BBO Discussion Forums: when do you count distribution points ? - BBO Discussion Forums

In every book and program I have it says to count your HCP and add them points for length at the same time and bid on that basis which I find works pretty well. However I have been told off by some players who say

You don't count length points when opening NT
when responding to a NT you don't count length points
You only count distribution points when you have found a fit (I thought you were supposed to count short suits only when a fit is found)

When deciding whether to open a weak 2 you only count HCP. Recently a partner had 13 points (including 4 points for length) but said she opened weak 2 because she only had 9 points. This led us to end up in the wrong suit.

1. I like the french set of rules. You count length points for good suits when you open, even when you open NT or respond to 1 NT.
2. Yes points for shortnesses are only useful and only used if you have a fit.

If you open weak two based on HCP and length points, you must adjust your point count. You do not longer open with 6 points, but even with 12, f.e. AKQxxx,Jxx,xx,xx.
13 points is an opening bid.

Once you get more experienced, you will probably stop "adding distribution points" and do this by feel, but some pointers:

Quote

Largely true, but at the edges you might decide not to open a 5332 17 with decent intermediates or a ropy 4333 15 with bad intermediates 1N.

Quote

This is clearly nonsense, compare QJxx, QJxx, xxx, xx to QJxxxx, QJxxxxx, void, void, but is sort of true for balanced-ish hands, once you get the 6th card in a suit (guaranteeing 8 between you), particularly a major or have a known fit because partner super accepts, you can count length.

Quote

Sort of true, unless you have a holding like KQJ10xx that doesn't need a fit, you don't however double count in that scenario, just count your length, not your shortage.

Quote

In deciding whether to open a weak 2, for most people:

Do I have a decent 6 card suit (this judgment may vary by position and vulnerability) and 6-10 points ?
Do I have a side 5 card minor or 4 card major ? If so think again, but don't completely rule it out

Clearly you can bend this a bit at the edges, a 1624 hand with ♥KQ109xx is probably acceptable, the same with ♣ AJ109 rather than xxxx is certainly a 1 opener for me, but not for everybody.

I think it is better to just count high card points and from there use judgement. IMO, additional counting rules/methods are crutches that inhibit the development of judgement. Not to mention the additional time taken to figure it up, and the resulting loss of mental energy better spent elsewhere.

What's that you say? "I'm only a beginner, I don't have judgement yet"? Well this is the perfect time to start working on it, you'll be better off in the long run, and before long ahead of your peers who have used these rules instead of developing their judgement.

Jilly said it best in another thread:

jillybean, on 2013-February-21, 23:05, said:

She was not addressing quite the same thing, but it still applies.

I really strongly disagree about this point Bill. IF you get advanced, you do not need this crutches any more. But in my experince people who are novices but use the Forum D (or SEF) approach outbid the vast majority of the usual club players by a mile.

Codo, on 2013-March-28, 07:55, said:

I understand this to a point. If a player is happy to remain novice/intermediate indefinitely, then using these rules and neglecting judgement may likely let them bid better than other permanent novice who do not use them.

But I do think that if a player aspires to be advanced/expert, then the overall process will be slowed by learning temporary metrics that have to be unlearned later, or by postponing development of necessary skills such as bidding judgement.

billw55, on 2013-March-28, 08:24, said:

These "temporary metrics" can take a player far. After all, they exist because they help evaluate a hand's worth beyond its HCP. OK, so maybe the result is a rough approximation, but it is better than nothing.

Abandoning these rules and then developing bidding judgment is backwards. With experience a player begins to relax and maybe eventually ignore shape-evaluation "rules". You might say, "hmmm, counting that way didn't work so well on this hand; why is that?" or "my distributional counts says A, but in my experience this sort of hand is not so suitable for this method".

It is not infrequent that beginners post a question about how best to apply their existing evaluation methods. People who tell these beginners not to use the methods at all are not helping; I suspect that in many cases they are simply showing off.

