[mikestar]

A point that isn't being fully brought out. The NT evalutaion of a hand and the suit evaluation of a hand are two different quaintites. A stiff in a side suit is an asset is a suit contract but a liability in NT.

Similarly, controls are quite important in suit evaluation and fairly unimportant in NT evaluation. [Gambling NT situatations-- where you are in a race to run 9 fast tricks (ususally with a long minor) before they run 5 are an exception--here controls and particularly aces are highly important.]

So I'd much rather have

xx
Axxx
Kxxx
Axx?

if I knew we will be playing in hearts and I'd much rather have

xx
KJxx
QJxx
KJx

if I knew we would be playing in NT.

By the way, like ZAR, K&R is geared toward suit evalution--it gives misleading results for balaned NT bidding.

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2004, 02:03 PM, said:

ah the old "sometimes you go down" argument. The question is how often will you go down?

Kxxx Kxx xx Axxx

1D p 1S p 1N p ?

now lets see what happens when you invite

Jx Axx AJxxx Kxx: parttner will surely go, a nice 13 with a 5 card suit (and aces and kings). this hand has almost no play for game.

Axx xx AKxxx Qxx: another very nice 13, terrible game.

Qxx Axxx AQJx Jx: 14 points, certainly a maximum. Very poor game.

do you really want to be inviting with this hand? will it really usually payoff?

the only way to answer quantitatively "how often" is to try a simulation, not picking up the right hand to support a theory.

below are just the first ten hands from a simulation I ran (no filtering for selecting "favourable examples).

I have kept fixed the 10 hcp invitational hand as north, and used as constrain:
1- south has 13-14 hcp
2- south has at most a semibalanced hand with 5332 minor
3- there is no 8 card fit in te major (note that this often we do not know, so many times we can invite and discover only on our way that we have a fit, e.g. checkback auctions, making even more appealing the potential for inviting)


I can post more hands, no problem at all

K843.K43.72.A863
A5.AT87.K965.Q42

K843.K43.72.A863
J7.AQT2.KJT5.Q54

K843.K43.72.A863
AJT.A75.AJ95.752

K843.K43.72.A863
QJ9.A8.KQT8.Q942

K843.K43.72.A863
A9.AT72.AQ864.42

K843.K43.72.A863
T75.A6.KQ84.KQT7

K843.K43.72.A863
A97.AQJ.Q986.T52

K843.K43.72.A863
QJ6.QJ86.AKT4.52

K843.K43.72.A863
AQ7.J987.KQJ9.75

K843.K43.72.A863
QT7.AQT7.Q85.K54

[junyi_zhu]

Chamaco, on Oct 26 2004, 01:33 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 26 2004, 01:17 PM, said:

you simply cannot invite on hands that go down in game opposite most maximums and go down many opposite minimums in 2N

sometimes you go down, it happens even for some 28 hcp games.

But on balance, you'll find out that opening 11 counts made of AK only (and nothing wasted) and inviting with 10 count made of AK only (and nothing wasted) tends to payoff. (DISCLAIMER- do not provide 4333 hands please )

Remember, most of the time you won't have the overlapping of the 2 most minimum hands you posted, worst case scenario, admittedly possible, but not the percentage scenario.
Most of the time you'll have:
- a "normal" opener opposite a good 10 count made of AK , which makes 2NT (min opener) or 3NT (max opener) more often than not, OR
- an 11 count opener made of AK opposite opposite a "classical" GF or invitational hand, which also makes quite often.

You'll bid many games that have play in a combined 24 count, sometimes you'll go down, sometimes game will be cold, and sometimes you will make thanks to your magnificent dummy play technique
You'll also put moire pressure on opponents which will need to defend very accurately to avoid sllipping.
And the increased frequency makes it such that defenders tend to slip here and there or on opening lead (ask the Meckwell... ;-).

Furthermore, we have the added bonus everytime we discover a fit after inviting. (e.g. typical example, checkback after 1x:1y:1NT)

If you bid 2NT with 10 HCP, no fit, balanced, A,K,K, facing a 12-14 1NT rebid, I guarantee you are a loser in a long run. You may find some lucky games once in a long long while when partner's fillers hit your suits and may over bid 3NT with no play facing a normal 14 HCP misfit hand. And the major draw back is that you play 2NT which can often go down facing a 12 to normal 13 partner. You can raise 1NT rebid to 2NT only when you play R-S and don't open most 12 balanced and play a 16-18 1NT opening. Good controls hands usually work very well when you find a fit, and if you have no fit, fillers are the key for marginal games. Anyway, all point count systems are just training wheel for kids to learn bike.

[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

[lowerline]

Quote

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.

Quote

KQT98
AJT9
xxx
x

Also 26 zar points. Quite different hands???

Absolutely, this is an opening.

Quote

-
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.

Quote

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.

Quote

--
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...

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

whereagles, on Oct 27 2004, 08:37 AM, said:

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]

Gerben47, on Oct 27 2004, 12:31 PM, said:

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]

EricK, on Oct 27 2004, 01:18 PM, said:

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]

whereagles, on Oct 27 2004, 08:28 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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]

tysen2k, on Oct 27 2004, 07:14 PM, said:

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

[tysen2k]

whereagles, on Oct 27 2004, 01:53 PM, said:

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?