[tysen2k]

inquiry, on Jun 7 2004, 12:54 PM, said:

If you make it worht 0 points with no shortness, 1 point with a doubleton, two points with a singleton and three points with a void, TSP will almost  (not quite), but almost be Zar points.. Maybe you will discover this relationship in a few days. 

Ben, the point I was trying to make was that it's not just based on extra trumps and your own shape (shortness) but on partner's shape as well. Your extra trump (with a void) is worth a different amount if partner is shapely rather than balanced.

Way back in Part 1 of my Hand Evaluation series, I talk about how much the extra trump is worth, with and without shortness. If you convert the tricks I talk about there into a TSP or Zar scale, you see that your should make the following adjustments:

Shape    Adjust
3=4-3-3    1
3=4-4-2    1
3=5-3-2    1
3=5-4-1    0
3=5-5-0    0
3=6-2-2    0
3=6-3-1    0
3=6-4-0    1
3=7-2-1    0
3=7-3-0    1
4=3-3-3    2
4=4-3-2    2
4=4-4-1    3
4=5-2-2    2
4=5-3-1    3
4=5-4-0    3
4=6-2-1    2
4=6-3-0    3
5=3-3-2    3
5=4-2-2    3
5=4-3-1    3
5=4-4-0    5
5=5-2-1    3
5=5-3-0    4

It's not as simple as just saying that an extra trump is worth x when you have a singleton, and y when you have a void.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jun 7 2004, 06:39 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 5 2004, 09:23 PM, said:

What do you mean by "Goren has .23" ???
Are you talking about the Error term, the score or what?

Regard the accuracy of Tysen's statistics.
Unless people demonstrate otherwise, I tend to trust them.  In this case, I trust that Tysen calculated the statistics properly.

If I had doubts regarding the accuracy of his statistics, I would perform the same set of calculation using my own data and seek to verify his numbers.

If I were unable to reconcile his figures, I would then attempt to clarify methodology.

I don't understand why this notion is so complicated.

He means he tested it and Goren came ouit 0.23 imps better per board than the other systems. He used statsitics to proof it, and he wants now to throw out ZAR points and other systems as being innaccurate.

You accepted Tysen's 0.28, etc, so why are you know questioining Zar's 0.23? Do find typen's 0.00 for Goren and Zar's 0.23 at odds? Maybe one of them is wrong? Maybe both of them? Why do you accept when you are a programmer and could test this is a short period of time by yourself?

I don't accept either of these. Clearly zar is just making a point. So the goren 0.23 is a joke. Tysen is more serious, and i ahve no doubt he thinks his evaluation is correct. Expeience, however, clearly shows to me that ZAR pointsi is much better than Goren. I have looked at a lot of hands, and this is easy to confirm. So I seriously doubt the small difference Tysen shows between them.

Second, i have begun evaluating Tysens TSP points, and find it very similar to ZAR points in many ways. The differences are rather mild, but they are there. But I find it equally unlikely htere will be as huge a difference between ZAR and TSP as shown and furthermore, i think if there is a difference, ZAR will score better (but here i have only a few hands to compare, as I do this the old fashion way, which will be unacceptible to all sides).

Richard, you are a computer programmer, and bridge player. You have the expertise to quiz this stuff yoursefl. Why not give it a go, and report back?

Ben

>Richard, you are a computer programmer, and bridge player. You have the >expertise to quiz this stuff yoursefl. Why not give it a go, and report back?

1. I no longer have a double dummy solver on my production machine

2. When I do have spare cycles, I am trying to focus on my MOSCITO notes

3. I don't have a dog in this fight. Believe it or not, I don't find hand evaluation methods to be particularly interesting. The only reason that I have bother to post in this thread is that I am trying to get Zar to appreciate that his efforts to promote Zar points may be hindered by his failure to adopt statistically valid techniques to measure efficiency.

[tysen2k]

inquiry, on Jun 5 2004, 07:53 AM, said:

As far as discounting singleton honors, let me paraphrase ZAR, which of the following hands would rather have?

A) ♠xxxxx ♥xxxx ♦K  ♣AQJ, or

♠Kxxxx ♥AQJx ♦x ♣xxx

You would probably answer B, but there are plenty of hands your partner could hold, where hand B would be worthless, and hand A would be golden, for instance, which hand above would you like to have if your partners hand was

Partner ♠A  ♥void ♦AQxxxx ♣Kxxxxx

I'm not sure what this proves. Sure there will be hands where hand B would be worthless and hand A could be golden, but there are many more hands were the opposite is true. What you have to do it take the improvement/loss you get across from all of partner's possible hands and weight it by the probability that they actually have that hand. If you do this, you get the values calculated by Binky, and thus TSP.