Why do you think they need to unlearn their "temporary metrics" Bill? There is no reason why judgement cannot be applied from the standpoint of the adjusted evaluation rather than starting with Milton, or whatever else you regard as a "long-term" metric. Take an ace. If you use Milton then you count 4 points and then adjust upwards. If you start from the basis of an ace being 4.5 points and adjust from there, possibly downwards, to reach the same conclusion then what is the problem.

Perhaps you will answer that real judgement does not have a number attached to it. But that is quite wrong - just because an expert may not have a number in mind does not mean that their mind has not converted it into some form that cannot be represented as a number. Similar things were once said in chess before chess computers pretty much showed that even abstract concepts can be represented this way.

For my mind, I do not care if I am making a decision because an evaluation score is above 13.27, or because the formula says we have 10.13 tricks, or because my "judgement" says that the hand is "good enough" in context. All that matters is that the right decision is made. And having basic adjustments to Milton that more closely approximate reality than the simple 4-3-2-1 count is surely a pretty reasonable place for a players to start the process of learning "judgement"; after all, when you were taught about adjustments, did you not ask yourself why? And that is the first step.

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-02, 06:10, said:

I agree, making the correct decision is the whole point. IMO, using flexible judgement will produce the right decision more often than a metric. Every metric will have exceptions, and players with good judgement will be better prepared to recognize these exceptions. For example reading posts here, I rarely see the strongest players say "well I have 14.476 milton-LTC-zar-KNR-law points", they almost always sound more like "well I expect LHO to be such and such shape, the lead might be this, partner sounds like that" etc. And I think in general, they are are making the better decisions, that is why they are the strongest.

I guess I can agree that complex metrics aren't automatically bad, as long as judgement is not neglected.

Dear Bill, do you know any novices or beginners? I mean judgement is really bad for at least 96% of ALL players. They urgently NEED the metrics. These methods are not for the Justins of this world, but for the vast majority, they are helpful and I wish much morer people would use them. That would make the results at the club less random.

Codo, on 2013-April-02, 07:34, said:

I do know some. And yes, using the metrics will often improve their bidding (I already said that). For many, they wish for nothing more, and in that case the metrics are enough.

I am only saying that for B/N players that desire to advance to a higher level, and have the capacity to do so, judgement will be needed eventually, and I see no advantage to delaying it. I suspect that a player who makes the effort to seek advice from a forum of good players, has at least the desire - so I suggest to him something that I think will help him get there. Maybe I am just wrong

So, some theory. (Otherwise known as "If you have some idea why the rules are there, you'll have a better idea of when to use them, and when to ignore them, and when they don't apply")

Shortness is great...unless you don't have a fit. Now you're playing notrump trying to develop length tricks in suits you can only play from the long side (and will only work anyway if the opponents' suit breaks). So, value shortness a little bit in vacuo, more when you've found a fit, even more when you have the short trumps in that fit (because ruffs in the short hand are tricks, ruffs in the long hand are "tricks you were going to get anyway", i.e. controls (*)) - and downgrade it to at *most* zero when you find you don't have a fit.

Length is good even in NT, because you have three kinds of tricks: tops, cards that will develop into tops, and length tricks (which are "cards that develop into tops after all the opponents' cards are gone"). Obviously, length is better in a fit (in the majors, it'll be trumps; in the minors, you'll still likely to be playing NT, but length tricks are more likely/easier to set up). Extreme length has the danger of not having covers in the other suits, and them running theirs before you run yours; so a 5-card suit (for NT opening) is "length"; more than that and you (usually) want to show your suits and let partner decide if NT is where we're going.

My local expert suggests that you add a point for NT ladder purposes for a decent+ 5-card minor. My guess would be "honours or good spots" - so AQJ32 is fine, as is KT954 or K9875; but KJ432 not so much, 98543 is right out. These are suits that likely will set up even opposite a doubleton.

What does that mean for "counting points"? Well, count length or shortness, not both, of course. Length is more often useful than shortness, so "length unless we find a trump suit" is reasonable, but "like" the 3415s more than the 3244s or 3433s, until partner's bids tell you what value to put on it.

