Zar Point Adjustments

[mikestar]

I've been experimenting with adjustments to Zar points after a fit is found. This is what I'm currently using and it seems to work well. The method is used equally by opener and responder and does not give different values for the same hands with 4CM or 5CM.

 

 

Add 1 point if your hand is unbalanced (stiff or void in hand).

 

With five or more trumps, if you are balanced (no stiff or void) add 1 point per trump over 4; if unbalanced, 2 points for each trump over 4.

 

With three or fewer trumps, subtract 1 point per trump under 4 if balanced and 2 points per trump under 4 if unbalanced.

 

 

For shortage in partner's bid suit (assuming the bid implies length and strength), subtract 1 for a doubleton, 3 for a stiff, and 5 for a void.

 

 

Examples:

 

Opener has:

 

xxxxx xxxxx -- xxx

 

Initial Zar DP: 15

 

After 1S-2S: 18

 

After 1S-2C-2H-3S: 18

 

After 1S-2D-2H-3S : 13

 

 

Responder to 1S has:

 

xxx xxxx xxxxx x

 

Initial Zar DP: 13

After 1S: 12

 

xxxx xxx xxxxx x

Initial Zar DP: 13

Ater 1S: 14

 

xxxxx xxx xxxx x

Initial Zar DP: 13

After 1S: 16

 

xx x xxxxx xxxxx

Initial Zar DP: 14

After 1S-2D-3S: 11

 

x xx xxxxx xxxxx

Initial Zar DP: 14

After 1S-2D-3S: 9

 

xxx -- xxxxx xxxxx

Initial Zar DP: 15

After 1S-2D-3S: 14

 

-- xxx xxxxx xxxxx

Initial Zar DP: 15

After 1S-2D-3S: 8

 

 

I have also been experimenting with a very simple Zar DP count for NT: Zar NT DP= 5 + longest suit. 3N requires 52 points same as 4M.

[Walddk]

Excuse me, I am not saying that this is bad, because I have no way of knowing. It may even be very good. What I do know, however, is that this is too complicated for me, and I suspect that it is for most people.

 

Others may have a different view of course.

 

I still claim that it's much more important to teach people how to rebid after a 1-o-1 and 2-o-1 response and let them stick to the easy-to-remember 4321 scale; and subsequently evaluate the hand as the auction progresses. You don't need the Zar-count for that in my opinion.

 

The CS (Common Sense) convention applies here as well. Counting is fine, but there is no substitute for thinking!

 

Roland

[hotShot]

Do you know that Zar points already have some adjustment rules very similar to yours.

 

+3 for each trumps unpromissed if you have a void

+2 if you are single

+1 if you hav a double

 

The downgrade of honors in partners short suits is also documented.

Additionally he has:

 

upgrade honors (including 10) each +1 (max 2) in partners long suit and

+3 for each card in from the 4th on, in your partners long suit.

 

He says you should also downgrade honors in oponents suits if they are likely to be badly placed.

[luke warm]

imo the biggest advantage of zar points is the fact that you open more often... however, some say that's also the biggest disadvantage :)

 

i tried to use them for awhile, but i didn't see a big difference between them and bergen's rule of 20 (i said a *big* difference, not any difference)... for me, hcp plus length points works out fine, with reevaluation based on the bidding (add short suit points with a fit, for example)

[mikestar]

Do you know that Zar points already have some adjustment rules very similar to yours.

 

+3 for each trumps unpromissed if you have a void

+2 if you are single

+1 if you hav a double

 

The downgrade of honors in partners short suits is also documented.

Additionally he has:

 

upgrade honors (including 10) each +1 (max 2) in partners long suit and

+3 for each card in from the 4th on, in your partners long suit.

 

He says you should also downgrade honors in oponents suits if they are likely to be badly placed.

I am indeed aware--I'm trying to improve on the count. 3 per trump with a void is too much IMHO.

 

Also the promised trump basis creates anomalies:

 

If I open 1S with 5-4-3-1 shape and patner raises spades with 4-3-2-4 shape,

my initial 13 Zar DP stays at 13 if we are playing five card majors but revalues to 15 if we are playing 4 card majors. Partner's hand revalues to 11 if we are playing five card majors stays at 10 if we are playing 4 card majors. so with the same hands and playing in the same 8-card major fit, we have 25 Zar DPs combined if we play 4 card majors, but only 24 if we are playing 5 card majors. This can't be right, though a 1 poit anomaly isn't too bad.

 

Also, if I have 5-5-3-0 and partner has 5-3-3-2 both of of having long spades,

if I open 1S (five card majors) and partner raises, my 15 Zar DP remain 15, and partner's 11 Zar DP revalue to 14 for a total of 29. But if partner opens 1S and I raise, my 15 zars revalue to 24 while partner's remain at 11, for a combined total of 35--over a full trick discrepancy--again, this certainly can't be right and is beyond horrrible.