Dummy points and unprotected honors

[jerseyjd]

I'm a relative newbie to the game and have gone through some of Audrey Grant's instructional materials. Her system recommends 5/3/1 for dummy points given a void/singleton/doubleton. I'm really stumped, however, on what to do with unprotected honors using her system. Surely, an unprotected singleton king cannot be be worth 3 for the king and 3 for the singleton for a total of 6? Similarly, how about KQ in dummy?

[nigel_k]

It's hard to bid really accurately using rigid rules but for a newbie I think the 5-3-1 thing is ok. However, you're right that a singleton king, for example, cannot be worth 6 points. I would suggest the following:

 

1. Only apply 5-3-1 when you have four card support. With only three trumps you can't do that much ruffing so 3-2-1 is enough.

 

2. The true value of unprotected honours depends a lot on on what partner has in the suit, but since you are going to be raising immediately with four card support you usually won't know this. Just counting the singleton honour as half it's HCP value, plus the three for the singleton, sounds about right. So five for a singleton ace, four and a half for a king and four for a queen.

 

3. Honours in short suits are a minus even if protected. KQ doubleton is bad but AK or AQ doubleton is quite bad as well. This is true any time, not only when raising partner. You definitely wouldn't add a point for the doubleton and may even need to subtract a little.

 

4. Actually more important than all of this is to understand that secondary honours (queens and jacks) are much more valuable:

a. in combination with other honours; and

b. opposite partner's length rather than opposite his shortage.

 

For example, if partner opens 1♠ and you have Qxxx Axx xx KJxx then you have a perfectly sound limit raise. But with Axxx Qxx Kx Jxxx you don't. This sort of thing comes up much more often than the adjustments for short honours.

[bb79]

I'm a relative newbie to the game and have gone through some of Audrey Grant's instructional materials. Her system recommends 5/3/1 for dummy points given a void/singleton/doubleton. I'm really stumped, however, on what to do with unprotected honors using her system. Surely, an unprotected singleton king cannot be be worth 3 for the king and 3 for the singleton for a total of 6? Similarly, how about KQ in dummy?

In those situations, you either count HCP or distribution points, not both. singleton K is 3 pts. I would count KQ 5pts if opps didn't bid that suit.

[jerseyjd]

I wish to thank you both for responding to my first question on this forum. The answers suggest that it would be wise for me to keep reading recommended texts in the proper sequence to further my knowledge in this fascinating game. There is much I need to learn.

 

Having been provided a gift certificate to Baron Barclay, I just ordered 2 of their recommended texts, Points Schmoints and Commonsense Bidding to supplement the materials from Audrey Grant. The more I read and ask questions, the more I'm convinced that Nigel is correct in that it may be a fool's errand to look for fixed guidelines within the changing dynamics of the bid.

[NickRW]

For example, if partner opens 1♠ and you have Qxxx Axx xx KJxx then you have a perfectly sound limit raise. But with Axxx Qxx Kx Jxxx you don't. This sort of thing comes up much more often than the adjustments for short honours.

Yeah. Much agreement.

 

I read an old book once that talked about what it called "in and out" valuation. Essentially that quacks are good in partner's suit, quite likely useless in LHO's suit and probably of some, though difficult to precisely value otherwise. Whereas aces are [nearly] always of use. An example given (in an Acol context, so strong 2s, quite light openings and no real need to reply without 6hcp) suggested that:

 

Qxxx

Axx

xxx

xxx

 

was a worthwhile raise of partner's (4 card major) 1♠, but that if you swapped the major suit honours it quite likely wasn't.

 

Nick

[pooltuna]

I wish to thank you both for responding to my first question on this forum. The answers suggest that it would be wise for me to keep reading recommended texts in the proper sequence to further my knowledge in this fascinating game. There is much I need to learn.

 

Having been provided a gift certificate to Baron Barclay, I just ordered 2 of their recommended texts, Points Schmoints and Commonsense Bidding to supplement the materials from Audrey Grant. The more I read and ask questions, the more I'm convinced that Nigel is correct in that it may be a fool's errand to look for fixed guidelines within the changing dynamics of the bid.

I would suggest you read soon (more like study) the classic Watson's Play of the Hand or equivalent. You really need to try to solve each hand as it is presented rather than just reading thru the solution. This impacts your bidding judgement and defense as well. This is not light stuff and will take effort but it will improve your game significantly and faster than just about anything else at this point.

[Codo]

U R on a great road to improvement.

 

I like Nigels sugestions, despite the fact that I would see the value of singelton honours much weaker then he does. To me a singelton king is just 3, not 4.5. But this does not matter much. Try his way and if you overbid too often, reevaluate your singleton honours.

 

Don't be afraid/ashamed to use easy rules for the moment. The game is very complex and you will need some time till you do not read easy rules any more.

 

Experts can judge a hand without the help of HCPs or distributional points. But these tools are still great tools and work really well till you reach that level.

[aguahombre]

See Marty B's Article in last month's Bulletin. He suggests, among other things, that the number of support points for a void=the number of trumps you have in support. To count a void as 5, you need 5 trumps in support, for instance.

 

Not sure shmoints counting, no matter how we do it, is all that great. But for those of us void in the judgement department, it is a good guide.

[jerseyjd]

I thank you folks for the additional suggestions. I just started getting the bulletin so I'll make certain to read Marty B's article. The Schmoints selection was made as it was the first alphabetic listing within the Baron Barclay recommended intermediate texts. I'm certainly in the category of "those of us void in the judgement dept" so I'm hopoing it will help. Now with your insight, I'll add the classic Watson text to my next order.

[jjbrr]

Welcome to the Forums, jerseyjd