Tuesday, March 08, 2011

 

Hand Evaluation HCP’s ( Tricks vrs HCP’s )

 

PITBULLS:

 

        Anybody who has been reading & understanding my articles for any length of time know that I admire the works of Ely Culbertson & the early greats of Bridge. In fact , I have named my own system  21st Century Culbertson as I have adopted many of their concepts rather than the Standard Goren notion of making Bridge decisions entirely on HCP totals. This contrast in styles of the Culbertson notion of "tricks" vrs Gorens idea of totaling HCP's. Which is better ? In my mind , it is no contest. Bridge is designed as a trick taking game both on offense & defense. Bridge is not a HCP taking game. HCP's can be useless when poorly located in front of higher HCP's ( clockwise nature of the game of Bridge ) . HCP totals can consist of soft values & iffy HCP's which do not turn out to be tricks. Totaling HCP's can be wiped out with singletons , voids & long suits or other HCP's in quick trick combinations. Certain hand patterns play much better than the balanced hand patterns.

 

        The idea of "tricks " or "quick tricks" has been in the literature of Bridge since the games inception. Quick tricks enhance the trick taking potential of the hand. Rod Klinger was fascinated with the notion of quick tricks so he wrote an article on the correlation between quick trick combinations & the number of losers in a hand. Technically all this entails is appreciating quick tricks & hand patterns . This article was called "the losing trick count" . The basis of the articles was that HCP's in quick trick combinations equate to tricks ( winners ) and should be counted as such . He said count the first 3 cards of every suit as losers ( except when they were in combinations of AKQ ) where they were counted as tricks. Hand evaluation was now done like in the Culbertson days  by counting losers & winners not be totaling HCP's. He gives tables where loser count was equivalent to HCP totals so Bridge players who brought up on totaling HCP's can get a sense of what he was talking about. The following table from his article explains ..

 

 

A simple working guide would look like this:

Points

Description of Strength

Expectancy

13-15

Sound Minimum Opening

6-7 losers

16-18

Strong Opening

5-6 losers

19-21

Very Strong Opening

4-5 losers

22 – up

Game Force Opening

3 losers or fewer

10-12

Just Below Normal Opening

8 losers

7-9

Well Below Sound Opening

9 losers

 

        What he is saying via his table is that a hand with 5 losers is equivalent to the trick taking potential of 16-18 HCP's & possibly 19-21 !!!

 

            Perry Khakar has been reading my articles for years & is trying to improve his hand evaluation. Against the Gartaganis team in a recent sectional he held a 6-4 distribution which is a very powerful distribution with respect to trick taking . He was playing IMPS so he knew the importance of reaching vul games . ♠KQxx ♥xx ♦AKxxxx ♣x . He opened 1♦ & I bid 2♣ which is not forcing to game in Perry's system. Perry bid 2♠ which shows a distributional hand in his system. I gave him preference to 3♦ so how did Perry evaluate his hand ? Perry knows with distributional hands in a suit contract totaling HCP's ( in his case 12 ) does not work very well. Note the quality of his HCP's are in quick trick combination which correlates to a hand with a low loser count. So let’s use Klingers method & count losers with his powerful 6-4 with 3 quick tricks. 1 loser in spades , 2 losers in hearts , 1 loser in diamonds & 1 loser in clubs for a total of 5. Perry has the equivalent of a hand that totals 18 HCP or possibly 19-21 HCP  ! When I hold an 8 HCP hand for my bidding ♠Ax ♥xx ♦xxxx ♣Axxxx  a cold vul game of 11 tricks is lay down ! Perry has another inference in that I did not bid NT showing values in hearts. This means no duplication of value with his HCP ! My HCP's should be working with the values in his own hand. Perry leaps to 5♦ & pushes the board in our match. If Perry just totaled his 12 HCP's like a beginner,  he might pass 3♦ & lose 12 IMPS !! Hand evaluation taking precedence over totaling HCP's has been a repetitive theme of a vast number of my articles. I highly recommend veering aware from your bridge puppyhood of totaling HCP’s to the art of hand evaluation in Bridge.