Hand valuation is an inexact science.

[jogs]

Hand valuation is an inexact science.

Under work count all four suits are given equal weight. In suit contracts more tricks are won by major suit cards than minor suit cards. Trumps are much more valuable than the other suits. Many more tricks are won by the trumps. Yet each suit is assigned the same 10 HCP. Every valution system seems to assign equal weight to all four suits.
5=3=3=2 facing 4=2=3=4. In spades when opponents' trumps split 2-2 our trumps can win 7 of the 13 tricks. Oftentimes the trump suit wins more tricks than the other 3 suits combined. Yet work count doesn't give spades any more weight than the other 3 suits. Is this a serious flaw? No. The initial count is only a provisional valuation. Only a starting point. Once the auction commences one should switch to estimating tricks. This trick estimate is a dynamic valuation. It changes as one receives more information on the location of the other 39 cards in the deck.
Many systems want to be more precise than 4-3-2-1 for ace, king, queen and jack. It is not necessary and not worth the effort. That original valuation was static and only provisional. It is a ball park estimate. Many system theorists are overly concerned with the average value of each honor over a large group of boards. During the auction the goal should be to learn how many tricks these honors and these cards will take. Unfortunately there is no simple method to count these tricks.

jogs

[t***@att.net]

Goren's count does adjust for trump holding. Responder (but not opener, or at least not the first person to bid the suit naturally) subtracts 1 point for only 3 trump. Responder also adds 1 point to each trump honor up to a total of 4 points in the trump suit. Likewise, with 4 or more trump, responder counts a singleton as 3 and a void as 5 shortness points (rather than 2and 3 points.)

Ranks of suits are indirectly adjusted for by the order in which suits are bid.

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by jogs
Hand valuation is an inexact science.
Under work count all four suits are given equal weight. In suit contracts more tricks are won by major suit cards than minor suit cards. Trumps are much more valuable than the other suits. Many more tricks are won by the trumps. Yet each suit is assigned the same 10 HCP. Every valution system seems to assign equal weight to all four suits.
5=3=3=2 facing 4=2=3=4. In spades when opponents' trumps split 2-2 our trumps can win 7 of the 13 tricks. Oftentimes the trump suit wins more tricks than the other 3 suits combined. Yet work count doesn't give spades any more weight than the other 3 suits. Is this a serious flaw? No. The initial count is only a provisional valuation. Only a starting point. Once the auction commences one should switch to estimating tricks. This trick estimate is a dynamic valuation. It changes as one receives more information on the location of the other 39 cards in the deck.
Many systems want to be more precise than 4-3-2-1 for ace, king, queen and jack. It is not necessary and not worth the effort. That original valuation was static and only provisional. It is a ball park estimate. Many system theorists are overly concerned with the average value of each honor over a large group of boards. During the auction the goal should be to learn how many tricks these honors and these cards will take. Unfortunately there is no simple method to count these tricks.
jogs

If you are interested in how hand evalution should develop based on the
auction the Cobra project is a good place to start:

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/cobra_evaluation.pdf

Lorne

[jogs]

Post by Lorne Anderson
If you are interested in how hand evalution should develop based on the
http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/cobra_evaluation.pdf
Lorne

My claim is all this tedious work is pointless. The initial count is only a temporary starting point. The fine point adjustments are made from listening to the auction. Shortness of the side suits may or may not lead to tricks. Once the auction commences switch from estimating tricks to actually counting tricks as quickly as possible.

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by jogs

Post by Lorne Anderson
If you are interested in how hand evalution should develop based on the
http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/cobra_evaluation.pdf
Lorne

My claim is all this tedious work is pointless. The initial count is only a temporary starting point. The fine point adjustments are made from listening to the auction. Shortness of the side suits may or may not lead to tricks. Once the auction commences switch from estimating tricks to actually counting tricks as quickly as possible.

That is why I posted the link. It is a fairly rigorous analysis of how
to adjust the current playing strength of a hand based on the auction as
it develops.

ie it starts with HCP, then it adjusts for points in long suits or short
suits or connected honours etc to give a starting playing points number,
then LHO opens the bidding with (say) 1S and it downgrades your hand
value if you have Kx in spades with the bid behind you (or if RHO opened
1S it would upgrade the value since the K is now more likely to be a
trick) and continues adjusting like that throughout the auction with the
adjustments having been calculated by analysing real results from many
hands. At the end of an auction Kx in spades may be worth anything from
about 1 point to about 5 or 6 points depending on who bid the suit and
the final contract, the main plus situation being when partner bids spades.