If you actually believe that high cards are better in short suits, then why aren't you adding points for these stiff honors?

[inquiry]

tysen2k, on Jun 7 2004, 02:29 PM, said:

If you actually believe that high cards are better in short suits, then why aren't you adding points for these stiff honors?

I will add or subtract values as I figure out if they are working or not... seems about right to me. To count a singleton Ace as only 4 is not such a good idea initially I think.

Ben

[tysen2k]

inquiry, on Jun 7 2004, 02:39 PM, said:

To count a singleton Ace as only 4 is not such a good idea initially I think.

Read Mike Lawrence's "Complete Book on Hand Evaluation." He has a whole section of the book dedicated to just singleton aces.

[MickyB]

tysen2k, on Jun 7 2004, 04:01 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jun 7 2004, 02:39 PM, said:

To count a singleton Ace as only 4 is not such a good idea initially I think.

Read Mike Lawrence's "Complete Book on Hand Evaluation." He has a whole section of the book dedicated to just singleton aces.

Yes, a very good book (like most of his). To say that singleton honours should not be devalued because they might be more useful than if they were not singleton is like saying AKQ♦ x♣ is no better than xxx♦ K♣ because partner might have A A void AQJT9876543. Yes, a singleton honour may be very useful; but it is less likely to be useful than an honour that is not singleton. If partner's bidding tells you that your honour is actually worth its weight in gold, adjust then.

[Zar]

*** tysen2k wrote: "I've said many times that if my system says to bid a grand on 0+ points I'd score perfectly on Zar's tests. Zar has never had a reply to this.
<


Well, let’s have a look at the VERY first sentence of the Zar Points article (I’ll allow myself to quote because you’ll obviously never read anything about “those other points, the bad ones” :-). Please do not treat this as a promotion of Zar Points :-)

“Never Miss a Game Again? That’s easy – just bid a game on every board! :-)”

I hope you’ll read at list this sentence from the Zar Points stuff :-)

ZAR

[tysen2k]

Zar, on Jun 7 2004, 07:06 PM, said:

*** tysen2k wrote: "I've said many times that if my system says to bid a grand on 0+ points I'd score perfectly on Zar's tests. Zar has never had a reply to this.
<

Well, let’s have a look at the VERY first sentence of the Zar Points article (I’ll allow myself to quote because you’ll obviously never read anything about “those other points, the bad ones” :-). Please do not treat this as a promotion of Zar Points :-)

“Never Miss a Game Again? That’s easy – just bid a game on every board! :-)”

Zar, I did read your article. I don't know how this quote is an argument to the point I raised which is that the test that you wrote pages and pages about is essentially worthless.

[inquiry]

tysen2k, on Jun 8 2004, 11:45 AM, said:

Zar, on Jun 7 2004, 07:06 PM, said:

*** tysen2k wrote: "I've said many times that if my system says to bid a grand on 0+ points I'd score perfectly on Zar's tests. Zar has never had a reply to this.
<

Well, let’s have a look at the VERY first sentence of the Zar Points article (I’ll allow myself to quote because you’ll obviously never read anything about “those other points, the bad ones” :-). Please do not treat this as a promotion of Zar Points :-)

“Never Miss a Game Again? That’s easy – just bid a game on every board! :-)”

Zar, I did read your article. I don't know how this quote is an argument to the point I raised which is that the test that you wrote pages and pages about is essentially worthless.

Let's keep this civil. :-) Zar's article specifically address the point you raised, Tysen, in saying that to never miss a game again, simply bid game on every hand. You twisted it a bit earlier to never miss a grand slam, simply bid one on every hand. So, in fact, he raised "your issue" before you ever did.

And in fact, ZAR did a lot more than just pay lipservice to the overbidding problem. If you read his research as well as his articile, you will see that he looked at 70,000 hands were partscore (3S/3H) was the double dummy correct contract, and compared ZAR to ZAR + Fit to Goren. Goren over bid on 22,000 of these, Zar+fit on 11,000, and Zar on 2,000 (my rounded numbers). If you prefer, you can check the number of contracts where 3H/3S would have been reached (48K goren, 59K Zar+fit, and 67 Basic Zar).

So, in fact, he has addressed, your basic concern. It doesn't seem he checked all possible contracts at all possible levels, but this adequately illustrates the point of stopping short of game.

As for the singleton honor issue. I too deduct for singleton honors. I like to have my highcards in my long suits, like we all do. I just think a two point deduction of a singleton ACE is way, way too much. And in Tysen's math, I didn't see a re-addition for short suit honors if they seem to fit well for parnter. So the points off, appear to stay off. This has to be wrong, at least on some auctions.

Ben