Critics and Opinions regarding the Zar Points

 This page provides some “bits and pieces” of my precious discussions with many world champions, famous bridge authors, and world-class players. At the bottom of the page you will see comments from the editors of different bridge magazines, too.

The reason I provide this is that I believe it gives you the important perspective (not always favorable for me) of undisputed experts – it would benefit you regardless of your attitude towards Zar Points.

 Matt Granovetter:

>

The idea of such an article is terrific.

<

 Thanx, Matt.

 >

Your system most probably is an improvement over current point count evaluation, but...it's too complicated for most players….

<

 This statement is kind-of a “common” concern, and honestly my “unbiased” opinion is that there isn’t such a “giant leap of a difference” in complexity between:

 - calculating 3*v + 2*s + d (where v is the number of voids, s is the number of singletons, and d is the number of doubletons in the hand);

 - calculating (a+b) + (a-d) where a, b, c, and d are the suit-lengths in descending order;

 Habit, familiarity and convenience are probably some of the factors here, but certainly the “perception” of complexity that you point out is there to some extend.

 And “perception is reality” J Thanx, Matt.

 Eddie Kantar:

>

Although it looks good and I agree with almost every bid, I doubt whether you can sell it to the general public because it's a bit too involved - too many calculations.

<

You always have to have your calculator handy in bridge, Eddie J I definitely recognize your concern regarding the general public, though.

Good luck with your new book!

Larry Cohen:

>

Looks interesting -- several authors (Marty Bergen, Edgar Kaplan and others) have gotten interested in the subject and have tried to develop alternate point count systems.  Of course, this debate goes back to the Goren-Culberson-Lenz days.

I would have to study more seriously to fully understand -- it is more than casual reading! Thanks for the mention of the LAW with reference to me.

<

My pleasure, Larry - it’s just natural to direct the reader to your publications when the LAW is the subject.

>I'll forward it to Marty -- but I know he gets overwhelmed with e-mails and can't respond to them right away.

<

Thanx in advance – I am really looking forward to his comments and critics.

 Fred Gitelman:

>

Very interesting and well-written article.

<

 Thanx, Fred.

 > I suspect that Eric Kokish will also enjoy reading it. His e-mail address is ….

<

 Thanx for the referral. I’ll get in contact with him today.

 >

I wish I could give you some more intelligent feedback about your ideas, but I am afraid the only way to do that would be for me to try playing bridge using your methods of hand evaluation and see how it works. Given my current schedule, this is unlikely to be possible any time soon.

<

Believe me, Fred – I didn’t expect you to throw everything away and start playing Zar Points in the middle of a tournamentJ )

>

My general sense after reading your article is that your ideas do have merit. Perhaps if I spend some time with the program you plan to create will be sufficient for me to gain better insight into how well Zar points work in practice.

<

I hope so – and I’ll keep you posted. Good luck with the up-coming tournaments!

Michael Rosenberg:

>

I examined the article.  I have seen similar attempts to quantify hand evaluation before, and the problem is that things are always missed. For example, I saw no mention of singleton honors or intermediate cards.

<

Singleton honors are degraded the same way they are degraded now, Mike. Also, all favorite conventions are available, too (adjusted to the Zars).

Intermediate cards - they are accounted for - 10's of fit-suits are counted as 1 pt, while 10's in the short suits are worthless anyway.

(NOTE: these comments were about the first version of the article where I really have missed to explicitly mention the regular degrading for singleton honors, so Mike had his point, as usual).

>

Perhaps Zar Points would be useful for some players, but for most experts I think the current system, intelligently adjusted, works ok. 

<

Agree 100%.

This article certainly does NOT target the experts, though. On the contrary - it targets the intermediate and "advanced" players that do NOT have yours and Zia's expertise!

That's the whole point - how to try to bridge the gap between the expert and the middle guy. I don't think you or Bob Hamman or Zia would EVER need the Zar Points.

Please ... :-)

>

I actually think too many players are 'slave' to the 4-3-2-1 system.  I guess being a slave to the Zar Points system would be as big a problem, just as some players now are slave to the Law of total Tricks.

<

Nothing can replace thinking at the table, Mike - you know that far, far better than me. The point is to provide "somewhat-better" guidelines for the "middle-guy" who constantly operates in a fog of uncertainty.

