Point counting method

[han]

You are easily bemused!

[jillybean]

Regardless of whether it is good or bad, I am always bemused when people criticise an argument without even having read the book. It is hard to take such a post seriously.

 

 

You are easily bemused!

 

LOL

[the hog]

Well if I said player x is terrible. Why? Because player Y told me so. Is that reasonable even if I have never played with or against player X or watched him play or even studied his results? Statto's comments lack the same credibility.

[aguahombre]

I prefer counting on fingers & toes. If I run out of fingers & toes, I open 2♣.

You have more fingers and toes than I do. Even using the extra available digit only gets me to 20 1/2.

[Zelandakh]

You have more fingers and toes than I do. Even using the extra available digit only gets me to 20 1/2.

Take your right hand and for 1-5 open the fingers as normal. For 6-9 open the fingers with the middle knuckle bent. For 10 open a finger on the left hand. Reapeat the steps on the right hand for 11-19. At 50 you can repeat for the left hand with a bend in the knuckle. This gets you to 100 which is probably enough unless you are using a pretty special form of point count.

[chasetb]

Take your right hand and for 1-5 open the fingers as normal. For 6-9 open the fingers with the middle knuckle bent. For 10 open a finger on the left hand. Repeat the steps on the right hand for 11-19. At 50 you can repeat for the left hand with a bend in the knuckle. This gets you to 100 which is probably enough unless you are using a pretty special form of point count.

When I was on Spring Break 3 years ago, I went to the library, read many books, and even checked out several books (this was when I just started learning how to play bridge). A book I read was an entire overview of Mathematics, and they had a simple way to count to 99. Your right thumb was worth 5, any other finger on your right hand was worth 1. Your left thumb was worth 50, and any other finger on your right was worth 10. This was supposed to be useful for younger kids, especially for purposes of adding or subtracting.

[han]

Well if I said player x is terrible. Why? Because player Y told me so. Is that reasonable even if I have never played with or against player X or watched him play or even studied his results? Statto's comments lack the same credibility.

 

But this is not at all the same. This is more like saying, player Y is terrible, here, take a look at his records, he always finished last. Of course you might say, if someone always finished last, it could be that he always plays with very bad partners and is also extremely unlucky. Still, if he asked me to form a regular partnership, I'd think twice before doing so.

 

We know what the Banzai method is. Point counting methods have been investigated very thoroughly and every serious statistical investigation has pointed out that the Banzai method is poor, poorer than the standard 1-2-3-4 count. Then why read a book recommending this method?

 

Please don't take critique on the Banzai method personally.

[Zelandakh]

When I was on Spring Break 3 years ago, I went to the library, read many books, and even checked out several books (this was when I just started learning how to play bridge). A book I read was an entire overview of Mathematics, and they had a simple way to count to 99. Your right thumb was worth 5, any other finger on your right hand was worth 1. Your left thumb was worth 50, and any other finger on your right was worth 10. This was supposed to be useful for younger kids, especially for purposes of adding or subtracting.

The method I gave was one I used as a kid in the days before calculators were allowed in the classroom. I did not read any books to come up with it. There are better methods though, I agree, although I would say that my idea is better than the tally method for adding/subtracting because you can move individual fingers rather than having to convert the thumb mid-calculation. For computer freaks and mathematicians, using the fingers for binary is cool (right thumb = 1; right fingers = 2/4/8/16; left fingers = 32/64/128/256; left thumb = 512). That allows you to add up to 1023. I doubt such a method is practical for most though. If you were really anal and combined that with my 3 state per finger idea you could use the fingers and thumbs as base 3 - that would get you close to 60000!

[helene_t]

The Banzai count is flawed [.....] For example, KQJ10-xxx-KQJ10-xx opposite xx-KQJ10-xxx-KQJ10 equates to making 12 tricks in NT in the analysis it is based on, when clearly it isn't.

Agree. The idea that QJT9 and AK32 both equal two tricks is fairly hopeless as a basis of hand evaluation. Tempo matters.

[the hog]

But this is not at all the same. This is more like saying, player Y is terrible, here, take a look at his records, he always finished last. Of course you might say, if someone always finished last, it could be that he always plays with very bad partners and is also extremely unlucky. Still, if he asked me to form a regular partnership, I'd think twice before doing so.

 

We know what the Banzai method is. Point counting methods have been investigated very thoroughly and every serious statistical investigation has pointed out that the Banzai method is poor, poorer than the standard 1-2-3-4 count. Then why read a book recommending this method?

 

Please don't take critique on the Banzai method personally.

 

I am not taking it personally, Han. Why should I? It has nothing to do with me. I doubt whether Statto has investigated it very thoroughly; perhaps he has, so I am wrong, but I doubt it.. However this sort of comment often appears. Perhaps a better analogy would have been someone attacking Dawkin's views without ever having read any of his bbooks. (And this does happen frequently).

