"rules of N" to "points" conversion

[nullve]

If we for all natural N define 'rule of N' analogously to 'rule of 20', then we can obviously define a new point count, coinciding with Zar Petkov's 'Bergen Points', by declaring that a hand contains N (Bergen) points iff it meets the rule of N but not the rule of N+1.

 

More generally, we can, for all natural k, define a new point count by declaring that a hand contains N-k points iff it meets the rule of N but not the rule of N+1. Then,

 

• if k=0, we get Petkov's Bergen Points again
  
• if k=7, we get what Petkov what calls 'Goren Points' (Milton Work plus 3-2-1 for shortness), except for hands with 3-suited or (7222) shape among the more common hand types
  
• if k=8, we get a point count that on balanced/semibalanced hands that is equivalent to subtracting 1 hcp for (4333) shape and adding 1 hcp for (5422) or (6322) shape
  
• if k=9, we get a point count that for a pair already used to thinking in terms of "rules of N", suit opening ranges that are only approximate in terms of hcp can be interpreted as accurate in terms of these new points - call them 'suit opening points'. For example, if a Precision pair describe their 1♠ opening range as "10-15", but would only open 1♠ on hands that meet the rule of 19 while opening 1♣ on all hands meeting the rule of 25, the 10-15 range becomes accurate in terms of suit opening points.
  

With the exception of Petkov, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone describing a similar "rules of N" to "points" conversion. Which is a bit odd, since many players do seem to think in terms of "rules of N" although it's probably easier to think of or describe ranges in terms of "points".

 

Thoughts?

Edited March 15, 2016 by nullve

[Free]

Many players consider this too complicated

[Vampyr]

These "rules" are used as an additional evaluation tool to HCP. Converting them to the HCP equivalent is therefore a pretty useless activity.

[mikestar13]

Petkov never seemed to grasp that "Bergen Points" were never advocated as a general hand evaluation technique, but specifically to decide whether to open a hand at the one level, which even Marty Bergen believed and taught requires a modicum of defense (HCP) as well as shape. Petkov does show that the so called Bergen Points are not that good an evaluation technique, though better than HCP alone, when the decision is whether to invite or bid game or slam.

[nullve]

Many players consider this too complicated

Complicated how? Well, I can understand that players aren't eager to clutter their notes (or thoughts) with something like

 

'1S = 19-24 BP, 5+ S'

 

instead of the usual

 

'1S = 10-15, 5+ S',

 

but at least they must admit it's simpler, both notationally and verbally, to describe the opening ranges in terms of Bergen Points than "rules of N". Simpler still is to define 'suit opening points' as I did above (with k=9) and then interpret all old suit opening ranges as approximate or accurate at whim. (Something similar can be done for notrump ranges, of course, using k=8.)

[nullve]

These "rules" are used as an additional evaluation tool to HCP. Converting them to the HCP equivalent is therefore a pretty useless activity.

Just to be clear: they're not equivalent to hcp, but rather to hcp + distributional points (except on 3-suited hands). I agree that the conversion is useless at the bridge table, but I'm speaking as a system designer here (should have mentioned that), which is why I chose to post this topic in the Non-Natural System Discussion forum.