[tysen2k]

Zar, on Sep 6 2005, 01:12 PM, said:

Doesn’t a difference of 2 TRUMPS make any difference to you?

Yes, if partner had the same number of trumps in both cases. But the real situation is that a 4441 hand opposite a random partner takes about the same number of tricks as a 6331 hand opposite a random partner. The difference is about 0.1 tricks. Zar predicts the difference should be about 0.6 tricks.

Poll your data and you'll see. What is the average number of tricks taken when one of the hands is a 4441 hand? Now what is the average number of tricks when one of them is a 6331? We're working with the same DD database from GIB, so our answers should agree.

Tysen

[tysen2k]

Zar, on Sep 6 2005, 01:19 PM, said:

"because Zar requires the GP bidders to have 26..." How can you say that?

In the Aggressive Bidding section they are limited to 21HCP!!! Does 21 equal 26 in your arithmetics?

I don't remember mentioning HCP anywhere, just points.

If I'm wrong, then tell me how you determine if a Goren bidder bids game.

Tysen

[Zar]

>
I don't remember mentioning HCP anywhere, just points.
If I'm wrong, then tell me how you determine if a Goren bidder bids game.
<

Goren needs to reach 26 Goren Points. This may come from as little as 20 HCP, but may need as many as 26 HCP.

I certainly only measure the Goren Points themselves:

ZAR

[han]

I think that this is absurd.

When Zar compares Zar points with HCP he uses Goren points the way people used them a zillion years ago, while Zar points are used in the most optimal way. No fair!!!

Zar claims over and over again that he does research for "at the table", but no modern pair needs 26 points to get to game.


Also, I think it is crazy that BUMRAP is thrown into the trash as "too complex for use at the table". I have used BUMRAP for several years at the table, and find it very easy, this is how it works:

1) Count your HCP.

2) Add a half times the number of aces minus the number of queens.

3) Add a quarter times the number of tens minus the number of jacks.

Tada, done!

Most people can complete step 1 without much effort. Step 2 and 3 are very easy, just make a small adjustment because aces and tens are worth a bit more, and queens and jacks are worth a bit less. For most hands, this adjustment is less than a point, and just tells you if you have a "good" 11-count or a "bad" 11-count.

I have used Zar points at the table too. Neither of these methods is very complicated when you get used to it. I must admit that I'm still more comfortable with BUMRAP, and so it takes me less time to calculate BUMRAP+531 than Zar points. Perhaps in the future I will be able to compute Zar points just as quickly. A big advantage of BUMRAP is that you don't need to convert BUMRAP when talking to other people, it is already normalized. You can just say "I think this hand is worth 16 points, look at those aces and tens!"

[Zar]

>
I think that this is absurd.
<

My point exactly :-)

>
When Zar compares Zar points with HCP he uses Goren points the way people used them a zillion years ago, while Zar points are used in the most optimal way. No fair!!!
<

Hannie, your sense for fairness is killing me :-) Here it goes again - I am typing SLOWLY so you can understand :-)

We take ALL the hands out of the 1,000,000 boards section of the 5,000,000-board database.

We extract ALL of them which make 9 tricks in Spades.

We take each ONE of them and look at it "carefully". IF its Goren count is 26 or more, we flag it as an OVERBID for Goren. IF its Zar Count is 52 or more, we flag it as an OVERBID for Zar.

Clear enough? Fair enough? Let me know.

>
Zar claims over and over again that he does research for "at the table", but no modern pair needs 26 points to get to game.
<

WHAT points are we talking about here, Han? Goren points or HCP? If one of the partners has 7600 with 7 HCP he can open since he has 13 Goren Points DESPITE the fact that he has only 7 HCP, do you realize that? And if HIS partner has 6070 and 7 HCP, HIS count is also 13 and they reach a GAME with 14 HCP total (13 + 13 = 26 Goren Points). Nevermind the fact that they have a GRAND with those 14 HCP as you can guess (if you have read about misfit points).
<

3) Add a quarter times the number of tens minus the number of jacks.

