[OldGranton]

.
As a beginner, I'm fine with the 4-3-2-1 valuation. But it would be nice to know how to adjust these values downwards for very short suits. For example, a singleton King.

The clearest statement I've seen, which is immediately challenged, is here:

https://en.wikipedia...Hand_evaluation
in the section "Negative/positive features"

- Samuel Stayman recommended deducting one HCP for K-Q, K-J, Q-J, Q-x, J-x Q-x-x, J-x-x holdings, this is now considered extreme.

Well, even an idiot like myself can see that deducting a whole point from J-x-x would make it equal to x-x-x. Surely the J is worth more than an x?

So here's my question: how about only deducting 0.5 points from Stayman's recommendations?

In that case, one honour combination makes no difference to the HCP, since we can't open on 11 1/2 points (playing Acol, and ignoring the Rule of 20, 19, etc, for the moment).

But two such honour combinations would reduce the HCP by 1 point in 4-4-3-2, and 5-4-2-2 hands. That one point now makes a difference in opening, responding, raising, etc.

I would be grateful for any advice on how to handle the honour combinations mentioned by Stayman, and also the singleton K, Q, and J.

BTW: things like LTC, Zar, Kaplan & Rubens, etc, are a bit over my head at the moment :-)

Thanks.

-----------------------------

Added:

I should probably have been honest enough earlier to admit that there's a key message missing from my OP. I thought the replies were beginning to dry up, but they're still coming.

The key message is that my entire OP should apply only to the OPENING bid.

All the upward and downward re-evaluations that occur as a result of LATER bidding are very well documented here, in the section "Negative/positive features":

https://en.wikipedia...Hand_evaluation

So, the title of my OP should probably have been:

• How to devalue doubleton and singleton honours as the OPENING bidder?

Sorry about that. It's embarrassing. Especially since this is only my second post :-(
.

[ahydra]

In general I would advise against going down the route of forming lots of rules for adjusting points for unguarded honours, long suits, etc. Experienced players do hand evaluation through experience and visualisation (picture partner's and opponents' likely hands based on the bidding, then picture how many tricks your hands would take) and it's a good idea to start learning this technique early. HCPs, LTC etc are simply tools to help with this and should be used only as guidelines, not as rules.

Take for example a singleton K. Its value varies wildly depending on the situation:

• about the standard 3 HCPs when your side has the balance of strength, partner showed some cards in the suit, and opps are silent
  
• a huge amount in partner's long suit
  
• pretty much zero if either opponent has bid the suit and you're declaring a suit contract
  
• a very small amount if you're declaring a NT contract (they might underlead the Ace)
  
• close to zero if LHO has bid the suit and you're defending
  
• a small amount if RHO has bid the suit and you're defending (because they might finesse into it)

and so on. So you can see that it's not as simple as "a singleton K is worth 1.5HCPs" or whatever it would be. Likewise your example of Jxx being worth more than xxx would be true in most situations, but not all - for example, when one opp has overcalled in the suit and the other hasn't supported, that suit will often go A, K, ruff off the top and your Qxx/Jxx is now worthless.

You are correct in that one should, if in doubt, take a negative view of suits with insufficiently-guarded honours. For example, after 1NT-2NT you might refuse partner's invitation with QJ AKx xxxx QJ10x whereas you might accept with QJxx AKx QJ10x xx. Having said that, the approach I (and I suspect many others) use is to treat honours as full value until told to do otherwise by the auction. If partner has values and length in the suit where you have a short honour, your honour(s) will fill his suits: a singleton K goes nicely with partner's Axxx, Qxxx, etc.

ahydra

[helene_t]

Agree with ahydra except that the singleton king is a significant asset in an nt contract as it makes partner's queen a stopper and his jack a possible stopper.

For opening purposes a subtract up to one hcp. Singleton queen is worst. For jxx I don't subtract.

[OldGranton]

.
Thanks to both ahydra and The Abbess for valuable comments.

