[Elianna]

Chamaco, on Sep 18 2005, 03:49 PM, said:

I do not know you and neither do I know Zar.

But if I had to judge from the BB Forum posts, my own impression is that of the 2you are by far the most arrogant: very nice and kind to the player you consider strong, and arrogant and sometimes verbally violent with posters that disagree with youi without having any recognized achievements.
And the fact that the achievements you have are much higher than Zar's is not- in my view - a good reason for this.

Of course I might be wrong, as I do not know you, and also because the written words can be misleading.
Also, probably other strong players older than you have developed some less disturbing ways to deal with these arguments.

While Justin is more than capable of standing up for himself, I should say that _I_ know him in person, and he is basically a nice guy. I think that he may seem arrogant in some of his posts elsewhere, because he makes statements, and doesn't explain the reasoning, and how dare a young person contradict others without being apologetic! ()

I agree that he's not always the most agreeable person on the forum, but calling him the most arrogant, when there are others that go around purposely insulting others is a bit off the mark.

[Chamaco]

Elianna, on Sep 19 2005, 05:54 AM, said:

Chamaco, on Sep 18 2005, 03:49 PM, said:

I do not know you and neither do I know Zar.

But if I had to judge from the BB Forum posts, my own impression is that of the 2you are by far the most arrogant: very nice and kind to the player you consider strong, and arrogant and sometimes verbally violent with posters that disagree with youi without having any recognized achievements.
And the fact that the achievements you have are much higher than Zar's is not- in my view -  a good reason for this.

Of course I might be wrong, as I do not know you, and also because the written words can be misleading.
Also, probably other strong players older than you have developed some less disturbing ways to deal with these arguments.

While Justin is more than capable of standing up for himself, I should say that _I_ know him in person, and he is basically a nice guy. I think that he may seem arrogant in some of his posts elsewhere, because he makes statements, and doesn't explain the reasoning, and how dare a young person contradict others without being apologetic! ()

I agree that he's not always the most agreeable person on the forum, but calling him the most arrogant, when there are others that go around purposely insulting others is a bit off the mark.

As I said:

1. I do not know him personally, so I can draw impressioins only from written words; these impressions are not always fair, for no matter which person, I am perfectly aware of this.
However, some posts did make some bad impression to me.

2. Elianna, I did not call Justin *the most arrogant person*.
I just stated that he indeed seemed arrogant to me in quite a few instances, and seeing someone - who ( in my opinion of course) has responded with such a tone in the past- calling Zar arrogant and other things, was just too much for me.
Indeed , he seemed to me more arrogant than Zar, not the most arrogant person on BBF or BBO.

3. still to Elianna: you are free to believe me or not (after all you do not know me personally ), but I assure you that, in my evaluation, I am not being harsher than usual because of the age of Justin, believe me.
If anything, from my perspective, the fact that he is young tends to be a reason to justify some occasional unpleasant tones, not to be harsher.

4. As for me, just to respond to Justin's post, I always try to consider the hypothesis I was wrong.
I do think that Justin, like all people on the Forum here is a nice guy.
But some people, even nice guys, have sometimes the tendency to become arrogant or to feel "ONNIPOTENTI" (sorry, this is an italian word, I do not know the translation).
There are many ways I could be wrong:
- I could have had the wrong perception, perhaps I was reading Justin's posts in "one of those days";
- perhaps Justin wanted to be nice but in a few instances just used the wrong words (or that was just my peception), this happens quite often when writing in forums.

Anyways, I think it's right that he knows that he may give this impression to at least some of the posters, at least before he himself attacks someone esle calling him arrogant.

Then of course he is free not to give a damn about it, but at least he knows.

[Elianna]

Chamaco, on Sep 19 2005, 12:45 AM, said:

"ONNIPOTENTI" (sorry, this is an italian word, I do not know the translation)

You may want "omnipotent", which basically means "all-knowing".

[Blofeld]

Elianna, on Sep 19 2005, 02:52 AM, said:

Chamaco, on Sep 19 2005, 12:45 AM, said:

"ONNIPOTENTI" (sorry, this is an italian word, I do not know the translation)

You may want "omnipotent", which basically means "all-knowing".

Actually, "omnipotent" means (literally) "all-powerful" ; "able to do anything".

[for the record, "omniscient" means "all-knowing"]

Leaving aside the personality issues that are cluttering everything up, the points Justin is making seem more bridge-related than Zar's, and I'd like to see a proper response to them (not more arguments ad hominem).

