inquiry, on Aug 29 2005, 08:36 PM, said:
Zar has actually put an incredible amount of new work into ZAR fit counts, that is well worth the new read.
Zar's may have invested enormous amounts of additional work, however, his analysis suffers from the same flaws as always: Zar doesn't seem to have any real background in statistics or information theory both of which are very helpful for any kind of serious work in this field.
Case in point: Look at the following quote from page 16
"The first comparison is something that we have already done - the STRONG opening bids in the Strong 2
♣, the Strong 1
♣, and Zar Point Bidding
- Strong 2
♣: the Span of the normal opening bids spreads across 4 levels (since Goren Levels are 3 HCP strong)
- Strong 1
♣: the Span of the normal opening bid spreads across 2 levels (since Goren Levels are 3 HCP strong)
- Zar points: the Span of the normal opening bid spreads across 1 level (since the Zar Point level are 5-points strong)"
I understand what he's trying to say, however, he is creating his own volcabulary while ignoring standard statistical methods. He is then using this vocabulary to make straw man comparisons about other bidding systems. Furthermore, I admit that I've only skimmed his work, however, I've never been able to find some very basic pieces of data such as frequency distribution showing what percentage of hands have 10/11/12/13 etc. Zar points
Equally significant, the bidding system that he derives runs count to an awful lot of established work. For simplicity, lets "just" consider the structure of opening bids:
1
♣ = 36+ Zar points, any distribution
1
♦ = 31-35 Zar points, any distribution or 26-30 with a 6 card minor
1
♥ = 26-30 Zar point, 4+
♥
1
♠ = 26-30 Zar points, 4+ Spades
1N = 26 - 30 Zar points, no 6+ card suit, no 4 card major, no 5-5 in minors
2
♣ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 6+
♥
2
♦ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 6+
♠
2
♥ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 5
♥ and 6+ minor
2
♠ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 5
♠ and 6+ minor
2N = 26 - 30 Zar points, 5+
♣/5+
♦
3
♣ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 7+ Clubs
3
♦ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 7+ Diamonds
3
♥ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 7+ Hearts
3
♠ = 26 - 30 Zar points, 7+ Spades
I hardly know where to begin:
1. There are a number of existing bidding systems that use 2 tiers of strong/artifical/forcing openings. Most of the ones that I am familiar with use 1
♣ to show the "intermediate" strength hands and 1
♦ to show the strong openings. The Swedes are VERY good at system design. I'd like to see a good reason why Zar has inverted the "traditional" treatments.
2. Zar is devoting enormous amounts of bidding space to hands with 26-30 Zar points. As far as I can figure this describes (roughly) 28% of all hands. In order to accomplish this, he is forced to open with nebulous 1
♣/1
♦ openings on close to 18.5% of all hands and pass with 53%. Personally, I don't like those odds. I'm also not fond of the fact that he's shoved hands with 6 card minors into the 1
♦ openings. It seems like a kludge.
3. The 1NT opening could be made on anything from a 3=3=3=4 to a 1=3=5=4 hand. I can't understand how responder is expected to understand what to do... I'm fond of offshape NT openings that clarify strength, but not when they clarify a range equal to 28% of all hands. (Its worth noting that Zar's 1M openings don't have any kind of NT ladder to clarify range with balanced hand patterns)
4. I'm not even going to start on the 2M openings... I can't image that they'd come up more than once in a Blue Moon.
Help
