Banzai Points

[Dumoti]

So I stumbled across an article on Banzai Points. For those who are not aware, Banzai Points were developed in Australia by Richard Cowen. Basically, they are used for evaluating a hand for no trump purposes when the hands are 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 or some combination thereof.

 

Basically, the analysis revealed that an ace is worth about 5, a king about 3.97, a queen about 3.06, a jack about 1.93, and a ten about 0.95. So, as approximations, the Banzai Point Count recommends 5-4-3-2-1. I like it because it's both useful and simple... or so I thought.

 

As an initial trial, I thought that I would employ Banzai Points when I was responder, my partner had opened 1NT and my hand had the right shape. However, I still found it all confusing. My partner will naturally open a 15-17 NT. But how many Banzai Points is that? How many Banzai points would I need to invite or to bid game? If a standard point count has 40 points in a deck and a Banzai Count has 60, do I just multiply everything by 1.5? So you need 39 for game? Or how does that work exactly?

 

What are your thoughts?

[bravejason]

Initially, you can do a straight scaling to convert between the point count systems, but it will be off and you’ll have to experiment and practice with it to figure out the proper conversion factors, bearing in mind that each honor may have its own scaling factor.

 

Another approach is to deal hands and count the points both ways. If you do that enough, and perhaps run some analysis on it, you’ll figure out how 4321 translates into Banzai.

 

I’d definitely scour the Internet looking for a schedule of points. Presumably, someone has already figured out how many Banzai points are needed to bid and how many are needed for game and slam.

[smerriman]

Presumably, someone has already figured out how many Banzai points are needed to bid and how many are needed for game and slam.

http://www.jazclass.aust.com/bridge/brbg/bgp22.gif

[johnu]

I've never heard of Banzai points and can't really see the utility of using them. That being said, it would be better IMO to translate Banzai points to Work/Goren points by multiplying the Banzai point values by 2/3.

 

Card Banzai Work/Goren

A = 5 => 3.33 (3 1/3)

K = 4 => 2.67 (2 2/3)

Q = 3 => 2.0 (2)

J = 2 => 1.33 (1 1/3)

10 = 1 => .67 (2/3)

 

That way you can add your opponents values in Work/Goren points to yours to estimate partner's point count if applicable. This is also 1000% better IMO for disclosing your range to opponents who have never heard of Banzai points and have no idea what the equivalent of 22 Banzai points are in Work/Goren points. If you described to the opponents a hand as showing 30 Banzai points and couldn't give an equivalent Work/Goren point count, I would be inclined to give a procedural penalty to you.

[helene_t]

Banzai points are useless. It is quite easy to find out how honours should be evaluated for notrump contracts - simply do a regression analysis such as

 

E(tricks) ~ aces + kings + queens + jacks + tens

 

or

 

log(odds(3NT makes)) ~ aces + kings + queens + jacks + tens

 

You will find that traditional 4321 counts are fairly accurate, certainly much better than Banzai points.

 

For suit contracts it is more complicated, since it matters more if honours support each other and if they are in long or short suits. But in any case, for suit contracts the 4321 scale undervaluates aces, so Banzai points would be even worse.

[Dumoti]

Sorry that I didn't reply immediately. I posted, then life got in the way.

 

I do not agree that Banzai Points are useless. For example, opposite:

 

Kxx

 

Axx yields 2 tricks.

QJx also yields 2 tricks.

 

So it stands to reason that Axx is approximately equal to QJx for no trump purposes.

 

Yet Axx is 4 Work Points whereas QJx is only 3.

 

Smerriman, thank you for posting the chart. However, I was given to understand that Banzai points were only for 4-4-3-2 and 4-3-3-3. Accordingly, there would not be any 5-card suits.

We can easily argue that K-x-x opposite A-x-x is about the same as K-x-x opposite Q-J-x

 

But we cannot so easily argue that A-x-x-x-x opposite K-x-x-x is equal to Q-J-x-x-x opposite K-x-x-x.

