1-3-5 evaluation

[mikestar]

In case anyone is interested, here are the details of my 1-3-5 based evaluation method for suit contracts.

 

The normal count for distribution is 1 per doubleton, 3 per singleton, and 5 per void. If the shortage is in partner's bid suit (if the suit is likely to be long or strong), reduce the count in that suit to 1-2-3. In an enemy suit (bid and raised, or the bidder promises length and strength), increase the count of that suit to 1-4-7!

 

If you are supporting partner with a doubleton trump, all shortages count 1-2-3 (including the trump shortage), with a singleton or void in trumps, they count 1-1-1.

 

The total short suit count is modifed for the degree of fit. Each "extra" trump adds 1 point and each "missing" trump subtracts 1 point. Also subtract 1 more point with three or fewer trumps. Add 1 point for a double fit and an additional point for each card over 8 in the second fit.

 

Points are counted for shortness and fit for simplicity--not all 5 of the points for a void come from the value of the void itself--they also reflect the long suits you have in your hand.

 

The total HCP+distribution translates to tricks at 3 points per trick, plus the assumption that declarer with a good trump fit wins an extra trick.

 

So 26 points = 9.667 tricks (26/3 = 8.667 then add 1) = major suit game.

 

Similarly, the theoretical magic numbers are 29 for minor suit game, 32 for small slam, and 35 for grand slam.

[Fluffy]

adding whatever because of a doubleton is a mistake.

 

Why?

beacuse all of the hands hold at least 1: just substract something when you have 4333 (if you really need to count your distribution).

 

What makes you make tricks normally it is not your shortness, but your longness, for example a 5-4-3-1 often makes 1 more trick than 4-4-4-1.

 

even more: no system will help you really to decide what to bid if they come to the same conclusion when you have XXXXX-AQJ than AQJXX-XXX, you can think what you wish, but they aren´t the same at all. (I never read that ZAR point thing, but I think even ZAR doesn´t distinguish the honor position on 3+ cards suits).

 

My tip: there isn´t any magic formula: use your own criterium (or loser trick count, its often more accurate)

[Free]

I hate points, always have! You can come up with whatever point count you want, but personal handevaluation is still the best tool imo. It's also based on common sense rather than silly rules, and we all know that in games like bridge, the human brain still has an advantage on any computerized rules...

[mishovnbg]

I hate points, always have!  You can come up with whatever point count you want, but personal handevaluation is still the best tool imo.  It's also based on common sense rather than silly rules, and we all know that in games like bridge, the human brain still has an advantage on any computerized rules...

Count losers and cover cards instead of points - simple way even for lazy people like us :) And also better way than counting sheeps instead of tricks... ;)

Misho

[mikestar]

I hate points, always have!  You can come up with whatever point count you want, but personal handevaluation is still the best tool imo.  It's also based on common sense rather than silly rules, and we all know that in games like bridge, the human brain still has an advantage on any computerized rules...

I couldn't agree more--I don't actually use this anymore, but found it valuable 10-15 years ago when I certainly didn't have the judgement not to count points! My purpose for bringing it up was for comparison with Zar--I wanted to pulish the method so others who might want to use it for the same purpose could know how I got my numbers.

[mikestar]

I will answer this in detail

 

adding whatever because of a doubleton is a mistake.

 

Why?

beacuse all of the hands hold at least 1:  just substract something when you have 4333 (if you really need to count your distribution).

 

If it is your opinion that 4333 should count -1 and 4432 should count 0, you may be right.

 

Zar is quite correct when he asserts that we are really assigning points to hand patterns, not individual lengths/shortnesses. For example (counting 4333 as 0), if we determine that 5332 is 1 point better than 4333, does it matter whether we attribute that 1 point for the pattern as a whole to the five card suit or the doubleton?

 

What makes you make tricks normally it is not your shortness, but your longness, for example a 5-4-3-1 often makes 1 more trick than 4-4-4-1.

 

Not entirely correct, especially with singletons and voids. Also, it is my experience that 5-4-3-1 plays better than 5-4-2-2, though both have identical long suits--the stiff opens up enhanced possibilties of crossruffs, dummy reversal, or just plain ruffing losers if partner has the long trumps.

 

even more: no system will help you really to decide what to bid if they come to the same conclusion when you have XXXXX-AQJ than AQJXX-XXX, you can think what you wish, but they aren´t the same at all. (I never read that ZAR point thing,  but I think even ZAR doesn´t distinguish the honor position on 3+ cards suits).

 

Neither does any other method including Misho's justly beloved losers and cover cards. Honor location is an adjustment you learn to make when you start aquiring judgement. In point count terms I would rate your first hand maybe 2-3 points stronger than your second, depending on the bidding.

 

My tip: there isn´t any magic formula: use your own criterium (or loser trick count, its often more accurate)

 

Of course--the whole purpose of point count or any other evalution method is to let you get to reasonable contracts a fair percentage of the time while your aree aquiring good bidding judgement.

[mikestar]

Another form of this count that I used for teaching beginners. The count of each pattern is identical, but it attributes points to more factors.

 

Long Suit Points

 

Count 1 point for each card over 4 in a suit.

 

Short Suit Points

 

Count 1 for a singleton and 2 for a void. (Nothing for a doubleton).

Short suits count double in an enemy suit if you have 3+ trumps.

Short suits don't count in partner's suit or with only 2 trumps.

Short suits count negative with 0-1 trumps.

 

Pattern Points

 

Add 1 point for a two-suiter, add 2 points for a three suiter.

