New Counting system of Honor Card Point

[civill]

Different from Milton Works' HCP counting system:

 

Ace:=4HCPs;

 

King:=3HCPs;

 

Queen:=2HCPs;

 

Jack-10:=1HCP;

 

Queen-Jack with any card else:=3HCPs;

 

Might be called as 836/683 HCP Counting system;

 

All HCPs in a deck are 36HCPs to 40HCPs;

Original Webpage

[rogerclee]

In the context of a non-relay sequence, I do not understand the desire, in general, to change the general point counting scheme. Is anyone so much of a Walrus to actually care about points so much? Does anyone think so little of his own personal judgment?

 

Why can't I just look at my hand and say, "I want to open this" or "I think this hand is good enough to bid game" without worrying about how many "points" I have?

 

Furthermore, I do not understand what player base an alternative point sequence is trying to reach. An expert does not need a funny point counting scheme to tell him what to do. An advanced player's judgment is better-suited to decide what to bid as opposed to a mechanical point counting scheme, and if he is wrong, he should be working on his hand evaluation so that he can become as good as the expert at making these decisions. The beginner has way more to learn than a modified point-counting scheme, and I can only imagine how much it will hurt his game to think that silly science is the way to improve.

[civill]

I don't think this new HCP system is proper for advanced or expert players.

[matmat]

so, basically, you want people that are getting better to stop playing your count system and switch to the mpc? what's the point then?

[Flame]

Thanks for sharing.

I dont agree with ppl saying its worthless.

First of all anyone, from begginer up when read this new system learn that QJX(X) or J10X is a good thing to have, but J or Q alone is not so good, even if not using this system, it will help.

Second counting has an advantage of "judgment" evaluation because its obejective, judging is subjective and you might like your hand because in BBO AK1042 looks like a 6 card suit because of the font. you might like a hand because you got a nice present for your birthday yesterday, not liking the same hand tomorrow.

Ofcourse i dont believe that any counting system can take all parts of hand evaluation into accout, and offcourse we still need judgment, but if someone feels good about using a counting system for parts of evaluation then its good for her.

Lets take this specific example of couting system, all a player should take from it is to do the same counting as he did till today but dont count lone Js, thats all, then counting evaluating same as always.

[Free]

Point count is just easy to explain to beginners (not like the rest of this game). And that's the end of it.

 

So why make point count more difficult when you know it won't improve your bridge?

[Rossoneri]

If it's for beginners, why make it so complicated? 4321 may not be perfect, but it's a good enough approximation.

 

More important to teach them the hidden potential of touching honours imho.

[ASkolnick]

But everyone uses a point count system even if they are not a HCP count systems per se. Even the experts who use "judgement" are using a count system whether explicit or implicit.

 

Let's take the argument: "I look at my hand and say its an opener because it is 5-5 and has 10 HCP". You could come up with a rule set of which hands you open and which hands you don't open and come up with a formula based on it. You have just created a point count system. Now true it may not be solely based on HCP, but you still are defining a count. Just like losing trick count, Zar Points, etc. People are trying to redefine the point count system, so there is less of a variance since although we are taught 26 HCP makes a game, we know there are plenty of hands without 26 HCP which make game.

 

Unless you do come with some basis for counting, how can you make sure you will open the same hand tomorrow? Also, as your partner, it is important that I know your basis for counting, so my hand may fit in context.

 

The only problem with QJ being given worth extra value is that in a very long suit it becomes much less important. I think Kaplan had a whole formula on suit strength

[dake50]

When the Double Dummy analyzers get to full steam, they will publish THE point count.

[Echognome]

I'd so much prefer to teach a beginner to begin with standard high card point count and start making adjustments. I think this will get them on the right track later.

 

Things that are much more subjective:

 

1. Aces are good and are worth slightly more than their count.

2. Queens and Jacks are worth slightly less.

3. Honors in combination are worth more than honors alone.

4. Honors in my long suits are worth more than honors in my short suits.

5. Fitting honors in my partner's suit are worth more than honors in a side suit.

6. Honors sitting under a suit bid on my left are worth less than honors in a side suit, whereas honors sitting over a suit bid on my right are worth more.

7. Shortness is worth more, the bigger the fit I have with partner.

8. Intermediaries are important and should be considered as to how well you like the hand, especially if they are in your long suit.

9. Certain shapes don't play as well (4333, 4441, etc) whereas certain shapes typically play well (5431, 6421, etc).

10. Hands that are misfits with partner should be downgraded.

 

etc. etc.

 

They don't even need to have it clarified in terms of point count in my view. I think they should simply bid according to "I like my hand so should bid more" or "I don't like my hand so should bid less."

[civill]

I think the new system is benefit to beginners to improve their processing speed;

and I must emphasize that J without the near neighbor,not only lone Jack mught be counted as 0 HCP;

[helene_t]

Agree with Flame, I think that a formalized correction of the MW points can be useful for many (not for all, admittedly). Whether this particular formula is the answer I dunno, though.

[civill]

...And there are some original comments:

 

2008-01-11 21:05:43

 

 

AKJ(without 10):=7;

KQJ:=6;

AQJ:=7;

AJ(without 10):=4

KJ(without 10):=3

QJx:=3

 

2008-01-08 20:06:29

 

 

A:=4;K:=3;Q:=2;

others:

(1)3HCPs for Q-J & any card(A,K,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2);or

(2)1 HCP for J-10;or

(3)3HCPs for other 4 Jacks in hand; or

2HCPs for other 3 Jacks in hand; or

1HCP for other 2 Jacks in hand;

[lowerline]

There is a difference in the value of an honour between trump and NT contracts. In trump contracts, the value of honours is more like:

A = 4.5

K = 3

Q = 1.5

J = 0.75

T = 0.25

(A = KQ = 3Q; K = 2Q; Q = 2J; J = 3T)

In NT contracts, it is more like:

A = 4

K = 2.8

Q = 1.8

J = 1

T = 0.4

(A = 2Q+T; K = Q+J; Q = J+2T)

Unfortunately you don't always know whether you will end up in a trump or NT contract... The usual judgement, like honor concentration and long suits, applies as well.

