The HCP Matrix

[billyjef]

I fantasize that in a bygone era before High Card Points were invented, bridge players talked about how many tricks their hands had.

[Vampyr]

I fantasize that in a bygone era before High Card Points were invented, bridge players talked about how many tricks their hands had.

 

Yes, Honour tricks, Quick tricks, and probably other terminology that I am unaware of. 2 1/2 Quick Tricks was generally considered an opening bid.

[pescetom]

Yes, Honour tricks, Quick tricks, and probably other terminology that I am unaware of. 2 1/2 Quick Tricks was generally considered an opening bid.

Not that many people ever got to decide whether to open without using HCP. In 1908 it was still obligatory for dealer to open with any hand (weak hands were usually bid as 1S, so much for those nostalgic of a natural past ). In 1915 Bryant mccambell was already advocating the 4321 points scale and by 1927 Milton work had made it universal.

[barmar]

From what I've read, Work's popularization of HCP led to a marked improvement in bidding by non-experts. Most people found previous systems too complicated.

[pescetom]

From what I've read, Work's popularization of HCP led to a marked improvement in bidding by non-experts. Most people found previous systems too complicated.

 

Milton Works was apparently contrary to the 4321 system for some years, but then did a U-turn and gave it endorsement in the States. I suspect that systems quite similar were born almost immediately after the possibility for the dealer to pass, even if they remained unpublished until 1915 - bridge players are an ingenious bunch and the possibility of counting honours as an objective assessment is fairly obvious.

[barmar]

Actually, I think it may have been when Goren adopted Work's points into his system that it really took off.

[ncohen]

Actually, I think it may have been when Goren adopted Work's points into his system that it really took off.

Goren popularized the integration of the Work count for HCP and 1-2-3 for shortness as a measure of distributional strength (I believe that was invented by a Canadian actuary or accountant).

[billyjef]

Did Goren, Work or anyone do any sort of correlation of tricks to HCP?

 

How many tricks is 13 HCP expected to take? It seems like it should be expected to take 5 tricks; and two 13 point hands should take 10 tricks at least, what, about 90% of the time, for the 26 HCP game?

 

2/1 Game force, "You have an opening hand, I have an opening hand, we can make game to 3NT or 4 of a major?"

 

And yet, yesterday everyone opened 12 HCP hands, today, 11 HCP hands seem to becoming the new minimum, for everyone, not just precisionists (just got back from a 4-day tourney and couldn't help but notice that). Does this mean that combined 22HCP game is the new 26 HCP game?

 

What is real? B-)

[TylerE]

N tricks + S tricks != NS tricks.

[billyjef]

N tricks + S tricks != NS tricks.

:P

[johnu]

Did Goren, Work or anyone do any sort of correlation of tricks to HCP?

 

How many tricks is 13 HCP expected to take? It seems like it should be expected to take 5 tricks; and two 13 point hands should take 10 tricks at least, what, about 90% of the time, for the 26 HCP game?

 

2/1 Game force, "You have an opening hand, I have an opening hand, we can make game to 3NT or 4 of a major?"

 

And yet, yesterday everyone opened 12 HCP hands, today, 11 HCP hands seem to becoming the new minimum, for everyone, not just precisionists (just got back from a 4-day tourney and couldn't help but notice that). Does this mean that combined 22HCP game is the new 26 HCP game?

 

What is real? B-)

Well, Goren formulated 26 points for 3NT or 4 of a major, 29 points for minor suit game, and 33 points for a small slam. Subtract a trick for about each 3 points. So 20 points is about enough for 1NT or 2 of a suit. Obviously the exact hands have a large effect.

 

From studies I have seen and simulations I have done, these are usually very generous point counts. So for 3NT, 12 opposite 12 will give about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable. Meckwell is famous for dragging in 23 point 3NT games.

 

2/1 game force. If you open light, say 11 or 12 random points, you need more to make a game force. Again, it depends on the exact hand and degree of fit for opener's suit, but it's no uncommon to see a minimum of 12 or 13 to make a 2/1 game force.

[billyjef]

Well, Goren formulated 26 points for 3NT or 4 of a major, 29 points for minor suit game, and 33 points for a small slam. Subtract a trick for about each 3 points. So 20 points is about enough for 1NT or 2 of a suit. Obviously the exact hands have a large effect.

 

From studies I have seen and simulations I have done, these are usually very generous point counts. So for 3NT, 12 opposite 12 will give about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable. Meckwell is famous for dragging in 23 point 3NT games.

 

2/1 game force. If you open light, say 11 or 12 random points, you need more to make a game force. Again, it depends on the exact hand and degree of fit for opener's suit, but it's no uncommon to see a minimum of 12 or 13 to make a 2/1 game force.

 

So for Goren, it can be deduced, grossly:

• 3NT = 26/9 = 2.89 HCP per trick (2.85 HCP to make 1NT)
• 4 of a major = 26/10 = 2.6 HCP per trick (2.5 HCP to make 2 of a suit)
• 5 of a minor = 29/11 = 2.64 HCP per trick

 

Modern 3NT on 24 HCP = 24/9 = 2.7 HCP per Trick "about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable"

Meckwell's sporting 3NT = 23/9 = 2.6 HCP per Trick

 

Modern Light 2/1 = 11+12 = 23 HCP for a major = 23/10 = 2.3 HCP per Trick.

