it in some cases when the bidding indicates a good fit and downgrade it in the case of a misfit. But when you start, using the average of everything puts you in the best starting point. Let's look at two of the hands that have been discussed.

 

xx

Axxx

Kxxx

Axx

 

This hand takes an average of 8.47 tricks in our best suit contract and 6.56 tricks in a NT contract.

 

 

xx

KJxx

QJxx

KJx

 

This hand takes 8.17 tricks in suit and 6.37 tricks in NT.

 

 

The first hand is better for both suits and NT. How much better? You can take a look at all 4432 shape hands and see how tricks compare to HCP.

 

HCP   Suit   NT
10    7.94   5.92
11    8.20   6.28
12    8.46   6.63
13    8.71   6.98

So the first hand has the strength of an average 12 HCP hand for suits and 11.8 HCP for NT.

The second hand is about 10.9 HCP for suits and 11.3 HCP for NT.

 

The first hand is 1.1 points better than the second for suits and 0.5 points better for NT. Note that they are both better than the average 11 HCP hand since there are no honors in the short suits.

 

I've received some PM's asking where my evaluation method is described and it's here. This evaluation scheme was created using the methodology of finding an accurate evaluator over the average of all partner's hands with the hope of adjusting from there during the bidding.

 

Tysen

[Guest Jlall]

So the use of zar points for opening bids is what? It doesn't tell you whether or not to open, it gives you a number, and then you decide if the number is correct or not? the 15 count that in strict "ZAR count" is only 25 and thus is a pass was just an exaggeration as to how far offbase this zar count is. The hand is fine for a strong NT, as shown before in previous posts, and yet is not an "official" opener. What use is the method if you say "well zar says this is not an opening bid, but thats obviously wrong so i will open a strong NT." As for the 7-5 6 count, you can always open light as long as its not systemic or a habit. It may qualify as a psyche, but im sure one wouldnt pickup that hand except for once in a blue moon so they could "psyche." Just be careful not to pick it up again with the same partner and "psyche" again. The fact that zar thinks this SHOULD qualify as an opening hand shows a GROSS upgrade in a hand that may have no fit at all. Ben seems to miss the actual points of the thread, so i will change the two examples he has problems with.

 

A

Jxxxx

KJx

Qxxx

 

no rebid problems now, and after the adjustment for stiff ace, is still an opener. Again the suits are textureless and the weak suits arent downgraded for. This is a terrible hand and you will often get overboard if you open a piece of cheese like this. The evaluation that this is an opening hand is so far off base that its ridiculous.

 

as for the spot rich 10 count 5-4-3-1, ben correctly assesses that i would open this hand. I would not, however, open with

 

Kxxxx

Qxxx

Axx

x

 

(25 zars are opened with long spades). This is begging to get to 3N opposite a misfit 13 count. If you pass and later find a fit you can upgrade THEN, why are you upgrading before one is found?

 

Ben also failed to comment on the 2 other hands i gave

 

--

Axxx

Axxx

xxxxx

 

and

 

AK

Kxx

Jxx

xxxxx

 

The second hand is simply a junk 11 with poor honor location and no spots. Which brings us back to the point of this thread, ZAR does not take into account honor location or spot cards, 2 critical things involved in hand evaluation. It overweights controls and shapes like 5-4-3-1 and 5-4-4-0 that havent found a fit yet, and until they do are useless. Ben notes that common sense should be applied. Common sense tells me that opening with

 

---

Axxx

Axxx

xxxxx

 

is no sense at all, and that a method of evaluation that leaves out 2 of the most important things in bridge and grossly overweights a third is a bad way to base my hand evaluations on.

[lowerline]

A

KJxx

Jxx

Jxxxx

 

26 zar points, an opening bid (!!). Are you serious? weak suit, rebid problem, stranded jacks, no spots. Nobody in their right minds would open this

 

Petkov does say you should deduct points for honors in short suits 'in the standard way'. Not specifying how exactly is a weakness of the method. The above hand should be evaluated as 24zp.

