CONTRACT BRIDGE,

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 72, 26 March 1932, Page 8

CONTRACT BRIDGE,

THE PRINCIPLES OF HAND VALUATION.

(By KLY OULBERTSON.) When the deal is completed and the players pick up their cards, the question of the eventual declarer and the final declaration is still a matter of doubt. No matter how strong a hand may appear, unless it contains absolute control, under any circumstances, the holder must recognise that one of his opponents may be the declarer. This condition imposes upon the players a triple standard of card valuation. 1. In defence. 2. At own declaration. 3. In support of partner's bid. It follows that the opening bid, unless it is pre-emptive, must show, at the same time, preparedness to attack and the probable limit of the opponents' strength, since it must be futile, if not disastrous, to make an aggressive move when you may be overwhelmed by the adversaries' attack with partner unaware of your defensive weakness. The first step is, therefore, to measure and convey to your partner information as to the strength held against a possible adverse bid. This is done in accordance with the standard table of honour tricks, which assigns to the various combinations the probable minimum trick-taking value in defence and explains why, for example: Spades, A Q 3 2; Hearts, Q 3 2; Diamonds, KQ2; Clubs, J 3 2, is an opening bid, whereas Spades, K J 10 9 3 2; Hearts, 3 2; Diamonds, 4 3 2; Clubs, 3 2, is not, although both hands are equally strong in attack.

Re-bids by the opening bidder and raises of partner's declaration, after a certain minimum of defensive strength has thus been shown, convey the possibilities in attack and may be based on distribution or additional honour strength, always bearing in mind the opponents' chances of scoring at their declaration if they have not dropped the bidding.

The rules for counting the declarer's hand and revaluing it in support of partner's bid thus supplement the standard table of honour-tricks when a side has secured the bid and the valuation shifts to playing tricks. Trump length in the declarer's hand, ruffing ability in the supporting hand, as well as uncounted honours and length in side suits, assume definite values absent against opponents' declaration. Thus, Spades AK 5 4 3 2 is worth, at best, two tricks in defence, but five tricks with Spades as trump.

Several honour combinations, such as K Q J, A J 10, K Q 10, Q J 2, are assigned defensive values, which apparently will materialise only if they survive the third round. This is so for several reasons:

(1) Opponents are more likely to have two possible losers iij a suit in which they hold one or more high honours than three losers in a, suit in which they lack the A K Q.

(2) The honours in question may promote nines and tens in partner's hand which separately have no value.

(3) The opponents may be forced to establish that suit which frequently proves awkward or impossible, even under trump protection.

The full value of touching honours, such as A Q J, K Q J, K J 10, Q J 10, which cannot always he realised in defence, is almost surely developed in offence. These combinations are, therefore, rated higher in the declarer's or the supporting hand than against opponents' bid. Below are given the rales laid down for determining the trick-taking power of a hand in support of partner's suit bid: The Trump Length and Honours are Valued: Three small or less 0 Four small ' i Five small . 1 Six small ..' 2 Add for Ace- or a King 1 Add for a Queen .•. i (sometime* 1) A Queen is counted as one trick when necessary to complete the count of the hand for a raise. The Low Card and Honour Tricks in Side Suits are Valued: A four-card length is worth i trick. A five-card length is worth 1 trick. A six-card length is worth 1J tricks. The Ruffing Tricks are Valued: With 3 of partner's With 4 trumps, or more. A doubleton (two cards of suit) i trick 1 trick A singleton (one card of suit) 1 trick 2'tricks A void (the absent suit) 2 tricks 3 tricks The ruffing tricks do not increase in value with five trumps for the reason that it is unjustifiable to assume that the declarer holds more than three losing cards of the suit of which the dummy holds, say, a singleton.