Tada, done!
<

Tada - Quarter times of what? Quarter of a teaspoon may be? You lost me here ... :-)

ZAR

[cherdano]

Zar and Ben, I think you should take Tysen and Richard's criticisms more seriously. If you read Tysen's RGB thread (for me the all-time best systems thread on RGB), you have seen that he has done more serious work on bidding system evaluation (and thus implicitly on hand evaluation) than you have seen anywhere else. Richard brought up many valid points.

Instead of answering their issues, you react every time as if Zar had been unfairly attacked.

Arend

[han]

>
I think that this is absurd.
<

My point exactly :-)


I doubt that we agree on this one.

>
When Zar compares Zar points with HCP he uses Goren points the way people used them a zillion years ago, while Zar points are used in the most optimal way. No fair!!!
<

Hannie, your sense for fairness is killing me :-) Here it goes again - I am typing SLOWLY so you can understand :-)

We take ALL the hands out of the 1,000,000 boards section of the 5,000,000-board database.

We extract ALL of them which make 9 tricks in Spades.

We take each ONE of them and look at it "carefully". IF its Goren count is 26 or more, we flag it as an OVERBID for Goren. IF its Zar Count is 52 or more, we flag it as an OVERBID for Zar.

Clear enough? Fair enough? Let me know.


No, not fair enough. Not fair at all. The number 26 that you take here is completely arbitrary, taken from a very old book. Use the optimal number for Goren points to get a fair comparison.


>
Zar claims over and over again that he does research for "at the table", but no modern pair needs 26 points to get to game.
<

WHAT points are we talking about here, Han? Goren points or HCP? If one of the partners has 7600 with 7 HCP he can open since he has 13 Goren Points DESPITE the fact that he has only 7 HCP, do you realize that? And if HIS partner has 6070 and 7 HCP, HIS count is also 13 and they reach a GAME with 14 HCP total (13 + 13 = 26 Goren Points). Nevermind the fact that they have a GRAND with those 14 HCP as you can guess (if you have read about misfit points).


Yes, I understand very well what Goren points are, thank you very much. This discussion is not getting nicer if you keep pretending that I'm extremely dumb, I'm not.


<

3) Add a quarter times the number of tens minus the number of jacks.

Tada, done!
<

Tada - Quarter times of what? Quarter of a teaspoon may be? You lost me here ... :-)


Also, the discussion does not get nicer if you keep pretending that you are very dumb, I expect that you are not.

[Zar]

>
Zar and Ben, I think you should take Tysen and Richard's criticisms more seriously.
<

I take any criticism seriously. Seriously! :-) No, really, I do ...

I have been through at least 15 methods and some of them like Drubble, Binki, etc. were droped in the process for different reasons. If you have noticed, I have also included the newest method – the Lawrence Points. You think Mike doesn’t know about Binki or Zar? We have discussed those 3 years ago when the first Zar Points ideas were talked-about in emails only. YET, he has come up with a SIMPLE method which makes so much sense that it beats everybody else but the 3 variants of Zar Points.

You think that’s just “by chance”? Simplicity at the table matters.

Still, IF you come up with a method that adds three quarters of the value of your sevens to the predominant color of your Queens, AND you “feel” that it’s great, by all means – go ahead and use it. We play this game to get satisfaction out of it, whatever that means.

>
No, not fair enough.
<

I’ll try harder ...

>
Not fair at all.
<

Killer :-) Have some mercy, Han ...

>
The number 26 that you take here is completely arbitrary, taken from a very old book. Use the optimal number for Goren points to get a fair comparison.
<

I admit you have to enlighten me here ... Which book would you recommend? Better yet, why don’t you just TELL me what number to use rather than going by these “optimized” secret numbers? I will, since it would be still a simple Goren method, right? Please do not ask me to add quarters to the Goren points.