 

KQT98

AJT9

xxx

x

 

Also 26 zar points. Quite different hands???

 

Absolutely, this is an opening.

 

-

x

Kxxxxxx

Kxxxx

 

27 zar points, a clear opening bid. Are you kidding? Your hand isnt worth much UNTIL YOU HIT A FIT. One cannot seriously open this hand.

 

You are right here.

 

QJT

KT9

QJT

KQJx

 

25 zar points. Not an opening bid. A spot rich, albeit aceless hand. I wouldnt be ashamed to open this ONE NOTRUMP, let alone pass?

 

Petkov does say not to use his method on balanced hands. Just counting HCPs will do here. You can open 1NT on this, though I think there are other hand evaluation methods that will tell you that this hand is not worth a 15-17 1NT opening.

 

--

Axxx

Axxx

xxxxx

 

26 zar points. opening bid. Let alone the rebid problems, the weak suit, and the lack of texture.

 

Not taking in account the rebid, is indeed a weakness with these hands...

 

OK perhaps im giving some hands that dont come up much. How about a few balanced 10-12 counts.

 

QTx

QJ9x

AT8x

Kx

 

25 Zar points. Not an opener. A 12 count with working honors and good supporting spot cards, and 2 four card suits. hard to see how this could not be opened.

 

Again, don't use it on balanced hands. Personally, I think the above hand is a borderline case. Though it is not my style, I can imagine people passing it.

 

AK

Kxx

Jxx

xxxxx

 

26 zars, an opener.  forget the terrible suit, and the short suit honors and stranded jack.

 

Again, discount for the honors in the short suits. This should evaluate to 23zp.

 

Count me out of zar points please, thanks.

 

As with all methods, you should try to use it the right way and apply the correction factors that the author recommends.

On the other hand, I have to admit that after trying the zar points evaluation for a few months, I have decided to stop using it because I went overboard too often...

 

Steven

[whereagles]

What ZAR does is basically to lower the requirements for opening on distributional hands. While opening might be correct from a statistical point of view, it is probably incorrect from a startegical point of view.

 

Why? Because passing doesn't mean the deal will be a pass-out. Chances are you'll get another shot at bidding, this time without the risk of partner taking you too seriously. Your 2nd round bid might even be more precise and safer than what you could achieve opening first place.

[Gerben47]

So we have a rule that does not apply on 40% of all hands (balanced ones).

My rules for opening:

 

* Rule of 20 or good rule of 19.

* At least 10 HCP unless the distribution is very extreme

 

AK

Kxx

Jxx

xxxxx

 

Pass: Rule of 19 and bad honors.

 

QTx

QJ9x

AT8x

Kx

 

Rule of 20. A clear opening bid, not borderline at all.

 

--

AQxx

Axxx

xxxxx

 

(added a queen for clearness)

 

Rule of 19 but no rebid. Pass. Switch the suits so that there is a rebid and I consider it an minimum opener.

 

-

x

Axxxxxx

Axxxx

 

Now this is the kind of hand that can be opened with less than 10 HCP. 2 defensive tricks and a void for partner and few losers. If partner doubles them in a major he won't be a disappointment. Change one ace to the king and forget about opening. Compare this with:

 

-

x

KJxxxxx

KJxxx

 

Weak with both minors or a diamond preempt is okay. 1D is not.

 

KQT98

AJT9

xxx

x

 

Only rule of 19 but good spots, majors and all honors working together. 1S.

 

Who needs Zar points?

[EricK]

What you are implying when you say you use the rule of 20, is that all "rule of x" hands are (approsimately) the same strength as each other (because ultimatelely it is the strength of a hand that determines whether it is an opening bid or not).

 

But are they?

 

Axxxx

Axxxx

Qx

x

 

is very different to

 

Qxxxx

xxxxx

Ax

A

 

and to

 

Qxxx

KJxx

Qxx

Ax

 

and so on.

 

Eric

[EricK]

What ZAR does is basically to lower the requirements for opening on distributional hands. While opening might be correct from a statistical point of view, it is probably incorrect from a startegical point of view.

