[solarmcpan]

My question is a simple one: when does responder add distribution points to his HCP count?

By distribution points I mean an extra point for each card over four cards in a suit when considering bidding a suit.

Can the responder add distribution points straight away or is a suit fit needed first?

For example my partner opened 1S. I had 8 HCP and a 6 card diamond suit (2 distribution points 10 points total). Should I respond 1NT (6 to 9 points) or 2D (10 points +). Namely do I include my distribution points immediately or not?

[DavidKok]

This is not an easy question at all.

Point counts, be they HCP, shape adjustments, honour adjustments, positional adjustments, losing trick counts, Zar points, Banzai points, you name it, all only serve to approximate playing strength. From your post it sounds like you are looking for a 'right' way to include distribution adjustments into an HCP count - a formulaic recipe. The answer is that this is not how hand evaluation works. Any two hands with an equal amount of HCP may have wildly different playing strengths based on their shape, intermediates and the information from the bidding, to name a few. Attempting to reduce this to a single numerical value based on HCP and shortages fails to capture the goal of the exercise, which is to estimate the playing strength of your hand.

If you are going to adjust for shortage, I would generally recommend only doing this once an (8+-card) fit has been found. At that point side suit shortages can produce ruffs and give control of the suit, both of which are valuable. But more generally, I think the method is simply not a useful way to approach hand evaluation.

[mw64ahw]

solarmcpan, on 2024-October-23, 09:56, said:

My question is a simple one: when does responder add distribution points to his HCP count?

By distribution points I mean an extra point for each card over four cards in a suit when considering bidding a suit.

Can the responder add distribution points straight away or is a suit fit needed first?

For example my partner opened 1S. I had 8 HCP and a 6 card diamond suit (2 distribution points 10 points total). Should I respond 1NT (6 to 9 points) or 2D (10 points +). Namely do I include my distribution points immediately or not?

I value with distribution points initially following the original Goren approach and then revalue once a fit is found. In your example I would bid 1N as 2♦ for me would show 11+hcp.

There are other more advanced options to show the ♦s i.e. 1♠ - 3♦ as an invitational jump shift, but you may want your range to be 9-12
Alternatively, 1♠-2♣ as a transfer or 2/1 GI/GF. You break the transfer if accepting a ♦ invitational bid

[jdiana]

With respect to David and mw64ahw, this is a beginner forum and we have to start somewhere. Everything David says is true but, to try to answer your question in a basic way:

1. You should not count "dummy points" until you've found at least an 8-card fit. Many (including me, for what that's worth) would say an 8-card major suit fit, i.e., don't count dummy points when you have only a minor suit fit.

2. The focus is on shortness in side suits, not length. (The value of your hand increases when you can trump partner's losers in the hand with shorter trumps.)

3. There are different ways to count dummy points, but here's one that's recommended by Marty Bergen:

For each doubleton, add 1 point;
For each singleton, add 2 points (3 points if you have 4+ trumps); and
For a void, add the number of trumps that you hold.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

# you can count point for length, it works best, if the suit has honors, be wary to do it with empty suits
Good suits are valuable in NT contracts, but also valuable in suit contracts

# your opening should promise a min number of real points, make it 10, and if you have 2 length points,
than this will be a reasonable opening
If you only count length points for reasonable suits, this will automatically lead you to the rule of 20,
a reasonable opening guide, quite often abused, but still reasonable, if used as intended.
https://www.bridgebu.../rule_of_20.php

# you should only count points for shortage, if you have found a real fit, i.e. 8+ card suit fit
Shortages are only useful in suit contracts

# I would be wary to count points for doubleton, keep it as a bonus asset in the bank, or in case you have
a borderline decision, without the doubleton shortage, the ruffing value may sway you to go for it

# shortages are more usefull in the hand with the shorter trump length, but the trump length should be resonable
If the opponents are able to play 2 rounds of trumps, and all trumps are gone, the shortage is of no use

# dont count length and shortage points at the same time
if you have length some where, you have shortage somewhere else

[bluenikki]

mw64ahw, on 2024-October-23, 11:01, said:

I value with distribution points initially following the original Goren approach and then revalue once a fit is found. In your example I would bid 1N as 2♦ for me would show 11+hcp.