End of theory. As to your questions:
"don't count length points for opening NT": well, maybe, but think about upgrading those nice 5332s.
"don't count length when responding to NT": well, if you know you're playing in a trump suit, ignore that. If you think you're playing in NT, then maybe don't give length points their full value; ignore at least the first "length point card" opposite known shortness for NT. A fit minor? Great!
Having said that, you'll hit the horrible hands: the ones that are worth an invite (or even game) if partner has a fit for your 5-card major; and *really* not worth an invite if partner doesn't. What to do? Well, that's a question for the ages. And when you start seeing these kind of problem hands, you're on your way to bridge judgement.


As for "weak 2 is HCP only": that one is interesting. Remember that the length points are already *assumed* for the weak 2; if you play "6-to-10", you're not counting the fifth and sixth card in that, because the bid already promises 6 cards. KJT875 is not your 6 for a "6-to-10" weak 2, in other words. So yes, I agree that the *point count* you agree on for weak 2s is HCP (but you can assume you have a trump fit, so long-side shortness values count). But what's interesting about it is that the values for opening *1*, especially 1Major, do sort of have length point implications; so if you open "all 12s and some 11s", then 11-with-a-6-bagger is clearly a 1 bid (which is why you play "6-to-10"), and there are some 10-counts that will also upgrade (especially if they have negatives for preempts that are positives for constructive bidding, like 6-4 in the majors or a void). Once you get down to 9, length points aren't really going to get it up there (unless you're 6502 or 6601 or the like, of course - but you wouldn't be opening that with a weak 2 anyway as there's too much chance of your fit being in the other suit!)

As many people are saying above, this gradually graduates to "judgement" - if it "looks like" a weak 2, then it is. If it "looks" too strong, then it is.


(*) I'm obviously ignoring dummy reversals here. If you can tell, in the bidding, that the hand will play as a dummy reversal, you're not a beginner.

nelliepoo1, on 2013-March-28, 03:20, said:

FWIW, here's my view:

It is critical to remember what 'points' represent. They are estimates of relative trick taking potential, averaged over a wide range of hands. I like to say: points don't take tricks, cards take tricks'.

Small cards in long suits have more trick taking potential than do small cards in short suits, and this is true in notrump or suit play, so long as the holder of the long suit can establish it. This is relatively easy when it is trump or when we have another long suit that we use as trump, but it is also true in notrump, provided that we can establish our length before the opponents take too many tricks.

The 4321 method gives no direct weight to this important factor, so learning to add points for length in a long suit is a valid method for the beginning player to refine his or her valuation ability.

My suggestion is that for 5332 hands, where the 5 card suit has some reasonable strength, it is appropriate to add a point. Let's consider two hands to see why this is sensible.

K10x Ax A109xx K9x or KJx QJx KQxx Kxx

The first hand counts to 14 hcp, while the 2nd counts to 15. I hope that most beginners would recognize that the first hand possesses more trick taking potential than does the 2nd, even tho the 4321 'count' suggests otherwise.

We choose to open 1N with 15-17 to describe to partner that we have a balanced hand with better trick taking potential than if we opened 1 minor and rebid 1N.

If we'd open the 2nd example hand 1N, as I think we would all do, then how can we justify opening 1♦ with the first, and then rebidding 1N? Aren't we creating confusion, when we use the weak sequence for the stronger hand?

The way around this is to recognize that some (but not many) 14 counts should be treated as 15's.

The corollary that some 15 counts should be treated as 14 is valid, but rarely followed by anyone! And I am not suggesting that anyone do.

A similar analysis can be applied to 17 counts. Some 5332 17's are clearly as strong as a 4432 18, and should be bid that way.

How do you recognize the upgrades?

Experience will help, but for me here are some pointers:

Upgrade when:

1. You hold good spot cards: 10's and 9's are not valued in the 4321 count but do give you some increased trick taking power
2. You hold a 5 card suit headed by the Ace or the KQ. Holding a 10 in the suit as well is really good. A109xx is far better than Q8632 for these purposes
3. You don't have a weak wasted honour holding such as Qx or Jx. While partner may have cards that strengthen these holdings, the odds are that these 'points' aren't adding much to your hand.


The second topic was responding to 1N. Remember, again, that what all methods of valuation are hoping to accomplish is to assist in judging trick taking potential.