[cherdano]

I think calling Justin arrogant for this thread is just unfair -- it was Zar who first got personal.

As far as I am concerned, I am fed up with Zar's posts, and won't bother reading them anymore. They are hard to read, the actual content is hidden in between lots of random remarks that have little to do with bridge (some of them apparently trying to be funny), and he never answers the points brought up by other posters.

I still thank him for coming with Zar points, they certainly helped improve my judgement of distributional hands (even though I hardly count them anymore).

Arend

[Chamaco]

cherdano, on Sep 19 2005, 12:27 PM, said:

I think calling Justin arrogant for this thread is just unfair -- it was Zar who first got personal.

Where did Zar go personal ?
When he said "if there were two of you it would be perfect?"

If this is the crucial point, I think it is no offense:
it is just a normal statement that good judgment is a personal thing and that it works optimally with pards with which we have a complete "bridge feeling".

The same works for me or you: if only we could play with a copy of ourselves, all we be well.

In any case, this remark was quite decent (and even if it was hironical - I am sorry to say - would not justify anyone to call ZAR a**hole).
IMO Zar was trying to communicate that "good judgment" is harder to quantify than a given metrics, therefore - I myself would argue - harder to teach to weaker players.

And in my opinion it's not useless to teach mechanical metrics to advancing players:
just a well as we learned Milton Works point count and learned thereafter to appreciate its limits, we did the same with LOTT, with LTC and so forth.
They are tools, and as a whole they just shed a new light on the possibility to develop a full-rounded "good-judgment", which of course is the overrall goal but not so easy to get to.


---
Incidentally, I am pretty sure that Justin's judgment works much better than Milton Work count, LTC, LOTT, ZAR,Tysen and "Chamaco" points.
I do not think ZAR points are useful for players of Justin's caliber, but rather as a crutch for more mundane players.

[Echognome]

Agree with Arend above.

I think it's fine that Zar came up with a new evaluation method. At least it offers another choice that we may or may not choose to use.

I also think that Zar is trying to promote his method. It is not just on BBF that I have seen his posts. However, it is only on BBF that I have seen a serious debate on the merits of his hand evaluation. My opinion is that he has not answered questions very well and has alluded to, if not directly made, personal attacks. I do not find it surprising at all that someone would feel insulted. Perhaps it is a language issue, but I'm not going to rely on that crux.

I also believe that Justin just stated what a lot of people felt, but was not as polite as he could have been. Maybe that is being young and brash. I usually consider such a post and cancel it because it I do not believe it is worth the argument. But don't feel alone Justin, for I too have had a post edited here for my sarcastic tongue.

[inquiry]

Zar is trying to

1) Promote his method
2) Answer his critics
3) Explain why he thinks his methods are useful

He has done a good job on #3, I appreciate the problem he has convincing skeptics. His approach to #1 and #2 could be better, because he appears to have tried a lot to answer #2, but the ground keeps shifting under him with changing topic of attack, that his responses have beome less "responsive" and more reactionary. This actually works against his goal #1.

Having said that, ZAR has never claimed that experts need his methods. To the contrary, he has always stated that experts have judgement based upon tens of thousands of hands/years of experience. So the Judgement issue raised and the challenge by world champion justin to take on ZAR in a money match is a red herring, and not of value to the discussion.

Second, no matter what school of evalaution you belong too, you know that there are other factors that affect the true worth of a hand (values other than distribution and controls). Zar method, like any other you want to subscribe too, is just a rough evalaution. How do you evaluate a few extra nines? How much better is KJ9875 than KJ5432, etc.

One problem people (particulary Richard and Tysen) had with ZAR's approach was it wasn't "scientific enough" (read that as no statistics). Zar has now addressed that issue in a way, he believes, should also help determine the most appropriate method for crediting certain additional distributional factors (smaller standard deviation of number of tricks taken). It is disappointing the champions of the statistical approach have not weighed in on the approach ZAR took due to their attackes in general on his approach. Tysen has been silent although he and ZAR reached at least one similar conclusion, an eight card second fit is not worth all that much. Richard made a comment on the justin/Zar squabble. Only Mike777 commented about the statistical approach demanded by so many here and his reply must have been quite discouragning to ZAR who took this approach to answer critics here, where he said "What happens if we accept that mean-variance optimization isn't sufficient? "

The gaunlet has been tossed on the ground. ZAR has shown by a metric demanded by his critics that ZAR (well some flavors of ZAR) gives the "Best" approaxiamtion by his standards. There is some errors here.. the assumptions that all contracts are vul, but that has nothing to do with trick taking potential. But it is time for some of the people demaniding this type of appoach to be taken to step up and say ZAR's conclusions are right are wrong, and why. The data, the statistics, and the conclusions are there for all to see. Tysen, think TSP is better? Show us the numbers (yes it was disappoint ZAR didn't include yours, but you have the ability to run the same test using the same data).