[Stephen Tu]

Sorry that I didn't reply immediately. I posted, then life got in the way.

 

I do not agree that Banzai Points are useless. For example, opposite:

 

Kxx

 

Axx yields 2 tricks.

QJx also yields 2 tricks.

 

So it stands to reason that Axx is approximately equal to QJx for no trump purposes.

Not really. There are a couple of issues, one is tempo. Say opponents have knocked out your stoppers, with the ace combo sometimes you take two tricks in the suit and make your contract. With the QJ combo the missing ace is their entry to run their suit, on which you have to discard winner(s).

 

One is the need for some help opposite; Axx opposite xx is 100% sure trick and stopper and allows you to hold up. QJx opposite xx, if it can be led through twice 24% of the time provides zero tricks and the other times you can't hold up and their suit will run next time they get in.

 

You might want to look at

http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/He did a lot of computer simulations looking at how well various point counting schemes do at estimating # of tricks at NT and suits.

 

[Dumoti]

With all due respect to Thomas Andrews, most of his data have been generated using double dummy solvers.

 

For example, holding Axxx opposite Qxxx, the percentage play is to cash the ace and then lead low to the queen. You hope to find some combination of:

 

1. The stiff king.

2. The king onside.

3. The suit breaking 3-2.

 

However, double dummy, the computer will also pick up Kx offside because it will know to cash the ace and duck a small one to the now-bare king. At the table, there are no such guarantees.

 

Similarly holding Kxxx opposite Qxxx the computer will invariably pick it up for one loser whenever Ax is on either side. In real life, this cannot be so readily accomplished.

 

So most of his data are misleading and the virtues of Binky Points are uncertain.

[Stephen Tu]

Multiple studies from large numbers of online bridge records, and national championship/world championship records, have shown that double dummy analysis as an estimate is very close to actual single dummy results by humans below the slam level. The advantage that DD gives to declarer getting suit combos like this right when possible is basically offset by the defense never blowing a trick on opening lead and always finding correct shifts later.

Banzai was published around 1987, if it was really demonstrably more accurate, how come it is practically unheard of, and no top players using it?

 

[Dumoti]

Couldn't the same criticism be leveled at Binky Points? If it's so wonderful, why has no one at my club heard of them?

 

If the analysis at http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/cardvaluesfor3nt.html is smack on and Work Points are off by 38.99 percent at predicting 3NT whereas 3 other methods are demonstrably better, why are these methods unheard of?

[Stephen Tu]

Binky points are obscure and not a practical method for calculating at the table unless you are a computer that can look up values from a lookup table. So it's understandable why no one uses them.

 

Basically Andrews showed that Work points are already pretty accurate when you adjust upwards for aces and tens. *which good players do automatically anyway*, when judging what to do in borderline cases, deciding to upgrade a hand to a 1nt opener or bid 3nt over 1nt, or whatever. Even if they aren't using the exact formula he settled on as most accurate (the "fifths" evaluation), it amounts to the same approximate thing in practice. Bid more having tens and aces. Bid less with mostly quacks. So they don't need to know the exact formula of the fifths evaluation when they are already approximating it by their actions.

 

Banzai devalues aces too much and overvalues Qs and Js, which is the opposite of what you want to do. And even more so at suit contracts, and you don't know in advance whether you will end up in NT or suit when you open a balanced hand.

 

[Dumoti]

Basically Andrews showed that Work points are already pretty accurate when you adjust upwards for aces and tens.

 

Okay. Let's start right there. Andrews made 4 assumptions, which were:

 

1. South is "balanced" (which could include 5-3-3-2).

2. There is no 8-card major fit (Okay. Whatever).

3. North is not "freakish" shape (freakish undefined, but fair enough).

4. Neither hand has a doubleton queen or jack without a higher honor (no Qx, Jx), and north doesn't have any singleton kings.