>
you keep pretending that I'm extremely dumb, I'm not.
<

I have never said that. Furthermore – I have never THOUGHT that. I don’t think Tysen or Richard are either. I respect the opinion of each and everyone on this discussion forum and I only hope we would drive it to a more productive discussion:

ZAR

[inquiry]

Arend

I compared ZAR points to hand evaluation as the way ZAR wrote it up. Tysen did Zar plus "FIT" and did not do it the way ZAR wrote it up. And then published, look, ZAR + Fit sucks (well, ok, that is unfair, ZAR + FIt is better than simply ZAR, but not as good as FLAVOR of the day).

Ok, I said, fine and well.. but how about comparing systems the way they are described. With points off for misfts (shorness in what ends up as trumps), and add points only with the distributional features ZAR advocates. Tysen's reply is this is the way Zar did it. Well, sorry, this is not the way he writes it up in his methods, nor the way I evaluate it when studying hands, nor when bidding. What good is it to use a method you call ZAR + FIT when it is not what is advocated by the author as ZAR + FIT?

I am more than willing to be shown a better way. While I pay fairly close attention to ZAR points, I do my own pluses and minuses as the auction develops. But I want fair comparisons. Let me say one unfair comparision in the published tysen study, I pointed out earlier. He assumed all contracts were NOT VUL when comparing. This disadvantages an agreesive system like ZAR. IF you overbid and you are vul, the rewards for overbidding are better when right then if you overbid when not vul. In fact, we all know you should overbid more at imps when vul. Then Tysen calculated the imps for the overbidding.

So there were at LEAST three errors in his calculations.

1) He ignored vuln issues in calculating the ave imps won or lost with the methods
2) He incorrectly automatically added three points for every extra trump
3) He didn't subtract anything for misfits and horrible misfits.

All three of these are mistakes either in his basic premise (all contracts calculated as non-vul), the evaluation of ZAR Fit points (adding three for each extra card, rather than conditional 1, 2 or 3 based upon short suit), and not taking off for misfit points.

Now, then, after AT LEAST these three errors, he very carefully and no doubt very accurately calcuated the means and SD of imps won or lost based upon ZAR points which were correct at most 1/4th of the time, and probably less than that (no subtract for bad fits,and the +3 is the maximum with good fit but requires a void, other times it should be plus two, plus one, or maybe plus none).

I would certainly like to see this be done correclty and fairly for each evalaution method. I think the general approach is sound, if the "points" are counted in a uniform way according to the instructions of the advocates for each method. This should be fairly straight forward. IT is clear to date, tysen has not applied this fairly. It is like his MISFIT points. He shows a chart a few pages back, but was this with superfit? With no fit? What the heck does that chart mean? I have looked at it and looked at it, and can honestly tell you that it means nothing to me... but I do know if I ahve super fit, misfit points are a huge HELP...

It should be noted I have asked ZAR to do the same precise calculations of his ZAR point methods (for example, as Tysen notes, ZAR was using short crude estimate to figure contracts as well). Such is really not necessary, when you have computers that can apply the metric automatically. Let the best method win, and who knows, the discussion might lead to improvements in all methods if fators that have big effects can be quantified.

[tysen2k]

Zar, on Sep 6 2005, 01:10 PM, said:

The number 26 that you take here is completely arbitrary, taken from a very old book. Use the optimal number for Goren points to get a fair comparison.
<

I admit you have to enlighten me here ... Which book would you recommend? Better yet, why don’t you just TELL me what number to use rather than going by these “optimized” secret numbers?

Use whatever number gives that evaluation method the best score. This should be done for all evaluation methods. Very simple.

[tysen2k]

inquiry, on Sep 6 2005, 01:22 PM, said:

It is like his MISFIT points. He shows a chart a few pages back, but was this with superfit? With no fit? What the heck does that chart mean?

It says right above it that it is for hands with no fit. Very clear.

Quote

I think the general approach is sound, if the "points" are counted in a uniform way according to the instructions of the advocates for each method.

