[tysen2k]

A few questions for those of you currently using Zar to evaluate. Did you go through your system and convert all your point ranges? Is a weak 1NT now like 25-29? You have to go through all your response structures too and convert those too, right? What do you do when opponents ask you for an explanation?

[hrothgar]

tysen2k, on Apr 8 2004, 10:59 PM, said:

A few questions for those of you currently using Zar to evaluate. Did you go through your system and convert all your point ranges? Is a weak 1NT now like 25-29? You have to go through all your response structures too and convert those too, right? What do you do when opponents ask you for an explanation?

I've always favored technology overkill.
I am especially enamoured by high tech solutions to non-existant problems.

With this said and done, long term I think that the best way to explain methods is to provide the opponents with a sample of "X" hands consistant with the bidding so far.

At this point in time, the opponents can use whatever mechanism they want to create summary statistics based on the hand sample. For example, assume that my partnership used Zar points to evaluate opening bids but you are most familiar with Binky Points.

You should be able to use a software program to reduce the hand sample into a PDF describing the expected Binky point holding for my 1NT openings...

[Zar]

Hi all:

*** Hrothgar wrote: From my own perspective, I would very much like to see some "pure" research. For example, consider the following experiment. Randomly deal a million hands in which North holds ...
<

I put all the initial databases of boards for the research of about half-a-million games (2 million hands) and their analysis. Contains separate ZIP files with the corresponding targeted research (the Hands, Goren and Zar Valuations, Controls and Control Points, Fits and their distribution among partners, Best DD-contract, etc.). This was the first set of boards, followed by many more targeted generations which wouldn't be of general interest. Here is what the corresponding ZIP files contain (in “Support”->”Downloads”):

- File 3ntDBs.zip contains:
...... File 3NT2K with over 2,000 contracts in 3 NT
...... File 3major70K with over 70,000 contracts in 3 Major

- File 4majorDBs.zip contains:
...... File 4Major63K_set1 with over 63,000 contracts in 4 Major
...... File 4major42K_set2 with over 42,000 contracts in 4 Major
...... File 4major63_db1 with over 63,000 contracts in 3 NT in TAB-delimited format

- File 5minorDBs.zip contains:
...... File 5minor27K_set1 with over 27,000 contracts in 5 minor
...... File 5minor43K_set2 with over 43,000 contracts in 5 minor

- File SlamDBs.zip contains:
...... File 6Slams35K with over 35,000 contracts in Small Slam
...... File 7grand10K with over 10,000 contracts in Grand Slam
...... File 7grandHCP27 with contracts in Grand Slam with 27 HCP
...... File 7grandHCP29 with contracts in Grand Slam with 29 HCP
...... File 7grandHCP31 with contracts in Grand Slam with 31 HCP
...... File 7grandHCP33 with contracts in Grand Slam with 33 HCP
...... File 7grandHCP35 with contracts in Grand Slam with 35 HCP
...... File 7grandHCP37 with contracts in Grand Slam with 37 HCP
...... File 7grandHCP40 with contracts in Grand Slam with 40 HCP

Hope that helps.

There were several posting about explanations of Zar Points to opponents and changes of bidding systems. There is no need to change your bidding systems to reflect Zar Points intervals – you simply use Zar Points as Hand Evaluation and Critical Judgment tool – the way several national teams used it in the last Bermuda Bawl. One of the players even used them without his partner knowing what Zar Points was ... The Zar Points bidding system is something very few people know about and none of the posters here is among them, so there is no need of explanations about something you don’t use :-) The one thing I regularly do, however, is warning the opponents (and partner if playing with a casual partner) that I may open lighter than expected (since I am not very keen on counting :-)

Cheers:

ZAR

[Zar]

Hy guys:

Just a quick note that I fixed the Bid Machine so it calculates the right contract of 3.40 Clubs - this was regarding a post from several days ago.

Please let me know if you experience any problem.

Happy holidays:

ZAR

[EricK]

I have a few questions about ZAR points:

1) If partner bids a suit, I add a point for each honour I have in his suit (up to maximum of two). Now, if my hand has an honour in each suit, can I add the point at the start before partner bids a suit, since I am bound to have a fitting honour?