 

Why? Because passing doesn't mean the deal will be a pass-out. Chances are you'll get another shot at bidding, this time without the risk of partner taking you too seriously. Your 2nd round bid might even be more precise and safer than what you could achieve opening first place.

The strategic basis for opening light is

 

a) It pays to get the first shot in so that the opponents are not able to use their finely honed constructive auctions

:) It is safer to bid early before the opponents know whose hand it is

c) It makes your opening Pass more descriptive, so that partner can judge better what to do on his turn

d) It puts less pressure on partner to keep the bidding open in third or fourth seat in case you have a (relatively) strong distributional hand

e) It can save you having to make the last guess on competitive part score hands

 

Suppose you have a weak hand with 5♠. If you open 1♠, the bidding might go

1♠ (P) 2♠ all pass. If you pass it might go P (1♥) P (2♥) and now you have to guess what to do.

 

I find it interesting that those who argue against opening light always use the risk of partner taking you too seriously as a counter-argument. If you have partnership agreements in place this won't happen, and if you don't have partnership agreements in place then no bidding style is going to be successful!

 

Eric

[Gerben47]

Honor location is not measured by either method. Zar says 'discount honors in short suits in the usual way'. If you read my comments to the examples you see that I take this into account.

 

I think in Zar's method you get to open hands that are not worth an opening bid because they are distributional but with little defensive strength. This makes it more difficuilt for partner to know what is enough to force to game. And "forcing to game unless you have that misfitting distributional minimum" is much tougher.

 

If you really want a number that tells you open if it is more than a certain value you would need something like the K-R evaluation.

[EricK]

Honor location is not measured by either method. Zar says 'discount honors in short suits in the usual way'. If you read my comments to the examples you see that I take this into account.

 

I think in Zar's method you get to open hands that are not worth an opening bid because they are distributional but with little defensive strength. This makes it more difficuilt for partner to know what is enough to force to game. And "forcing to game unless you have that misfitting distributional minimum" is much tougher.

 

If you really want a number that tells you open if it is more than a certain value you would need something like the K-R evaluation.

What I got from reading your comments was that for rule of 19 point hands you take honour location into account but for rule of 20 you just open them.

 

I am prepared to accept that you don't just open all rule of 20 hands blindly, but it isn't what you wrote!

 

I am not writing as an advocate of Zar's methods, but I do notice that a lot of times the arguments people use against his methods would be equally applicable to the alternative methods which are proposed.

 

Misfitting hands are a problem in any method. Given any hand there is a chance that partner's hand just doesn't fit either in relation to suit length's or honour location or both. Not opening light will avoid some of these, but it will miss those hands where, by chance, partner's hand does fit (but he doesn't have an "opening" bid either). Unless you analyse many thousands of hands it will be impossible to determine whether the gains outweigh the losses or vice versa.

 

Eric

[whereagles]

I find it interesting that those who argue against opening light always use the risk of partner taking you too seriously as a counter-argument. If you have partnership agreements in place this won't happen

Hum.. due to systemic reasons, sometimes it's just impossible for pard NOT to take you seriously ;) Example:

 

AQxxx.....xx

xx...........AQxx

x.............AKxxx

Kxxxx.....xx

 

You decide the hand is worth a shot at a light opener. Now pard has a clear 2/1 game-force and there's no sensible way to stop below a doomed 3NT :) Whereas if you pass, you'll probably end up in a more playable 2S.

 

The point is that some hands do not need to be bid right away (mostly these are two-suiters in the 8-10 hcp range). Despite being weak, these hands can have the playing strenght required to later butt-in at the 2- or 3-level. This is especially true if one of the suits is spades. If the hand doesn't contain spades, there's a better case for opening light.

 

Another problem of opening two-suiters light is that you might not have a chance to bid your second suit due to lack of strenght, as in, say,

 

x

KQxxx

xx

Axxxx

 

you LHO pard RHO

1H...1S....2D...3S

??