The original Goren approach included distribution unless specifically stated otherwise. The 10 points for a 2/1 definitely included distribution.

The 6 points to respond included distribution a thousand times definitely. Why is a singleton in opener's suit an asset? It may not be; if they rebid their suit, you've lost your gambit. But if they rebid a different suit....

[Knurdler]

+1 for reply by jdiana

[solarmcpan]

 mw64ahw, on 2024-October-23, 11:01, said:

I value with distribution points initially following the original Goren approach and then revalue once a fit is found. In your example I would bid 1N as 2♦ for me would show 11+hcp.

There are other more advanced options to show the ♦s i.e. 1♠ - 3♦ as an invitational jump shift, but you may want your range to be 9-12
Alternatively, 1♠-2♣ as a transfer or 2/1 GI/GF. You break the transfer if accepting a ♦ invitational bid

Thank you for a most useful response. In summary you are saying responder can initially add length points just like opener does. Then re-evaluate if a fit is found.

[jdiana]

 solarmcpan, on 2024-October-24, 08:58, said:

Thank you for a most useful response. In summary you are saying responder can initially add length points just like opener does. Then re-evaluate if a fit is found.

It would be interesting to see your entire hand - can you describe it for us?

[P_Marlowe]

 solarmcpan, on 2024-October-24, 08:58, said:

Thank you for a most useful response. In summary you are saying responder can initially add length points just like opener does. Then re-evaluate if a fit is found.

Yes. The evaluation is always a process taking new information into account.

If you have single top honor in a suit partner has, the value of the top honor goes up.
If opponents enter the bidding they tell you sometimes, the location of certain honors.
If you have AQ over a suit they overcalled, the value of this combo goes up, if you have
the K without the Ace under the overcaller the value goes down.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

 bluenikki, on 2024-October-23, 12:20, said:

The original Goren approach included distribution unless specifically stated otherwise. The 10 points for a 2/1 definitely included distribution.

The 6 points to respond included distribution a thousand times definitely. Why is a singleton in opener's suit an asset? It may not be; if they rebid their suit, you've lost your gambit. But if they rebid a different suit....

I have the 1985 book so perhaps not orginal. Here it suggests 12 points is GF which I take to exclude distribution points. It is imprecise in many places as it tends to refer to just points. For a minimum response I assume it does include some distribution points, but as you point out a singleton in openers suit may not be useful. However with an Ace and two doubletons or less I would respond, but this is about counting tricks rather than points.

[mw64ahw]

 solarmcpan, on 2024-October-24, 08:58, said:

Thank you for a most useful response. In summary you are saying responder can initially add length points just like opener does. Then re-evaluate if a fit is found.

As responder with a known fit you take your points including distribution and then revalue so 1,2,3 becomes 1,3,5. You also add a point of you have less than 4hcp in the suit. This can be tweaked depending on 3/4card support. This is one approach, but there are others. Without a fit I usually rely on hcp, but highly distributional hands can present a different challenge. Personally, my hand evaluation abilities improved significantly when I also included a modified loser count as routine in my judgement, but there are a number of other subtleties that can also factor. Marlowe response raises one of these.


In the Goren approach opener then adds a point for a 5-card suit and 3 for a 6-card suit.

[DavidKok]

 solarmcpan, on 2024-October-24, 08:58, said:

Thank you for a most useful response. In summary you are saying responder can initially add length points just like opener does. Then re-evaluate if a fit is found.

Personally I would recommend for neither opener nor responder to add length points. I understand that in the N/B forum having an easy formula is desirable, but I think this will worsen your results in the immediate term and also make it more difficult to improve at hand evaluation later.

[mw64ahw]

 DavidKok, on 2024-October-24, 15:09, said:

Personally I would recommend for neither opener nor responder to add length points. I understand that in the N/B forum having an easy formula is desirable, but I think this will worsen your results in the immediate term and also make it more difficult to improve at hand evaluation later.

Totally disagree with this. There are various evaluation tools out there created by some of the best bridge minds. The crux of the !matter is knowing how to use the tools appropriately.

[DavidKok]

 mw64ahw, on 2024-October-24, 15:29, said:

Totally disagree with this. There are various evaluation tools out there created by some of the best bridge minds. The crux of the !matter is knowing how to use the tools appropriately.