Here's a very interesting comment from ahydra:

...the approach I (and I suspect many others) use is to treat honours as full value until told to do otherwise by the auction.

So I think, in the meantime, I'll just go along with the full HCP. I can show this post to any partner who complains that I should have passed because of my unguarded honours :-)
.

[johnu]

 OldGranton, on 2017-April-04, 13:50, said:

So I think, in the meantime, I'll just go along with the full HCP. I can show this post to any partner who complains that I should have passed because of my unguarded honours :-)

Or just point out when you get to a good contract that you wouldn't have reached if you passed.

[OldGranton]

.

 johnu, on 2017-April-04, 13:56, said:

Or just point out when you get to a good contract that you wouldn't have reached if you passed.

Good thinking
.

[bravejason]

For an initial evaluation I use this schedule:
A=4
K=1
Kx=3
Qx=1
Q=0
Jx=0
J=0
AK=7
AQ=5
AJ=4
KQ=4
KJ=3
QJ=1

I don't claim this is the best approach or even a good approach, but it does help me recognize when a hand with lots of picture cards may be less strong than it seems.

Once partner shows support the suit, I re-evaluate using nominal values.

[FelicityR]

You describe yourself as a beginner, OldGranton, and whilst you probably are eager to learn everything and anything that is out there - as I did once upon a time - the phrase 'keep it simple' springs to mind.

As other commentators have noted, high card points are only a partial indicator of where a final contract lie, and trying to evaluate opening/responding hands with fractions at this stage is admirable but just complicates things further.

I have my own simple rule that void = 3, singleton = 2, doubleton = 1, and if an honour other than an ace lies in these holdings, to adjust accordingly upwards or downwards.

So singleton K = 2, singleton Q = 2, singleton J =2; and doubleton K = 3, doubleton Q = 2, and doubleton J = 1; doubleton KQ = 4, doubleton KJ = 3, doubleton QJ = 2

I am not saying it is any better/worse than any other evaluation, but it is something I invented long ago and makes hand evaluation a lot easier than dealing with fractions, and remembering specific combination of cards.

In essence, you can never find out what your hand is actually worth until you see what your partner holds. And any holding also depends on whether you finally finish in NT or a suit contract, or whether the opponents have bid - obviously.

[rhm]

Subtract a point for any singleton honor except the singleton ace
Subtract a point for any doubleton consisting of 2 honors lacking the ace, e.g. QJ, KQ or KJ.
Of course QJ is better than Q2 and KJ is better than K2, but you have to draw the line somewhere if you want simple rules.
When considering an opening bid subtract a point holding no aces. Conversely add one point for any combination of 4 aces and tens

With these simple rules you will do better than many here on BBO, calling themselves "advanced" or better.

Rainer Herrmann

[OldGranton]

.
My normal practice on any forum is to give quick responses to the very generous volunteers.

But the replies seem to continue coming. So I think I might delay my responses just in case there are more replies. Otherwise my no-value "shoot from the hip" just confuses things.

At the moment, it looks as if the best way to play with any NEW partner is based on ahydra's comment:

- ...the approach I (and I suspect many others) use is to treat honours as full value until told to do otherwise by the auction.

So I now need to think about playing with a PREVIOUS partner, if they say: "What method shall we use to devalue honours?" (Yeah, right ! Is anyone ever actually going to ask me that? )

In that case, I think it's probably fair to say "The simpler the better".

Thanks to all.
.

[NickRW]

 OldGranton, on 2017-April-05, 06:44, said:

...if they say: "What method shall we use to devalue honours?" (Yeah, right ! Is anyone ever actually going to ask me that? )

A casual partner is highly unlikely to have that discussion with you of course. A more permanent partner may well do so - especially if they think you are either downgrading too much or not downgrading enough in their view.

[mycroft]

I find that most around here will simply qualify Walrus points. "A really nice 13" or "a 6=4 majors hand with 12 all in the suits" or "15, but the stiff Q is waste paper", or...