 

Do you fancy a 4C bid now? If you do, how seriously should pard take that bid? Will he take it for a side suit, asking for help against a possible 4S bid by opps? Will he think you have extras? Will he think you're just showing shape? On the other hand, if you pass you just failed to show the reason why you opened the first place. If you had passed, it might go

 

you LHO pard RHO

pass..1S...2D...3S

dbl (take-out)

 

and you now get your second chance at bidding.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for light openers. Just that they are two-edged weapons. They can turn out to your advantage.. or disadvantage. They are, however, less harmful in the context of limited openers, like precision, moscito, etc.

[tysen2k]

Hum.. due to systemic reasons, sometimes it's just impossible for pard NOT to take you seriously ;) Example:

 

AQxxx.....xx

xx...........AQxx

x.............AKxxx

Kxxxx.....xx

 

You decide the hand is worth a shot at a light opener. Now pard has a clear 2/1 game-force and there's no sensible way to stop below a doomed 3NT :) Whereas if you pass, you'll probably end up in  a more playable 2S.

There's the flip side to this too. Let's switch around the left hand:

 

xx...........xx

Kxxxx......AQxx

x.............AKxxx

AQxxx.....xx

 

How are you going to get to game if the bidding goes:

 

P (1♠) ? (3♠)

 

You can get overboard if you bid distributional hands, but can miss out if you pass. You have to weigh the benefits with the frequency. I'm a firm believer in bidding with distribution.

 

The point is that some hands do not need to be bid right away (mostly these are two-suiters in the 8-10 hcp range).

 

I disagree. I think 2-suiters require the most description of any hand type and so need to bid right away while the bidding is low. If you have a 5/5 hand then maybe you have a special bid to get back in after the bidding starts. But what about those 5/4 hands that are much more common?

 

Tysen

[whereagles]

Let's switch around the left hand:

 

xx...........xx

Kxxxx......AQxx

x.............AKxxx

AQxxx.....xx

 

How are you going to get to game if the bidding goes:

 

p (1♠) p (3♠)

??

You can bid 3NT here. The risk is virtually zero, since opps appear to have have a 9-card fit. Mind you, if I swap spades <--> hearts on both hands, then I could bid my two-suiter at an even lower level:

 

p (1♥) p (3♥)

3♠ <-- obviously a two-suiter, given the early pass

 

which is why I say it's probably better to stretch with hearts than with spades.

 

As for two-suiters being hard to bid, that's very true. But, interestingly enough, sometimes passing first and bidding later is the best way to bid them. Example: you hold

 

x

xx

AQxxx

KJxxx

 

if you open 1D, it might go

 

1♦ 1♠

2♣ 2♠

3♣

 

whereas if you pass it may well go instead

 

pass (pass) pass (1♠)

1NT

 

and you'd have shown your two-suiter at a lower level ;)

[Guest Jlall]

xx...........xx

Kxxxx......AQxx

x.............AKxxx

AQxxx.....xx

 

How are you going to get to game if the bidding goes:

 

P (1♠) ? (3♠)

1S X 3S 4H...yes i would X 1S even not playing ELC.

[tysen2k]

You can bid 3NT here. The risk is virtually zero, since opps appear to have have a 9-card fit.

I think you might be influenced by seeing both hands.

 

xx

Kxxxx

x

AQxxx

 

P (1♠) P (3♠)

?

 

Are you really going to force the 4-level?

[whereagles]

As I said, with hearts maybe not. With spades, and being able to play them at the 3-level, definitely.

[inquiry]

Sorry, I am traveling, and have not been able to be on line, much.

 

As for the two hands justin commented on that I didn't address. I didn't really feel the need to address each and every hand, as, I was simply trying to point out that adding up ZAR points is just the start point to figuring out what you would (should?) bid or not bid. The same is true of Goren points, for instance. Locatiion of honors, spot cards, etc are an important part of any "hand evaluation." This is well known, and many readers here are familiar with Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluation methods that adjust the familiar 4321 count on these grounds. Zar himself point this out over and over. Thus, I felt that most of the comments concerning ZAR points were over simplified in the sense that what justin was talking about as being missing devaluating honors, opening balanced hands with lots of hcp but not enough zar points) are all covered in Zar's excellent series of articles in bridge maginzines, on the web and yes, in this very forum. Zar is on of our occassional posters.