 

These assumptions are far different from the ones used to develop Banzai points. These points are for two hands that are 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2. 5-3-3-2 is explicitly excluded. Nor do Banzai points shy away from considering how well Qx will do opposite KTxx or some other holding. And Andrews' caveat that north shouldn't have any singleton kings(!!) is a far cry from Banzai's requirement that north be 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2. Obviously, there will be no singleton kings in this scenario! But apparently Andrews WOULD accept a hand like:

 

♠x

♥Kxx

♦xxxx

♣AKxxx

 

The evaluation of that hand for NT purposes is well outside the scope of Banzai points.

 

So, Banzai points are not the right tool for evaluating every hand. But you shouldn't say that a hammer is a bad tool just because you can't use it to change the tires on your car. It's just not the right tool *for that job*.

 

Banzai devalues aces too much and overvalues Qs and Js, which is the opposite of what you want to do. And even more so at suit contracts, and you don't know in advance whether you will end up in NT or suit when you open a balanced hand.

 

I think, you need to go back and read the OP. The plan is NOT to use Banzai to decide when to open the hand. The plan is NOT to use Banzai when you are in a suit contract. The plan is NOT to use Banzai when you are contemplating an opening NT bid.

 

The plan is to use Banzai points when your partner has already opened 1NT and you are responding with a hand that is 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2.

 

Now admittedly Banzai points may not work as well as advertised because responder will have no way of knowing whether the opening bidder has an undisclosed 5-card suit. But that's the point of trying them — to see how well they work in the field.

[Stephen Tu]

Look, you are free to use whatever you want. Go ahead and whip out Banzai points, play using the published guidelines for some number of months and see how you do in your partnerships, report back.

 

I don't see how you can not use Banzai to decide on initial range of opening balanced hands, then switch to Banzai later, because on some hands with an extreme number of aces/tens vs. quacks the difference between Work & Banzai will be quite pronounced and hard to show later when you end up in a suit contract. Like with Axx Ax Axxx Axxx which is a "weak nt" in Banzai but clearly a strong NT playing anything else. 1d-1h-1nt, how does partner with xx KQxxxx Kx xxx know he is facing that hand where you want to be in game or QJx Ax QJx QJxx which is equal banzai points where 2h is the limit and might not even make? I suppose the 4 ace hand can try to raise to recover from the underevaluation when partner bids 2H, but that jeopardizes the partial on weaker hands partner might have with no interest even opposite 4 aces, and with 5 cd only.

I don't see how you can accurately estimate combined Banzais when only one side of the partnership is using them. Sure you can be approximately right on average, but some hands will be pretty far off.

 

But just know this topic has come up before in this forum, multiple times, and most of us are highly skeptical of them. Most of us are doing just fine using 4321 and mentally upgrading aces and tens a bit and downgrading for lack of them.

Also with regard to Andrew's study, he did note excluding doubleton quacks and singleton Ks was controversial, and also included a table with the results without those exclusions under "less ideal situations".

[blackshoe]

Klinger and Jackson wrote a book about Banzai points. As I remember, a lot of people viewed it negatively.

[Dumoti]

Look, you are free to use whatever you want. Go ahead and whip out Banzai points, play using the published guidelines for some number of months and see how you do in your partnerships, report back.

 

I don't see how you can not use Banzai to decide on initial range of opening balanced hands, then switch to Banzai later, because on some hands with an extreme number of aces/tens vs. quacks the difference between Work & Banzai will be quite pronounced and hard to show later when you end up in a suit contract. Like with Axx Ax Axxx Axxx which is a "weak nt" in Banzai but clearly a strong NT playing anything else. 1d-1h-1nt, how does partner with xx KQxxxx Kx xxx know he is facing that hand where you want to be in game or QJx Ax QJx QJxx which is equal banzai points where 2h is the limit and might not even make? I suppose the 4 ace hand can try to raise to recover from the underevaluation when partner bids 2H, but that jeopardizes the partial on weaker hands partner might have with no interest even opposite 4 aces, and with 5 cd only.

I don't see how you can accurately estimate combined Banzais when only one side of the partnership is using them. Sure you can be approximately right on average, but some hands will be pretty far off.

