Re: Hand evaluation a la Bamberger
- From: Will in New Haven <bill.reich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:47:37 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 22, 5:10 pm, vspo...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:14 pm, Carl <C...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 22, 12:15 pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My post about 'Flat hand with 16 HCP seems to have motivated a free
for all debate about hand evaluation. So let me add to the debate.
It has long been common wisdom that the primary honors, A and K, are a
bit undervalued, while the secondary ones, Q and j, are overvalued on
the Work point scale and tens are overlooked. This implies that A+K
should account for more than 70%.
In his now semi-classical book "Winning Contract Bridge Complete"
E.Kaplan opined that a more accurate point count would be :
A=4.3, K=3.1, Q=1.7 and J=0.9, but he strongly adviced against using
this scale. Note that here A+K account for 74%. His evaluation was
very close to the Bamberger count :7-5-3-1, which recalculated to the
10 scale would be ; 4.375-3.125-1.875- 0.625. Here A+K account for
75%. If one were to use the Bamberger count and after adding up the
points and multiplying the sum by 60% one would get a total of 9.6
for each suit. One could then add 0.4 for the ten card to bring the
total to 10.
It would be interesting to see a pro forma computer evaluation of 250
or more random deals based on this count and compare it with the Work
count for the same deals and also the BUM-RAP count. I've only
rudimentary computer skills and am unable to do any programming.
The best I can do is a manual count for the same 36 deals I used for
my Adjust -3 comparison. I got 574x0.6=344.4 plus 38x0.4=15.2 for a
total of 359.6 vs 357 Work points.
I noted that the A+K sum accounted for 76% with the Bamberger count
but 74% with the Work count. Also, the Aces accounted for 49% vs 45%.
Thus the hands might not have been as average as ideally implied.
Feel free to improve on my analysis by simulation.
Stig Holmquist
Game (4 of a major) can be just made with combined hands that range
from 14 to 31 HCPs. What is the use of constructing a more precise
point-count scale when the adjustment to the resultant answer is so
small in comparison to the margin of error for the point count system
in total?
You need to look at everything in your hand, and what partner has told
you, and what the opps have told you, along with your common sense,
your judgment and your gut, and point count is such a small part of
that.
You have an obsession over something that isn't going to get better,
from a practical standpoint. Your frustration over this issue is
pouring out into your general behavior, to your own detriment. I fail
to see how you can enjoy the game anymore.
Yes, stig just doesn't appreciate that HCP is just one of
many parameters used to estimate playing tricks. Each
parameters' estimates have built-in error(variance).
The simple 4-3-2-1 is close enough. All more complex
point systems aren't very useful to human players. Too much
effort for too little gain.
When I was a novice there was a pair that used the Bamberger count in
our club. They played fairly standard otherwise but their opening 1NT
was 25-31 Bamberger Points or something like that. It worked out to a
standard Strong NT most of the time. They never had a problem at the
club and they weren't bad players. But they gave it up because every
time they went to a sectional or regional they got a bad reaction from
opponents and directors.
I always thought that was too bad. On the other hand, using a
different point count does make it hard to give the kind of disclosure
required in the game.
--
Will in New Haven
.
- References:
- Hand evaluation a la Bamberger
- From: Stig Holmquist
- Re: Hand evaluation a la Bamberger
- From: Carl
- Re: Hand evaluation a la Bamberger
- From: vspoker
- Hand evaluation a la Bamberger
- Prev by Date: Re: Continuations after 1M-2N natural
- Next by Date: Re: all 4 hands Re: do you overcall?
- Previous by thread: Re: Hand evaluation a la Bamberger
- Next by thread: Re: Hand evaluation a la Bamberger
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
