t***@yahoo.com
21 years ago
[Improving Hand Evaluation Part 1]
http://tinyurl.com/25huc
[Improving Hand Evaluation Part 2]
http://tinyurl.com/383e6
Parts 1&2 are a little long and complicated, so feel free to skip them
if you're not a nerd. This Part #3 is what brings the concepts in 1&2
together and presents them in a much simpler way.
SUMMARY: This is (yet another) evaluation method to help quantify hand
evaluation and reach more accurate contracts. This is a simple and
easy-to-use method, yet provides more accuracy than many other
"improved" methods.
This is an attempt to convert Evolved Binky Points into some formulas
that are easier to remember than huge tables of numbers. This took a
lot more work than I had initially thought. Trying to find a method
that is more accurate that HCP, but doesn't use a lot a complicated
fractions is just about impossible. In order to keep things simple
I'm avoiding fractions wherever I can, but it means there's a slightly
different scale of strength. I initially tried to make this scale to
"normal points" so an average 13-point hand would be about 13 points
in the new system. I just couldn't do it without fractions that would
be almost impossible to keep straight at the table. This new
distribution has ~1.5 times the scale of normal points, so to convert
these to "normal" subtract a third. To convert from normal to these
values, multiply by 1.5.
A typical opening hand for standard methods should have ~19 points.
You should typically need:
34 for the 3-level
39 for the 4-level
44 for the 5-level
49 for the 6-level
54 for the 7-level
Of course these are just guidelines, like the 26 points typically
needed for game. Certain scoring situations (like vul at IMPs) may
push you to change these recommendations.
Here is my new method of hand evaluation:
HONOR POINTS (HP):
A = 6
K = 4
Q = 2
J = 1
(This is just HCP + Controls)
* Add 1 point for every suit that has 2+ honors (including the Ten)
* Doubletons: Don't add the point for 2+ honors and subtract one
additional point for QJ. (Don't subtract one for Qx or Jx as these are
already valued low enough)
* Singletons: Honors are valued as the next weakest honor (A=4, K=2,
Q=1, J=0)
DISTRIBUTION:
Add points for both shortness and length
* Shortness points: 5/3/1 for void/singleton/doubleton
* Length points: 1 point for each card over 4 in a suit
REVALUATION (AFTER PARTNER BIDS)
This is a complicated matter and I'm working on a lot of different
things to try and come up with an easy to use metric. For now use
this simplified way:
* Don't count shortness in partner's suit (unless you find an 8-card
fit elsewhere)
* Give +2 bonus for each trump you have over an 8-card fit
EXAMPLES:
KQJxx
-
QJxxx
AJT
* Initially: 14 HCP + 3 controls + 3 suits with 2+ honors = 20 HP. 5
for the void and 2 for the 5-card suits = 27 total points.
* Partner bids spades: +4 for the 10-card fit = 31 points.
* Partner bids hearts: 5 for the void in partner's suit = 22 points.
Kxx
Qx
JTxx
ATxx
* Initially: 10 HCP + 3 controls + 2 suits with 2+ honors = 15 HP. We
get 1 distribution point for the doubleton = 16 total.
* Partner bids spades: No change = 16 total.
* Partner bids hearts: -1 for the doubleton = 15 points.
For NT contracts you can still use these HP, but for distribution
simply count 1 point if you have a 5+ suit. You should need about:
34 HP for 2NT
37 HP for 3NT
44 HP for 6NT
48 HP for 7NT
Now all I need is a snappy name for my evaluation system. Since my
initials are TS, I'll call them TS points, or TSP. That will do for
now I guess.
COMPARING EVALUATORS
I'll extend my previously posted table of evaluator comparisons to see
how much improvement you can expect by using this method:
ERROR SCORE
HCP 1.23 -0.49
HCP+321 1.07 0.00
HCP+531 1.05 0.07
Zar 1.05 0.08
BUMRAP+321 1.03 0.14
BUMRAP+531 1.02 0.21
TSP 1.02 0.21
Binky 0.99 0.32
ERROR is the average # of tricks there is in difference between how
many tricks we think we can take and how many we actually take.
SCORE is an estimation of the IMPs/board we expect to gain against a
team that uses a simple HCP+321 evaluation method. It's a measure of
how much payoff there is for using a better evaluation system.
HCP is A=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1
HCP+321 is HCP + 3 per void + 2 per singleton + 1 per doubleton
HCP+531 is the same with more points assigned to shortness
Zar is HCP + Controls + twice the length of longest suit + once the
length of second-longest suit minus length of shortest suit.
http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/
BUMRAP is a substitute for HCP: A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.5, J=0.75, T=0.25
TSP is the method described in this article. It's an attempt to find
the best evaluator using simple whole numbers.
