Counting Quick Tricks and Defensive Tricks

[Greathale]

I have read somewhere that when playing a strong two club, it is not enough just to have 8 playing tricks - for example with a solid 8 card suit and nothing outside. You also need to have a hand with 'quality', and for that you also need to have at least two defensive tricks. I know how to count my playing tricks, which will be based on the assumption that my long suit will be the trump suit. I have read somewhere else that when counting defensive tricks you count all playing tricks in suits up to 5 cards long, only A K in 6 card suits, and only A in 7 card suits, but you treat the opponents' suit differently, Q J 10 5 being worth 1 1/2 (or so) defensive tricks. But when opening strong 2 club you have no idea whether opponents will bid and if so, in what suit. So how do you go about counting your playing tricks AND defensive tricks in the same hand before opening.

[CSGibson]

Defensive tricks in this context is usually referring to quick tricks, a popular method of evaluating hands when Eli Culbertson was king in the 30s.

 

An ace is a quick trick. An unsupported K is a 1/2 quick trick. A KQ combination is considered 1 quick trick, and an AQ 1 & 1/2. AK combination is considered 2 quick tricks. I don't believe any other combination is considered a quick trick (AKQ being something I'm not 100% sure of, but I think there is a max of 2 quick tricks per suit).

 

The old standard was 2 & 1/2 quick tricks made an opening hand - which is one of the reasons opening AAK hands is considered fairly standard despite not having the traditional HCP for opening.

 

Personally, I prefer that quick tricks, losing trick count, and other methods should be used as adjustments to your evaluation technique, but that HCP be the primary base of your evaluation in most unextraordinary situations.

[blackshoe]

Defensive tricks I have always counted using Culbertson's "honor tricks", also called "quick tricks". Here an Ace is one QT, a King is half a QT, AK is 2 QT, KQ is one QT, and AKQ is three QTs (unless you expect trump to be a different suit and an opponent to be short in the suit of your AKQ).

 

Another method combines the "Losing Trick Count" with the "Neapolitan Control" count, where the latter is "Ace is two controls, King is one" and the LTC is roughly thirteen minus the playing tricks, though it is not normally computed that way. IAC, in this method, a strong 2♣ requires three or fewer losers (two if it's a minor suit oriented hand) and at least six controls. Some would stretch the LTC requirement by a trick, so four losers, or three.

[mycroft]

The reason for "defensive tricks" on a strong 2♣ opener is that the opponents (well, some, but more as you play in better fields) will not treat 2♣ as "our auction, keep out". After 2♣-2♠-p-4♠; it's nice to know as your partner that this is going down opposite 13 cards. It's also nice as opener that you don't have to unilaterally commit to the 5 level in your overstrength preempt; and partner can know that if you do bid 5, he can raise to 6 with some cards and not find you're off 2 or 3 doubled (again, into 4♠ making).

[fromageGB]

8 playing tricks? Is this a system where 2♣ is a strong open, but there is another bid which is stronger, maybe 2♦? It helps to mention the system framework when looking for help.

 

If you specifically wanted to know about "defensive tricks" then that has been answered, but if it was intended as a more general question, then I would agree with CSGibson, that it is better to go by general hcp as the main criterion. If 2♣ is your strongest open, then 8 playing tricks is not sufficient (try 9 for a major and 10 for a minor) and about 20+ hcp. If there is a stronger opening, then of course you could go a trick fewer for 2♣.

[Zelandakh]

There is a little confusion in this thread between Playing Tricks (PTs), Honour Tricks (HTs) and Quick Tricks (QTs). Culbertson used the first 2 of these and there are different rules for them. As an example a prospective trump suit of AKQJxx is 6 PTs but only 2+ HTs. QTs came, I believe, from Acol and defined what was required for a positive response to a 2♣ opening.

 

I have never heard of 8 PTs being the standard for a strong 2♣ opening. It is often used for a Benji/SEF 2♣ opening but even there some general strength is expected. As an extreme example, ♠- ♥- ♦KQJxxxxxx ♣xxxx is 8 PTs but clearly neither a traditional 2♣ opening nor even a Benji 2♣. A very simple question you can ask yourself for deciding if you have enough defensive strength for a strong opening - if the opps barrage to a high level and partner doubles or makes a forcing pass, will you feel comfortable?

[blackshoe]

Some expert here in the States, Soloway I think, came up with "more quick tricks than losers" as a criterion for a strong two bid. People nonetheless open "strong" without that, and the ACBL says it's fine. B-)

 

I've always thought "quick tricks" and "honor tricks" were the same thing. If they're different, how are they different?

[EricK]

An ace is a quick trick. An unsupported K is a 1/2 quick trick. A KQ combination is considered 1 quick trick, and an AQ 1 & 1/2. AK combination is considered 2 quick tricks. I don't believe any other combination is considered a quick trick (AKQ being something I'm not 100% sure of, but I think there is a max of 2 quick tricks per suit).

If you are counting AQ as 1 1/2, you should probably count AJT as something similar.