 

But just know this topic has come up before in this forum, multiple times, and most of us are highly skeptical of them. Most of us are doing just fine using 4321 and mentally upgrading aces and tens a bit and downgrading for lack of them.

Also with regard to Andrew's study, he did note excluding doubleton quacks and singleton Ks was controversial, and also included a table with the results without those exclusions under "less ideal situations".

Yes, I know the topic has come up multiple times. I've read all the threads about Banzai Points contained in the forum.

 

However, I am highly skeptical of your claim that you just use 4-3-2-1 and mentally upgrade for As and Ts and are "doing just fine."

 

Here are two hypothetical hands:

 

♠ ATx

♥ Axx

♦ Axx

♣ Axxx

 

♠ Kxx

♥ Kxx

♦ xxx

♣ Kxxx

 

North counts 16 HCPs plus 4 aces and a ten and upgrades it to 17. He opens 1NT. South invites to 2NT and North bids 3NT like a shot.

We will also stipulate that you don't get a diamond lead or, if you do, it breaks either 4-3 or 5-2 with the hold-up play cutting communication.

What are your chances of making the contract?

 

Well, they're not very good. You have 7 top winners. If clubs go 3-2 you can knock out the ♣Q for down 1. If the clubs are 4-1 or 5-0 then things get worse.

 

Of course, Banzai Points advocates will be quick to point out that 4333 opposite 4333, there's no way that aces are worth 4.25 if we're evaluating for no trump purposes.

So you can be skeptical all you want, but until you show me a 4333 opposite a 4333 in which Work Points gets it right but Banzai Points screws it up, I will simply classify your skepticism as unfounded.

 

Now that doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the technical problems with implementing Banzai Points. There's no way for the responder, in a vacuum, to know whether opener bid 1NT with a 15-17 and 3-2-5-3 or bid 1NT with Axx, Axx, Axx, Axxx, or bid 1NT with KQTx, KQTx, xx, KQTx.

 

In practice, however, we expect responder to be using Banzai Points as a check back when his hand is something like:

AJxx

Axx

xxx

xxx

 

This is a solid 9 HCPs and opposite opener's theoretical 17 HCPs, it could make 3NT. In fact, if we upgrade 0.25 per ace, then it seems even more clear cut. However, Banzai Points argue for caution with this hand.

 

Nevertheless, as a practical matter, at least when we look at this hand, we know for sure that partner didn't open Axx, Axx, Axx, Axxx.

[smerriman]

So you can be skeptical all you want, but until you show me a 4333 opposite a 4333 in which Work Points gets it right but Banzai Points screws it up, I will simply classify your skepticism as unfounded.

I don't see how this could possibly be relevant? Of course 4333 vs 4333 is not good. But you don't know whether your partner has a 4333 or not.

 

If you want to say ATx Axx Axx Axxx shouldn't bid 3NT after partner invites with 2NT, you need to simulate all possible 2NT hands, not just give an example of one. Then figure out whether it is worth bidding game.

 

In this case a simulation says yes, so if you're suggesting you should pass, you're playing losing bridge.

[Stephen Tu]

You can always cherry pick some constructed deal to support your case. So what? Bridge is a game about what works on average, nothing works all the time. Andrews analyzed what works on average. Cowan, being hamstrung with much slower computers, and no double dummy software, from being a decade earlier, did an analysis based on suits in isolation, which doesn't really work because bridge isn't played that way, and tricks won later aren't as good as tricks won right away, because late tricks might go away on the opponents suits. Just because you'll have 9 tricks eventually doesn't do you much good when opps get six first.

 

I know who I believe is going to be right more often. If you want to overbid your quacks, and treat two jacks and a ten as equal to an ace, then I really want to play against opponents willing to bid so much holding those, and who underbid because "I had too many aces partner, aces are overrated".

 

You want to not invite with AJxx Axx xxx xxx because according to Banzai partner needs a super-max? Then at MP over a quick 1000 board sim, I win 39.4% when partner bids game and makes, tie the board 38.5% when partner has a min 15 and doesn't accept and can make 2nt+, and lose the board 22.1% when 2nt or 3nt fails. So that's an average of 58+% against 1nt passers. I'll take that.

