Hand Analysis Which software?
#1
Posted 2004-May-26, 08:51
I'm asking because I want to crunch some numbers on the frequency of Acol 2s as opposed to weak 2s, and I don't have the time right now to make something home made.
Thanks, Dom
#2
Posted 2004-May-26, 08:58
Kicks butt, and its free
http://www.dombo.org/henk/dealer.html
Please note, lots of folks have trouble running the program under modern windows variants.
#3
Posted 2004-May-26, 09:02
ZAR and other bunch of methods are only a bad solution, a ridiculous attempt to mechanize judgement a task that we know is impossible.
Weak players try to achieve expert judgement by using ZAR and other fancy methods, I accept they can improve your biding over normal point-count buy what they really need is to learn how to evaluate hands regardless of points, ZAR and other stuff. There's no evaluation method better than human judgement.
#4
Posted 2004-May-26, 09:06
luis, on May 27 2004, 12:02 AM, said:
ZAR and other bunch of methods are only a bad solution, a ridiculous attempt to mechanize judgement a task that we know is impossible.
Weak players try to achieve expert judgement by using ZAR and other fancy methods, I accept they can improve your biding over normal point-count buy what they really need is to learn how to evaluate hands regardless of points, ZAR and other stuff. There's no evaluation method better than human judgement.
TOTALLY AGREE!
#5
Posted 2004-May-26, 09:42
Thanks for the link horthgar, I'll try it out.
Dom
#7
Posted 2004-May-26, 11:17
luis, on May 26 2004, 03:02 PM, said:
ZAR and other bunch of methods are only a bad solution, a ridiculous attempt to mechanize judgement a task that we know is impossible.
Weak players try to achieve expert judgement by using ZAR and other fancy methods, I accept they can improve your biding over normal point-count buy what they really need is to learn how to evaluate hands regardless of points, ZAR and other stuff. There's no evaluation method better than human judgement.
I don't agree.
Judgement isn't (and can't be) anything more than a set of rules. Complicated rules, to be sure, but rules nonetheless.
The trouble is that these rules are completely internalised and often the practitioners themselves are unaware of what those rules are.
I think it is excellent that people are making the effort to externalise those rules.
Eric
#8
Posted 2004-May-26, 11:50
When using your head to evaluate hands, you'll use ALL available info and your personal experience, like passing with a sure big fit to keep opps out of slam for example.
#9
Posted 2004-May-26, 11:53
#10
Posted 2004-May-26, 11:56
Free, on May 26 2004, 08:53 PM, said:
Zar points can be added to the hand evaluation using a relatively simple script
Bubble sort the hands so that they are arranged from longest to shortest
calculate the distributional points
add in the controls...
#11
Posted 2004-May-26, 12:12
Free, on May 26 2004, 05:50 PM, said:
When using your head to evaluate hands, you'll use ALL available info and your personal experience, like passing with a sure big fit to keep opps out of slam for example.
You are right in that the "correct" evaluation method takes account of opponents' bidding (and state of the match, your estimation of partner's skill, psychological aspects etc etc). But there are still rules to all of this.
eg Whatever evaluation method I was using, I would count AQ as if it were AK if my RHO bid the suit.
Adding these rules to zar (or any other method) would only improve it. But that is no reason to discount the whole enterprise of trying to construct the rules of bidding.
Eric
#12
Posted 2004-May-26, 12:41
1. computers oviously a computer will have easier time with a counting system then humen and harder time with system humens are using.
2. people who have to expalin themself to partners, if you play with a team and your pair went down in 4h after you opened a 1 hcp 1h it will be much eaiser blaming zar.
What i dont think its good for is actually what zar ment it to be, a system that will help rookies make decisions like good players, this can help them getting better results but if they want to get better which will help on the long run they will have to understand more and count less, begining with a counting system can work both ways, it can work for the best and teach help them develope a better self sense, or it can make them abendon self evaluation falling in love with counting.
#13
Posted 2004-May-26, 13:35
#14
Posted 2004-May-26, 14:33
EricK, on May 26 2004, 03:12 PM, said:
This is an over-evaluation.