2) If I open a suit, and partner raises it, do I add points for honours in my own suit?

3) If I bid a suit and partner supports it, then he adds extra points for any shortage he has. If I understand correctly, when he does support it, I now only add points for shortages as well if I have extra length in the suit. Since the points one adds are dependant on how short your shortest suit is (3 for void, 2 for singleton, 1 for doubleton), it seems that if only one person adds points, then in the case of say a 4-4 fit, the total number of ZAR points would depend on which player bids the suit first!

4) It is claimed that one should open balanced hands with 13 HCP, even if the ZAR points are less than 26. Does this mean that ZAR points don't rank balanced hands correctly? eg ♠KQJx ♥KQT ♦ Qxx ♣xxx has 13 HCP but only 23 ZAR points and ♠Kxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axx ♣xx has only 10HCP but 24 ZAR points. Which hand is actually stronger?

5) Should I discount 1 point for the J in a suit KQJ? Clearly the J is worth more in KQJx, but equally KQJ is worth more tha KQx.

6) Do the levels i.e 52 points for the 4 level, 62 for 6 level etc, depend on vulnerability? IOW, should I bid to eg 4S on only 50 points (or whatever) if vulnerable at IMPS?

Eric

[Zar]

*** Erick wrote: I have a few questions about ZAR points:

1) If partner bids a suit, I add a point for each honour I have in his suit (up to maximum of two). Now, if my hand has an honour in each suit, can I add the point at the start before partner bids a suit, since I am bound to have a fitting honour?
<

Thanx Eric – very good questions indeed. And the answer to the first one is “who told you that your PD would open his mouth on this board?” IF he bids a suit, THEN you add, because if you didn’t have the honor, guess who would – your opponents, not me :-)

2) If I open a suit, and partner raises it, do I add points for honours in my own suit?
<

Yes again. The basis is the same with the suit lengths – both partners add points for “superfit”. If you have 6 and your bid has promised 5 (say you play a 5-card major), you get 1 supertrump, AND your pd gets one if he has 4. There is NO chance of duplication. BUT the limit is 2 points to avoid “duplication” (oops, there is a chance of duplication :-) meaning “too much upgrades” if you have ALL the honors between the two of you. ALSO, you do not count honor upgrades AND supertrumps – in other words in your pd opents 1S and you have Kxxxx in spades, you only count the supertrump, since your holding of Kxxxx is like KQJ10x against 5 trumps, right (you’d answer that you HAVE the Q of trumps if asked Blackwood).

3) If I bid a suit and partner supports it, then he adds extra points for any shortage he has. If I understand correctly, when he does support it, I now only add points for shortages as well if I have extra length in the suit. Since the points one adds are dependant on how short your shortest suit is (3 for void, 2 for singleton, 1 for doubleton), it seems that if only one person adds points, then in the case of say a 4-4 fit, the total number of ZAR points would depend on which player bids the suit first!
<

You are talking about the “Zar Ruffing Power” calculation where you do not blindly add 3 points for every supertrump, but ad 3 if your shortest suit is void, 2 if it’s sing, and 1 if it’s doubleton – you do NOT add “shortness” if you don’t have a superfit! It’s all ALREADY calculated into your distribution points, right? WHO bids the suit first doesn’t matter since EACH one calculates superfit ACCORDING to HIS own “promises” of the bid. See above.

4) It is claimed that one should open balanced hands with 13 HCP, even if the ZAR points are less than 26. Does this mean that ZAR points don't rank balanced hands correctly? eg ♠KQJx ♥KQT ♦ Qxx ♣xxx has 13 HCP but only 23 ZAR points and ♠Kxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Axx ♣xx has only 10HCP but 24 ZAR points. Which hand is actually stronger?
<

Both are actually weak :-) Balanced hands are weak. Period. That’s why BOTH hands are not opening hands in Zar Points terms. Note, that in the Zar Points Bidding System you open 1NT with the first hand, saying “PD, I have a CRAPPY hand which is not worth opening (meaning I do NOT have 26 Zar Points) but I open weak 1NT so I pre-empt the opponents AND I am not going to open my mouth again unless you force me to”. Note how powerful the Zar Points weak NT is in terms of saying “I do NOT have 26 Zar Points” meaning my hand is very poor on controls, balanced, all crap... so PD knows it’s not worth taking the risk of exploring a slam in case he’s strong because I do NOT have the controls he would expect in an “average” weak NT.