>

A comprehensive system (like this) is too complicated for at-the-table use. I see no real 'solution' (to being an expert), except learning from reading and experience.

<

Well… that’s certainly so … Reading and experience – and learning from it rather than just reading it and experiencing it J Agree again, Mike. Thank you for both the time and the comments!

Mike Lawrence:

>

Your article is interesting, to say the least...

<

Thanx indeed, Mike …

>

I do have some brief thoughts however.

The items you isolate to use in your evaluation are all worthwhile. 

I have not bothered to check to see if they are properly weighted, but each contributes some important point.

<

I discussed that with Fred Gitelman, already (the proper weight). The proper weights are a matter of equations calculations already so this cannot be a concern (NOTE: this was again an early feedback like the one from Michael Rosenberg so these were all valid points as you might expect).

>

There is one point that bothers me in that there is no allowance for judgment. It looked to me as if misfitting hands might overreach to game when they should not.

When there is no fit, you need extra values to compensate. 

<

Agree 100%, but I discuss these in the second version of the article (the one on the Web) and you’ll see the developments there – thanx once again for the example and the rest of the feedback!

>

The correction …

<

I thought a lot about that, and the trouble stems from the need that the correction should be simple enough to be no burden for the players and in the same time to be effective in the sense that in covers the suit combination in both hands.

The power of Zar Points is engendered by its simplicity (oh, man … I meant ‘compexity’J ) and relative independence of the hand evaluation (only fit adjustments are made). But I will certainly continue thinking in that direction, Mike.

>

Sorry if I seem to be quibbling a little...

<

VERY strong points, actually (as one might expect from Mike Lawrence J )! Thank you indeed for the time to read the article and think about counter examples!

>

Anyway, your statement about bidding aggressive games is correct and anything to encourage that is useful.

<

That’s the main point indeed.

Most of the critics I received on the article boil down to the “it is too complex” issue – it looks like counting to 13 is already too complex J.

We have to certainly keep the things as simple as possible, though (but not simpler J ). Thanx again, Mike!

Eric Kokish:

>

I've read the article quite carefully …

<

Thank you, Eric!

>

I think you're on to something, although the world will consider it too complex.

<

By sitting around the bridge table, you already are into something “too complex”, Eric J

>

The key to everything is the two short suits and it impacts on so much of the total count, as in 4-0 vs 2-2, for example.

<

Very true.

>

I believe that this stuff is worth publishing.

<

Honored to hear it from your mouth, Eric – I’ve read so many articles of yours…

>

Start by trying The Bridge World and Bridge Today, but don't rule out any publication. IMP magazine in Holland is a likely candidate too.

<

Thank you again. I definitely will.

>

Keep me up to date.

<

Most certainly will. Thanx!

Ron Klinger:

>Thank you for forwarding the article to me. Fascinating reading and excellent content.

Well done.

<

Thank you, Ron. I am honored to hear that from you!

Indeed.

>

There will be many (the ambitious) who will be influenced by your approach, but the vast majority will fall into your final four paras group. Everything beyond 4-3-2-1 is too complex.

<

Oh, man … same refrain J

4-3-2-1 – let’s play bridge for fun J

>

I have recently tried to encourage the average players to ‘lower their standards’ by taking shape and controls into account when opening the bidding --- attached are excerpts from a couple of recent books --- and focusing on many of the factors that you do, too, but Zar Points are much more scientific and hence thorough.

Congratulations.

<

Thank you, Ron!

And good luck to the up-coming Bermuda Bowl – I’ll comment on some of the boards there from Zar Points perspective.

Thanx  again and good luck!

Sid Ismail:

>

Hi, Zar!

I have distributed your link to some 300 players on the SABF mailing list.

<

Thank you, Sid !

>

A view expressed by an ex-Norwegian master is attached.

<

Thanx, again – I’ll gave a look and reply promptly.

Paul Ibona.

>

I have engineering and mathematical academic background and I must say that your point count is very, very clever.

I am very excited to try it at the table.

<

Thanx Paul – at the table is all that counts J

>

Good to see some theoretical work done and see how it works in practice.

Many thanks again for this groundbreaking point count.

<

Please let me know if you hit a measurable success or failure with Zar Points – I’d be pleased to explore both.

Rose Duff:

>

Hi there Zar,

Many thanks for all the amazing research you've been doing!   

