Help
What I'm hearing from books, articles, and Youtube videos on the subject of hand evaluation is:
Before you have found a fit, use "long suit points" to evaluate your hand (1 point for every card over 4 in all your suits).
But when you find a fit with partner, you should switch to using "short suit points" to evaluate your hand (1-3-5 points for each doubleton, singleton, and void).
Some people suggest that perhaps the 1-3-5 points for short suits is a little too much unless you have "good trumps", say, 4 of them.
So, things are a little hazy for me. My questions are:
1. When we find a fit, do BOTH declarer and dummy re-evaluate their hands to use "dummy points"? Or should only the dummy (meaning, I suppose, the player who bids the suit second) revalue using dummy points?
2. I learned the game 50 years ago from the Goren book, and he used the 1-2-3 values for short suits, not the 1-3-5 that everyone seems to suggest nowadays. Is 1-3-5 just too optimistic?
3. "Some say" that 1-3-5 is too much to use when you have only 3 trumps (in a 5-3 fit, say). Is that true?
What do you "real players" say about all this?
Page 1 of 1
- You cannot start a new topic
Add Reply
When do I use dummy points to evaluate my hand?
MultiQuote
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 562
- Joined: 2019-October-14
Posted 2024-April-20, 20:37
tgphelps, on 2024-April-20, 16:20, said:
What I'm hearing from books, articles, and Youtube videos on the subject of hand evaluation is:
Before you have found a fit, use "long suit points" to evaluate your hand (1 point for every card over 4 in all your suits).
But when you find a fit with partner, you should switch to using "short suit points" to evaluate your hand (1-3-5 points for each doubleton, singleton, and void).
Some people suggest that perhaps the 1-3-5 points for short suits is a little too much unless you have "good trumps", say, 4 of them.
So, things are a little hazy for me. My questions are:
1. When we find a fit, do BOTH declarer and dummy re-evaluate their hands to use "dummy points"? Or should only the dummy (meaning, I suppose, the player who bids the suit second) revalue using dummy points?
2. I learned the game 50 years ago from the Goren book, and he used the 1-2-3 values for short suits, not the 1-3-5 that everyone seems to suggest nowadays. Is 1-3-5 just too optimistic?
3. "Some say" that 1-3-5 is too much to use when you have only 3 trumps (in a 5-3 fit, say). Is that true?
What do you "real players" say about all this?
Before you have found a fit, use "long suit points" to evaluate your hand (1 point for every card over 4 in all your suits).
But when you find a fit with partner, you should switch to using "short suit points" to evaluate your hand (1-3-5 points for each doubleton, singleton, and void).
Some people suggest that perhaps the 1-3-5 points for short suits is a little too much unless you have "good trumps", say, 4 of them.
So, things are a little hazy for me. My questions are:
1. When we find a fit, do BOTH declarer and dummy re-evaluate their hands to use "dummy points"? Or should only the dummy (meaning, I suppose, the player who bids the suit second) revalue using dummy points?
2. I learned the game 50 years ago from the Goren book, and he used the 1-2-3 values for short suits, not the 1-3-5 that everyone seems to suggest nowadays. Is 1-3-5 just too optimistic?
3. "Some say" that 1-3-5 is too much to use when you have only 3 trumps (in a 5-3 fit, say). Is that true?
What do you "real players" say about all this?
Contrary to what you remember, the 1-3-5 for dummy shortness is from Goren himself, back when he was writing his own books. He did, I believe, assume 4+ trumps. He also added an additional point for each trump honor other than the ace ("promoting"). He was a _very_ aggressive raiser with four.
Opener did not change their shortness points after being raised, but did add a point for each trump beyond 5 and did also promote trump honors. So when he said opener needed 19+ for a certain rebid, it was after all those added points (and never high-card points).
My own experience is that these valuations work out very well, although they are in greater danger from duplication.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,263
- Joined: 2020-March-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 2024-April-21, 02:33
This will be a longer post.
Personally I divide bridge in four pillars that can be practiced somewhat independently. They are dummy play, defense, knowing your bidding system and hand evaluation. The last one gets far too little attention in bridge literature, and I think if you want to quickly improve it is easily the most rewarding aspect to focus on. It comes up almost every deal (as opposed to dummy play, ~25%, defense, ~50%, and knowing your system, ~80%), will transfer with you across partnerships, and has the most low hanging fruit. Unfortunately there are, in my opinion, some bad tendencies in what little literature there is on hand evaluation. Many authors introduce some point count method or mathematical statement, and claim that following this will improve your bridge, or sometimes even that this is The Way To Evaluate Your Hand. Instead I strongly believe that hand evaluation is a complicated aspect much like the other aspects of bridge, and it should be developed over time.