 

[Dumoti]

I don't see how this could possibly be relevant? Of course 4333 vs 4333 is not good. But you don't know whether your partner has a 4333 or not.

Yes, but when partner opens 1NT his possible shapes are 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, and 5-3-3-2. That means that 67.4% of the time he will have a hand that is the right shape for applying Banzai Points. So if responder also has a 4-4-3-2 or 4-3-3-3 hand, then applying Banzai Points might be worth the trouble and that is something that I wish to investigate. What's the problem?

 

If you want to say ATx Axx Axx Axxx shouldn't bid 3NT after partner invites with 2NT, you need to simulate all possible 2NT hands, not just give an example of one. Then figure out whether it is worth bidding game.

I think that you need to go back and read the original post. The plan is to experiment with Banzai Points as the responder when partner opens 1NT. The plan is not to try to mastermind what an opening 1NT bidder should do.

 

The point of the example is to debunk the claim that Aces + upgrades is superior to Banzai Points when the hands are the right shape.

 

In this case a simulation says yes, so if you're suggesting you should pass, you're playing losing bridge.

I'm not interested in watching you build up straw men and then take them down.

[Dumoti]

You can always cherry pick some constructed deal to support your case.

Well, if it's so easy, then why didn't you do it when I asked you to?

 

So what? Bridge is a game about what works on average, nothing works all the time. Andrews analyzed what works on average.

This claim has already been debunked.

 

Cowan, being hamstrung with much slower computers, and no double dummy software, from being a decade earlier, did an analysis based on suits in isolation, which doesn't really work because bridge isn't played that way, and tricks won later aren't as good as tricks won right away, because late tricks might go away on the opponents suits. Just because you'll have 9 tricks eventually doesn't do you much good when opps get six first.

Yeah. I've played bridge before. I know how No Trump contracts work. Thanks, though.

 

You want to not invite with AJxx Axx xxx xxx because according to Banzai partner needs a super-max? Then at MP over a quick 1000 board sim, I win 39.4% when partner bids game and makes, tie the board 38.5% when partner has a min 15 and doesn't accept and can make 2nt+, and lose the board 22.1% when 2nt or 3nt fails. So that's an average of 58+% against 1nt passers. I'll take that.

Anyone can invent numbers. What I asked you to do was to invent two 4-3-3-3 hands in which the 4.25-3-2-1-0.5 system was superior.

 

Can you do it? Or can't you?

[johnu]

What are your thoughts?

 

Other forum members gave their opinion of Banzai points. You don't agree. OK, but you're not going to convince anybody without some concrete evidence which nobody has.

[smerriman]

The point of the example is to debunk the claim that Aces + upgrades is superior to Banzai Points when the hands are the right shape.

I thought you were implying that your example was a reason you should use Banzai points instead of normal points, because normal points got you to a bad 3NT. How do Banzai points get you to a better contract? If you're not talking about opener, are you saying you shouldn't have accepted with responder's three kings? Because I'm pretty sure simulations will again disprove that.

 

So obviously I was wrong, and you were just showing an example hand where both methods fail equally. That doesn't debunk anything.

 

To show Banzai points may be worthwhile you'd need to provide a hand where the use of Banzai points gives a better result on average. Stephen Tu has already provided a hand (your own, AJxx Axx xxx xxx) where statistics support the opposite.

 

And again, asking to provide *two* hands has no relevance. Only the average for the hand where a decision is being made. It may even be true that for every single 4333 vs 4333 hand that fails, Banzai points said you shouldn't be in game. That still wouldn't demonstrate in any way that you should use them in the 100% of cases where you don't know the other hand.

[Stephen Tu]

Yes, but when partner opens 1NT his possible shapes are 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, and 5-3-3-2. That means that 67.4% of the time he will have a hand that is the right shape for applying Banzai Points. So if responder also has a 4-4-3-2 or 4-3-3-3 hand, then applying Banzai Points might be worth the trouble and that is something that I wish to investigate. What's the problem?