[CSGibson]

If you are counting AQ as 1 1/2, you should probably count AJT as something similar.

 

Not quick enough.

[Zelandakh]

I've always thought "quick tricks" and "honor tricks" were the same thing. If they're different, how are they different?

QT:

AK = 2

AQ = 1.5

A = 1

KQ = 1

Kx = 0.5

 

HT:

AKQ = 2+

AKJ = 2+

AK = 2

AQJ = 1.5+

AQ = 1.5

AJx = 1+

KQJ = 1+

A = 1

KQ = 1

Kx = 0.5

QJx = 0.5

KJx = 0.5+

Qx = +

sgl = +

 

Possibly AJT = 1.5 and/or KJT = 1 too but I cannot remember. A plus value could be thought of as a quarter of a HT but Ely thought of them as at least that much. That is that 2++++ would generally be worth more than 3.

 

PT are similar to HT but you assume you can avoid ruffs, so AKQ = 3 and AKJ = 2.5, etc. You also count length (but not shortage) with an assumption of good breaks. In the prospective trump suit:

 

4 cards = 1

5 cards = 2

6 cards = 3

7 cards = 4

8 cards = 6 (here you naturally discard the 3rd card for the honours)

 

In a side suit:

 

4 cards = 0.5

5 cards = 1

6 cards = 2

 

Culbertson also had rules for Responder in a PT situation. Here PTs are counted for shortage (in combination with trumps) but not for length. I forget the details here because I did not find them more useful than simply visualising the hands and thinking about how many tricks will be taken.

 

Honour tricks were a full evaluation system and ran in competition with Milton Work count in those early years of bridge. QTs were never designed as a full evaluation system but rather for a specific purpose, that purpose basically being to announce that our side should be making a slam.

[EricK]

Not quick enough.

But more likely to take tricks

[blackshoe]

Thanks, Zel. B-)

[gergana85]

How to calculate the distributive strength of the hand? See that: http://bridge-law.hit.bg

[lowerline]

I think it was Bergen who proposed that a strong 2♣ opening should have at least 4 quick tricks and no more than 4 losers (the 4&4 rule?).

 

S.

 

 

 

[helene_t]

I think it was Bergen who proposed that a strong 2♣ opening should have at least 4 quick tricks and no more than 4 losers (the 4&4 rule?).

Doesn't sound like him - in "Points Schmoints" he wrote that one of the most common mistakes club players make is not opening 2♣ often enough.

 

Which surprised me. Here in England (and also in the Netherlands) most of the time an intermediate club player opens 2♣ (or 2♦ if that has strong options) it is just a WTP 1-level opening for me. Then again, the style of opening 1M with very strong one-suiters, planing to jump shift on a 3-card minor, is taking it too far IMHO.

[equate]

""Counting Quick Tricks and Defensive Tricks How do you count both in the same hand?"" The answer of you question is yes you can count both in the same hand but you need to use "translation rules".

 

1)Suits with 5 or less cards Quick Tricks is equal to Defensive Tricks Ex: AQxxx 1.5 QTs = DTs

2)Suits with 6 cards Queen must be ignored in Defensive Tricks Ex: AQxxxx 1.5 QTs but 1 DT

3)For all suits with 7 through 9 cards only Ace can be counted as one Defensive Trick Ex: AKxxxxx 2 QTs but 1 DT

 

Also when bidding starts, DTs need to be reevaluated.Say opponents bid spades contract so you can count spades QJT in your hand as 1 DT .

Infact QJT is zero QT.

 

Say your Right hand opponent opens spades and you have AJx in suit opened.QT is 1 but DTs improved to 1.5 .

 

And again say you hold K singleton in spades,it means zero QT but if your partner opens spades now you can count K as 0.5 DTs .

 

You also need to make some tweaks for DTs in playing IMP scoring or MP scoring.

 

All of above information is not mine.Taken from Richard .As a bridge teacher for decades Richard L. Strickland ( Richardrls in BBO) teaches them and many many more in BBO for free.

 

As a side note : Richard's system book to play only in IMP's " Granny's Kiss " is using solely Defensive Tricks as hand evaluation.He is teaching and playing this system with his students in BBO.

[Lovera]

Io per effettuare la dichiarazione di 2 fiori mi regolo nel seguente modo: calcolo le perdenti secondo De Courtney e moltiplico questo numero per 5 e poi lo raffronto con il punteggio Milton Work della mano così' se il punteggio e'superiore alle perdenti moltiplicate per cinque apro di 2 fiori ( ad esempio con 4 perdenti e 20 punti io apro di2 fiori) . Questa regola che ho trovato nel libro di Guido Barbone " Il libro completo del bridge" io la alleggerisco utilizzando anche il punteggio Goren solo per le lunghezze (1 punto dalla quinta carta in poi) e non aggiungendo quello per corte (vuoti,singoli ,doubleton).

[Vampyr]

To the OP: of course you can play your "strong 2♣" opening however you like, as long as you disclose it accurately.

 

On a somewhat related note: if you play that after a strong 2♣ opening partner must bid 2♦, would this be considered a psyche control?