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Sep 19 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

Chamaco: I agree nothing warrants being called an ***hole. As for your other opinions, you are entitled to them. I freely give my opinions and am open and honest on these forums, and sometimes not as tactful as I could be.

Justin,
the ability to analyze one's own mistake is the mark of great bridge players and of good men too.
I think being able to say "I was wrong" (while still standing the legitimate different opinions) is a great quality, I really like this of you.

I make mistakes much more often than you so I have more practice in saying that !!

From my part, I can only be happy to hear that some of the impressions I had were not founded

As far as being sincere and open, I agree with your position, but keep in mind that the written medium is often tricky: the same thing, said with a smile and having a drink with friends, will not sound the same in the cold internet words.

The latins used to say "Verba volant, scripta manent", meaning "Spoken words are volatile, but written text remains", so written words are much heavier and better handled with some caution.

It is wise to remember this in any field of life
(I wish I would remember to apply myself this advice whenever I am challenged )

[Elianna]

Blofeld, on Sep 19 2005, 04:55 AM, said:

Elianna, on Sep 19 2005, 02:52 AM, said:

Chamaco, on Sep 19 2005, 12:45 AM, said:

"ONNIPOTENTI" (sorry, this is an italian word, I do not know the translation)

You may want "omnipotent", which basically means "all-knowing".

Actually, "omnipotent" means (literally) "all-powerful" ; "able to do anything".

[for the record, "omniscient" means "all-knowing"]

Yep, you're right! More evidence that English was not my first language.

[Al_U_Card]

[quote name='Chamaco' date='Sep 19 2005, 07:39 AM'] [quote name='cherdano' date='Sep 19 2005, 12:27 PM']
The same works for me or you: if only we could play with a copy of ourselves, all we be well. [/quote]
Hmmmmn.....clone myself to get the perfect partner.....perfectly awful perhaps! Can't imagine blaming myself for a bad result....but I would HAVE TO!
Far, far better to learn to walk in someone else's shoes by experiencing what you would expose them to. The golden rule and a healthy dose of "think before you speak" avoids more problems than it would cause.

[tysen2k]

inquiry, on Sep 19 2005, 06:23 AM, said:

Zar has now addressed that issue in a way, he believes, should also help determine the most appropriate method for crediting certain additional distributional factors (smaller standard deviation of number of tricks taken). It is disappointing the champions of the statistical approach have not weighed in on the approach ZAR took due to their attackes in general on his approach.  Tysen has been silent ...

I've been silent since I've been on vacation.

Zar's use of standard deviation of number of tricks is the exact method I used a year ago when this thread started.

[Zar]

>
Zar's use of standard deviation of number of tricks is the exact method I used a year ago when this thread started.
<

Zar’s use of standard deviation has nothing to do with your measures. For the first time STD is used for OPTIMIZATION of evaluation parameters (rather than just measuring the STD) with SPECIFIC RESULTS on Honor Points assignment, Fits Evaluation, Double-fit Evaluation, Honor Combination Evaluation etc, and then TESTED BACK in the Match, thus pushing the best performer ZP Ruffing from the 0.93 STD to 0.90, then 0.89, then all-the-way-down to 0.82!!! I hope that’s clear enough.

>
the 2you are by far the most arrogant: very nice and kind to the player you consider strong, and arrogant and sometimes verbally violent with posters that disagree with you without having any recognized achievements.
<

I have no clue how you think I determine that Jlall or Hrothgar (I don’t know neither her nor him) are weak and Xyz is strong ... I couldn’t be able to make any difference – “on Internet nobody knows that you are Dog”, remember?

Besides, I share Mike Rosenberg’s opinion on Bridge – “In this game nobody’s any good – winners only make fewer mistakes, that’s all”.

>
Of course I might be wrong, as I do not know you,...
<

That sounds more like it ...

>
Zar points calculates distributional strength using the formula 2a + b – d. This formula is based solely on hand pattern. It does not change based on the number of honors held in the hand.
<

Don’t see how stating the obvious contributes to progress – of course the formula for the Distributive Part does NOT change with the Honors – that’s why it is CALLED Distributive Part ...