AK is worth two tricks and might build up a Queen or a long suit in your partner's hand.
AQ in RHOs suit is only a likely (or very likely) two tricks and is not likely to build up anything in your partner's hand.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#15
Posted 2004-May-26, 14:50
Cascade, on May 26 2004, 03:33 PM, said:
EricK, on May 26 2004, 03:12 PM, said:
This is an over-evaluation.
AK is worth two tricks and might build up a Queen or a long suit in your partner's hand.
AQ in RHOs suit is only a likely (or very likely) two tricks and is not likely to build up anything in your partner's hand.
As nice a statement of why not to up-grade AQ in your RHO suit to full AK value as I have ever seen....
AK in ZAR = 10
AQ in rho suit in ZAR = 9
Not perfect, but reflects what you said, AQ is worth more after RHO bids the suit, but not as much as when partner bids the suit. Interestingly, if your partner bids this suit, this AQ is now worth 10 (6 for Ace, two for Q, and one for each honor). Again reflecting the same kind of evaluation you said so nicely in words rather than math. Surely whole points is not as accurate, as say worth 1.238 more, but the math is easier and the principle is the same.
Ben
#16
Posted 2004-May-26, 15:10
With no other information if you have an AQ ...
It is worth two tricks if partner has the K with length (3+)*
It is worth two tricks when RHO has the K
It is worth one trick when LHO has the K (unless LHO leads this suit or various other minor obscure possibilities e.g. squeeze).
This averages to 1 2/3 tricks without the additional possibilities in the third case.
When RHO bids this suit this expectation goes up but I do not think to a full two tricks.
When partner bids this suit this expectation goes up to more than two tricks.
When LHO bids this suit this expectation goes down. This drop in value I would judge to be more than the increase in value when RHO bids the suit.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#17
Posted 2004-May-26, 15:53
Free, on May 26 2004, 12:50 PM, said:
I am actually working on this problem right now. I should have something to post within a week or so. I'm looking at quantifying the adjustments that should be made to evaluation based on the opponent's bidding. I agree, I've seen no one quantify this before except for these rules of thumb people keep passing around. "Add a point with AQx if RHO bids it," etc.
I'm working on the data now but it seems a lot more complicated than that. For example, AQx is worth more than AQxxx since you're going to run into shortness in both partner and LHO in the second case.
I have done work on quantifying how evaluation changes when partner mentions a suit (how much does Qxx in trump support go up in value?):
Improving Hand Evaluation Part 1
Improving Hand Evaluation Part 2
These articles are a little long and technical, but I'm also working on a "for dummies" version of these findings that can actually be used at the table. I might post that in another week or so. I've been finding time and again that hand evaluation is very dynamic and these articles attempt to quantify this revaluation based on statistics instead of just guessing that "this hand should get better by 2 points because of these honors."
Tysen
#18
Posted 2004-May-26, 15:57
#19
Posted 2004-May-26, 16:33
Fluffy, on May 26 2004, 04:57 PM, said:
Sure. It could also set up 4 tricks, 1 trick, or none. My evaluation programs take each of these situations and multiplies it by the probability of it actually happening. So you get a weighted average of the benefit. As you gain more information about your partner's hand, your evaluation will get more and more accurate. If you've learned that your partner has enough outside strength and support for you to safely establish a 7-card suit, then the probability of extra tricks goes up and your evaluation goes up appropriately.
Tysen
#20
Posted 2004-May-26, 22:11
Cascade, on May 26 2004, 08:33 PM, said:
EricK, on May 26 2004, 03:12 PM, said:
This is an over-evaluation.
AK is worth two tricks and might build up a Queen or a long suit in your partner's hand.
AQ in RHOs suit is only a likely (or very likely) two tricks and is not likely to build up anything in your partner's hand.
If RHO overcalls in a suit, I don't see why AK in my hand is more likely to build up a long card in partner's hand than AQ is. I certainly don't expect it partner to have the Queen when I have AK in RHO's suit, any more than I would expect him to have the King when I have AQ.
Eric