5) Should I discount 1 point for the J in a suit KQJ? Clearly the J is worth more in KQJx, but equally KQJ is worth more tha KQx.
<

See above regarding how length compensates the low-level honors.

6) Do the levels i.e 52 points for the 4 level, 62 for 6 level etc, depend on vulnerability? IOW, should I bid to eg 4S on only 50 points (or whatever) if vulnerable at IMPS?
<

The answer is “unfortunately not”. BUT this is something included in the note that “you still have to use your head” :-) BTW, one important note in the form of a question: “Are Zar Points always right?” and the answer is “OF COURSE not!” They are just the best there is :-)

Cheers:

ZAR

[Zar]

Hi, guys:

Just posted a short report on the reseach on Zar Points in the other thread for Zar Points so this message is just to re-direct you there. The numbers are not "printed" in a TAB-ed format unfortunately - I didn't expect this "squeeze" :-)

Cheers:

ZAR

[mikestar]

Zar points are clearly more accurate than Goren 1-2-3 and Bergen (Rule of 20).

Bergen is not intended for overall evaluation, but for the specific purpose of determining whether to open. While Marty advocates requiring 11 HCP to open both 5-4-2-2 and 5-4-4-0, he never asserts anywhere in his writings that these hands have the same value once a fit is found.

And of course Goren has responder count 1-3-5 when raising partner. A modification of this I've used for years is to use the 1-3-5 count for the original suit bidder as well. This actually tracks fairly closely with Zar distribution points.

Comparing 1-3-5 with Zar in terms of the trick excess over the baseline 4-3-3-3 shape, for 1-3-5 we get tricks = count / 3; and for Zar we get tricks=(count - 8) / 5

Excluding extreme shapes (over 8 cards in one suit, over 11 cards in two suits), only the following shapes have a discrepency of over .133 tricks (the maximum discrepancy due to the different granularity of the two scales):

Shape (1-3-5 tricks minus Zar tricks)
4-4-4-1 +.400
5-3-3-2 -.267
5-4-4-0 +.467
6-3-2-2 -.333
6-3-3-1 -.200
6-5-1-1 +.400
6-5-2-0 +.200
7-2-2-2 -.200
7-3-2-1 -.267
7-4-1-1 +.200
8-3-2-0 -.200

Vs Zar, the 1-3-5 count overrates three suiters and more extreme two suiters and underrates most one suiters.

IMHO, the 1-3-5 ratings may actually be slightly more accurate. My experience is that three suiters play fairly well with a good fit and its very difficult to overvalue 6-5's (again with a good fit). I also find that one suited hands share some of the weakness of balanced hands because they are less flexible than two suiter.

Normalizing Zar's 6-4-2-1 HCP+Controls scale to 10 points per suit instead of 13 yields 4.6-3.1-1.5-0.8. A 4 1/2 - 3 - 1 1/2 - 1 scale is not a terribly bad approximation of this.

The point of all this is that here is a method a bright beginner could use which produces trick values close to Zar without using different point count targets than the 26/33/37 that less experience players tend to think in terms of.

[Zar]

*** Mikestar wrote:
>
Zar points are clearly more accurate than Goren 1-2-3 and Bergen (Rule of 20).
<

I have made a variety of experiments and proofs of that and never did I see any indication to the opposite, indeed.

>
Bergen is not intended for overall evaluation, but for the specific purpose of determining whether to open.
<

True. BUT you can always apply the Culbertson’s Rule stating that “Two opening hands make a Game” – to ANY opening-hand evaluation system actually. And this converts the evaluation system into ab overall evaluation system - think about it.