 

Steven

[civill]

I don't think that decimal point is benefit to improve the speed of calculation;

so...

[matmat]

personally i like the system where

 

 

A = 2e

K = pi

Q = (pi+e)/3

J = pi - e

T paired with either Q or J has value = 2i

[joshs]

personally i like the system where

 

 

A = 2e

K = pi

Q = (pi+e)/3

J = pi - e

T paired with either Q or J has value = 2i

No, no, no. An Ace paired with a second ace in the same suit=i

[matmat]

No, no, no. An Ace paired with a second ace in the same suit=i

Crap. what was i thinking. Of course!

[ASkolnick]

Your system would be fine but shouldn't it be -2(i^2).

[civill]

personally i like the system where

 

 

A = 2e

K = pi

Q = (pi+e)/3

J = pi - e

T paired with either Q or J has value = 2i

Very good!

U remind me another game of playing cards which we were enjoying when I was a child;

 

now,

 

A:=5;

K:=3;

Q:=2;

J:=half;

Edited March 19, 2008 by civill

[NickRW]

Point count is just easy to explain to beginners (not like the rest of this game).  And that's the end of it.

 

So why make point count more difficult when you know it won't improve your bridge?

 

I don't agree with this sentiment. For those who have "been around", perhaps, hand valuation is largely a matter of simply looking at a hand. For a very few novices, who are generally good at card games, that may perhaps also apply. However, for the majority who are new to the game and for quite a percentage of those that aren't, improved methods of hand valuation can pay significant dividends.

 

I am not a bridge teacher - but I have taught my teenage children. At first I taught them 4321 methods because that is what is in all the books. However - they don't read the books - so that wasn't a very good reason - at least not in their case. One day they arrived in what might seem to be a perfectly reasonable 4 spade contract - 24 HCPs between them, 5/4 fit, ruffing possibilities in both hands. Unfortunately the missing 16 HCPs were all 4 aces and the ruffing possibilities were not voids. One down - entirely attibutable to the 4321 system not counting aces highly enough - using the 6421 system they would have correctly stopped in 3.

 

After I taught them 6421 and something vaguely sensible for distribution suddely they started finding slams that it took me years to learn to bid - and successful 6 level saves against slams too. When I was a teenager learning to play myself we marvelled at stories of such things in the press - my kids were doing it after only a few months of learning.

 

So, yes, for the experienced, new methods of hand valuation probably are just a waste of brain cells - but you guys on this forum seem to largely fall in the more experienced category - you forget what it used to be like before you learnt judgement.

 

Nick

[ASkolnick]

The 6421 system is a perfectly reasonable system and is included in a different method of counting called ZARS. I have gone over many hand records and it seems to usually land you in the right contract based on the counting provided you have a fit. If not, sometimes distribution plays too vital a role.

 

Count:

(HCP+Controls) This gives you your 6421 count.

+

(2 longest suits)

+

(Diff long-short) Means with a fit you have roughing values.

 

Instead of using 13 as your magic number, 26 becomes the magic number, with 52 being game and each level higher 5 points.

 

I am not claiming its better since all I am doing is quantifying the fact people saying "Look, I have a good hand and its 5-5", but sometimes people like seeing the value on paper.

[jtfanclub]

There is a difference in the value of an honour between trump and NT contracts. In trump contracts, the value of honours is more like:

A = 4.5

K = 3

Q = 1.5

J = 0.75

T = 0.25

(A = KQ = 3Q; K = 2Q; Q = 2J; J = 3T)

X4/3

 

A=6

K=4

Q=2

J=1

T=1/3

 

Not coincidental that your relative values and ZARs come out to the same, when you use a different total.

 

I kind of like it, because it totals to 52 points (excluding tens). You have 13 cards, and on the average, 13 points. It also means that on the average you win one trick per 4 points, and a trick has 4 cards. I think if we were starting over, this is the count I'd use.

 

Unfortunately Goren points are pretty much locked in for beginners, and required for alerting and annoucning points.

[NickRW]

Unfortunately Goren points are pretty much locked in for beginners, and required for alerting and annoucning points.

Too much lethargy amongst the bridge authorities I'm afraid. Any given national bridge authority could change it if they actually wanted to improve the game in their area. Many of them seem however to want to cater for what they think the will of the majority is, rather than actually provide leadership.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

Not coincidental that your relative values and ZARs come out to the same, when you use a different total.

I corresponded quite a bit with Zar Petkov at the time he was putting up his web site and developing it. I can confirm, both form theoretical work and practical experience at the table that his system is an improvement over Milton Work, Goren and the like.

 

It isn't, however, as good as you can get. 2 points for a 5 card suit is too much and is pushing the limit for even a six carder. The formula for distribution (2a+b-d) is on the money *on average*. But the value of "a" does not respond linearly. The "b-d" part is pretty good though.

 

And, one also has to remember that it is not as good as you can get for NT. My results suggested that 6421 was marginally better than 4321 in this regard, but not by much. 5-3.5-2-1 is more like correct. And distribution is worth only a little at NT. Maybe 4432 is quarter of a point better than 4333 and so on.

 

(Back to suits) Tysen, who used to post on this board came up with 1 point for length over 4 and 1/3/5 for shortages (this is in conjunction with 6421 of course). That is good, if a little prone to get you too high when you later discover a less than ideal fit. I'd recommend this method for responder, who has a little better idea about fit than opener does.

 

Nick