In my opinion there is value in these point counts. They can be used as references when faced with a close decision, or help teach people to incorporate new aspects into their hand evaluation. I personally like knowing of these point count methods so that, when faced with a close decision, I can check a few as references to give me a rough idea of what my attitude in the bidding should be. Some of the silly formulae I've looked into are Work count, Support points, Losing Trick Count, Modified/New Losing Trick Count (there's about four of these, each with its own group of zealots, so be careful), Kaplans Rubens, Zar points, Banzai points, Controls, Relay Points, Modified Relay Points, Shortness adjustments, Length adjustments, Aces and Tens adjustments, Bergen points, 7-5-3-1 points (I think this has a name but it escapes me for the moment), Cover Cards, Quick Tricks, Rule of 20 and Rule of 22, though probably there were others I've forgotten. All of these fail to capture the nuances of hand evaluation but can be useful for improving your judgement or for making close decisions at the table (with the exception of Kaplans Rubens, whose primary use is bashing your partner during the post-mortem).
In addition to all the above it is really important to listen to the auction. Did my opponents advertise length (and therefore likely strength) in some of my suits? Can my partner support my honours, or is it a misfit deal? Do I have positional values that justify tactical action? Also how much have I shown so far, and how well does my hand rate in context (extras/average/minimum)? None of these are captured well by a point count, but they are vital to improving your bidding. Below I'll list some indications to watch for during the auction, by no means an exhaustive list and these won't even be 100% reliable guidelines when they do come up, but we have to start somewhere:
Personally I divide bridge in four pillars that can be practiced somewhat independently. They are dummy play, defense, knowing your bidding system and hand evaluation. The last one gets far too little attention in bridge literature, and I think if you want to quickly improve it is easily the most rewarding aspect to focus on. It comes up almost every deal (as opposed to dummy play, ~25%, defense, ~50%, and knowing your system, ~80%), will transfer with you across partnerships, and has the most low hanging fruit. Unfortunately there are, in my opinion, some bad tendencies in what little literature there is on hand evaluation. Many authors introduce some point count method or mathematical statement, and claim that following this will improve your bridge, or sometimes even that this is The Way To Evaluate Your Hand. Instead I strongly believe that hand evaluation is a complicated aspect much like the other aspects of bridge, and it should be developed over time.
In my opinion there is value in these point counts. They can be used as references when faced with a close decision, or help teach people to incorporate new aspects into their hand evaluation. I personally like knowing of these point count methods so that, when faced with a close decision, I can check a few as references to give me a rough idea of what my attitude in the bidding should be. Some of the silly formulae I've looked into are Work count, Support points, Losing Trick Count, Modified/New Losing Trick Count (there's about four of these, each with its own group of zealots, so be careful), Kaplans Rubens, Zar points, Banzai points, Controls, Relay Points, Modified Relay Points, Shortness adjustments, Length adjustments, Aces and Tens adjustments, Bergen points, 7-5-3-1 points (I think this has a name but it escapes me for the moment), Cover Cards, Quick Tricks, Rule of 20 and Rule of 22, though probably there were others I've forgotten. All of these fail to capture the nuances of hand evaluation but can be useful for improving your judgement or for making close decisions at the table (with the exception of Kaplans Rubens, whose primary use is bashing your partner during the post-mortem).
In addition to all the above it is really important to listen to the auction. Did my opponents advertise length (and therefore likely strength) in some of my suits? Can my partner support my honours, or is it a misfit deal? Do I have positional values that justify tactical action? Also how much have I shown so far, and how well does my hand rate in context (extras/average/minimum)? None of these are captured well by a point count, but they are vital to improving your bidding. Below I'll list some indications to watch for during the auction, by no means an exhaustive list and these won't even be 100% reliable guidelines when they do come up, but we have to start somewhere:
- Do we have values in short suits? This is often a warning sign.
- Do our opponents bid our long (4+) suit? The hand may be a misfit, stay low.
- Does partner bid a suit where we have values? Upgrade.
- Does our RHO bid a suit where we have tenaces? Upgrade.
- Does our LHO bid a suit where we have tenaces? Downgrade.
- Do our opponents bid our short suit? Be aggressive.