>
While Marty advocates requiring 11 HCP to open both 5-4-2-2 and 5-4-4-0, he never asserts anywhere in his writings that these hands have the same value once a fit is found.
<

No need to. He simply assigns 20 Bergen Points to EITHER of these hands. He may say “BUT I like the second one better” (which I am sure he does) but the ESTIMATE is 20 for both. So you cannot do anything about it.

It’s exactly the elimination of “But this one I like better” what evaluation is all about. If you like it better, tell me HOW MUCH better – 3..., 5..., 8???

And how much WHAT :-)

<
Excluding extreme shapes (over 8 cards in one suit, over 11 cards in two suits), only the following shapes have a discrepency of over .133 tricks (the maximum discrepancy due to the different granularity of the two scales):
<

It is exactly these 0.1333 and 2.638 that Zar Points avoid. They use NO fractions and YET they are more accurate – a NICE combination :-)

>
IMHO, the 1-3-5 ratings may actually be slightly more accurate.
<

Certainly I do respect your IMHO, but this is the OTHER important thing to realize – NOWHERE in Zar Points I said “IMHO, this hand is better” or “IHMO, this bid is better”.

It’s only numbers. No fractions, easy to comprehend, easy to use, and nowhere to hide with IHMOs.

>
Normalizing Zar's 6-4-2-1 HCP+Controls scale to 10 points per suit instead of 13 yields 4.6-3.1-1.5-0.8. A 4 1/2 - 3 - 1 1/2 - 1 scale is not a terribly bad approximation of this.
<

It’s the “concert” of distribution, HCP and Controls that make Zar Points, not this or that component though.

>
The point of all this is that here is a method a bright beginner could use which produces trick values close to Zar
<

Where is that method? :-) Utter it and I’ll run it through the millions of boards I have run Goren and Bergen through. So you can substitute the “here is a method” with “there is no method” :-)

I’d be HAPPY to see a PROOF (as opposed to IHMO) that ANY other method is better.

Not only that – I’d USE it instead of Zar Points :-)

ZAR

[inquiry]

cwiggins, on Mar 19 2004, 08:34 AM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 17 2004, 05:59 PM, said:

[Let me put the first ZAR point question into persepective...is a 26 point ZAR hand with 7 or 8 hcp worth an opening bid? Here I think from my study, the answer is an unqualified yes. I like opening light (by hcp standards), I have mentioned that many times well before I ever heard of ZAR points, and I have altered my bidding system to allow for these light opening bids.

1) What bidding system did you start with?
2) What alterations did you make?

For example, if you are opening 8 HCP with 5-5, then 17-18 balanced is just enough to force to game.

Thanks.

Sorry, I missed you question to me.

1) What bidding did I start with? I began opening 9 and 10 point hands when I played precision. Eventually, finding some 8 point hands were as "strong" as the 10/11 I was opening, I started opening them too. And eventually, I found with 6/5 distribution or so, or a good 8 card suit, 7 hcp would be enough. I wasn't worried so much aobut Controls at that time (Zar's point there is excellent), but I was worried about placement of the hcp (better in long suits, useless in short), and 9's and 8's in my long suits. I have since switched back to 2/1 GF.

2) What alterations have I made?

The modifications I have made to 2/1 GF are rather big. First, I use fit jumps even without competition as responder (limited hands to fit jump). Second, I use 1M-2M, and 1M-3M as preemptive raises (and alert these). Third, I use 2NT over 1M not as jacoby, but as Limit raise plus - with a modified responding scale to take into account we are not game-forced yet. Fourth, I use 1M-2C after a first or second seat opening bid as a modified "Drury" - there is another thread in this forum on this bid. Basically, it shows constructive 3 card support (or longer) not suited for 2NT limit raise or fit jump raise. In addition, this 2C bid can also deny support but show "good" balanced hand (10)11+, or it can be true 2/1 GF with clubs (rebid structure separates between each of these). Since I have removed the "good hands" from forcing 1NT response with the use of the 2C bid (for example limit raise with 3 card support now starts 2C, as does balanced 13/14 etc), my 1NT is now "semi-forcing" (as it can never have game forcing values), and my minimum 2/1 responses are stronger than typical 2/1 responses (I have freed up a number of rebids after 1M-2NT to allow easy separation of "strong" 1NT and "weak" 1NT responses.