[Zelandakh]

I am not taking it personally, Han. Why should I? It has nothing to do with me. I doubt whether Statto has investigated it very thoroughly; perhaps he has, so I am wrong, but I doubt it.. However this sort of comment often appears. Perhaps a better analogy would have been someone attacking Dawkin's views without ever having read any of his bbooks. (And this does happen frequently).

What was wrong with han's analogy which seems to be much more persuasive. if we take Dawkins' views as our anaology instead, the equivalent would be that scientific evidence proved to a high level of statistical significancy that, for example, creationism was true and that this result was confirmed by mulriple scientific studies and generally accepted by the scientific community. In this case one might be willing to dismiss Dawkins' views without having read his books, at least until such time as further evidence came along to suggest that this position was incorrect.

 

Since there is no such scientific consensus, the comparison between rejecting Banzai points and standing against modern evolutionary theory is at the very least highly misleading, and probably closer to trolling than anything that should be taken seriously.

[cherdano]

There is a guy emailing me (and countless other mathematicians) short proofs of two very famous open problem every couple of months. He proofs both of them in about 2.5 pages. I confess I dismiss them without reading them. However, I am doing so on much flimsier grounds than dismissing Banzai count.

 

I am actually a fan of using statistical methods to disprove conventional wisdom. The evidence that NFL coaches are way too conservative in their play-calling (especially on the decision whether to punt on 4th down) is extremely strong. It seems to have taken longer than necessary in the NBA until teams systematically started trying to play for more three-point shots. I loved everything Tysen wrote (one thing I will always remember is that he convinced me that conventional preempting wisdom doesn't sufficiently take shortness in the majors into account). But there is also a lot of rubbish justified by rubbish statistics - whether it's measuring individual defense in the NBA via statistics or analyzing pass-versus-run calls in the NBA (as these don't seem to be able to distinguish between original playcalls and reactions to defense positioning).

 

It's pretty easy to tell which side Banzai points belong to, either by looking at their justification or by looking at the end result.

[han]

Tempo matters.

 

Very good summary of the main issue.

[blackshoe]

But this is not at all the same. This is more like saying, player Y is terrible, here, take a look at his records, he always finished last. Of course you might say, if someone always finished last, it could be that he always plays with very bad partners and is also extremely unlucky. Still, if he asked me to form a regular partnership, I'd think twice before doing so.

 

We know what the Banzai method is. Point counting methods have been investigated very thoroughly and every serious statistical investigation has pointed out that the Banzai method is poor, poorer than the standard 1-2-3-4 count. Then why read a book recommending this method?

 

Please don't take critique on the Banzai method personally.

Show me where all these "serious statistical investigations" are. Yes, I've read Thomas Andrews' and Tysen Streib's articles on r.g.b., but you imply there is much more out there. Where is it? Where, for that matter, are the articles (other than those I've just mentioned) proving that the method presented in this book (not the original paper on which it's based) — published all of two years ago, btw — is so terrible?

 

Somebody upthread wondered why a man with Ron Klinger's reputation would co-write a book on such a flawed method. One might also ask why Eric Kokish would write an introduction praising it. Has anyone asked them why they did these things?

 

If Banzai points are that bad, fine, I'll burn the damn book and mail the ashes to Klinger. But I'm not going to do that based on some vague "I don't have to read the book to know it's wrong". Show me the evidence. And if you tell me "screw you, go find it yourself," well, so be it, but don't be surprised if I take your unsupported opinion with a pound or three of salt.

[han]

I wouldn't burn books or confronting authors with the notion that their books are bad. What I would recommend is something far less dramatic: remember that aces are worth a little more than 4, not less.

 

(Note that the 5-4-3-2-1 count is equivalent to 3 1/3 for aces, 2 2/3 for kings, 2 for queens, 1 1/3 for jacks and 2/3 for tens.)

[bluecalm]

remember that aces are worth a little more than 4, not less.

 

And that 2 tens are worth a bit less than a jack and 3 tens are worth a bit more than a jack, at least when it comes to NT. I remember 0.4pc mentioned somewhere for tens and some positive adjustment for having 2+ aces. I remember simulating a lot of hands and that seemed correct. Also my very limited experience tells me this is about right.

[blackshoe]

That Aces and Kings are worth less, and Queens, Jacks and Tens more, than Work suggests is one of the surprising things, say the authors, about the Banzai count. But they accept it, and move on. I dunno, maybe they're wrong. It surprised me too.

 

Someone upthread commented about the "four lone aces" example being, willy-nilly, a strong NT, and any count that calls it weak is (my words, not the someone's) crazy. But is it? Four aces is four tricks, and I would think a strong NT ought to give you, on average, six or so. Am I wrong?

