[bridgepali]

I find under trump play when a void or singleton is in a partnership's hands and valued at 3/2 points respectively, the partnership can barely muster enough points to come up with a four level (point count 26-28) strain bid even though the hand has a higher bid potential. Is this by happenstance or design?

Distribution points (D.pts.) are the latent result of consummated ruffs and discards by non-ordained trick winners (ntw.). Unlike honors they are the product of speculation. Ruff points coming from the footprint of a trump strain (View Talking Pts. ??, ???, ????, under Natural Bidding Discussion Forum.). Discard points through a declarer's skill for finding discards and consummating. There value is three points per trick on par with honor trick points. When added to the combined hand count and not cashed they can cause a contract not to be made.

I have on record copies of many trump auctions bid by experienced players when they valued voids at 7 pts, and singletons at 5 pts. and made the contract. I also have many where the declarer's ability to find and consummate a discard, or multiple discard, was not up to the task.

Cookie cutter point counting methods are geared to keep the novice player from overbidding when voids and singletons are in a partnership's hands. They act as a limiting governor and keep novice players from overbidding.

To optimize your bidding results, set your partnership's void and singleton values to your partnership's level of play. Remember, the piper must be paid.




Watch for Talking Pts. V????

[masse24]

Wow!

[Vampyr]

bridgepali, on 2016-August-11, 13:55, said:

I have on record copies of many trump auctions bid by experienced players when they valued voids at 7 pts, and singletons at 5 pts. and made the contract.

I wonder how you got the information about point values given to shortness? I would be very interested in seeing these records.

You are correct, though, that the value of a void varies. But not according to the skill of the partnership! A reasonable rule of thumb, if you insist on giving point values to voids is: if you (the short trump hand) are pretty sure the void is useful then count it as the number of trumps you have. If you are the long trump hand, the void's worth is not about tricks made by ruffing but just avoidance of losers, so I don't think you can really quantify it as a number of points.

Seriously, do you read these replies? You have never commented or answered questions.

[bridgepali]

Good Day Bridge Pals:

Thank you for the interest you have shown in Talking Pts. V???.

[jogs]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-11, 20:26, said:

I wonder how you got the information about point values given to shortness? I would be very interested in seeing these records.

You are correct, though, that the value of a void varies. But not according to the skill of the partnership! A reasonable rule of thumb, if you insist on giving point values to voids is: if you (the short trump hand) are pretty sure the void is useful then count it as the number of trumps you have. If you are the long trump hand, the void's worth is not about tricks made by ruffing but just avoidance of losers, so I don't think you can really quantify it as a number of points.

Seriously, do you read these replies? You have never commented or answered questions.

This OP has not given us any new useful info for evaluating hands. Shortness cannot be expressed in any number of points. Shortness is a variable. It is dependent on trump length and whether it resides in the hand with the long trumps or the hand with the short trumps. The value of the honors are variables.
There are two independent random variables for estimating tricks. They are power and pattern. This work point count (4-3-2-1) is an arbitrary designation of relative values for the honors. Many theoreticians refer a different ratio. It really doesn't matter. Those numbers are only a provisional valuation. Shortness is a sub-variable of pattern. Point count is a sub-variable of power. It doesn't make sense to express a sub-variable of pattern in terms of a sub-variable of power. We want to estimate tricks for the partnership. Early in the auction being aware of shortness is sufficient. Further into the auction with luck we may be able to estimate our tricks better with the knowledge of our shortness in the side suits.

[Vampyr]

jogs, on 2016-September-26, 18:08, said:

This OP has not given us any new useful info for evaluating hands. Shortness cannot be expressed in any number of points. Shortness is a variable. It is dependent on trump length and whether it resides in the hand with the long trumps or the hand with the short trumps. The value of the honors are variables.
There are two independent random variables for estimating tricks. They are power and pattern. This work point count (4-3-2-1) is an arbitrary designation of relative values for the honors. Many theoreticians refer a different ratio. It really doesn't matter. Those numbers are only a provisional valuation. Shortness is a sub-variable of pattern. Point count is a sub-variable of power. It doesn't make sense to express a sub-variable of pattern in terms of a sub-variable of power. We want to estimate tricks for the partnership. Early in the auction being aware of shortness is sufficient. Further into the auction with luck we may be able to estimate our tricks better with the knowledge of our shortness in the side suits.