[jogs]

Post by Lorne Anderson
That is why I posted the link. It is a fairly rigorous analysis of how
to adjust the current playing strength of a hand based on the auction as
it develops.
ie it starts with HCP, then it adjusts for points in long suits or short
suits or connected honours etc to give a starting playing points number,
then LHO opens the bidding with (say) 1S and it downgrades your hand
value if you have Kx in spades with the bid behind you (or if RHO opened
1S it would upgrade the value since the K is now more likely to be a
trick) and continues adjusting like that throughout the auction with the
adjustments having been calculated by analysing real results from many
hands. At the end of an auction Kx in spades may be worth anything from
about 1 point to about 5 or 6 points depending on who bid the suit and
the final contract, the main plus situation being when partner bids spades.

I advocate 3 phases during the bidding process.

1. count your points.
2. estimate our tricks.
E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3
3. attempt to count the actual tricks.

Phase 3 is mostly for slam auctions.

Kx - It is either worth one trick or 0 tricks. After phase 1 discard counting points and switch to estimating tricks.
Kx in the hand with long trumps is worth no additional tricks from ruffing.
Except in the case of a dummy reversal.

[[e-mail]]

Post by jogs
Kx in the hand with long trumps is worth no additional tricks from ruffing.
Except in the case of a dummy reversal.

Or for setting up long weak suit opposite. Similar to a dummy reversal but much more common.

Carl

[rhm]

Post by Lorne Anderson

Post by jogs

Post by Lorne Anderson
If you are interested in how hand evalution should develop based on the
http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/cobra_evaluation.pdf
Lorne

My claim is all this tedious work is pointless. The initial count is only a temporary starting point. The fine point adjustments are made from listening to the auction. Shortness of the side suits may or may not lead to tricks. Once the auction commences switch from estimating tricks to actually counting tricks as quickly as possible.

That is why I posted the link. It is a fairly rigorous analysis of how
to adjust the current playing strength of a hand based on the auction as
it develops.
ie it starts with HCP, then it adjusts for points in long suits or short
suits or connected honours etc to give a starting playing points number,
then LHO opens the bidding with (say) 1S and it downgrades your hand
value if you have Kx in spades with the bid behind you (or if RHO opened
1S it would upgrade the value since the K is now more likely to be a
trick) and continues adjusting like that throughout the auction with the
adjustments having been calculated by analysing real results from many
hands. At the end of an auction Kx in spades may be worth anything from
about 1 point to about 5 or 6 points depending on who bid the suit and
the final contract, the main plus situation being when partner bids spades.

The problem with your link Cobra is that it just publishes conclusions based on claims (like millions of hand analyzed), which are not published.
Nobody can verify them.
It starts with standard Milton work-count and then it makes adjustments for various conditions, which is fair enough.
These adjustments are a problem again, because is is very difficult to get these adjustments just right.
I give you an example.
Cobra deducts a point for a singleton honor.
This is about right for all honors, but not the ace.
While a singleton ace is not as valuable than an ace accompanied by more cards,
a singleton ace looses much less in value than for example a singleton king or queen does.
If you have no Bridge feeling that this claim is correct, there are studies like Thomas Andrews for example, which clearly confirm this finding.

So hand evaluation remains complex and there is no common consensus.
But Jogs conclusion that we do not need hand evaluation judgement beyond basic point count is plain silly.
I will look at his conclusions again once he has won a big tournament.

[jogs]

Post by rhm
But Jogs conclusion that we do not need hand evaluation judgement beyond basic point count is plain silly.

That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that hand valuation systems is just a starting point. One should switch to estimating tricks once the auction begins. Switch to actually counting tricks as soon as possible.

I have judged that all these hand valuation adjustments before the auction is not fruitful. It is sufficient to be aware that adjustments will need to be made.

