[arrows]

http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/

No doubt many have already read it. Those who have not, I think it's worth
a visit.

Personally, I found it enlightening.

[Gerben47]

I'm sure it's all very nice but he suggests opening some shapely 9-counts and playing a standard system that's simply A BAD IDEA!

You will notice that those opening the light hands on the 1-level like he suggests have an AGREEMENT to open light, for example Groetheim - Aa and Pratap - Landen. These pairs will have agreements to cope with this. Without those agreement, pass has a lot of merit.

[Free]

Lol!

Gerben, if one player uses ZAR points and the other doesn't, then you just don't have any use of that method. It's more like a suicidal approach then One player counts 26 ZAR points, and the other counts 7 losers, ok, lets bid game

[Chamaco]

Gerben47, on Feb 8 2005, 09:53 AM, said:

I'm sure it's all very nice but he suggests opening some shapely 9-counts and playing a standard system that's simply A BAD IDEA!

You will notice that those opening the light hands on the 1-level like he suggests have an AGREEMENT to open light, for example Groetheim - Aa and Pratap - Landen. These pairs will have agreements to cope with this. Without those agreement, pass has a lot of merit.

Gerben,
there is a large number of past BBF posts on ZAR evaluation methods, mostly due to Zar himself and Ben (Inquiry).

A few of them are available at:

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=5108

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=4975

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, ZAR evaluation method accounts for the offensive potential of the hand, but:

1- does not promise the usual 2+ quick tricks if opps buy the hand; responder then has to be careful about doubling opps, since it is less clear when it is our hand; but the same apply to opps, they never know whose hand it is, and you get to open more frequently light, with all the added bonuses;

2- does not promise substantial hcp content if the hand is a misfit, so NT contract cannot bid so confidently.

Having said that, Ben has posted quite a large number of hand where zar evaluation worked pretty well, as long as both partners know what to expect and what NOT to expect from his pard's bid (which is dramatically different from classical bidding).

I am sure there are also ZAR-induced disasters, but on the whole it does seem a very god way to assess the value of combined hands when there is a fit, at least as good as LTC.

[Gerben47]

Quote

Gerben, if one player uses ZAR points and the other doesn't, then you just don't have any use of that method. It's more like a suicidal approach then

@Free: This is exactly what is going to happen with this kind of promotion. Suppose someone reads this and thinks: "Axxx Axxxx Jxxx void is worth 1♥ because it's even 27 ZAR)" and his partner is not aware of this. He will bid 3NT on a non-fitting 14-count, convinced that this is more than enough, and find that he has a combined 23 and not a chance.

Quote

1- does not promise the usual 2+ quick tricks if opps buy the hand; responder then has to be careful about doubling opps, since it is less clear when it is our hand; but the same apply to opps, they never know whose hand it is, and you get to open more frequently light, with all the added bonuses;

2- does not promise substantial hcp content if the hand is a misfit, so NT contract cannot bid so confidently.

These are big points:
1. means that you have a hard time doubling them. If the defensive strength of a minimum balanced opening bid and the defensive strength of a minimum shapely opening bid are too far apart either partner doubles too quickly when you are unbalanced or too rarely if you are balanced.

2. This means that you will have a hard time stopping in a playable contract with a misfit, which means that you will go down doubled more often. This also means that you will miss some 3NT contracts because you cannot be sure if 14 HCP is enough for game.

From what I have observed in Vugraph the pairs that consider opening shapely 8-counts on the 1-level also open almost all 11-counts. It seems that the corollary is different from Zar's: Your minimum high card stength for shapely opening bids is regulated by what you do with balanced hands so that your discrepancy is not too large.

[Chamaco]

Gerben47, on Feb 8 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

These are big points:

Sure I agree with the criticism, and personally I use ZAR as a tool to evaluate the potential of a hand once a fit is found, since it works better in NON-misfit hands.

However there is a point in using ZAR when deciding if/how to open freak hands:
a 6-5 hand or better with 8 hcp, 99% of the times has a fit with pard, and in such a case ZAR works quite well.

For more mundane hand types, I prefer to open according to "standard" rules, and - as I said - wait until a fit is found before switching to ZAR evaluation, avoiding the problems with misfit hands, 3NT contracts, and penalty doubles.