The problems:

• Other people (Andrews, at least helene & rhm on this forum) have already investigated this thoroughly and have concluded that they are aren't worth the trouble, based on their computer studies, and common sense. You dismiss these results as worthless with no evidence of your own, just some conviction that Cowan is right, even though you have not actually tried applying this at the table yourself, and that Cowan analyzed suits in a vacuum rather than entire deals which is far less convincing than people who analyzed whole deals.
• You are positing some hybrid problem where opener opens using work points and then responder responds using Banzai. I don't see how this can let responder bid to an accurate Banzai total, because a 15-17 hcp range for 1nt can be as few as 19 Banzai, and as many as 30 (though high totals like 27-30 are exceedingly rare, practically nil in practice; 30 would require a quite specific 17 count with all tens and no spot cards, a kind of inverse-yarborough). How do you suppose to solve that? Just go with the average spread which is around 21-24 Banzais, and require 16+ Banzai to FG and 14-15 to invite?
• These days people to avoid rebid problems also open some non insignificant # of 6m322 and 5m422 shapes 1nt.

Well, if it's so easy, then why didn't you do it when I asked you to?

 

Anyone can invent numbers. What I asked you to do was to invent two 4-3-3-3 hands in which the 4.25-3-2-1-0.5 system was superior.

 

Can you do it? Or can't you?

OK, here are 6: First three Banzai says bid game, HCP says no. Second 3 HCP says bid game, Banzai says no:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt4hkjtda94cj32&w=skj52h7652d82c874&n=s9763hq94dkjtcqt6&e=s8ha83dq7653cak95]300|225[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj2hkq5dk54c864&w=sk53hjt92da32c532&n=st64ha43dqjt8cqt7&e=s987h876d976cakj9]300|225[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9hkt73dk65cak2&w=sa762h962d93ct985&n=sj83hq84dqjtcqj76&e=sk54haj5da8742c43]300|225[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa84hat93dak5cj97&w=s96hq72dj432caq54&n=skq3h8654dq76ck63&e=sjt752hkjdt98ct82]300|225[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=skj76ha62daq3cqt4&w=s94hqt87dt9865c73&n=sa32hk943dk72c982&e=sqt85hj5dj4cakj65]300|225[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=saj9hkt65da43ca62&w=s732hq2dkt9cqjt54&n=sk654ha74d762ck93&e=sqt8hj983dqj85c87]300|225[/hv]

 

4333+4333 is the worst case for Work count (and for Cowan for that matter), on min cases you are going to need luck to make, but when you invite/GF you really have no idea whether partner is some other shape with 5 cd suit or 6 cd minor or 4432 with good honor mesh which will make a large difference in overall results. If you are conservative to cater to 4333 hands then you might well be winning on 4333 vs. 4333 but lose too much net on the other possibilities. Plus when you have 26 hcp and bid game with flat vs. flat and it's bad you have field protection because no one else can really avoid game, you have to be pretty sure of things to stay out and hang your result all on the auction and not rely on superior declarer play. And really most of these cases Cowan is likely bidding game also, it's not like people have tools to figure out 4333 vs. 4333 and can figure out to stay low in reasonable time.

 

If you want to say that "be conservative with 4333 hands, especially lacking spots", I don't think anyone disagrees. But if it gets down to "treat Q+J or J+J+T as equal to an ace for opening or responding" or "don't accept invites holding 3-4 aces because they are overrated", that's far fetched for the rest of us.

[helene_t]

You often hear beginners say something like "I only had three aces so I didn't open". Suggesting that you need 4 1/2 tricks in order to have half of the combined strength required to make 3NT.

 

Suppose partner has four queens. With four aces in your own hand, you expect six tricks in total as you can lead towards his queens, and on average 2 of the 4 finesses will work.

 

Now suppose you have four kings instead. In each of the suits, an opp will have the ace over either of the honours so you expect four tricks in total.