Binky is Thomas Andrew's evaluator:
http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/bridge/valuations/
http://tinyurl.com/25huc
[Improving Hand Evaluation Part 2]
http://tinyurl.com/383e6
Parts 1&2 are a little long and complicated, so feel free to skip them
if you're not a nerd. This Part #3 is what brings the concepts in 1&2
together and presents them in a much simpler way.
SUMMARY: This is (yet another) evaluation method to help quantify hand
evaluation and reach more accurate contracts. This is a simple and
easy-to-use method, yet provides more accuracy than many other
"improved" methods.
This is an attempt to convert Evolved Binky Points into some formulas
that are easier to remember than huge tables of numbers. This took a
lot more work than I had initially thought. Trying to find a method
that is more accurate that HCP, but doesn't use a lot a complicated
fractions is just about impossible. In order to keep things simple
I'm avoiding fractions wherever I can, but it means there's a slightly
different scale of strength. I initially tried to make this scale to
"normal points" so an average 13-point hand would be about 13 points
in the new system. I just couldn't do it without fractions that would
be almost impossible to keep straight at the table. This new
distribution has ~1.5 times the scale of normal points, so to convert
these to "normal" subtract a third. To convert from normal to these
values, multiply by 1.5.
A typical opening hand for standard methods should have ~19 points.
You should typically need:
34 for the 3-level
39 for the 4-level
44 for the 5-level
49 for the 6-level
54 for the 7-level
Of course these are just guidelines, like the 26 points typically
needed for game. Certain scoring situations (like vul at IMPs) may
push you to change these recommendations.
Here is my new method of hand evaluation:
HONOR POINTS (HP):
A = 6
K = 4
Q = 2
J = 1
(This is just HCP + Controls)
* Add 1 point for every suit that has 2+ honors (including the Ten)
* Doubletons: Don't add the point for 2+ honors and subtract one
additional point for QJ. (Don't subtract one for Qx or Jx as these are
already valued low enough)
* Singletons: Honors are valued as the next weakest honor (A=4, K=2,
Q=1, J=0)
DISTRIBUTION:
Add points for both shortness and length
* Shortness points: 5/3/1 for void/singleton/doubleton
* Length points: 1 point for each card over 4 in a suit
REVALUATION (AFTER PARTNER BIDS)
This is a complicated matter and I'm working on a lot of different
things to try and come up with an easy to use metric. For now use
this simplified way:
* Don't count shortness in partner's suit (unless you find an 8-card
fit elsewhere)
* Give +2 bonus for each trump you have over an 8-card fit
EXAMPLES:
KQJxx
-
QJxxx
AJT
* Initially: 14 HCP + 3 controls + 3 suits with 2+ honors = 20 HP. 5
for the void and 2 for the 5-card suits = 27 total points.
* Partner bids spades: +4 for the 10-card fit = 31 points.
* Partner bids hearts: 5 for the void in partner's suit = 22 points.
Kxx
Qx
JTxx
ATxx
* Initially: 10 HCP + 3 controls + 2 suits with 2+ honors = 15 HP. We
get 1 distribution point for the doubleton = 16 total.
* Partner bids spades: No change = 16 total.
* Partner bids hearts: -1 for the doubleton = 15 points.
For NT contracts you can still use these HP, but for distribution
simply count 1 point if you have a 5+ suit. You should need about:
34 HP for 2NT
37 HP for 3NT
44 HP for 6NT
48 HP for 7NT
Now all I need is a snappy name for my evaluation system. Since my
initials are TS, I'll call them TS points, or TSP. That will do for
now I guess.
COMPARING EVALUATORS
I'll extend my previously posted table of evaluator comparisons to see
how much improvement you can expect by using this method:
ERROR SCORE
HCP 1.23 -0.49
HCP+321 1.07 0.00
HCP+531 1.05 0.07
Zar 1.05 0.08
BUMRAP+321 1.03 0.14
BUMRAP+531 1.02 0.21
TSP 1.02 0.21
Binky 0.99 0.32
ERROR is the average # of tricks there is in difference between how
many tricks we think we can take and how many we actually take.
SCORE is an estimation of the IMPs/board we expect to gain against a
team that uses a simple HCP+321 evaluation method. It's a measure of
how much payoff there is for using a better evaluation system.
HCP is A=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1
HCP+321 is HCP + 3 per void + 2 per singleton + 1 per doubleton
HCP+531 is the same with more points assigned to shortness
Zar is HCP + Controls + twice the length of longest suit + once the
length of second-longest suit minus length of shortest suit.
http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/
BUMRAP is a substitute for HCP: A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.5, J=0.75, T=0.25
TSP is the method described in this article. It's an attempt to find
the best evaluator using simple whole numbers.
Binky is Thomas Andrew's evaluator:
http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/bridge/valuations/