I agree. I might be able to do this in the next few days, but I really have been spending too much time here when I really should be working... But really, I'll see if I can modify my counts so that it uses the right Zar adjustments.

Tysen

[1eyedjack]

Can someone point me to a link to Lawrence points? Google didn't quite hack it for me.

[Zar]

>
Use whatever number gives that evaluation method the best score. This should be done for all evaluation methods. Very simple.
>

??? Like how ... I use whatever the AUTHORS dictate. I call Harry Freeman, he sends me the formula, I run 1,000 boards evaluations, send all the hands over, he writes back they are all good, and I go ahead. HOW can I interfere and say “You know what, the AUTHOR says it is 10, but I’ll go ahead and use 12 since I know better, and STILL say that this is HIS method ???

What’s the point of twisting? We all want to see what works best, right? How can I “optimize” or “twist” just like that? May be this was what Han meant saying “That’s absurd” :-)

ZAR

[tysen2k]

Okay, I want to make sure I'm counting Zar points the right way...

Since there is no bidding in these evaluation methods, how do you determine who is opener and who is responder for the various adjustments? Because there are still a few cases where you get different points for the combined hands depending on who is opener.

1) Ben showed a 5-5 fit example that was solved using Misfit points, but there are still other cases such:

AJxxx
x
xxx
xxxx

xxxxx
xx
xxx
xxx

This only has 2 Misfit points. If South opens, North gets 2 bonus points for honors, plus 4 for the two extra trumps with a singleton. That's 6 bonus points. But if North opens, South only gets 2 bonus points, by either the Misfit method or the supertrumps. So how do you deal with this 4 point difference?

2) You get similar results sometimes when you have two 9-card fits. Who is the opener in that case?

3) Also, why is this pair of hands:

KQx
xxx
xxx
xxxx

xxxxx
xxx
xxx
xx

worth 2 more points than this pair of hands:

xxx
xxx
xxx
xxxx

KQxxx
xxx
xxx
xx

[tysen2k]

Zar, on Sep 6 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

??? Like how ... I use whatever the AUTHORS dictate. I call Harry Freeman, he sends me the formula, I run 1,000 boards evaluations, send all the hands over, he writes back they are all good, and I go ahead. HOW can I interfere and say “You know what, the AUTHOR says it is 10, but I’ll go ahead and use 12 since I know better, and STILL say that this is HIS method ???

Judgement evolves. Goren may have said 26 back in the 30's, but most people bid them on 25 today. And that 25 includes extra fit points (+2 per extra trump is pretty good, try adding it to your comparison). 24 might be even better, especially since you are only testing vulnerable.

If the author says 10 and you find that 12 gives a better score, let the author know. He might thank you.

[Zar]

>
You get similar results sometimes when you have two 9-card fits. Who is the opener in that case?
<

I am surprised that you are surprised that there is no bidding, and no opener – I guess you should have known that if you have run computer simulations actually. And as stated in the book, there is no adjustment for Misfit Points or Honors in primary or secondary suit or anything. Everything is kept simple and to the extent possible equal for all the methods. Superfit points are calculated straightforward – 0123 for the Zar Ruffing method and straight 3 for the ZP3. Obviously regardless of “opener” – since there is simply no opener. On the Misfit Points – you cannot even guess who would show which of the suits so that part is also in the “hard to simulate” department. As I mentioned already, in a bidding like 1S – 4S you actually neither know nor care about misfit points.

>
Judgement evolves. Goren may have said 26 back in the 30's
<

One of my Goren books is from **November 1985** “featuring Goren’s newest changes”. It states “where the partnership totals the equivalent of 26 points – or two opening bids – game is attainable if fit is found”. This is quote.

1985, not 1930.