[P***@yahoo.com]

Post by jogs
I have judged that all these hand valuation adjustments before the auction is not fruitful. It is sufficient to be aware that adjustments will need to be made.

I totally disagree with this comment -- I *always* count BOTH my HCPs and NLTC before I start the auction. The point is that once you start the auction, you are bound to bid at a fast pace lest you be accused of UI. So, its best to do the analysis ahead of the time you are faced with a decision.

As for your system -- I still contend that NLTC is better. Here's an example from a recent bidding challenge:

You have QJ52 T97 QJ5 KQ2. Your HCPs are 11 and your NLTC is 9.5 (I would know both before my partner even bid). Before I start my first bid, I tell myself "This hand is helpful towards a contract in NT, but is only worth a simple raise to the two-level in a suit contract." In other words, my calculations before the bidding help me to decide how to react to my partner's opening bid. So jogs, how does your system help you to bid if your partner opens 1S with this hand? And, when do you start doing the calculations?

[jogs]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
You have QJ52 T97 QJ5 KQ2. Your HCPs are 11 and your NLTC is 9.5 (I would know both before my partner even bid). Before I start my first bid, I tell myself "This hand is helpful towards a contract in NT, but is only worth a simple raise to the two-level in a suit contract." In other words, my calculations before the bidding help me to decide how to react to my partner's opening bid. So jogs, how does your system help you to bid if your partner opens 1S with this hand? And, when do you start doing the calculations?

I make no calcs. Not worth the effort. 4333. Bad. Queens and jacks. Bad.
It's a bad, bad 11. That's enough for me. Also ten and nines in short suits aren't much better than low xxs.

[jogs]

And, when do you start doing the calculations?

Post by jogs
I make no calcs. Not worth the effort. 4333. Bad. Queens and jacks. Bad.
It's a bad, bad 11. That's enough for me. Also ten and nines in short suits aren't much better than low xxs.

I'm willing to treat this hand as a 3-card limit raise. I'm not dropping it more than that.

--------
LTC has been around for decades. NLTC has been around for awhile. Yet the expert community hasn't fully embraced it. No valuation system or approach can attain the total enlightenment you're hoping for.
You have a 6 loser hand. Your partner has a 6 loser hand. How many losers does the partnership have?
The answer is depends. The simple rules of addition and subtract does not apply to abstract space.
You hold S 8765432 H 765432 D -- C --. 6 loser hand.
Partner holds S -- H -- D 8765432 C 765432. 6 loser hand.
You will likely have more than 6 losers every strain.
Partner holds S AKQ H AKQ D 5432 C 432. 6 loser hand.
Now you're a favorite to make both 7S and 7H.

[rhm]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
And, when do you start doing the calculations?

Post by jogs
I make no calcs. Not worth the effort. 4333. Bad. Queens and jacks. Bad.
It's a bad, bad 11. That's enough for me. Also ten and nines in short suits aren't much better than low xxs.

I'm willing to treat this hand as a 3-card limit raise. I'm not dropping it more than that.
--------
LTC has been around for decades. NLTC has been around for awhile. Yet the expert community hasn't fully embraced it. No valuation system or approach can attain the total enlightenment you're hoping for.
You have a 6 loser hand. Your partner has a 6 loser hand. How many losers does the partnership have?
The answer is depends. The simple rules of addition and subtract does not apply to abstract space.
You hold S 8765432 H 765432 D -- C --. 6 loser hand.
Partner holds S -- H -- D 8765432 C 765432. 6 loser hand.
You will likely have more than 6 losers every strain.
Partner holds S AKQ H AKQ D 5432 C 432. 6 loser hand.
Now you're a favorite to make both 7S and 7H.

I rarely hold 13 cards in two suits.
Freak hands prove nothing. They are simply too infrequent.
And yes no matter what evaluation method you use, whether intrinsic by experience, HCP, NLTC or by any other method, you never know how much duplication a hand will face. This is particular true for distributional value.
Nevertheless you still need a precise feeling what the likely expected value of your hand is over all possible hands your partner and opponents may hold.
I know nobody I respect playing this game, who would treat say a hand with 6421 distribution the same as 4333 just because one can not be sure whether the distributional values might face duplication.

Your observations are trivial, your conclusions are wrong.