[mgoetze]

Four aces is four tricks, and I would think a strong NT ought to give you, on average, six or so. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.

 

How many tricks is KQxx KQx KQx KQx? Also four?

[aguahombre]

This thread is frightening me. I find myself in total agreement with Mike.

[blackshoe]

Yes, you are.

 

How many tricks is KQxx KQx KQx KQx? Also four?

Somewhere between four and eight, inclusive.

 

How many tricks is a strong NT worth?

[helene_t]

Somewhere between four and eight, inclusive.

 

How many tricks is a strong NT worth?

But the whole problem with Banzai is that the number of tricks taken in your hand in the particular suite is not everything.

 

Sure, if you pick up an average 15-17 hand you expect that your hand will take more than four tricks so in that sense A32-A32-A32-A432 is disapointing.

 

On the other hand, your aces increas the likelihood that partner will take tricks. A king of his which would be half a trick without your supporting ace (a little less since he might be forced to lead away from it), now becomes a sure trick. JT974 which would likely give hime zero tricks without your supporting ace now has a good chance of giving three tricks if he has two entries.

 

Then there is the issue of tempo. Axx can be held up twice which may be enough to break opps' communication but you can also chose to take the trick immediately if you fear a switch. With QJT you don't have that flexibility.

 

AKxx is only two tricks but opposite xxxx you likely have a length trick also. QJT9 has only two tricks opposite xxxx.

 

This all becomes very complicated but fortunately there is a very simple solution. Just take a large number of deals with corresponding numbers of tricks taken (DD, Jack, Bermuda Bowl, Bridgebrowser, whatever) and then fit some regression model. This is easy to do and it gives you relevant results.

[gwnn]

Yes, Helene, but if you haven't read the book then you are not allowed to use reason, mathematics, logistic regression, anything. In fact if you haven't read the book you are not even allowed to post anything. Playing bridge is allowed but you will almost surely fail.

[mgoetze]

Somewhere between four and eight, inclusive.

How do you take 8 tricks with this hand?

 

Let's try a different tack.

 

Your hand: Axxx Axx Ax Axxx

 

Partner's hand: x xx KQJxxxxx xx

 

How many tricks is your hand "worth"?

[blackshoe]

But the whole problem with Banzai is that the number of tricks taken in your hand in the particular suite is not everything.

See below.

 

Yes, Helene, but if you haven't read the book then you are not allowed to use reason, mathematics, logistic regression, anything. In fact if you haven't read the book you are not even allowed to post anything. Playing bridge is allowed but you will almost surely fail.

Your sarcasm is dripping all over the floor. Better clean it up.

 

How do you take 8 tricks with this hand?

 

Let's try a different tack.

 

Your hand: Axxx Axx Ax Axxx

 

Partner's hand: x xx KQJxxxxx xx

 

How many tricks is your hand "worth"?

My hand is worth four tricks. Partner's hand is worth six or seven tricks, if he can ever get back in after knocking out the A and maybe the ten. It might be worth no tricks. Our hands together are worth 11 tricks. If your point is that it's the tricks the two hands together can take that's important, I agree. But I don't see how Work does a better job at that than Banzai does. Seems to me they both have the same flaws in this respect.

 

If somebody suggested that 5-4-3-2-1 is a better scheme than 4-3-2-1-0 or 4-3-2-1-1/2, and didn't tell you that those numbers are based on an analysis that doesn't take into account whole hands, would you all still be so negative about it? For that matter, did the analysis on which Work is based (was there such an analysis?) take into account whole hands?

[Statto]

Statto's comments lack the same credibility.

Fair point. However, like Han, I have done some analysis.

 

Correlation between combined 'point count' and number of tricks makeable DD declaring in NT, over 100,000 deals, for various evaluation methods, when both of the pair are balanced (4333/4432/5332, 24% of deals) is as follows:

 

Milton adding ½ for tens (from 42 point deck) - 0.914

Milton - 0.912

Banzai - 0.900

KnR - 0.899

 

Analysis of the pure value of high cards for NT over the same balanced combinations from the random deals gives (for a 40 point deck):

A = 4.005

K = 2.821

Q = 1.688

J = 0.890

10 = 0.361

9 = 0.173

8 = 0.061

 

If we include all deals (including the vastly unbalanced) in the analysis of card value for NT, we get:

A = 4.276

K = 2.761

Q = 1.574

J = 0.837

10 = 0.365

9 = 0.158

8 = 0.030

 

For better analysis, we need a single dummy solver, but I'm not aware of one. I'm sure that in DD analysis Queens tend to be undervalued, due to the 2-way finesses always being right, etc.