Hand Revaluation, Game Requirements, And Weak NT

[pbleighton]

I'm interested in revaluing hands when a major suit fit is found, what should be the combined point count for game, and how weak NT affects the responder's calculations.

 

1) I have seen 2 methods for valuing dummy:

a) 3 for void, 2 for s/t, 1 for doubleton, plus points for long suits.

;) 5 for void, 3 for s/t, 1 for doubleton

 

Both plus/minus "quality" points (intermediates, trump support length, location and quality of honors).

 

Which do you prefer, or do you like another way?

 

2) Method a seems to be the consensus for the declarer. I have seen suggested that you don't count the first doubleton

(Bergen) and 2 points for each card past 5 (also Bergen). How do you value declarer hands?

 

3) After revaluation, what combined hcp do you feel comfortable with going to game with? 3NT can be made with 25 or a good 24, but I like to see 26 for a suit contract, or else you wind up with the opps having too many aces and kings for you to make the contract. Do you agree?

 

4) With regular pd, I open most 11 counts. NT is 11-14. We aopen almost all 11-14 balanced hands 1 NT to avoid rebidding problems (NT rebid shows 15-17). The exceptions are 5332s with excellent 5 card suits, and 4432s with 2 4 card majors.

 

My opinion is that the weak NT opener strengthens the one of a suit openers sufficiently that the responder can use 11-12 (revalued) points as the inviational range, and go to game with 13. Without the weak NT, it would be dangerous because of the light openers, but with the weak NT if you are light you have shape. Ther 4432 2 4 card major hands I ignore for this purpose, as they are fairly rare.

 

Do you agree?

[the hog]

No, Peter I don't agree. Look at your hand, do you have fitting honors, do you have fillers - Ts and 9s, do you have a decent 5 card suit?

If you have these upvalue your hand.

If you have a sterile distribution - 4333 and unsupported honors, downvalue your hand.

 

This is much better than counting points.

Ron

[pbleighton]

Ron writes

"No, Peter I don't agree. Look at your hand, do you have fitting honors, do you have fillers - Ts and 9s, do you have a decent 5 card suit?

If you have these upvalue your hand.

If you have a sterile distribution - 4333 and unsupported honors, downvalue your hand.

 

This is much better than counting points."

 

I wrote in my question:

 

"...Both plus/minus "quality" points (intermediates, trump support length, location and quality of honors)."

 

I am not trying to be a mechanical point-counter (o horror of horrors ;)), but I am trying to get some idea of quantifying the distributional aspect of hand valuation.

 

Is it your position that one shouldn't assign specific value to length and shortness in hand revaluation when a fit is found, as the beginning but not the end of the revaluation process?

 

You have given me a lot of good advice in this Forum (I've even taken some of it :)), but I don't really understand how I would implement your "free-floating revaluation" with my level of bridge experience, though I'm sure it works for you. Any suggestions?

 

BTW, on my last question, do you agree that the weak NT reduces the game-going point requirement (regardless of how the responder revalues his hand)?

[mishovnbg]

Hi Peter!

HCP and its evaluation is imortant part of counting the tricks ( dont forget the final target ), but only part. If you like I can try to post ways of counting tricks during bidding which i know and use.

Misho

[the hog]

I was specifically talking about NT here, esp in terms of accepting invites ot deciding whether to open a borderline nt or pass.

 

In terms of suit contracts, I ugrade my hand if I have a fit of some description with pd, and downgrade it severly if it is a misfit. Similarly if I have hons in long suits I upgrade it, downgrade hons in short suits.

Also the 4321 point count is not correct. I know you have a copy of Nightmare; have a look at the way they evaluate their points - overvalue Aces and KQ, KJT combinations and downgrade unsupported stuff, count only 1/2 point for Js.

 

I realise this is all a bit airey fairy, but I really don't know how to explain it better. I hardly ever count points these days and rather look at the texture of the hand

[Laird]

Hello Everyone

 

Yes please Misho...how you evaluate plus a few hands as examples.

 

I try to use a mixture of hcp plus Losing Trick count where only the first 3 cards in any suit count as losers...its a bit rough and ready but I find it suits my simple minded approach.

 

What Ron says about texture of the hand, has it got middle age spread or is it skinny, I believe is also a very valid comment.

 

However, I doubt if my method would have much merit against the sting of the mosquito.... their aim it seems being to gobble up your bidding space before you have time to apply it ;)

 

Just my twopence worth to this interesting post.

 

John

[pbleighton]

Misho writes:

" HCP and its evaluation is imortant part of counting the tricks ( dont forget the final target ), but only part. If you like I can try to post ways of counting tricks during bidding which i know and use."

 

Yes please!

[mishovnbg]

Hi Peter! I use similar method as you.

Counting the tricks during bidding is only "hypothetical", even not statistical, so very complicate methods are just useless. When is not possible to count directly my tricks, I use: generally points (hcp + distributional); losers + cover cards for unbalanced hands (mainly for border hands and fit bids); QT (quick tricks) to limit ability of hand for defence. During bidding, after receive some information from p or opps I of course will revaluate my hand (better to read "Evaluation of hands", M. Lawrence).

 

1. Points. General mistake here is to count distributional points, which cant be converted to tricks. Same method lead to remembering such garbage like how many s(support) points, d (distributional) points... Totally useless in competitive bidding and much more complicate than need for "hypothetical" count. I dont claim absolute truth, but at least you can receive your tricks using my method by simple division to 3.

1.1. HCP: À=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1

Corrections:

+1 HCP for any sequence and for any 2A more than Q, J or sequence.