[inquiry]

Well, Zar recommends that you can use ZAR points even if your partner is not. I think you can certainly do this once a fit is found and you are trying to judge game/slam potential, but I believe some of the lght opening bids you have to have a partner who is on the same page as you.

As for the idea of opening light, let me give you the final two hands from topflight where I had ZAR decisions earlier on the hand, show you what I did, and explain why (I am south on both of these)

1)

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     -     Pass  Pass
 1♠    Pass  Pass  Dbl
 Pass  Pass  Pass  [/font]

---

I chose pass with 27 ZAR points. The reason was clear to me. If I open 1C over partners 1S I would have to rebid 2C, something I didn't want to do. If I open 1D, I would be forced to rebid 2C which my partner and I play as 100% forcing and does not promise clubs. I could live this second choice, except I think it would be better to wait and back into the auction on the next round, when I can show two or three suits. Lucky for me, West decided to go the lead directing route. 1Sx down two with them vul was a nice plus for us... (11.67 imps)

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     -     Pass  Pass
 1♠    Pass  Pass  Dbl
 Pass  Pass  Pass  [/font]

---

Here I choose to open despite only 25 ZAR points (I have spades, so if you read ZAR you will see that 25 is enough to open when holding spades). After my 1C opening bid, I have no rebid problems, so I open. Partners double promised specifically 4hearts, could be longer, but with five and values he would bid differently. My jump to 2H showed four hearts weakish over the redouble (can't ge much weaker it appears). Partner's 2S was a game try despite my weakness. Now I can add two more points of AK of spades, and 2 points for the singleton diamond. My 25 has ballooned to 29. That is more than enough for me to leap to game in a 7 high suit when opening with only 10 hcp. 4H rolled home, as luck would have it... Note if I had signed off in 3H my parnter would have respected that decision. I was the only player in the tourney to open this hand.

I guess the lesson is, if you are going to use ZAR points to open, make sure you are happy with your rebid options. In fact, that is probalby true of any light opening bids.

[tysen2k]

Zar is describing what he considers to be an accurate measure of the strength of a hand, that is its trick taking potential. Note that a system for measuring the strength of your hand is totally independant from the requirements you have to open. You can use the ABC system to decide how strong your hand is and the XYZ system to decide if you want to open.

I won't go into a long rant about why Zar points aren't the most accurate measure of strength, since I've said plenty on this forum already. The short story is that yes, Zar points are more accurate than HCP, but there are other methods that are more accurate and simpler to use.

Tysen

[ochinko]

I am a long time user of Zar points, and found them useful more times than not. They help to find games/slams that are not bid on other tables. They fail when a misfit is encountered, sometimes miserably, but hey, nothing is perfect

I don't think that your partner should be aware that you use them, just as she doesn't need to be aware that you count in LTC, rather than HCP.

I rarely see it mentioned that they are good not only to advise you when to bid but also when to pass. It certainly help to at least know them. I see many disastrous 1M openings with 11 HCP that I would never open precisely because Zar pts are too few.

[flytoox]

To say ZAR is a better evaluation method than simple 4321 method, you have to use examples which can be bid better by ZAR than by HCP.

I honestly dont think Ben's example can support it. USing std HCP method I think your decision is same in the 1st board. With the 2nd board, you will pass south hand and there wont be a 1D overcall(perhaps it will be a 2D opening by west) and North will double and you will reach 4H/S.

Furthermore, the fact that Ben passed 27 Zar point hand but opened 25 Zar point hand shows that nothing can replace good judgement.

[Gerben47]

Quote

I think you can certainly do this once a fit is found and you are trying to judge game/slam potential, but I believe some of the lght opening bids you have to have a partner who is on the same page as you.

Agree with this, this was my point exactly. People rather discuss conventions instead of style questions, but they are so important.

[ochinko]

flytoox, on Feb 15 2005, 05:32 AM, said:

Furthermore, the fact that Ben passed 27 Zar point hand but opened 25 Zar point hand shows that nothing can replace good judgement.

You'd never catch me arguing against the need of good judgement.

Zar pts is just another tool in someone's toolchest. They can't compensate for the lack of thinking and experience.