Thank you, that is a great relief to read.

I don't like to be rude, but the hand evaluation insights you've shared across dozens if not hundreds of discussions on these forums are weak. In particular the misapplications of the modified losing trick count made me recoil on more than one occasion, but as long as it did not hinder the discussion I felt it was well out of line to speak up. If beginners, looking to improve, are getting caught in this I think that changes the story.

Hand evaluation is a rich and complicated topic - one of the four pillars of bridge (the other three being 'declarer play', 'defensive play' and 'bidding system'). It does not nearly get the attention it deserves, and many people either try to reduce it to a short formula, wave it away to be something ineffable and unteachable, or think it is part of the bidding system. Instead it can be learned, can be taught, does not boil down to a simple equation, and is as rich and complicated as any of the other three pillars. Personally I am a great fan of having multiple point counts to get different perspectives on a hand, as aides for deciding when to go low or high. But keep in mind that this is all they will be - some crude estimates for getting started with the real task of evaluating your hand.
Of course this is way too daunting to do all at once - and I will again point to the forum this question is asked in. Asking "how should I evaluate my hand" is akin to asking "when defending, which card should I play?". It depends on a hundred factors, but we have to start somewhere. So pick up some different HCP adjustments, learn a losing trick count with a modification or two, give the shortcuts a try. But keep in mind that all of these yardsticks are of limited utility. None of them are 'correct', there is no 'right way' to add distribution points, including or excluding an adjustment factor is not 'wrong' or 'right'. They are nothing more than extreme simplifactions of a very challenging task. So, again, choose one or two you like, and try them out!

The reason I recommended against adding length points in particular is that I think it places far too little emphasis on looking for the degree of fit on the auction. If we have a fit our side shortages will often be valuable. If we have a misfit all that extra distribution that we just upgraded over is actually a liability - our shortage facing partner's length and vice versa. In my opinion there are other rules, equally simple but more effective, to improve hand evaluation compared to only considering HCP. Marlowe shared an excellent list and mentioned the need for updating on information on the auction and degree of fit more than once. This is why it is particularly risky to already re-evaluate on the decision whether or not to open, as you do not yet know the degree of fit. In my opinion making adjustments to your point count based on shape too early, or too aggressively, is overshooting the target.

So to conclude, in a nice short list:

• I think hand evaluation is complicated and drastically underrated.
  
• In my opinion adding the length points in the way you describe - "responder can initially add length points just like opener does" - is a step backwards.
  
• I recommend trying different adjustment rules that you like, keeping in mind that none of them are 'false' or 'correct', to practice evaluating your hand in different ways.

[bluenikki]

 mw64ahw, on 2024-October-24, 11:53, said:

I have the 1985 book so perhaps not orginal. Here it suggests 12 points is GF which I take to exclude distribution points. It is imprecise in many places as it tends to refer to just points. For a minimum response I assume it does include some distribution points, but as you point out a singleton in openers suit may not be useful. However with an Ace and two doubletons or less I would respond, but this is about counting tricks rather than points.

Is the concept "keeping the bidding open" completely ignored nowadays? If you refuse to count shortness in opener's suit to keep the bidding open, you will miss many games.

Example: Partner opens 1♠ facing your

x
Qxxxx
Qxxxx
xx

[bluenikki]

 mw64ahw, on 2024-October-24, 11:53, said:

I have the 1985 book so perhaps not original.

No perhaps about it. By then, Goren was 84, and his columns and books had long since been written by others.

[mw64ahw]

 DavidKok, on 2024-October-24, 16:07, said:

Thank you, that is a great relief to read.

I don't like to be rude, but the hand evaluation insights you've shared across dozens if not hundreds of discussions on these forums are weak. In particular the misapplications of the modified losing trick count made me recoil on more than one occasion, but as long as it did not hinder the discussion I felt it was well out of line to speak up. If beginners, looking to improve, are getting caught in this I think that changes the story.