-1HCP for any 2A less than Q, J or sequence.

or for honour in short suit ( both your or p).

1.2. Points for length:

   +1 for any 4+card for NT contract and for any 4+card in side suit for trump contract.

   +2 for any 4+card in trump suit without fit in it and for any 4+card in side suit for trump contract with fit in trump suit.

   +3 for any 4+card in trump suit with fit in it) and for any 4+card in side suit for trump contract with 4 fit in trump suit.

Corrections:

+1 for any 4+card in any suit with 3+ honours, but not more than 3 for card.

-1 for any 4+card in any suit without honours, but not less than 0 for card.

1.3. Points for short: (Note: only on trump contract with fit in trump suit)

+1 for any doubleton

+3 for any singleton

+5 for any void

Corrections:

With less than 3 cards support:

+0 for any doubleton

+2 for any singleton

+4 for any void

1.4. Number of tricks for own contract = (HCP + points for length - by p who have more of them + points for short - only with fit in trump suit and only by p who dont count points for length)/3

Corrections: When you count tricks for NT contract based on your own long good suit you must expect from p number of tricks = his HCP/4

1.5. Number of defensive tricks = number of tricks in own hand + (min p HCP/4)

Corrections: LTTC/LOTT/Vernie

 

Examples:

 

1. To open or not:

HCP Length

Axxx 4 1 for 4th card

KQx 5 0

Kxx 3 0

xxx 0 0

Total: 12 + 1 = 13 / 3 = 4 1/3 tricks = not enough

 

HCP Length

Axxx 4 1 for 4th card

KQx 5 0

Kxxx 3 1 for 4th card

xx 0 0

Total: 12 + 2 = 14 / 3 = 4 2/3 tricks = enough

 

 

2. Level of raise of response:

1DI-1SP, ?

 

HCP Length Short

Axxx 4 3 0

KQx 5 0 0

Kxxx 3 3 0

xx 0 0 0

Your: 12 + 6 0 = 18

Partner: 6 + 0 0 = 6

Total: 18 + 6 + 0 = 24/3=8 tricks

 

HCP Length Short

Axxx 4 3 0

x 0 0 0

AKxxxx 7 6 0

xx 0 0 0

Your: 12 + 9 0 = 21

Partner: 6 + 0 0 = 6

Total: 18 + 9 + 0 = 27/3=9 tricks

 

Note: You can raise to 3 only if your partner know type of your raise, to be able to revaluate his hand!

 

Misho

[Free]

The way I evaluate is according to Loser Trick Count (LTC). It works as following:

You take the highest 3 cards of every suit and count how many losers you have in a realistic and optimistic situation. Examples:

AKJ = -0 (Q is in front)

AQ10 = -1 (K or J behind)

AJ10 = -1 (K or Q behind)

Kxx = -2 (A in front)

Qxx = -3

Q10x = -2,5

...

 

You count all these losers together and that's your LTC-value. For doubletons, singletons and void you can only have -2, -1 and -0 ofcourse.

 

Then we have the levels where you may open and intervene:

V NV

1 -7 -8

2 -7 -8

3 -6 -7

4 -5 -6

... ... ...

 

Which level do you have to reach? Count your LTC-value and the value of partner together, and follow this scheme:

-16 : level 2

-15 : level 3

-14 : level 4

-12/-13 : level 5

-11/-12 : level 6

 

This way of bidding has helped me a lot in finding sharp games and slams, but also in competitive bidding. Partner knows what he may and may not bid, how high he can go to defend,...

[keylime]

LTC...pretty nice tool to have as long as things are civilized. Remember troopers LTC is based on two premises: 1. That the suits will not adversely be split. 2. That 50 percent of any finesse required will work.

 

LOTT and LTC as the hands become more distributional or "freaky" tends to lose its effectiveness. As one of my little projects, I am attempting to derive a mathematical equation that will closely appoximately the expected outcomes when this scenario occurs. When the situation is normal so to speak, there exists a linear equation (if interested I'll repost that article which for some reason was removed from here some time ago) that is a pretty good litmus test.

[Laird]

Hi Dwayne

 

Yes please re - post the article or the site where it can be read. Your summary of conclusion could be posted here perhaps?

 

I'm sure this is an area of interest to mathematicians and laymen alike... LOTT and LTC ... thelast article I read showed the value during the linear stage but further work was being done to explore the non - linear stage.

I'm always interested in simple equations that help the bidding process :)

 

thanks

 

John

[luke warm]

fwiw i originally add my hcp to my length points (1 extra for the 5th and subsequent) and open rule of 20... as responder, i only add distribution points if i fit opener... as opener, if i fit responder i add short suit points

 

i also agree with ron that *where* the hcp are is as important as how many you hold... i like misho's "honors together" part, but that's also more or less what ron is saying...

 

read rubens' chapter on 'over/under' evaluation, just another way of saying what others have said, but as far as i know he said it first

[ArcLight]

Take a look at Mike Lawrence & Anders Wirgrens "I fought the Law of Total Tricks". They have a nice simple system.

[mike777]

Take a look at Mike Lawrence & Anders Wirgrens "I fought the Law of Total Tricks".  They have a nice simple system.

Well simple is in the eye of the beholder. This may be a system where expert judgement gets expert results and novice judgement gets novice results.

 

Bottom line a great great book A+ and a must read for the improving/nonexpert player. As a side note a strongly recommend rereading his "Reading the opp card book" along with this book. :D.

[Guest Jlall]

woah this thread is old...