If it is right to add a point for some shape when opening 1N (see above) then it has to be right to do a similar adjustment when responding.

My view, for example, is that one should usually pass 1N when holding a 4432 or 4333 8 count, but that most 5332 8 counts ought to invite game. The 5th card is likely to be valuable, especially since opener is know to have at least 2 cards in the suit, will often have 3 and will sometimes have 4.....the more length opener has, the more likely it is that our 5th card will grow up to take a trick.

The third point was only counting distribution once a fit is found.

Well, distribution 'points' can be length or shortness. When I was learning the game the focus seemed to me to be largely on shortness points. I'd stopped consciously counting distribution points before I read about adding points for long suits, and there is, it seems to me, a big difference in approach.

My view is that one is better off counting points for length than for shortness. Adding a point for a length card can be done right after sorting one's cards and adding up the 4321 hcp. Indeed, it is how I'd justify the 14 point 1N I suggested above.

One cannot, in my view, count points for shortness initially, because one has no idea of whether this will be useful. Shortness has trick taking potential only when one is playing in a suit contract, and one can hope to ruff the short suit, thus taking tricks. One doesn't yet know that one is playing in a suit contract until a trump fit has been found. If you have such a long suit that you 'know' it will be trump, well, you've probably already added length points for that suit, and adding shortness is double-counting!

Having said that, a 7321 hand is generally more powerful than the same hand that is 7222. I just wouldn't recommend adding points for shortness even so....you'll soon enough develop judgement that adjusts for this sort of factor.

Btw, the entire concept of adding points for shortness when a fit is shown is based on a general priniciple (not a 'rule') that one should re-evaluate one's hand at every turn to bid.

If you hold Kxx in a suit, and LHO overcalls in that suit, your Kxx is ok for notrump from your side, but has declined in value otherwise.

If you hold a stiff, and your partner shows length, then your stiff has declined unless you have a fit for partner in some other suit, that will serve as trump. But if you have good support for partner's suit (or he for yours) then a side stiff has grown up in value.

So I agree that one adds points for shortness only when one has found a trump fit. Be careful not to over-count length and shortness 'points', since to a small degree these are two sides to a single coin. If you have a very long suit, then you will always have some side shortness!

Opening a weak 2: yes, only count hcp. Don't worry that you will sometimes get to the 'wrong' suit. No method is perfect, and all methods will sometimes get a bad result. Weak 2's have become popular despite this 'flaw' because on balance they seem very effective.

billw55, on 2013-April-02, 07:51, said:

Judgment based on what though? What you are talking about is simply guesswork, and will more likely stand in the way of than help with a player's advancement as a player.

Some useful opinions have been expressed, but I do favour the "fewer rules the better" approach. When I learned, I was taught 4321 point count and formal adjustments never came into it. I still don't know what length points are, as it seems obvious that other things being equal, longer suits take more tricks. Rather than apply rules (probably in the wrong places), it seems much better in the learning process to afterwards ask the opponents "why was that not a good bid" when it seems you were in the wrong contract.

Judgement comes with thinking and talking about what went wrong, or right (and getting specific input from those with more experience).

fromageGB, on 2013-April-05, 15:05, said:

So you tried one method but never the other and judge that your method is better?

fromageGB, on 2013-April-05, 15:05, said:

Right. So you don't start out with judgment -- you don't have any. While you develop it, you use guidelines or rules of thumb.

Codo, on 2013-April-07, 10:18, said:

No, I am not saying that one method is better than another. Until you have experience and develop judgement, you do need some guidelines to follow. But these should be limited, because there is a tendency to follow rules to the detriment of logical thinking, and to the detriment of learning from experience. I know many people who learned guidelines and have not progressed, or not learned when they should apply and when they shouldn't. For example "I have to bid game because I have 7 losers" regardless of misfits or whatever.

fromageGB, on 2013-April-08, 04:53, said:

Losing Trick Count is maybe slightly different to the general topic of this post, because the problem is that people do not learn it fully. They learn that x losers + y losers = whatever, but they fail to absorb that LTC has limited applicability, and use it at inappropriate times.