- Does partner bid our short suit? Be conservative.
- Does partner bid something other than our short suit? Be aggressive, someone will want to bid our shortage.
- Does partner preempt? Place extra emphasis on outside quick tricks, partner is likely short there.
- Do we know the opponents have the balance of strength? Watch out when entering a possible misfit auction.
- On a slam auction, are we control-heavy? On a game auction, do we have a source of tricks? On a partscore auction, do we have high enough ODR to justify not defending?
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 2021-November-17
Posted 2024-April-21, 07:42
A few (somewhat random) thoughts:
The better point count systems try to incorporate at least some of the subjective factors David listed. See, e.g., this discussion of Bergen points: https://www.bridgewe...0Evaluation.pdf (Marty Bergen has a pamphlet on hand evaluation that I think you can pick of for $10-15.)
I think point systems (and similar things like losing trick count (LTC)) are an attempt to quantify some of these factors to give improving players something to go by as we try to develop our bidding judgment through experience. There's a danger that we continue to rely on these systems forever, without ever getting to the point of having something like expert judgment. (I personally will probably never get there.
) All of these hand evaluation methods impose some level of tax on our memories.
The flip side of this argument is that, even for expert players, knowing these systems and being able to process them quickly enough at the table can provide them with a double-check on what they're thinking of bidding.
It might be helpful to think of hand evaluation at several different points: (1) whether to open (at different seats/vulnerabilities); (2) constructive bidding; and (3) bidding in competition. Things like Bergen points are helpful in (1) and (2). Bergen points and LTC are helpful in (2), once we've found a trump suit fit. The point systems try to answer the "how high" part of Audrey Grant's "What strain? How high?" questions. (We want about 25 points for 4M; about 28 points for 5m; 33 points for a small slam, etc.) LTC does the same by estimating how many tricks we will take with our combined hands.
They also help with (3) (e.g., how many losers do I expect from advancer when he raises my overcall or makes a cuebid?), but bidding in competition may also require some other tools for decisions such as whether we should keep bidding or let the opponents have it; should we make a sacrifice bid, try to penalize the opponents, etc.?
I know I've digressed but I think this is an interesting topic.
The better point count systems try to incorporate at least some of the subjective factors David listed. See, e.g., this discussion of Bergen points: https://www.bridgewe...0Evaluation.pdf (Marty Bergen has a pamphlet on hand evaluation that I think you can pick of for $10-15.)
I think point systems (and similar things like losing trick count (LTC)) are an attempt to quantify some of these factors to give improving players something to go by as we try to develop our bidding judgment through experience. There's a danger that we continue to rely on these systems forever, without ever getting to the point of having something like expert judgment. (I personally will probably never get there.
) All of these hand evaluation methods impose some level of tax on our memories.The flip side of this argument is that, even for expert players, knowing these systems and being able to process them quickly enough at the table can provide them with a double-check on what they're thinking of bidding.
It might be helpful to think of hand evaluation at several different points: (1) whether to open (at different seats/vulnerabilities); (2) constructive bidding; and (3) bidding in competition. Things like Bergen points are helpful in (1) and (2). Bergen points and LTC are helpful in (2), once we've found a trump suit fit. The point systems try to answer the "how high" part of Audrey Grant's "What strain? How high?" questions. (We want about 25 points for 4M; about 28 points for 5m; 33 points for a small slam, etc.) LTC does the same by estimating how many tricks we will take with our combined hands.
They also help with (3) (e.g., how many losers do I expect from advancer when he raises my overcall or makes a cuebid?), but bidding in competition may also require some other tools for decisions such as whether we should keep bidding or let the opponents have it; should we make a sacrifice bid, try to penalize the opponents, etc.?
I know I've digressed but I think this is an interesting topic.
#6
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,128
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2024-April-21, 10:31
Obscure side point maybe not relevant for OP: Goren was considering 4-card raises *because he was playing 4-card majors*.
Remember OP, "points" don't make contracts, whether it's straight up HCP, "long-suit", "short-suit", ZAR, ZZ, or anything else. Tricks make contracts. Any of these points-evaluations are ways to model the trick-taking power of your hand (or the losers-minimizing power of your hand). But as David points out (and MikeH will point out if he gets here, or just read almost any of his posts from the last few years), "hand evaluation" is a skill, and "use this tool" (or any combination of tools) does not replace skill. Like any good tool, it raises the floor of what a minimal skill will get you; but like any tool at all, there is a ceiling beyond which the tool cannot get you without the skill.