I count them only if I have at least one 5-card major, so I'd pass on both examples. It's been a while since I last read them so I can't recall if they were meant to assist in other distributions as well. Your mileage may vary.

And another point. Yes, you happen to land on an impossible 3NT but it compensates when your opponents stop at 2NT for +2.

[fred]

My problem with Zar points (and with HCP, Losing Trick Count, Law of Total Tricks, "Rule of 15", "Rule of 20"...) is this:

Many people, once they discover an interesting new method of evaluation that is supposed to help them make more accurate bidding decisions, become "Zarbots" (or HCPbots or LTCbots or LOTTbots...). Victor Mollo's Walter the Walrus is the archetype of an HCPbot character. People who blindly use Zar points (or any of the other methods) to resolve all of their bidding decisions are no different from Walter (and should expect to have similarly poor results).

Bridge does not work this way - there are no magic rules that will allow you to always make accurate bidding decisions.

In my opinion it really doesn't matter what evaluation method you use for deciding things like whether or not you should open the bidding. You and your regular partner should put parameters on your opening bids, discuss what actions you would take with various hands in various positions and at various vulnerabilities, and stick to your agreements. Doing that is far far far more important than how you count your points.

Someone has claimed that the Zar system works especially well once a fit is found. You may be interested in knowing that really good players do not use any kind of point count to make bidding decisions in these situations. What they do is think about various hand that partner could have, what contracts they rate to belong in when partner has such hands, while considering tactical issues like how your bidding might effect things like the opening lead, what the defenders will know about your hand, and what effect your bidding might have on their subsequent bidding (or lack of bidding).

Zar has done some clever research, but for the small % of bidding decisions I make in which my number of points come into the equation, I will stick with HCP (because they are simpler to compute and because I am comfortable with using them). If you think it is worth the effort to shift your evaluation method to Zar (or whatever), then good for you, but do not become a Zarbot - Bridge is ultimately a game of taking tricks, tactics, judgment, and logic and no method of evaluation will ever be an effective replacement for these things.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

fred, on Feb 15 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

...... but do not become a Zarbot - Bridge is ultimately a game of taking tricks, tactics, and logic and no method of evaluation will ever be an effective replacement for these things.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred makes several good points. The Milton Work point-count (4321) is by no means water-proof (aces are underrated, queens and jacks overrated), but at least it's easy to remember.

Your own judgement is much more important, and as in all cases: Your agreements with your partners are what really counts! I am always willing to learn, but to be honest, I don't think the Zar method will improve my bidding.

Roland

[inquiry]

Well here is a ZAR hand where frequent poster helium is the star...

Scoring: IMP

Both helium at his table, and a gold star at my talble opened south's hand 1♠ and both got a 2♣ response.

Not for ZAR, south is 9 hcp, 3 control, 16 distributional points for nice total of 28.

---

At one tabl the bidding went
West North East South

 -     -     -     1♠
 Pass  2♣    Pass  2♠
 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

No doubt 2♠ shows "minimum".

Helium bid 2♦, and notth can quickly apply zar match. He has 16 hcp, 10 distributional points 6 control ponts. He gets bonus for ♠Q and ♦AK for 3 more fit points, and for diamonds, he can gain 1 point for two card difference between diamonds and hearts. That totals... 36 ZAR points. Add his 36 to expected 26 ZAR point at a minimum for opener, and that totals 62 ZAR points. According to ZAR that is the minimum for slam (if not off two quick tricks). Of course, opener can have more, so over 2♦, helium's partner rightfully thinking possible slam. He didn't bother with making sure he was not off two tricks in one suit, he blasted with blackwood and 6♦ easily reached.

Does ZAR have anything to do with this hand? Well both opened light by HCP standards, but his is a sound ZAR opening. And I suspect helium figured his hand had "extra value" (as I thnk it does if a fit is found), and bid 2♦. Did either use ZAR, I ahve no idea.

Ben

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Feb 15 2005, 12:39 PM, said:

Does ZAR have anything to do with this hand? Well both opened light by HCP standards, but his is a sound ZAR opening. And I suspect helium figured his hand had "extra value" (as I thnk it does if a fit is found), and bid 2♦. Did either use ZAR, I have no idea.