>
because he makes statements, and doesn't explain the reasoning,
<

That’s what they call “judgement”, dear :-) Judgement with reasoning is an oxymoron :-) “It’s my judgement, damnit – why should it be based on something other than my “experience” and “gut-feeling”, and why should I explain it when I cannot even articulate it” :-)

>
I still thank him for coming with Zar points, they certainly helped improve my judgement
<

This meaning of “judgement” is new to me ... :-) These guys use “Judgement” for “shooting from the heap” :-)

>
Where did Zar go personal ? When he said "if there were two of you it would be perfect?" If this is the crucial point, I think it is no offense
<

I certainly did NOT have anyone personally in mind, that’s for sure. This was a general statement to make a point. Even now I don’t know Jlall and have never seen her playing anywhere in any shape or form, bridge or nonbridge alike – plus even if I new her, I’d never involve someone’s personal skills in a general discussion anyway.

>
IMO Zar was trying to communicate that "good judgment" is harder to quantify than a given metrics, therefore - I myself would argue - harder to teach to weaker players.
<

AND harder to COMMUNICATE, if you have missed that point.

>
I do not think ZAR points are useful for players of Justin's caliber...
<

If you mean Justin Hackett, I doubt that too. But he is just one of two twins from the top of the British League rather than being representatives for the intermediate and advanced players, right? I have stated many times (including in the books) that players like the Hacketts, Zia, Rosenberg etc. don’t need ANY method to help them out, Zar Points included.

I just came back from a trip to Europe and next week will finish the optimizations of the High-card points and the comparison of 4321 vs. 6421. I’ll certainly let you know when you can download the entire research.

Cheers:

ZAR

[1eyedjack]

To Zar:

In your last post you have I think quoted Hrothgar out of context:

hrothgar, on Sep 19 2005, 12:08 AM, said:

Zar points calculates distributional strength using the formula 2a + b - d
This formula is based solely on hand pattern.  It does not change based on the number of honors held in the hand.

You agreed with that statement, but it was just a preamble to the next paragraph that you did NOT quote and do not appear to have addressed:

hrothgar, on Sep 19 2005, 12:08 AM, said:

Justin is arguing that distributional strength is inversely related to honor strength.
Extremely weak hands benefit from distribution much more than strong hands.

To understand the context of the first quote, it was only mentioned in order to stress that the formula takes no account of the effect speficied by Justin in the second quote. If you are saying that Justin's effect IS accounted for elsewhere in the Zar evaluation then please say how this is done, in order to avoid further wasted time on the matter.

I don't know of any formulaic hand evaluation system that DOES take account of this effect, mind, but as long as we are trying to reduce evaluation to mathematics, perhaps it should not be ignored?

[hrothgar]

Zar, on Sep 25 2005, 06:15 AM, said:

>Zar points calculates distributional strength using the formula
>2a + b – d. This formula is based solely on hand pattern. It does >not change based on the number of honors held in the hand.

Don’t see how stating the obvious contributes to progress – of course the formula for the Distributive Part does NOT change with the Honors – that’s why it is CALLED Distributive Part ...

Listen up ... The reason that I restated the "obvious" was an attempt to simplify matters for your benefit.

It might be helpful to review the complete conversation.

1. Justin made a comment about hand evaluation
2. You responded (and I quote)

"We are talking evaluation methods, you are saying that it’s raining outside ...
I don’t get the picture completely, may an ESL issue"

3. I posted a response describing my interpretation of Justin's orginal comment
4. You reply with yet another of your snide little comments, while once again failing to address the main point...

[Zar]

>
Distributional strength is inversely related to honor strength. Extremely weak hands benefit from distribution much more than strong hands.
<

We are back in the area of stating the obvious ... Of course weak hands will benefit more from distribution, simply because the MAX honor power in short suits is VERY limited:

- 0 HCP in a suit which is void;
- 4 HCP in a suit which is singleton;
- 7 HCP in a suit which is doubleton;
- 9 HCP in a suit which is tripleton.

Thus the MAX HCP strength is the LEAST limited in the 4333 distribution: 10+9+9+9 = 37 HCP as we all very well know. As we go “wilder” in the distribution patterns, this MAX value diminishes accordingly:

- 4432 is limited by 10+10+9+7 = 36 HCP;
- 5332 is limited by 10+9+9+7 = 35 HCP;
- 4441 is limited by 10+10+10+4 = 34 HCP;
- etc.
- 7600 is limited by 10+10+0+0 = 20 HCP;
- etc.
- 13000 is limited by 10+0+0+0 = 10 HCP;

and 10 is the “minimal maximum” HCP strength possible. So the MAX-HCP-Strength varies from 10 to 37 HCP for the 39 patterns. NOTE also, that the MORE the HCP the LESS the possibilities to “cover the ground”:

– the 37 HCP are ONLY possible with 4333 distribution;
– the 36 HCP are ONLY possible with 4333 OR 4432 distribution;
– etc.