I have also made some changes in the responding structure. For example

1C-1D
1S <<-- is no longer forcing, and maybe on three card suit

1C-1D
1N <<--- is now 17-19 hcp balanced

1C-1H
1S <<---- However is forcing (the 1M rebid not forcing only on 1C-1D auction),

and

1C-1H
1N <<--- is 11-13 balanced

Also, I play new minor by opener on his second round forcing 1 round, and maybe artificial.

Ben

[tysen2k]

Zar, on Apr 21 2004, 02:48 AM, said:

*** Zar (answering Mikestar) wrote:
Where is that method? :-) Utter it and I’ll run it through the millions of boards I have run Goren and Bergen through. So you can substitute the “here is a method” with “there is no method” :-)

I’d be HAPPY to see a PROOF (as opposed to IHMO) that ANY other method is better.

Not only that – I’d USE it instead of Zar Points :-)

As I've said in previous posts and Mikestar has echoed, the evaluation scheme

A = 4.5
K = 3
Q = 1.5
J = 0.75
T = 0.25

Plus distribution of 5/3/1 for void/single/double is more accurate than ZAR.

This ratio of values for high cards (4.5/3/1.5/0.75 or 6/4/2/1) is not new. The Dallas Aces were using 3/2/1/0.5 in the 70's.

But the ZAR distribution scheme is simply less accruate than 5/3/1. Yes using 4.5 for aces involves fractions, but it allows me to use my existing bidding methods. I don't have to worry if my strong club requires 30 or 31 ZAR or whatever. To me, if I have to change my bidding methods, it just isn't worth it.

I have done extensive studies on many evaluation systems (see my previous posts). Zar, while I admire your research I do question a lot of your methods for determining how accurate a system is. One of your reasons that ZAR is more accurate is that ZAR has more "separation power" and a higher standard deviation than standard (meaning that there are more possible values and more spread out values). This does not give accuracy. I can create an evaluation scheme that doesn't give any values to high cards, counts the ♣2 as 1 point, the ♦2 as 2 points, ♥2 as 4, ♠2 as 8, ♣3 as 16, etc. I could make this scheme have 100 times more separation power than ZAR. Should I claim I've found a new system that's 100 times more accurate than ZAR?

You also seem to sometimes go backwards in your assigning of accuracy. You find hands that make game or slam and then see what % of Goren, ZAR, etc. would bid that high. That's going the wrong way. You should first take hands and see where the points say you should be, then assume you bid there and see how well you do. Maybe the points say game, but the hand doesn't make it. Look and see how far you were off and how much that would have cost you. You're finding hands that already make game and then seeing if you would have bid it.

Zar, don't get me wrong. I admire people trying to break new ground in research like this. Just make sure you're measuring the right thing.

Let me know if you want more information about my studies and findings.

Tysen

[Zar]

*** tysen2k wrote: Plus distribution of 5/3/1 for void/single/double is more accurate than ZAR.
<

Plus, you forgot to say IMHO :-) How many boards did you test it on? Using 0.25, 0.75 etc. is not for “at the table’ use – otherwise I’ll use the real computed coefficients for Zar Points like 6.18 for an A etc. You have to be “in line” with any comparison. I certainly have checked 1-3-5 also, but with Goren – no comparison. You are certainly welcome to check it yourself. In fact, I would SUGGEST you check it first and then “claim” 1-3-5 is better.

>
The Dallas Aces were using 3/2/1/0.5 in the 70's. But the ZAR distribution scheme is simply less accurate than 5/3/1.
<

Again – “simply” doesn’t cut it. Check it and then say “simply” or “not-simply” :-)

>
You should first take hands and see where the points say you should be, then assume you bid there and see how well you do. Maybe the points say game, but the hand doesn't make it.
<

You haven’t read it at all then ... That’s exactly what I do. All dozens of millions of boards have been INDEPENDENTLY played by a DD-program – it’s not me who decides this and that. Anyway – you certainly can use 1-3-5 or 0.25 – 0.75 etc. It’s all a matter of choice:

ZAR

[mikestar]

I've never published the method--but Tysen advocates something very similar and slightly more accurate that has been seen before.