 

Fit Points

Add 1 point for each "extra" trump, subtract 1 point for each "missing" trump.

Subtract 1 point if your have fewer than 4 trumps.

[mishovnbg]

You can look my simplified method counting points:

 

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...findpost&p=5618

 

Misho

[tysen2k]

The normal count for distribution is 1 per doubleton, 3 per singleton, and 5 per void.  If the shortage is in partner's bid suit (if the suit is likely to be long or strong), reduce the count in that suit to 1-2-3.

My research for hand evaluation has come to similar conclusions. However, I found that if partner shows a 5+ suit and you have 0-2 support, a better evaluation method is to switch to length points: 1 point for each card over 4.

 

And yes, you can count for either length or shortness (or both) from the beginning, but the 5-3-1 method is surprisingly simple and accurate. Each hand pattern has its unique value, but 5-3-1 comes closer than any other method that doesn't involve fractions.

 

Tysen

[EricK]

I hate points, always have!  You can come up with whatever point count you want, but personal handevaluation is still the best tool imo.  It's also based on common sense rather than silly rules, and we all know that in games like bridge, the human brain still has an advantage on any computerized rules...

Surely "personal hand evaluation" or "judgement" or whatever you want to call it is just a set of rules which you have internalized (and may not even be able to consciously explain).

 

Unless you would judge the same hand differently on two different occassions, then your "personal hand evaluation" could be expressed as a set of rules.

 

I would agree with you if you said that the human brain has the advantage over any simple computerized rules.

 

Eric

[Fluffy]

Pattern Points

 

Add 1 point for a two-suiter, add 2 points for a three suiter.

My own feelings is 2-suiters are usually stronger than 3-suiters (4441 at least), even 1-suiters are stronger than 3-suiters in my opinion (but close), yes, mayeb you did that just because 2-suiters where overrated by lenght points, but still I would never give 3-suiter more than 2-suiter.

 

What do you guys think?

[tysen2k]

My own feelings is 2-suiters are usually stronger than 3-suiters (4441 at least), even 1-suiters are stronger than 3-suiters in my opinion (but close), yes, mayeb you did that just because 2-suiters where overrated by lenght points, but still I would never give 3-suiter more than 2-suiter.

 

What do you guys think?

Depends on how extreme the 2-suiter is. 4441 is better than 5422 but weaker than 5431. The following is the real strength of the different hand patterns in how many more tricks they take compared to a 4333 hand.

 

           Tricks  Tricks
          Real    5/3/1
4-3-3-3   0.000   0.000
4-4-3-2   0.296   0.333
5-3-3-2   0.339   0.333
5-4-2-2   0.595   0.667
6-3-2-2   0.660   0.667
4-4-4-1   0.810   1.000
5-4-3-1   0.864   1.000
6-3-3-1   0.918   1.000
7-2-2-2   0.999   1.000
6-4-2-1   1.154   1.333
5-5-2-1   1.183   1.333
7-3-2-1   1.208   1.333
5-4-4-0   1.519   1.667
6-4-3-0   1.624   1.667
5-5-3-0   1.643   1.667
7-3-3-0   1.697   1.667
6-5-1-1   1.703   2.000
7-4-1-1   1.712   2.000
7-4-2-0   1.923   2.000
6-5-2-0   1.964   2.000

 

The "real" tricks is the real point value that you would want to assign to that pattern. Ideally you'd want to use a separate valuation for each pattern, but that's too much to memorize at the table. The last column shows how many tricks 5-3-1 points predicts using 3 points per trick. Note how close 5-3-1 comes in almost every case (and weight them by frequency).

 

5-3-1 for shortness comes closer than any other distribution system that doesn't use fractions.

 

Tysen

[Zar]

*** tysen2k wrote: "...5-3-1 comes closer than any other method that doesn't involve fractions...

All Hands

ERROR SCORE

HCP 1.23 -0.49

HCP+321 1.07 0.00

HCP+531 1.05 0.07

Zar 1.05 0.08

<

 

So even though your OWN research shows that 5-3-1 wins .7 IMP/board vs. .8 IMP/board for Zar Points (whatever that means), this doesn't prevent you from keep repeating 5-3-1 is the best :-) I guess if you repeat it enough times, it may eventually become true :-)

 

I posted yeterday the 5-3-1 vs Zar Points comparison in the GRAND Slam area, today I just posted the comparison in the Game area (over 80,000 boards) - both are in the "Zar Points - useful or waste of enery" thread here.

 

Certainly, I'll post all borads on the website along with the analysis for each of them at the "Download" section of the site.

 

Have a look:

 

ZAR

[tysen2k]

So even though your OWN research shows that 5-3-1 wins .7 IMP/board vs. .8 IMP/board for Zar Points (whatever that means), this doesn't prevent you from keep repeating 5-3-1 is the best :-) I guess if you repeat it enough times, it may eventually become true :-)

That is comparing HCP+531 to Zar. I've never said that HCP+531 is better than Zar. It frequently performs close, but worse than Zar. What we are talking about in this thread is the value assigned to distribution, not high cards. Zar has the advantage of counting aces at a proportionally higher value, which is very key. We're comparing distribution to distribution. BUM-RAP essentially uses the same high card valuations as Zar, so if you compare BUM+531 to Zar you are essentially just looking at how the two systems value distribution since the high card components are identical. In that case, BUM+531 outperforms Zar (the comparison you convineintly left out of your quote).

 

Tysen