Obviously, there are HCP-max values which are covered by MORE than 1 distribution simply because there are 39 patterns and only 28 MAX values from 10 to 37, so the statement follows directly from the Dirichlet Principle.

Is this reflected in Zar Points? Of course! With a 37 HCP hand you can NOT get more than 8 Distribution Points, with 36 HCP you can NOT get more than 10 Distribution Points, etc. And in order to reach certain point-boundary like 26 ZP, 31 ZP, etc. with weak distribution you have to have MORE HCP to let you reach the boundary:

- with 4333 you need 26-8=18 CTRL+HCP to open!!! That’s about 14 HCP when discount the controls;
- with 4432 you need 26-10=16 CTRL+HCP to open. That’s about 12 HCP when discount the controls;
- etc.

Note that there is also the REVERSE dependency:
- with 13-0-0-0 you need 26-26 = 0 HCP + CTRL to open, but you WILL actually have “at least” 10 HCP + 3 CTRL in the hand (all honors in the 13-card suit);
- with 12-1-0-0 you need 26-25 = 1 HCP + CTRL to open, but you WILL actually have “at least” 6 HCP + 1 CTRL in the hand (only the A missing in the 13-card suit);
- etc.

Hope that helps – please let me know if you have something else in mind.

Cheers:

ZAR

[1eyedjack]

Zar

I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong. The point that you appear to be interpreting as made by others, and accepting as valid (and correct me by all means) is that as a proportion of the total playing strength of a hand, distributional factors will evidently have a greater proportionate influence on hands lacking high card values than on those having substantial high card values.

I do not believe that there is any dispute about that, but I think that you are mistaken in believing that this is the point of contention.

The problem that I have is that on hands containing strong high-card values, distributional aspects have less proportionate relevance to the total trick-taking potential.

To take a contrived and extreme example:

Example 1

---

Example 1

---

Both examples can take 13 tricks in comfort. In each case the high card values of each hand is identical. The distributional values however differ between each example. Zar evaluation would suggest that example 1 has a greater expected trick take than example 2.

I have been a bit lazy in contriving an example in which there are more than 13 tricks to burn, - an artificial device in order to illustrate a point. If you do not accept that this effect is of relevance at lower levels I am sure that I can produce a more realistic example.

[hrothgar]

Zar, on Sep 25 2005, 10:13 PM, said:

Hope that helps – please let me know if you have something else in mind.

I think that there is still a difference of opening

The core of your Zar Point formula is based on a linear function:

Zar Points = High Card Points (HP) + Distribution Points (DP)

Justin is claiming that there is dependency between High Card Points and Distribution. More specifically, he states that there is an inverse relationship between distributional strength and high card points.

Assume for the moment that you have a hand with 5521 shape. Your Zar point method says that this hand shape is worth 2a + b - d = 14 "points". This distribution is worth 14 points regardless of whether the hand holds 10 HP or 15 HP.

If a hand holds 15 HP and 5521 shape, it evaluates as 29 Zar points
If a hand holds 10 HP and 5521 shape, it evaluates as 24 Zar points

Justin claims (but offers no proof) that the linear relationship does not hold true. I'm gonna pull some numbers out of my butt here, but hypothetically, he might say that the a 5521 shape is worth 14 points if it holds 10 HP, but only only 12 points if it holds 15 HP.

If a hand holds 15 HP and 5521 shape, it evaluates as 27 Justin points
If a hand holds 10 HP and 5521 shape, it evaluates as 24 Justin points

You seem to suggest that you can compensate for using a linear function by appropriate selection of boundary conditions.

>Is this reflected in Zar Points? Of course! With a 37 HCP hand you can NOT
>get more than 8 Distribution Points, with 36 HCP you can NOT get more than
>10 Distribution Points, etc. And in order to reach certain point-boundary like
>26 ZP, 31 ZP, etc. with weak distribution you have to have MORE HCP to let
>you reach the boundary:

I suspect that your going to run into problems with this approach:

Assume that you have two hands, each worth 24 Zar points.

One hand holds 10 HP and 14 DP...
The second holds 14 HCP and 10 DP...

The same boundary condition applies to both hands. If it is calibrated accurately for one, its going to be off for the other...