 

At some point, accounting for "about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable", and increased trick taking skills by declarer (don't defender's skill's ever improve equally), there must be a threshold for significant diminishing returns?

[hrothgar]

So for Goren, it can be deduced, grossly:

• 3NT = 26/9 = 2.89 HCP per trick (2.85 HCP to make 1NT)
• 4 of a major = 26/10 = 2.6 HCP per trick (2.5 HCP to make 2 of a suit)
• 5 of a minor = 29/11 = 2.64 HCP per trick

 

Modern 3NT on 24 HCP = 24/9 = 2.7 HCP per Trick "about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable"

Meckwell's sporting 3NT = 23/9 = 2.6 HCP per Trick

 

Modern Light 2/1 = 11+12 = 23 HCP for a major = 23/10 = 2.3 HCP per Trick.

 

At some point, accounting for "about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable", and increased trick taking skills by declarer (don't defender's skill's ever improve equally), there must be a threshold for significant diminishing returns?

 

Walter the Walrus lives...

[nige1]

Well, Goren formulated 26 points for 3NT or 4 of a major, 29 points for minor suit game, and 33 points for a small slam. Subtract a trick for about each 3 points. So 20 points is about enough for 1NT or 2 of a suit. Obviously the exact hands have a large effect.

 

From studies I have seen and simulations I have done, these are usually very generous point counts. So for 3NT, 12 opposite 12 will give about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable. Meckwell is famous for dragging in 23 point 3NT games.

 

2/1 game force. If you open light, say 11 or 12 random points, you need more to make a game force. Again, it depends on the exact hand and degree of fit for opener's suit, but it's no uncommon to see a minimum of 12 or 13 to make a 2/1 game force.

 

 

In the 60's, Charles (my Father) taught me an evaluation method, roughly equivalent to the LTC (Losing-Trick-Count).

• Count 1.5 tricks for an Ace, 1 for a King, 0.5 for a Queen.
• 3 tricks for a void, 2 for a singleton, and 1 for a doubleton (a bit generous perhaps).
• Subtract tricks for duplication and
• Add a trick for "trump-control"

 

The merit of the WTC (Winning-Trick-Count) is that it is simple, effective, and relies on simple addition.

[billyjef]

Walter the Walrus lives...

 

:)

 

[billyjef]

From what I've read, Work's popularization of HCP led to a marked improvement in bidding by non-experts. Most people found previous systems too complicated.

 

 

Trying to estimate the trick taking potential of a hand is indeed often complicated (and elusive). What frustrates me is that it seems the masses and even some "advanced" players have no concept of the trick taking potential of a hand, rather, only evaluate hands by the fictional HCP, or Losing Trick Count, Binky Points or whatever...all good tools, but what they measure has become loss, and only the tool is worshipped.

 

I watch a lot of TV, and I sympathize with the masses, fantasy is seductive, but it is frustrating when everything is talked about in terms of HCP and you ask, how many tricks is that, and all you get back are :huh:.

 

Sussing out "N tricks + S tricks != NS tricks" is a lost art worthy of bringing back, IMO.

[nige1]

Trying to estimate the trick taking potential of a hand is indeed often complicated (and elusive). What frustrates me is that it seems the masses and even some "advanced" players have no concept of the trick taking potential of a hand, rather, only evaluate hands by the fictional HCP, or Losing Trick Count, Binky Points or whatever...all good tools, but what they measure has become loss, and only the tool is worshipped. I watch a lot of TV, and I sympathize with the masses, fantasy is seductive, but it is frustrating when everything is talked about in terms of HCP and you ask, how many tricks is that, and all you get back are .Sussing out "N tricks + S tricks != NS tricks" is a lost art worthy of bringing back, IMO.

 

IMO, N tricks + S tricks = NS tricks is another rule-of-thumb, especially useful when you have adequate controls.

You can disparage QT, HCP, LTC, Binky, Zar, etc but each seems better than intuition, unless you are an expert.

When my partner and I overbid or underbid, we find such "objective" evaluation methods useful for settling disputes and allocating blame.

Even experts use some such short-hand to describe their agreements

[billyjef]

IMO, N tricks + S tricks = NS tricks is another rule-of-thumb, especially useful when you have adequate controls.

You can disparage QT, HCP, LTC, Binky, Zar, etc but they seem better than intuition, unless you are an expert.

When my partner and I overbid or underbid, we find such "objective" evaluation methods useful for settling disputes and allocating blame.

Even experts use some such short-hand to describe their agreements

 

I hope you didn't think I was disparaging the tools, just the opposite. I regularly evaluate my hands with HCP, various LTC, QT and DT, always important, Kleinman, KnR and eyeballing tricks. As I mentioned right at the beginning of the post you quoted, measuring the trick taking potential of a hand is complex and elusive. That's why the tools were invented. What I am disparaging is the loss of what those tools measure, the trick taking potential of the hand.