The OP wishes to express shortness in terms of points; one might as well help him to do it a little more accurately. It is less helpful to tell him that shortness isn't really worth "points", even though this is true, The OP is obviously not experienced enough to use judgment to assess the value of shortness.

[jogs]

Vampyr, on 2016-September-26, 18:35, said:

The OP wishes to express shortness in terms of points; one might as well help him to do it a little more accurately. It is less helpful to tell him that shortness isn't really worth "points", even though this is true, The OP is obviously not experienced enough to use judgment to assess the value of shortness.

Shortness really isn't worth 'points'. It does lead to not losing tricks quickly, provided we have trumps. Those tricks are actually won by trumps.

Valuation systems in general give equal weight to all four suits. In terms of tricks won by suits it is really

S>H>>>>>>>D>C.

Also many more tricks are won by the trump suit than the other suits. These ideas seem to be ignored by most system designers.

Point count is valuable for assisting players to evaluate their hands. But those numbers are not sacred. They are just a loose guideline.

[Vampyr]

jogs, on 2016-September-27, 08:21, said:

Shortness really isn't worth 'points'. It does lead to not losing tricks quickly, provided we have trumps. Those tricks are actually won by trumps.

LOL if the OP is in fact paying attention, you or I saying this once might be enough.

[Stefan_O]

bridgepali, on 2016-August-11, 13:55, said:

Is this by happenstance or design?

Obviously, by Unintelligent Design.

[Stefan_O]

bridgepali, on 2016-September-11, 14:03, said:

B-) Good Day Bridge Pals:

Thank you for the interest you have shown in Talking Pts. V???.

:)

No problem.
Looking forward to your next Deep Insights.

[bridgepali]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-27, 10:03, said:

Obviously, by Unintelligent Design.

According to Kaitlyn S. in her posting "Bidding Problems for Novices Part 4" under the Novices and Beginners Forum, in the case of the ACBL it is by design. They call it "limited point games".

Have a good day: your Bridgepal, Ken

[nige1]

Duplicate Sorry

[nige1]

jogs, on 2016-September-26, 18:08, said:

This OP has not given us any new useful info for evaluating hands. Shortness cannot be expressed in any number of points. Shortness is a variable. It is dependent on trump length and whether it resides in the hand with the long trumps or the hand with the short trumps. The value of the honors are variables.
There are two independent random variables for estimating tricks. They are power and pattern. This work point count (4-3-2-1) is an arbitrary designation of relative values for the honors. Many theoreticians refer a different ratio. It really doesn't matter. Those numbers are only a provisional valuation. Shortness is a sub-variable of pattern. Point count is a sub-variable of power. It doesn't make sense to express a sub-variable of pattern in terms of a sub-variable of power. We want to estimate tricks for the partnership. Early in the auction being aware of shortness is sufficient. Further into the auction with luck we may be able to estimate our tricks better with the knowledge of our shortness in the side suits.

LTC (Losing Trick Count) is a simple effective rule of thumb. It 's endorsed by Eric Crowhurst, Ron Klinger, and Andrew Robson. It was invented in 1934 by F. Dudley Courtenay).

It's been mostly down-hill since then But in the 1950's my father, Charles Guthrie, suggested WTC (Winning Trick Count), an almost equivalent system, except that it uses addition instead of subtraction:
A = 1.5. Kx = 1, and Qxx = 0.5 trick. Void = 3 tricks. Singleton = 2 tricks. Doubleton = 1 trick. Trump-control = 1 trick.
This demonstrates that, effectively, the LTC (and WTC) evaluate a void as 9 HCP.when you have a fit without duplication.

[mikestar13]

nige1, on 2016-September-30, 12:19, said:

LTC (Losing Trick Count) is a simple effective rule of thumb. It 's endorsed by Eric Crowhurst, Ron Klinger, and Andrew Robson. It was invented in 1934 by F. Dudley Courtenay).

It's been mostly down-hill since then But in the 1950's my father, Charles Guthrie, suggested WTC (Winning Trick Count), an almost equivalent system, except that it uses addition instead of subtraction:
A = 1.5. Kx = 1, and Qxx = 0.5 trick. Void = 3 tricks. Singleton = 2 tricks. Doubleton = 1 trick. Trump-control = 1 trick.
This demonstrates that, effectively, the LTC (and WTC) evaluate a void as 9 HCP when you have a fit without duplication.