Hand evaluation is a rich and complicated topic - one of the four pillars of bridge (the other three being 'declarer play', 'defensive play' and 'bidding system'). It does not nearly get the attention it deserves, and many people either try to reduce it to a short formula, wave it away to be something ineffable and unteachable, or think it is part of the bidding system. Instead it can be learned, can be taught, does not boil down to a simple equation, and is as rich and complicated as any of the other three pillars. Personally I am a great fan of having multiple point counts to get different perspectives on a hand, as aides for deciding when to go low or high. But keep in mind that this is all they will be - some crude estimates for getting started with the real task of evaluating your hand.
Of course this is way too daunting to do all at once - and I will again point to the forum this question is asked in. Asking "how should I evaluate my hand" is akin to asking "when defending, which card should I play?". It depends on a hundred factors, but we have to start somewhere. So pick up some different HCP adjustments, learn a losing trick count with a modification or two, give the shortcuts a try. But keep in mind that all of these yardsticks are of limited utility. None of them are 'correct', there is no 'right way' to add distribution points, including or excluding an adjustment factor is not 'wrong' or 'right'. They are nothing more than extreme simplifactions of a very challenging task. So, again, choose one or two you like, and try them out!

The reason I recommended against adding length points in particular is that I think it places far too little emphasis on looking for the degree of fit on the auction. If we have a fit our side shortages will often be valuable. If we have a misfit all that extra distribution that we just upgraded over is actually a liability - our shortage facing partner's length and vice versa. In my opinion there are other rules, equally simple but more effective, to improve hand evaluation compared to only considering HCP. Marlowe shared an excellent list and mentioned the need for updating on information on the auction and degree of fit more than once. This is why it is particularly risky to already re-evaluate on the decision whether or not to open, as you do not yet know the degree of fit. In my opinion making adjustments to your point count based on shape too early, or too aggressively, is overshooting the target.

So to conclude, in a nice short list:

• I think hand evaluation is complicated and drastically underrated.
• In my opinion adding the length points in the way you describe - "responder can initially add length points just like opener does" - is a step backwards.
• I recommend trying different adjustment rules that you like, keeping in mind that none of them are 'false' or 'correct', to practice evaluating your hand in different ways.

Firstly to address your issue with modified losing trick count. There is a historical post on the site which demonstrates your lack of understanding and usage of the tool not mine; corrected not only by me, but also by another contributor. While I may investigate using the tool in perhaps novel ways e.g. as an additional tool to systematically decide whether a 16 count is max. or min. I would suggest that the statistical analysis does not support your thoughts on misapplication. I say systematically because a lot of what I research is coded so that bidding systems and evaluation are optimised versus a double dummy outcome and probability. i.e. DD may say 4♥ is makeable, but discount if based on a low probability. Bear in mind that a modified losing trick count is just a more refined version of a loser count which is traditionally taught.

In your bullets
1. Hand evaluation can be subtle, but as another recent post points out some learning is based on pattern recognition experience.
2. This is an OP question not a statement by me. Goren proposes shortage points on initial valuation and then adjustments for length/distribution with a few other specifics like deducting a point for an aceless hand. In practice he required 14 total points or 13 & 2 quick tricks to open and a minimum 6 points to respond with the latter probably ill-defined as to hcp/total points for simplicity.
3. You can assess an adjustment statistically and I guess items like deducting a point for an aceless hand are robust. You state that neither are false or correct, but approaches are discarded or adopted according to value.

[blackshoe]

There is a small pamphlet called "Hand Evaluation" by Marty Bergen in which he sets forth a somewhat mechanical method which I have found helpful.

You start when you pick up your hand ("starting points"). If the auction looks like you're going to be dummy, you add "dummy points" (for shortness). If it looks like you're going to be declarer, you also add points for shortness ("Bergen points"). Add "Bergen points" and "dummy points" (you'll have to estimate one or the other) to get "total points" which tell you how high you should go.

Starting points: HCP + length points (one for each card more than four in a suit) ± "Adjust-3" (see below) - deductions for "dubious honors" (e.g. Qx or K)- deductions for bad shape

Adjust-3: count your # of aces and tens, count your number of "quacks". Subtract the lower of these from the higher. If the difference is 3 or more, adjust starting points according to whether you have more quacks (subtract 1) or more aces and tens (add 1).

Dummy points: add 1 point for a doubleton, 3 points for a singleton, and your # of trumps for a void to your starting points.

Bergen points: two doubletons only gets 1 point, a singleton gets 2 points, a void gets 4 points.