[nige1]

I hope you didn't think I was disparaging the tools, just the opposite. I regularly evaluate my hands with HCP, various LTC, QT and DT, always important, Kleinman, KnR and eyeballing tricks. As I mentioned right at the beginning of the post you quoted, measuring the trick taking potential of a hand is complex and elusive. That's why the tools were invented. What I am disparaging is the loss of what those tools measure, the trick taking potential of the hand.

Our misunderstanding might have arisen from a difference of opinion over LTC. IMO, it's quite a good estimate of trick-taking potential at suit contracts.

[hrothgar]

I hope you didn't think I was disparaging the tools, just the opposite. I regularly evaluate my hands with HCP, various LTC, QT and DT, always important, Kleinman, KnR and eyeballing tricks. As I mentioned right at the beginning of the post you quoted, measuring the trick taking potential of a hand is complex and elusive. That's why the tools were invented. What I am disparaging is the loss of what those tools measure, the trick taking potential of the hand.

 

A decade or so back there was a very long discussion about Zar Points

 

Much of the talk involved using trick taking potential as a way of measuring the accuracy of various metrics for evaluating hand strength.

You might find this of interest.

[billyjef]

Our misunderstanding might have arisen from a difference of opinion over LTC. IMO, it's quite a good at estimate of trick-taking potential at suit contracts.

 

It's interesting how my "objectivity" often gets interpreted as condemnation because I speak critically of something.

 

I love your father's WTC. I think the idea of WTC is a lot as it is more accessible to visualizing the trick taking potential of the hand. I think, as you suggest, that the trick expectation of short suits is too liberal. But that is just a intuitive guess. I don't know definitively.

 

As a teacher of New LTC, because, I too, know it is a good estimate of trick-taking potential at suit contracts, I have to make concerted efforts to help students realize how using NiLT, as one student calls it, translates into winning tricks. And it isn't just student's, even among other advocates of LTC, the fact we are trying to estimate a hands trick taking potential gets lost in the minutia of each persons favorite LTC adjustments.

 

On the upside, several new students in the past year, hearing how I emphasize intrinsic trick taking potential, when asked to evaluate their hand, will reply, "In (my suit or at notrump) I expect my hand to take (such number) of tricks." Even I'm not that fluent in trick taking language; my mind first goes to HCP or LTC.

 

All this is why I titled the thread HCP Matrix...I could have called it the LTC Matrix or KnR Matrix...where what is measured by the tool is lost in a fantasy world where the measured is inconsequential to the worship of the tool. I find myself in such Matrices all the time.

 

In life and bridge, for me, nothing is sacred. Keeping that in mind, everything is subject to critical analysis without intending judgement.

[billyjef]

A decade or so back there was a very long discussion about Zar Points

 

Much of the talk involved using trick taking potential as a way of measuring the accuracy of various metrics for evaluating hand strength.

You might find this of interest.

 

 

I'll search it out.

 

I still think it is bazaar that we don't routinely measure an hand evaluation by it's accuracy to predict expected trick taking potent. I sympathize with the desire to use whatever wins the most, and that can be satisfactory enough. But when the majority of people can't tell you how many tricks they are contracting to take when they open the auction or bid...something is lost, I think. I was lost; then I woke up ;)

 

How many tricks is an opening hand in ones system?

How many tricks are an invitational/limit raise in that system?

Tricks for a constructive raise?

etc.

 

Ask your average player, they can tell you the HCP range, but potential tricks those HCP represents?

[maartenxq]

Not that many people ever got to decide whether to open without using HCP. In 1908 it was still obligatory for dealer to open with any hand (weak hands were usually bid as 1S, so much for those nostalgic of a natural past ). In 1915 Bryant mccambell was already advocating the 4321 points scale and by 1927 Milton work had made it universal.

Correction: Eventually the Milton point count established itself as universal. In the days of the master himself he wielded a fierce battle with Ely Culbertson c.s. about bidding system, point count and what not. This resulted in the Match of the Century in which the Culberton team defeated Work.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[oddid]

What do you think about the point count used by robots?

They are: J=1, Q=2, K=4, A=8. So AJ=8+1=9, AKQ=8+4+1=13, etc.

It might be a quicker way to evaluate the strength of a hand.

Perhaps this way of counting might abide by the actual force of high cards (we know that in the 1234 system the Ace is underevaluated).

[cherdano]

Not that many people ever got to decide whether to open without using HCP. In 1908 it was still obligatory for dealer to open with any hand (weak hands were usually bid as 1S, so much for those nostalgic of a natural past ). In 1915 Bryant mccambell was already advocating the 4321 points scale and by 1927 Milton work had made it universal.

Wow I didn't know they were invented quite

that early. Kind of amazing that the best simple evaluation method was invented and made popular essentially with the birth of contract bridge, and all the inferior crap like the (appropriately named) losing trick count or Banzai points all came later.