To do testing, simply change the Goren distribution figures from 1-2-3 to 1-3-5 and chance the HCP to 4.5-3-1.5-1 --even with no further adjustments it tracks more closely with Zar points than the other methods.

The figures usch as .133 were used to describe the degree of discrepancy between 1-3-5 and Zar--these are not used at the table.

At the table I would count HCP 4-3-2-1, distribution 1-3-5 then compare the number of aces and queens in my hand, adjusting 1/2 point plus for each excess ace or 1/2 point minus for each excess queen. This is quite simple enough for a beginner and uses the same point count targets as all beginners are taught.

As for the discrepancy shapes, some Zar evaluations are a bit strange -- you are the only authority who asserts that 6-5-2-0 is better than 6-5-1-1, absent inferences from the bidding.

[Zar]

** mikestar wrote: To do testing, simply change the Goren distribution figures from 1-2-3 to 1-3-5 and chance the HCP to 4.5-3-1.5-1 --even with no further adjustments it tracks more closely with Zar points than the other methods.
<

This is a good spec – I’ll run it through, despite the fractional numbers.

>
The figures such as .133 were used to describe the degree of discrepancy between 1-3-5 and Zar--these are not used at the table.
<

I am not sure I understand the table (I assume you are talking about the previously published table on this topic). Can you elaborate a bit, please?

>
As for the discrepancy shapes, some Zar evaluations are a bit strange -- you are the only authority who asserts that 6-5-2-0 is better than 6-5-1-1, absent inferences from the bidding.
<

I wish I had your problems, Mike :-)

ZAR

[Flame]

"6-5-2-0 is better than 6-5-1-1" Im not an autority by IMHO this is right.

[mikestar]

mikestar, on Apr 21 2004, 12:07 AM, said:

Shape      (1-3-5 tricks  minus Zar tricks)
4-4-4-1                    +.400   
5-3-3-2                    -.267 
5-4-4-0                    +.467
6-3-2-2                    -.333
6-3-3-1                    -.200
6-5-1-1                    +.400     
6-5-2-0                      +.200
7-2-2-2                      -.200
7-3-2-1                      -.267
7-4-1-1                      +.200
8-3-2-0                      -.200

The first entry will serve as an example. 1-3-5 gives 4-4-4-1 3 distribution points vs. 0 for 4-3-3-3. Dividing by the 3 points per trick for the 1-3-5 scale, this is 1 trick. Zar counts 11 points for the 4-4-4-1 vs 8 points for 4-3-3-3 for a difference of 3 points. Dividing by Zar's 5 points per trick, this is 0.6 tricks. So 1-3-5 rates 4-4-4-1 0.4 tricks higher than Zar does. The same methodology was uses for all shapes.

I excluded superfreaks (too infrequent to matter much) and those cases where 1-3-5 and Zar agree withing the limits imposed by the different scales-- a three point scale and a five point scale cannot agree exactly for fractional trick values, but if 1-3-5 says something is 1 1/3 tricks and Zar says it is 1.4 tricks, this is not really a disagreement about the item's value.

[mikestar]

Zar, on Apr 21 2004, 07:48 AM, said:

>
Bergen is not intended for overall evaluation, but for the specific purpose of determining whether to open.
<

True. BUT you can always apply the Culbertson’s Rule stating that “Two opening hands make a Game” – to ANY opening-hand evaluation system actually. And this converts the evaluation system into ab overall evaluation system - think about it.

Because it is possible doesn't mean it's appropriate. Culbertson himself passed hands that had opening-bid playing strength by his own evalualtion methods but had insufficient defense (honor tricks).