[jogs]

Post by P***@yahoo.com

Post by jogs
I have judged that all these hand valuation adjustments before the auction is not fruitful. It is sufficient to be aware that adjustments will need to be made.

I totally disagree with this comment -- I *always* count BOTH my HCPs and NLTC before I start the auction. The point is that once you start the auction, you are bound to bid at a fast pace lest you be accused of UI. So, its best to do the analysis ahead of the time you are faced with a decision.
You have QJ52 T97 QJ5 KQ2. Your HCPs are 11 and your NLTC is 9.5 (I would know both before my partner even bid). Before I start my first bid, I tell myself "This hand is helpful towards a contract in NT, but is only worth a simple raise to the two-level in a suit contract." In other words, my calculations before the bidding help me to decide how to react to my partner's opening bid. So jogs, how does your system help you to bid if your partner opens 1S with this hand? And, when do you start doing the calculations?

David,

I'll try to re-explain my position on hand valuation. You are computing the mean valuation of your 13 cards over the entire space of all possible hands. I want to know the valuation for THIS board. During the initial counting of the hand you wish the know the hand's value to many decimal places. Not worth the effort. As long as you are using only 13 of 52 cards in the deck to estimate the value of the hand the variance of that estimate will remain high. Just learn the approximate value of the hand. The variance can not be reduced until more is learned about the location of the other 39 cards. Conserve your energy. Don't compute the adjustments til after more information from the other 13 cards is available.

QJ52 T97 QJ5 KQ2

Bad 11 HCP. Bad pattern, 4333. 5 HCP is (wasted) in clubs. Clubs is the lowest ranking suit. QJ52 KQ2 QJ5 T97. Doesn't NLTC value this hand the same as the original hand. KQ is hearts is worth more than KQ in clubs.

1x - p - 1y - ?

Pass, there is no need to further evaluate this hand.

1C - ?
1D - ?
1S - ?

RHO opens. Just pass.

1H - ?

Now there is a minor argument for doubling. It is still a bad 11, but all 11 points are working.

Opponents silent, pard opens.

1D - 1S
2S - ?

Now you do need to evaluate the adjustments. I prefer pass. Many feel a need to invite. I do not know which style is game theory better.

Initially count the hand. Be aware that adjustments may be needed. Delay making these adjustments til absolutely necessary. Then make adjustments depending on fit with partner's hand. Also these will be adjustments in the estimated trick count, not high card points. In many cases no adjustment need be made(as I'm not competing in this auction). That's my philosophy to bidding.

[KWSchneider]

I'll try to re-explain my position on hand valuation. You are computing th=
e mean valuation of your 13 cards over the entire space of all possible han=
ds. I want to know the valuation for THIS board. During the initial count=
ing of the hand you wish the know the hand's value to many decimal places. =
Not worth the effort. As long as you are using only 13 of 52 cards in the=
deck to estimate the value of the hand the variance of that estimate will =
remain high. Just learn the approximate value of the hand. The variance c=
an not be reduced until more is learned about the location of the other 39 =
cards. Conserve your energy. Don't compute the adjustments til after more=
information from the other 13 cards is available.

IMO, this is a well phrased position. As jogs states, an auction proceeds such that you are constantly narrowing down the variance of the estimate of tricks.

For example - South and North evaluate their hands independently and arrive at a "value" for each hand (in each strain). Let's say that South (as opener) determines that his/her hand is worth 6tricks in spades (5cM), without any input from the rest of the table. The variance on this is +/- 2tricks. North with 3card support, originally independently valued his/her hand at 2.5tricks in spades with a similar variance.

Now, however, they have identified a 8+card fit. This does two things: first, it increases the combined trick potential to at least 9tricks because of the fit, and second, it reduces the variance to +/- 1trick.

Say North invites with a mini-splinter. South now has new shape information regarding suit length differentials between the hands. And let's say that the singleton sits opposite a 4card suit with no honors. Now South can accurately increase the value of the combined hands while further reducing the variance to +/- 0.5tricks (location of opponent's honors).

Now this is obvious to most every bridge player. My point is that a properly designed evaluation system will quantify this (to however many decimal places one wants) and take the process to beginners, so they can accurately assess hand values using a tool. This tool is NOT HCP, or NLTC but one that does exactly as I proposed above.