 

But since I was called out on the two hands I didnt' address, here goes....

 

void

Axxx

Axxx

xxxxx

 

I would pass. No big deal. But change it by reversing the black suits, that is give me five spades and a club void, I would open more often than not.

 

The second hand,

 

AK

Kxx

Jxx

xxxxx

 

I would open only in thrid seat, and perhpas not even then. Sure it is "26 points", but the ZAR point count is the first step only, and as lowerline excellently pointed out as it relates to this hand, and to the issues raised in the original post to begin with.

 

So I thought rather than work in the abstract, I would show some hand I opened iwth 10 hcp or less, this is only a very few of the many examples.

[hv=d=n&v=a&s=sajt864hj942dcj62,]133|100|Scoring: IMP

I opened 1♠[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=a&s=sajt864hj942dcj62,]133|100|Scoring: IMP

I opened 1♠[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=a&s=sajt864hj942dcj62,]133|100|Scoring: IMP

I opened 1♠[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=a&s=sajt864hj942dcj62,]133|100|Scoring: IMP

I opened 1♠[/hv]

 

I suspect many will disagree with some of these opening bids, and perhpas a few with all four of them For the record, I will note none of these were third seat, and none were psyche's, light yes, psyche no. Just over 15% of my opening bids at the one level occur with 10 hcp or less (most frequently of these 10, but plenty of nine's and a few eight's). I do not as a rule open with 7hcp, as that is "illegal" in ACBL land. If you compare thie with ppilot, but use only his 1D-1H and 1S bids (he usually plays a strong club), he is at 17.5% of his opening bids are 10 hcp or less. This math for both ppilot and my opening bids, however include psyches and third seat "light openings".

 

It is easy enough to preform such statsticis on any player who plays regularly on on-line bridge sites. Most all of the top players (gold stars in the case of BBO) have reasonably high percentages of light opening bids. Perhaps not as high as ppilot, but high enough. Such statistics are not always useful, because some people play forcing pass system, at least with some partners, and others psyche at an incredible frequent rate, say once every 20 hands or so. There is also the tatical thrid seat openings, often on "dirt".

[EricK]

I have just seen one of the young Hacketts (playing for England against Poland) open 1♥ as dealer game all with

 

♠A542 ♥KJ43 ♦JT874

 

Eric

[inquiry]

I have just seen one of the young Hacketts (playing for England against Poland) open 1♥ as dealer game all with

 

♠A542 ♥KJ43 ♦JT874

 

Eric

I would not be surprised if half the field opens this hand... would be interesting test to see how "pro's" play. This is a Zar 26 count....but only 9 hcp. As you can imagine, I would have opened this hand....

 

Ben

[inquiry]

I found three tables where I could access the bidding for this hand. This was hand 13 of the 15th segment.

 

In France versus Indonesia both Rombaut (France) and Tobing passed with this hand

 

In Italy versus Argentina, Bocchi (maybe the worlds best player) passed while Madala (Arg) opened 1♦.

 

In England versus Hackett opened for england, Tuszynski passed for Poland.

 

Italy won 8 imps, defending 3NT when they passed and playing 3♣ when Madala opened.

 

Ben

[whereagles]

Keep in mind the choices those players made were not made on an abstract note. It was in the context of a live match vs live opponents, possibly at a non-neutral state of the match :)

[EricK]

Keep in mind the choices those players made were not made on an abstract note. It was in the context of a live match vs live opponents, possibly at a non-neutral state of the match :)

The state of the match was that England were a fair way in the lead.

 

The result of the bid was that the Polish declarer played opener for the ♣Q (once opener's partner had turned up with the ♥A and so went down in his contract.

 

Based on the commentary from England Coach David Burn, this was a normal Hackett opening.

 

I can't comment on the other games.

 

Eric