 

In that scenario:

 

4 aces = 4 tricks

 

4 aces + 4 queens = 6 tricks

 

4 kings + 4 queens = 4 tricks

 

4 aces + 4 kings = 8 tricks

 

4 kings = 2 tricks

 

4 queens = 1 trick

 

Of course, this is hopeless oversimplified. Sometimes opps will help you, sometimes you have tricks that you don't have time to cash as opps will cash their tricks first, etc etc.

 

Such oversimplified scenarios are not convincing. Their are thousands of scenarios which you could chose, so if you want to advocate Vienna Points, Work Points, Banzai points or whatever, you can always find suitable scenaria.

 

The only way to investigate the accuracy of hand evaluation methods objectively is to do a statistical analysis thousands of hands, finding out how many tricks are actually taken in practice for different combinations of honours. This is easy to do, since data are available, for example in BridgeBrowser or the VuGraph Archive.

 

It turns out that Work points (4321) underestimate aces slightly for the purpose of notrump contracts. 4.2 rather than 4.0 is more accurate. Presumably this is among other things due to the fact that with aces, you can control tempo.

 

Compare Axx to QJx. You may think that both will give you one trick in a notrump contract so they should be worth the same. But Axx is more flexible. You can take the first trick if you fear a switch, or you can hold up twice if you want to break opps' communication in the suit. With QJx, it will be opps that control the tempo. They can cash their A and K and then switch. Or they can duck one trick and then cash the entire suit later.

[Tramticket]

The assumptions under-pinning this whole thread are full of holes. The discussion seems to assume that "if only I could find a more accurate way of counting points, my bidding problems would be solved" and "if the valuation were more accurate I wouldn't need to make little adjustments". In real life, the value of a hand is not just determined by the number of honour cards that you hold, but by their placement in the whole hand. Furthermore, the valuation should not be static, but instead should be continuously changing and evolving as the auction progresses. Any point-count assessment is only the starting point for understanding and valuing the hand.

 

Let me give you three holdings: (i) ♥K3 ♦Q642 (ii) ♥63 ♦KQ42 (iii) ♥63 ♦KQ98. They each have the same point count using Banzai Points or the standard Milton Work Points. But I would judge that (ii) is a better holding than (i) and that (iii) is a better holding still. Honours are working together in the second holding which is a positive adjustment. Honours are supported by better spot cards (the 9 and 8) in the third example - again a positive adjustment.

 

Now imagine that the auction develops with partner showing a strong two-suited hand with hearts and clubs. Now our KX in hearts is looking like a very useful feature and hand (i) looks much more promising. Hands (ii) and (iii) are looking much less promising and the ♦KQ may be of little use to partner.

 

If you want to improve your bidding accuracy, I suggest you concentrate on understand how valuations change and evolve rather than focusing on counting points. The Milton Work count (4-3-2-1) has stood the test of time and is a reasonably accurate starter - there is no need to re-invent the wheel.

[Dumoti]

The problems:

• Other people (Andrews, at least helene & rhm on this forum) have already investigated this thoroughly and have concluded that they are aren't worth the trouble, based on their computer studies, and common sense.

As I told you before, I have already read all the threads regarding Banzai Points in BBOs forums. Helene's conclusion was that it would earn you 2 IMPs per 1000 boards. She then sniffed disdainfully at the concept of writing a book about Banzai Points and said " Buying a copy of BridgeBrowser would constitute a small fraction of the costs of publishing a book."
 
Andrews' work has already been debunked.
 

You dismiss these results as worthless with no evidence of your own, just some conviction that Cowan is right, even though you have not actually tried applying this at the table yourself, and that Cowan analyzed suits in a vacuum rather than entire deals which is far less convincing than people who analyzed whole deals.You are positing some hybrid problem where opener opens using work points and then responder responds using Banzai.

No. I came on here asking 3 specific questions:
 
1. If partner opens a 15-17 1NT how many Banzai Points should I figure he has?
2. How many Banzai Points would someone need to invite?
3. How many Banzai Points would someone need to bid game?
 