Kurt

[jogs]

Post by rhm
I will look at his conclusions again once he has won a big tournament.

Actually you should try my methods. It's not a new system. It's just a different approach to hand valuation. It uses partnership tricks as the basic method to measure value. It can be integrated into your own system. Also you can be using this method without your partner's knowledge.
It is also less tiring. No rigorous and tedious analysis on boards where it really isn't needed. I generally bid much quicker than opponents.

[t***@att.net]

QJ52 T97 QJ5 KQ2

This is an interesting hand. As mentioned, 11HCP, but as Opener, only 9 Goren points, as responder, it depends.

If Partner opens 1NT, I'll shoot 3NT. Over a 1S opening, the hand is only invitational; good Trumps but no (fast) ruffing value. Using my canapé system, I'd bid 1NT (forcing) then raise Spades. In a 5-Card Major system, the known 5-card Spade suit is good if Spades are Trump but the hand isn't very good in other suits. Many people I've played 5-Card Majors would demand that this hand raise 1H to 2H or 3H to "show support." (I don't think the hand has much support for non-Spade suits.)

It's more interesting over an opening of 2NT. A magic fit could produce 12 tricks but I'd probably just bid 3NT. (Of course, with the old-fashioned 22-24 2NT, I just bid 6NT.)

[P***@yahoo.com]

Post by P***@yahoo.com
QJ52 T97 QJ5 KQ2
This is an interesting hand. As mentioned, 11HCP, but as Opener, only 9 Goren points, as responder, it depends.
If Partner opens 1NT, I'll shoot 3NT. Over a 1S opening, the hand is only invitational; good Trumps but no (fast) ruffing value. Using my canapé system, I'd bid 1NT (forcing) then raise Spades. In a 5-Card Major system, the known 5-card Spade suit is good if Spades are Trump but the hand isn't very good in other suits. Many people I've played 5-Card Majors would demand that this hand raise 1H to 2H or 3H to "show support." (I don't think the hand has much support for non-Spade suits.)
It's more interesting over an opening of 2NT. A magic fit could produce 12 tricks but I'd probably just bid 3NT. (Of course, with the old-fashioned 22-24 2NT, I just bid 6NT.)

What is interesting here is that the hand doesn't even have much support for spades, assuming partner has a five card spade suit. In the bidding contest, 2S will win more than 3S. Partner needs a huge hand to make 4S a viable option, especially at matchpoints, and if he has a huge hand this plays better in 3N. Try some hands to prove the point.

1. AT943 K86 A2 J43 -- A "typical" opening hand, with NLTC=7.5. 3S goes down 33% of the time, according to the DD simulator.

2. AK943 K86 A2 J43 -- An "invitational" opening hand, with NLTC=6.5. 4S goes down 60% of the time and 3S goes down 8% of the time.

3. AK943 KJ6 K2 AJ3 -- A "game forcing" opening hand, over a 1S-2S (constructive raise) auction, with NLTC=5.5. 4S goes down 8% of the time. 3N scores better at matchpoints 89% to 11%.

[jogs]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 5:05:51 AM UTC-7,

Post by P***@yahoo.com
What is interesting here is that the hand doesn't even have much support for spades, assuming partner has a five card spade suit. In the bidding contest, 2S will win more than 3S. Partner needs a huge hand to make 4S a viable option, especially at matchpoints, and if he has a huge hand this plays better in 3N. Try some hands to prove the point.
1. AT943 K86 A2 J43 -- A "typical" opening hand, with NLTC=7.5. 3S goes down 33% of the time, according to the DD simulator.
2. AK943 K86 A2 J43 -- An "invitational" opening hand, with NLTC=6.5. 4S goes down 60% of the time and 3S goes down 8% of the time.
3. AK943 KJ6 K2 AJ3 -- A "game forcing" opening hand, over a 1S-2S (constructive raise) auction, with NLTC=5.5. 4S goes down 8% of the time. 3N scores better at matchpoints 89% to 11%.

Post by P***@yahoo.com
QJ52 T97 QJ5 KQ2

I'm treating this as a 3-card limit raise, Hardy red book style.
I don't play constructive raises.
Every auction would begin 1S-1N, 2C-3S.
Pass 3S with 1. Bid 3NT with 2 and 3.