We all benefit from it.

<

Thank you – I certainly hope so J

>

Am I right to assume that one partner alone can't use your Zar point count if her partner is using the old faithful Goren or Bergen counts?

<

Very good question, actually.

And the answer is “yes, you can”. In fact Zar Points are going to be used in the up-coming Bermuda Bowl (by a very few teams of course) and one of the players is going to use it EXACTLY that way – just to “back” his decision-making process in though situations.

Kit Woolsey:

>

Looks fine to me, Zar.

<

Thanx, Kit – good luck at both the bridge table and the backgammon board J

Butch Campbell:

>

Your example of opening with 7 HCP's is not permitted in ACBL sanctioned events.

<

Butch, since you are the ACBL Tournament Division Manager, you can take the appropriate steps to change that :-)

I am sure you do realise that if you do not open the hand, you'll be "out of breath" real soon. This is on top of the fact that by opening you are pushing the opponents in defensive track.

Points-schmoints ... you either play bridge or cricket :-)

>
A change to this would require approval of the ACBL Board of Directors. I do not intend to propose such a change.
<

The point is that when I pick up my cards, the last thing I need is a Tournament Director reaching and grabbing my jaw like the Big Brother, whispering in my ear "Now you have to say P-A-S-S, boy..." (did I scare you? :-)

Forgive my arrogance of thinking that I have a couple of brain cells in my head and I can decide whether to say "Pass", "One Spade", or "Boy, oh, boy" :-)

You don't like my bidding 'extravagances'? I have an easy solution for you - just pull the "X", enjoy the result, and say "Thank you" :-)

This kind of a game is called "Bridge".

If you continue the line of ever-increasing restrictions, we'll end-up with rules like:

- third-hand MUST play high;

- second-hand MUST play low;

- you MUST take all finesses (in the trump suit only : -) etc.

I am not saying that such a game is not gonna be interesting - all I am saying is that it's gonna be interesting in a "different way" :-)

Thanx for the input, needless to say.

Mario Dix:

>

I must say it is a very fascinating article and I shall give it some local publicity in a review here in Malta.
<

Thank you in advance, Mario!

>
I get a headache thinking about all your stuff , but truly, thanks a lot.
<

Sounds better than I have expected, Mario :-)

Ken Lindsay:

>
Aloha, Zar!
<

Aloha, Ken !

>
I finished reading all 26 pages of your document, and was VERY impressed.
<

Thank you, nice to hear it from you.

>
I'll send a longer reply in a few days -- this looks to be a busy week -- and look forward to seeing you next summer (unless you can be persuaded to come in January for our annual Regional, instead).
<

I'd love to, but the current plans are to be in Japan by that time - I'll let you know.

>
Cordially, Ken
<

Thanx again - I am looking forward to your further comments

 ...............................

>
First off, I really meant it when I said I was VERY impressed with what you're doing.
<

I am really honored Ken, indeed.

>
There's a long history of attempts to improve on Culbertson's honor count approach, but nothing has been able to displace the Work count, at least in this country. The idea that adding controls to Work is equivalent to the 6421 count seems obvious (NOW), but I'd never made that connection. And the (a+b) + (a-d) was totally new to me, and an obvious improvement on Bergen's Rule of 20. You're the king (or perhaps the (C)Zar) of hand evaluation.
<

Wow ... that certainly goes beyond my expectations Ken. Nobody has gone that far so far :-)

All this stuff has been there since the time Mr. Harold Vanderbuilt invented the contemporary Contract Bridge - I was just able to see it and happy to report it.

To put it using the famous sentence of Federico Fellini - "I just report what I see" :-)

>
I dabbled in point counts briefly years ago, but quit when no one seems to want to change from Work, and my main interest was in system development rather than hand evaluation.