Instead the whole thread has been hijacked and turned into a let's-slam-the-new-guy fest.
 

I don't see how this can let responder bid to an accurate Banzai total, because a 15-17 hcp range for 1nt can be as few as 19 Banzai, and as many as 30 (though high totals like 27-30 are exceedingly rare, practically nil in practice; 30 would require a quite specific 17 count with all tens and no spot cards, a kind of inverse-yarborough). How do you suppose to solve that?

 
Yes, I am aware of the problem. That's why I came on here and asked people what they thought. My tentative solution was to assume that the 15-17 NT opener would probably have 22-26 BZP, average 24. I came up with these numbers by multiplying 15 by 1.5 and 17 by 1.5 to come up with 22.5 to 25.5, which I widened to 22 to 26. Could that become problematic? Sure. That's why I was going to investigate the matter to determine how well it worked.
 

Just go with the average spread which is around 21-24 Banzais, and require 16+ Banzai to FG and 14-15 to invite?

How did you come up with the average of 21-24 when I came up with an average of 22-26?
 

 

OK, here are 6: First three Banzai says bid game, HCP says no. Second 3 HCP says bid game, Banzai says no:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt4hkjtda94cj32&w=skj52h7652d82c874&n=s9763hq94dkjtcqt6&e=s8ha83dq7653cak95]300|225[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj2hkq5dk54c864&w=sk53hjt92da32c532&n=st64ha43dqjt8cqt7&e=s987h876d976cakj9]300|225[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9hkt73dk65cak2&w=sa762h962d93ct985&n=sj83hq84dqjtcqj76&e=sk54haj5da8742c43]300|225[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa84hat93dak5cj97&w=s96hq72dj432caq54&n=skq3h8654dq76ck63&e=sjt752hkjdt98ct82]300|225[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=skj76ha62daq3cqt4&w=s94hqt87dt9865c73&n=sa32hk943dk72c982&e=sqt85hj5dj4cakj65]300|225[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=saj9hkt65da43ca62&w=s732hq2dkt9cqjt54&n=sk654ha74d762ck93&e=sqt8hj983dqj85c87]300|225[/hv]

All right. I'm not going to sift through all of them. I'm simply going to focus (for now) on the first one.

 

The first question we need to ask is: How many BZPs are required to bid game? It is generally agreed that, using a standard 40-point system, one needs 26 to bid game, though this number can be shaded to 25. Accordingly, it seems to me that with a 60-point system, the new number should be 37.5 - 39 BZPs to bid game. In fact, I am pretty sure I said something along those lines in my initial post.

 

So, the first thing I notice about your first example is that it contains only 37 BZPs. This puts the contract at 1-2 points shy of the number I came up with for bidding game.

The second thing I note is that the contract fails only because you have carefully arranged the spades to be 4-1 offsides. If we switch the E-W hands, we might well get a diamond lead and pick up both spades honors for an easy overtrick.

 

I am also amused by your example 4. You have given yourself 26 HCPs, but the hand only makes 9 tricks because the club hook is on. If we switch the E-W hands, the contract will likely fail (unless you make the double-dummy play of a low club off of the board, planning to put in the jack). And if we use Andrews' method of 4.25-3-2-1-0.5 we get a whopping 27.25 points when supposedly you only need 25.75 to make game.

 

Not very convincing, I'm afraid.

 

If you want to say that "be conservative with 4333 hands, especially lacking spots", I don't think anyone disagrees. But if it gets down to "treat Q+J or J+J+T as equal to an ace for opening or responding" or "don't accept invites holding 3-4 aces because they are overrated", that's far fetched for the rest of us.

No, I'm not saying ANYTHING. I asked 3 questions:

 

How many BZPs should I figure if partner opens a 15-17 NT?

How many to invite?

How many to bid game?

 

Instead of getting an answer, I have gotten sucked into defending a system that I have yet to try out over the board!

 

Give me a break, dude! Take a chill pill and just answer the questions!