That could be as much as 2, 3, 4 points in valuation, but it's described that way. I find that easy to understand with my own valuation. "Given what I've shown, do I have a good, ok, or bad hand in the context of the auction?" (or amazing or horrible, of course!)

[bravejason]

 OldGranton, on 2017-April-05, 06:44, said:

So I now need to think about playing with a PREVIOUS partner, if they say: "What method shall we use to devalue honours?" (Yeah, right ! Is anyone ever actually going to ask me that? )

I wonder if such a question would yield useful information. It seems like all you need from partner is a bid that describes the strength of the hand. How partner made that evaluation seems like it ought to be immaterial.

If partner makes a limit raise, then do you really need to know if partner's stiff K was counted as 0, 1, 2, or 3 points? As a another poster mentioned, a better player might look at the hand and see a 'limit raise' hand with no counting of points being necessary.

[NickRW]

 bravejason, on 2017-April-06, 06:50, said:

I wonder if such a question would yield useful information. It seems like all you need from partner is a bid that describes the strength of the hand. How partner made that evaluation seems like it ought to be immaterial.

If partner makes a limit raise, then do you really need to know if partner's stiff K was counted as 0, 1, 2, or 3 points? As a another poster mentioned, a better player might look at the hand and see a 'limit raise' hand with no counting of points being necessary.

This sort of question does come up. A fairly common example for players of strong NT is that they (some of them anyway) quite like to upgrade good 14 counts into range (and similarly upgrade good 17 counts as too strong). Though expert players rarely, if ever, talk of fractional points, it is never the less necessary to come to some sort of agreement, no matter how loosely specified, of what constitutes a "good" 14 (and when, if ever, is 15 so bad that it requires a downgrade). If you don't come to some sort of agreement about such things then the partnership is really in the same boat as a pair of beginners who blindly count hcp and make no allowance for aces, intermediates, shape etc.

[OldGranton]

 bravejason, on 2017-April-06, 06:50, said:

I wonder if such a question would yield useful information. It seems like all you need from partner is a bid that describes the strength of the hand. How partner made that evaluation seems like it ought to be immaterial.

If partner makes a limit raise, then do you really need to know if partner's stiff K was counted as 0, 1, 2, or 3 points? As a another poster mentioned, a better player might look at the hand and see a 'limit raise' hand with no counting of points being necessary.

I'm sorry. I omitted a key statement in my OP. In fact, I only want to know how to devalue honours when I'm the OPENING bidder.

I've edited the OP.

Thanks.

[Lovera]

"For a third suit with Q or J it is not given full value because both combinations must overcome great difficulties to be able to make trick. That is the why if a hand contains more than one of these combinations, the deduction is to be made equally by only one trick" (pag. 4 from Stayman system). The tabel of hand valutation about "Detraction" reported : "An hand without A (only by opener) -1; K, or Q, or J alone -1; doubleton conteining Q, or J, and any card, A excluding -1; Qxx, or Jxx or both combinations -1; shape 4-3-3-3 (to support trump suit) -1; raising trump with three cards -1; K or Q in unfavourable position -1" (pag. 8 from citated text).(Lovera)

[JLilly]

"the approach I (and I suspect many others) use is to treat honours as full value until told to do otherwise by the auction."

Does this work because honors in short suits get devalued by the auction? In a competitive auction, you'll find out soon enough whether your singleton K is worth anything. But before the auction you'll be implicitly valuing your short suits (by not devaluing your honors in those suits), which is a fairly sound practice.

[RedSpawn]

 rhm, on 2017-April-05, 03:59, said:

Subtract a point for any singleton honor except the singleton ace
Subtract a point for any doubleton consisting of 2 honors lacking the ace, e.g. QJ, KQ or KJ.
Of course QJ is better than Q2 and KJ is better than K2, but you have to draw the line somewhere if you want simple rules.
When considering an opening bid subtract a point holding no aces. Conversely add one point for any combination of 4 aces and tens

With these simple rules you will do better than many here on BBO, calling themselves "advanced" or better.

Rainer Herrmann

Amen! I completely co-sign this approach.