>
but most people bid them on 25 today. And that 25 includes extra fit points (+2 per extra trump is pretty good, try adding it to your comparison). 24 might be even better
<

So Game with 24 including 2 per extra trump ... boy, you are ready for Zar Points with that aggressiveness :-)

With 10 trumps and 2 doubletons you would have 18 HCP – that is two 5332 hands with 5-5 fit and 18 HCP; the super-aggressive method of Lawrence would shoot for ( -1 + 13 – 2 – 2) = 8, that’s parts-core. Zar Points would have 11 + 11 + 1 + 1 = 24 from distribution and ruffing-superfit in both hands, plus 18*13/10 = 23 from Controls and HCP for a part-score also.

So where BOTH Lawrence Points and Zar Points are playing part-score, you say Goren is all-the-way into a Game!!! Why don’t you try to test that first. See what happens ...

>
If the author says 10 and you find that 12 gives a better score, let the author know. He might thank you.
<

I cannot really improve every available method – but I am flattered by your faith in me :-)

ZAR

[hrothgar]

Zar, on Sep 6 2005, 09:12 PM, said:

You keep chasing these Binky 521 and 741 and 321 etc. like a dog chasing its tail :-) When was the last time you used Binky or RUP or Gib or any of these AT THE TABLE?

BUMRAP + 531 is based on

A = 4.5
K = 3
Q = 1.5
J = .75
T = .25

plus adding points for shortage...

Personally, I find this much easier to calculate than Zar points...
Its easy enough to apply this structure at the table.

If the fractions are too complicated for the almighty bidding machine, you can always just multiple everything by 4...

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Sep 6 2005, 10:42 PM, said:

I think that this is absurd.

When Zar compares Zar points with HCP he uses Goren points the way people used them a zillion years ago, while Zar points are used in the most optimal way. No fair!!!

Zar claims over and over again that he does research for "at the table", but no modern pair needs 26 points to get to game.

As I noted earlier, start with a firm foundation and then add complexity:

In this case, I would suggest starting by determining which hand evaluation metrics are the most accurate. Once you have this information, you can then use this same data to study secondary issues like how many points are necessary for game...

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Sep 7 2005, 08:26 AM, said:

Zar, on Sep 6 2005, 09:12 PM, said:

You keep chasing these Binky 521 and 741 and 321 etc. like a dog chasing its tail :-) When was the last time you used Binky or RUP or Gib or any of these AT THE TABLE?

Do you bother to pay any attention to other people's work?

BUMRAP + 531 is based on

A = 4.5
K = 3
Q = 1.5
J = .75
T = .25

plus adding points for shortage...

Personally, I find this much easier to calculate than Zar points...
Its easy enough to apply this structure at the table.

Well Richard, I don't want to get too techinical about this, but as I point out several times before BUMRAP + 531 and ZAR points for "honors" is essentially the same. What you say? Look for yoursefl...

Card ZAR BUM
ACE   6     4.5
KING  4   3.5
QUEEN 2  1.5
JACK  1   .75
TEN   0    .25

If you normalize each of these to a scale using ACE as worht "1" point you find both have ACE evalauted as "1", King as "0.667", Queen as 0.333. Jack as 0.1667, That is the "evalaution" for ecah hcp is the same in both methods. Now BUMRAP counts TEN's as worth 0.056, while ZAR counts them as either "0" or "1" depending upon if they are in suiit wth fit for partner or not, and if they ARE in suit with fit with partner, they have to NOT have two higher cards to earn that 1.0. So on average,they are worth well less than 1.0. In other words, you can JUGDGE for yourself rather you have a useful TEN or not. AJT, I add vallue for the TEN, QTx, I add small value for the the, three tens in my hand, I add value for the three of them.

But REALLY, since the evaluation here is IDENTICAL, Richard ou your really find it easier ot add 0.75. 0.25, and the like together rather than using whole numbers? Even BUMRAP + 5+3+1 approaches ZAR distribtution point evaluaiton (see below). I don't, and I don't see how you can argue it is. When you throw the 5+3+1 in with BUMRAP, again you approach ZAR method...he adds a poiit for ech

In Feb 2004 Tysen Advocated Blinky (Evolving Blinky Points).