Bergen's method intentionally underates unbalanced shapes to reflect his judgement about how much defense is needed and how much negative revaluation in case of misfit should be risked. You would open a 6-5-2-0 hand with 7 HCP and 2 contols at the 1 level, Bergen would not, insisting on 9 HCP. This is not a difference in the evaluation of the trick taking ability of the hands, this is a differnce in opening bid philosophy--Bergen chooses to be less agressive than you in this area. (Bet he's more aggressive with preempts!)

[Zar]

*** mikestar wrote: The first entry will serve as an example. 1-3-5 gives 4-4-4-1 3 distribution points vs. 0 for 4-3-3-3. Dividing by the 3 points per trick for the 1-3-5 scale, this is 1 trick.
<

The 5 Zar Points per trick come based on HCP, Controls, and distribution. Where do the 3 points per trick come from in the 1-3-5 count? Don't get me wrong - I just cannot see (or don't know) where this comes from.

In other words, what is an opening hand in the 1-3-5 count for example (certainly added to HCP or controls or whatever else is used). Do you still open with 13?

ZAR

[mikestar]

Zar,

Yes, you still open with 13--that is the whole point of my advocacy of 1-3-5 you can use the same magic numbers youv'e used for your whole bridge career. It may be 1-3-5 is slightly less acurate than Zar it may be that is is slightly more accurate, but the difference is in any case nowhere nearly as great as the difference between Zar points and other point count method. Let's assert without proof that 1-3-5 is only 85% as accurate but is twice as easy to use because you have been programmed for years to think in terms of 13/26/33/37, instead of 26/52/62/67. If this were true. which should a beginner/intermediate use? And if 1-3-5 is 98% or 102% or Zar's accuracy the answer is obvious.

My own experience is that Zar points works great as an after the fact analytical tool but gives me a brain cramp at the table because of the unfamiliar numbers. IF the superiority or Zar points is sufficent, this price is worth paying, but if I'm fairly close with something else that I can count in my sleep, the price isn't worth paying.

[inquiry]

mikestar, on Apr 21 2004, 03:44 PM, said:

mikestar, on Apr 21 2004, 12:07 AM, said:

Shape       (1-3-5 tricks  minus Zar tricks)
4-4-4-1                    +.400   
5-3-3-2                     -.267  
5-4-4-0                     +.467
6-3-2-2                     -.333
6-3-3-1                     -.200
6-5-1-1                     +.400     
6-5-2-0                      +.200
7-2-2-2                      -.200
7-3-2-1                      -.267
7-4-1-1                      +.200
8-3-2-0                      -.200

The first entry will serve as an example. 1-3-5 gives 4-4-4-1 3 distribution points vs. 0 for 4-3-3-3. Dividing by the 3 points per trick for the 1-3-5 scale, this is 1 trick. Zar counts 11 points for the 4-4-4-1 vs 8 points for 4-3-3-3 for a difference of 3 points. Dividing by Zar's 5 points per trick, this is 0.6 tricks. So 1-3-5 rates 4-4-4-1 0.4 tricks higher than Zar does. The same methodology was uses for all shapes.

I excluded superfreaks (too infrequent to matter much) and those cases where 1-3-5 and Zar agree withing the limits imposed by the different scales-- a three point scale and a five point scale cannot agree exactly for fractional trick values, but if 1-3-5 says something is 1 1/3 tricks and Zar says it is 1.4 tricks, this is not really a disagreement about the item's value.

I think you are short changing ZAR's method in this description, although he didn't mention it above. Upon intial counting, ZAR would count 4333 as 8, and 4441 as 11 as you point out. But once a fit is found, the 4441 is worth more than 11. He would add two more points, to come to a full 13. In otherwords, 4441 (with a fit) would be worth a full five points more (and one level higher) than a hand with 4333. In addition, there could be more points added for 4441 if a superfit is found, at least that is my reading. So if a fit exist, ZAR point count shows the full 1.0 trick that you claim for the 1-3-5, and may indeed show more.

Ben

PS, as the initiator of this thread, I have been "researching" on my own the use of ZAR points for making game/slam/grand slam decisions, and I must say, that IMHO (Zar will hate that), they are most definetly worth the "trouble" to learn. And the good thing is, it really isn't much trouble at all.