A bit of history. I joined the ACBL in 1950 while in graduate school, as soon as I had passed my prelims, and was immediately impressed by S J Simon (not so much by "Why You Lose at Bridge" as by his other book, "Design for Bidding", that talked about the tradeoffs involved in building a system. That inspired me to send an article to The Bridge World on an Americanized version of Acol that, to my surprise, was published as a 3-part series in 1957 when I'm sure I had less than 100 MPs. I quickly decided I needed to learn the game before writing anything else, and finally wrote "3-D and the MAFIA Club" in 1981 that combined a forcing club/4-card major system with some new ideas on competitive bidding, and had favorable reviews in England and Australia, but only lukewarm reviews here (because every bid would be an alert). Then I retired, moved here, and did not play for a few years while developing an automated publishing system for the Navy. Then my daughter decided to join me and wanted to learn bridge. That led to "Foundations of Modern American Bidding" that tries to make what people play today at least semi-intelligible.
<

I visited the http://northshorebridge.com/foundn.htm site specifically for that, Ken. Trully impressive from a variety of perspectives ... I am going through it chapter-by-chapter ...

>
My main quarrel with American bidding is the emphasis on 44-fits, since that often makes it more difficult to locate the 53-fits (primary as well as secondary) that provide a source of tricks for games and slams. So my systems usually have a minimum biddable suit quality of Q10xx, and I'll freely bid AKx (or even KJ10 or Axx, in a pinch) before stooping to 8762, on the theory that most defensive tricks are taken by high cards (or ruffs) rather than by length, and if we don't have the high cards, then the opponents must.

The net result of such thinking is that I try to evaluate high-card strength and distributional strength separately, with controls determining which of the two is more important. This is why I've been using, and teaching the Losing Trick Count for measuring distributional strength. You (surprisingly) didn't treat LTC in your comparisons, but with 9 possible scores (0-8), it should rate as well as the best of the non-Zar methods.
<

I've been around Romex since my student years in the late 70-es and I would say that LTC doesn't directly address the distribution (or shape) per se. What I have in mind is the following (examples directly taken from the LTC page of bridge-forum.com):

I am sure you see the problems I have with LTC (actually the 2 TYPES of problems I have).

I have hard time classifying these points as Distribution Count ... They are more relevant to the Footprints, if considered in both hands, although the Footprints cover much more ground I believe.

>
I'm beginning to suspect that HCP is the least important of the components in the Zar count, and that a workable system might be possible with just Controls + (a+b) + (a-d), which I'll call the Zar Distributional Count (ZD).
<

You are right about the HCP. Its value is pushed back in two ways:

1) The amount of points you get from distribution is BIG compared to the amount of points you "collect" from the HCP (say, a hand with 11 HCP and 5431 distribution will get 13 points for the distribution - more than the HCP itself);

2) You add the Controls, which pushes the value of the HCP even further (say, in the above-mentioned 11-HCP hand you'd get additional 5 points if the 11 HCP are A-A-K).

>
This might be a good approach for preemptive bidding. I've never believed in prohibiting a Weak Two Bid with a side 4-card suit, and this approach could legitimize my violations of that prohibition. Since 26/13 = 2 (My, I'm brilliant today!) it might make sense to divide ZD by 2 and add it to HCP to get ZarCount/2 and thus retain the familiar 13 to open/26 for game. Then people could use ZC/2 for opening bids and ZD/2 for Weak Twos and preempts.
<

I will study the idea of "Zar-Pointing" the pre-emptive bids - it's certainly worth it, thank you Ken.

As to the general conversion (scaling back to 13 for opening by dividing the amout of Zar Points by two), I did a similar thing for scaling Zar Points (the distributive part of it, or the ZD-points as you call them) to Goren points and then to Bergen points - this was an idea of Jeff Rubens, the Editor of "The Brige World", which I liked a lot.

This scaling is in "The Conversion" section.

But I'll definitely do the research of evaluating the preempts in Zar Points - an excellent idea! Thanx Ken! I'll keep you informed about the developments.

Nikos Sarantakos:

>
Thank you for the link - I want to study it more deeply. After a first cursory glance I liked what I saw, especially the fact that you use real-life deals played by experts.
<

Thanx, Nikos.

>
I also am looking forward to see your analysis of the coming Bermuda Bowl.
<

Thank you - it's the same idea - see what the experts do and how you would compare ...

>
A hint: if you have the time and inclination, you may want to check the Monte Carlo deals for:

- hands that were not opened by champions although they were a Zar opening bid

- hands that were opened light although Zar would not open them
<

The latter would REALLY surprise me - if I see one I will DEFINITLY publish it under the Bermuda Bowl link. Even the idea to check for that did never occur to me ...

If ANY expert EVER opens a hand that does NOT have 26 Zar Points, this would be an indication that the expert