In May 2004, he came up with TSP or BUMRAP 5+3+!, I can't not exactly tell the difference, but this is taken from his thread on this on Yahoo groups... Improving Evaluation, Pt 3

Quote

HONOR POINTS (HP):
A = 6
K = 4
Q = 2
J = 1
(This is just HCP + Controls)


* Add 1 point for every suit that has 2+ honors (including the Ten)
* Doubletons: Don't add the point for 2+ honors and subtract one
additional point for QJ. (Don't subtract one for Qx or Jx as these are
already valued low enough)
* Singletons: Honors are valued as the next weakest honor (A=4, K=2,
Q=1, J=0)


DISTRIBUTION:
Add points for both shortness and length
* Shortness points: 5/3/1 for void/singleton/doubleton
* Length points: 1 point for each card over 4 in a suit

Not to get too technical this is ALMOST identical to ZAR. The point count "is". The add point for SUITS with 2+ honors is close. Zar does this with CONCENTRATION of VALUES in two suits (not all suits). So here this method is a little more aggressive than ZAR when adding pts. Zar removes one point for Qx, Jx, QJ, where this method which normally adds points for doubletons doesn't add one. Singleton honors, Zar devaluates, this method more heavily devaluates. Distribution, this method adds 5/3/1 for short suit and +1 for legth (counting both). Zar adds point for difference in legnth in the begiinning (distibutional poiints), and then adds further points for short suit and extra trump legnth if a fit/super fit is found.

So for instance... 5-3-4-1 is counted in this method as +1 for the five card suit, and plus 3 for the for net + 4. If one realizes that ZAR has to have 8 "dp" for 4333 (the worse), and use that as a base, this hand is worth 13-8 or +4 (over the miniumum base).

What I am getting at is this BUMRAP + 5/3/1 is, and always has been a MINOR TWEAK to ZAR. The difference comes in that that 5-3-4-1 the evaluation is over. With ZAR, if a fit is found, the evalaution goes up. Imagine, for instance you find your partne has five in your suit with four. In ZAR, you can add pt for honors in the four card suit, and you can add 2 points mor for the singleton since you have an extra trump.

I don't want to say tysen has re-invented the Zar wheel, but the similarties here are very close. The intial evaluaton is almost IDENTICAL, the place where the difference comes into play is when fit is found.

Ben

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Sep 7 2005, 04:27 PM, said:

Well Richard, I don't want to get too techinical about this, but as I point out several times before BUMRAP + 531 and ZAR points for "honors" is essentially the same. What you say? Look for  yourself...

I don't want to say tysen has re-invented the Zar wheel, but the similarties here are very close. The intial evaluaton is almost IDENTICAL, the place where the difference comes into play is when fit is found.

Get a bloody clue Ben. You've drunk WAY too much of the Kool Aid...

First of all, lets consider the whole honor point count "issue": I'm well aware that both Zar Points and BUMRAP evaluate the relative strength of Aces/Kings/Queen/Jacks using a near identical ratio. Indeed, I've made posts in the past which stated directly that I suspected that the accuracy of ar's hand evaluation scheme was largely a function of this ratio. [Personally, I don't credit this "innovation" to either Zar or Tysen. The earliest reference that I've been able to track down is contained in "The Four Aces System of Contract Bridge" which dates back to the 1930s...]

If we remove the honor point count from Zar and BUMRAP, we're left with the question of how one should account for distribution. Zar advocates (a+B) + (a-d). BUMRAP +5/3/1 counts 5 points for a void, 3 for a singleton, and 1 for a doubleton. Guess what? Zar's system of accounting for distribution isn't as accurate as the 5/3/1 scale...

As for the claim that Tysen is "re-inventing" Zar's work. I recall when Zar originally started posting his work on the web. Remeber those days long ago when Zar was talking about "aggressive" hand evaluation and Tysen and I were trying to explain the concept of "accurate" hand evaluation. To the extent that anything has drifted back and forth, its been the fact that Zar has slowly started to use more reasonable metrics to evaluate his own work.