[f***@googlemail.com]

Post by P***@yahoo.com

Post by P***@yahoo.com
QJ52 T97 QJ5 KQ2
This is an interesting hand. As mentioned, 11HCP, but as Opener, only 9 Goren points, as responder, it depends.
If Partner opens 1NT, I'll shoot 3NT. Over a 1S opening, the hand is only invitational; good Trumps but no (fast) ruffing value. Using my canapé system, I'd bid 1NT (forcing) then raise Spades. In a 5-Card Major system, the known 5-card Spade suit is good if Spades are Trump but the hand isn't very good in other suits. Many people I've played 5-Card Majors would demand that this hand raise 1H to 2H or 3H to "show support." (I don't think the hand has much support for non-Spade suits.)
It's more interesting over an opening of 2NT. A magic fit could produce 12 tricks but I'd probably just bid 3NT. (Of course, with the old-fashioned 22-24 2NT, I just bid 6NT.)

What is interesting here is that the hand doesn't even have much support for spades, assuming partner has a five card spade suit. In the bidding contest, 2S will win more than 3S. Partner needs a huge hand to make 4S a viable option, especially at matchpoints, and if he has a huge hand this plays better in 3N. Try some hands to prove the point.
1. AT943 K86 A2 J43 -- A "typical" opening hand, with NLTC=7.5. 3S goes down 33% of the time, according to the DD simulator.
2. AK943 K86 A2 J43 -- An "invitational" opening hand, with NLTC=6.5. 4S goes down 60% of the time and 3S goes down 8% of the time.
3. AK943 KJ6 K2 AJ3 -- A "game forcing" opening hand, over a 1S-2S (constructive raise) auction, with NLTC=5.5. 4S goes down 8% of the time. 3N scores better at matchpoints 89% to 11%.

It's not at all surprising that opposite a balanced hand, this hand is likely to play better in NT than in spades as it has no ruffing value.

Personally I'd be tempted to call it a constructive raise. Good things can happen after 1S - 2S. Partner might make a short suit game (+) try in hearts opposite you are suddenly worth 4C and should get to slam opposite AKxxxx x AKx Axx. Partner might suggest 3NT and you will rapidly accept.

[t***@att.net]

The problem isn't after 1D-1S-2S. There are still 11 HCP and 8 losers; just Pass.

The problem is after 1S...? Now the hand has 12 Goren points and only 12 losers (in a 5-Card Major system.) I'd bid (if possible) 1NT (forcing) then 4S.

Another problem occurs if playing 4-Card Majors. A 1S Opening gives the 12 Goren points but not does not reduce the number of losers. In my canapé stuff, I'd bid 1NT (forcing) followed by 3S. It's invitational.

[jogs]

Post by t***@att.net
The problem isn't after 1D-1S-2S. There are still 11 HCP and 8 losers; just Pass.
The problem is after 1S...? Now the hand has 12 Goren points and only 12 losers (in a 5-Card Major system.) I'd bid (if possible) 1NT (forcing) then 4S.
Another problem occurs if playing 4-Card Majors. A 1S Opening gives the 12 Goren points but not does not reduce the number of losers. In my canapé stuff, I'd bid 1NT (forcing) followed by 3S. It's invitational.

First, do not play 4 card majors. In the last 50 years how often has a 4 card major pair won a major championship? The 5-4 fit is critical for close games and slams.

I've already covered what to do after 1S. Treat this hand as a 3-card limit raise. Lowering it more is overcompensating.

1S - 1N, 2m - 3S. This sequence is not forcing.

[KWSchneider]

First, do not play 4 card majors. In the last 50 years how often has a 4 c=
ard major pair won a major championship? The 5-4 fit is critical for close=
games and slams.

What a simplistic statement! Auken played 4cM for years with von Armin before her partnership with Welland. Hammond and Soloway did as well before his death. And since when does playing 4cM impact finding a 5-4 fit? You won't raise a 4cM 1M opening with 4card support?

There is significant benefit to playing a well-designed 4cM canape system WITH A STRONG CLUB. Frankly, your ignorance of this does not allow you to pass judgment on the subject.

Kurt