Emphasis extended. Most general evaluation methods focus on auctions where duplication is not easy to discern (game or below). In this context void = 9 is clearly too high on average -- any K, Q, or J partner has in the void suit is pretty much worthless, and the Ace is greatly reduced in value. And these valuations (whether consciously or not) allow for an average amount of duplication. Now in slam auctions whee lack of duplication can be discerned (splinter bids, etc.) and even in game auctions where the probable lack of duplication can be discerned, 9 points can be right on the money. But there is another factor: If my partner or I have an ace, that's 4 points we have and 4 points they don't have. The opposite is true of shortages--if one of us has a void, the unbalanced shape increases the chance the the opponents have shortages, which may translate into bad breaks in our long suits. In this case, 9 points for the void will render the total valuation of the whole hand too high even if it is correct in the void suit (=no losers, no duplication).

[Kaitlyn S]

mikestar13, on 2016-September-30, 18:15, said:

The opposite is true of shortages--if one of us has a void, the unbalanced shape increases the chance the the opponents have shortages, which may translate into bad breaks in our long suits.

I disagree, assuming truly random dealing.

Let's say you and partner are both 2-3-4-4. You have eight diamonds between you and they'll split 3-2 approximately 68% of the time, 4-1 about 28%, and 5-0 about 4%. Same for clubs.

Now, if you are 0-6-7-0 and partner is 4-0-1-8, you still have the same eight diamonds and the same eight clubs, and the opponents have the same 26 cards they did in the first example. In each minor, a 3-2 split is still 68% and a 4-1 split is 28%. The way the cards are split between your hand and dummy is irrelevant to the way the opponents' cards split.

The easy way to see this is that you would not change the expected distribution of deals by dealing you and partner's 26 cards first and then shuffling and dealing the opponents' 26 cards.

The opponent's expected distribution with those 26 cards will be identical whether one of your hands has a void in it or not.

[mikestar13]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-September-30, 18:45, said:

I disagree, assuming truly random dealing....

You are probably correct, though my empirical experience differs. Maybe due to playing a great number of hand-shuffled deals back in the day? The point still stands that North or South having an ace means East and West won't. In other words, if the points are 20-20 and we exchange North's ♠x for East's ♠A, the points now split 24-16 in favor of North-South. If instead we swap North's ♠xxx suit for 3 non-spade cards from East to create a void, North-South have gained whatever distributional value the void represents, but this hasn't caused East-West to lose an equal value--how much they have lost or gained will depend on which cards are swapped--it doesn't mean that a pre-existing East non-spade void (if there was one) has ceased to exist, in fact a new non-spade void may have been created, depending on what cards were swapped. Yes, I realize that in reality, the "swapping" involves both opponents' hands and partner's hand--I have simplified for the purpose of explanation.

[jogs]

nige1, on 2016-September-30, 12:19, said:

LTC (Losing Trick Count) is a simple effective rule of thumb. It 's endorsed by Eric Crowhurst, Ron Klinger, and Andrew Robson. It was invented in 1934 by F. Dudley Courtenay).

It's been mostly down-hill since then But in the 1950's my father, Charles Guthrie, suggested WTC (Winning Trick Count), an almost equivalent system, except that it uses addition instead of subtraction:
A = 1.5. Kx = 1, and Qxx = 0.5 trick. Void = 3 tricks. Singleton = 2 tricks. Doubleton = 1 trick. Trump-control = 1 trick.
This demonstrates that, effectively, the LTC (and WTC) evaluate a void as 9 HCP.when you have a fit without duplication.

1934 and 1950. The bridge community wasn't even aware of the relationship between trump length and tricks in those days. A void is worth an indeterminate number of tricks depending on the configuration of the entire hand.

[nige1]

jogs, on 2016-October-02, 08:22, said:

1934 and 1950. The bridge community wasn't even aware of the relationship between trump length and tricks in those days. A void is worth an indeterminate number of tricks depending on the configuration of the entire hand.

Then, as now, the LTC (or a variant) is a general rule of thumb, used by ordinary players (and many experts) -- to aid bidding judgement, to simplify discussion, and to allocate blame