Having said all that, let's talk about dummy points, or short-suit points. What *tricks* are you modelling with assigning strength to short suits?
So, the reason you downgrade "dummy points" with a 3-card raise is that the hand strength/trick taking power you're simulating with "dummy points" is all in the ability to ruff (whether as tricks themselves, or stopping the opponent's tricks). And the difference between a 5-3 fit and a 5-4 fit (or even a 4-4 fit, at least with 3-2 split) is that you will *have to* pull three rounds of trumps to clear them, even if they're 3-2. So any ruffs you get in the 3-card hand have to be taken before pulling trump. Which reduces the number of tricks you can take, *and* reduces the power of the short hand to stop the suit. So it's worth less, and the "short-suit points" going to 1-2-3 (say, a version I've seen) rather than 1-3-5, reflects that "worth less" well.
You may also hear about "the power of the ninth trump". This also relates to this - having 9 trumps (especially if 5-4, but frequently with 6-3 as well) means they have only 4, and there's a good chance you'll be able to pull trump and still have some in *both hands*. Sure, with 4-4, more often than not, you will - but the downside is that when you don't (ignoring the rare 5-0s), you have to decide whether to pull all the trump (and lose the "trump control" of their suits in *both hands*), or work around it (or even conceding one).
Again, remember that all the "adjustments" (even the initial models!) are just tools to give your hand evaluation skill support and more reach; eventually some tools will become replaced by "skill feel" or "modeling the play in the auction", and some will still be an effective support for your skill. That doesn't mean they're bad; just that they're only tools.
How to improve hand evaluation skill? Well, there are a lot of ways, some of which have been posted above, but my mantra holds: "Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." Go out and make mistakes - and learn from them.
Remember OP, "points" don't make contracts, whether it's straight up HCP, "long-suit", "short-suit", ZAR, ZZ, or anything else. Tricks make contracts. Any of these points-evaluations are ways to model the trick-taking power of your hand (or the losers-minimizing power of your hand). But as David points out (and MikeH will point out if he gets here, or just read almost any of his posts from the last few years), "hand evaluation" is a skill, and "use this tool" (or any combination of tools) does not replace skill. Like any good tool, it raises the floor of what a minimal skill will get you; but like any tool at all, there is a ceiling beyond which the tool cannot get you without the skill.
Having said all that, let's talk about dummy points, or short-suit points. What *tricks* are you modelling with assigning strength to short suits?
- Your hand can ruff losers in the suit after those short tricks are gone.
- Your hand can stop the opponents from getting more tricks in that suit than you have cards in it.
- Declarer can set up their long suit for tricks after ruffing out the losers in your short hand (i.e. minimize the losers, and opportunities for the defence to play their suits, required to set up their long suit for tricks).
So, the reason you downgrade "dummy points" with a 3-card raise is that the hand strength/trick taking power you're simulating with "dummy points" is all in the ability to ruff (whether as tricks themselves, or stopping the opponent's tricks). And the difference between a 5-3 fit and a 5-4 fit (or even a 4-4 fit, at least with 3-2 split) is that you will *have to* pull three rounds of trumps to clear them, even if they're 3-2. So any ruffs you get in the 3-card hand have to be taken before pulling trump. Which reduces the number of tricks you can take, *and* reduces the power of the short hand to stop the suit. So it's worth less, and the "short-suit points" going to 1-2-3 (say, a version I've seen) rather than 1-3-5, reflects that "worth less" well.
You may also hear about "the power of the ninth trump". This also relates to this - having 9 trumps (especially if 5-4, but frequently with 6-3 as well) means they have only 4, and there's a good chance you'll be able to pull trump and still have some in *both hands*. Sure, with 4-4, more often than not, you will - but the downside is that when you don't (ignoring the rare 5-0s), you have to decide whether to pull all the trump (and lose the "trump control" of their suits in *both hands*), or work around it (or even conceding one).
Again, remember that all the "adjustments" (even the initial models!) are just tools to give your hand evaluation skill support and more reach; eventually some tools will become replaced by "skill feel" or "modeling the play in the auction", and some will still be an effective support for your skill. That doesn't mean they're bad; just that they're only tools.
How to improve hand evaluation skill? Well, there are a lot of ways, some of which have been posted above, but my mantra holds: "Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." Go out and make mistakes - and learn from them.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
Page 1 of 1
- You cannot start a new topic
- Add Reply