Ben

What this has to do with Zar points or not is beyond me. If you decide to open the South hand (I would), every sensible bridge player would rebid 2♦. This does not show extras and is the same, irrespective of whatever system or point-count you play.

Besides, this is not a wonderful slam. You need spades 2-2, or guess who has the singleton ace, if any. Finally, there must be no spade ruff.

Roland

[ochinko]

Fred, Roland, you're both absolutely right, but you're also biased. Let me explain:

First of all, you are world class players. Zar can't help you because you've already reached a point that no new system of evaluation can bring you something that you don't already know, because of the overlap between the systems. You've covered (perhaps) all the ground.

Zar is to help intermediate players to achieve a better judgement. Yes, I believe it pays off to learn it, just as it pays off to learn HCP, LTC, LTT, etc. It certainly won't pay off if learning it makes someone a Zarbot.

Second of all, and even more important, is the preemptive value of Zar bids. I recently participated on a tourney on BBO where I met two stars in the first round. I didn't even use Zar at that moment but remembered the golden rule that you can let mediocre players bid without disturbing them. They can dig their hole themselves. But if you leave experts to bid without intervention, you can be sure they are going to reach the best possible contract. So you enter the bidding early with a calculated risk, and then remain mute hoping to have done the harm. Opponents stopped at 3♠ for +2.

Admit it, you don't like your RHO to open 1♥ when you cannot be sure whether to place him with 9 or 19 HCP

[tysen2k]

It may not be obvious, but my real interest is not in finding the most accurate evaluation method, but trying to come up with a methodology to measure how that strength changes as the bidding progresses. Hands are dynamic and everyone knows that they change in value, but by how much? You can come up with rules and say add a point or two for honors in partner's suit, add or subtract a point for shortness there, etc. But where do those values come from? Usually the author just guesses at a reasonable number and sees if it makes sense with a few examples. How do you know you should adjust by 1 point instead of 2 or 3?

My research is mostly in trying to figure out a quantitative way of measuring the change in valuation during the bidding. You pick up:
♠Kxx
♥Qxxx
♦x
♣Txxxx

Not a superb hand, but what if your partner opens 1♥? How much is your hand worth now? Your RHO then overcalls 1♠. How much does this change things?

And let's not forget that measuring offensive strength and defensive strength are two different things. You can't use one point system to measure both. If you decide that you want to give priority to offensive strength measurement, then you'll open light distributional hands. But you might not be able to double the opponents if they bid over you. You have to decide which you think is more valuable.

No evaluation method will substitute for judgement. I don't really use complicated methods at the table. But what looking into this kind of research has done is give me a feel for what the correct magnitude of change really is. I still use my own judgement all the time, but this gives me a good starting point.

Tysen

[Walddk]

ochinko, on Feb 15 2005, 01:06 PM, said:

Fred, Roland, you're both absolutely right, but you're also biased. Let me explain:

First of all, you are world class players. Zar can't help you because you've already reached a point that no new system of evaluation can bring you something that you don't already know, because of the overlap between the systems. You've covered (perhaps) all the ground.

Zar is to help intermediate players to achieve a better judgement. Yes, I believe it pays off to learn it, just as it pays off to learn HCP, LTC, LTT, etc. It certainly won't pay off if learning it makes someone a Zarbot.

Admit it, you don't like your RHO to open 1♥ when you cannot be sure whether to place him with 9 or 19 HCP

Sorry, but you are wrong. Even world class players can still learn, but we have the ability to distinguish between good and bad, sometimes unnecessary instead of bad. Experience has taught us. This has nothing to do with bias; it has, however, something to do with common sense.

Secondly, if you think that intermediates benefit from learning Zar-count, LTC, LOTT, etc., you are mistaken. They have plenty to do with learning opener's rebid after 1-over-1 or 2-over-1.

I happen to know what I'm talking about. I have been teaching bridge for about 35 years and run a successful bridge centre with more than 1,000 members.

Finally, people may open 1♥ all they like, whether they have 9 or 19 hcp. That won't scare anyone away from the table, even if the purpose is to be destructive. The defensive bidding is admittedly not as accurate as the offensive one, but it's not an insurmountable difficulty to deal with. So feel free to play the Zar-count as much as you want against me.

Roland