AN HONORS eBOOK FROM MASTER POINT PRESS

Patrick Darricades

Optimal Hand
Evaluation in
Competitive
Bidding
 Text © 2020 Patrick Darricades
Cover image: 123RF/dolgachov

All rights reserved.

Honors eBooks is an imprint of Master Point Press. All contents, editing and
design (excluding cover design) are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Master Point Press

214 Merton St. Suite 205
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M4S 1A6
(647) 956-4933

[email protected]

www.masterpointpress.com
www.bridgeblogging.com
www.teachbridge.com
www.ebooksbridge.com

ISBN: 978-1-77140-331-3

Cover Design: Olena S. Sullivan/New Mediatrix

123456 23 22 21 20
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING
______________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD
CHAPTER 1 : Overview of the Optimal point count Page 1
Ø Two-page summary of the Optimal point count Page 35
Ø Implications of the Optimal point count on bidding Page 39
CHAPTER 2 : Reflections on “The Law of Total Tricks”
Ø Assessing current hand evaluation practices Page 45
Ø The Optimal point count versus “The Law” Page 46
CHAPTER 3 : Jump-overcalls and the “The Law”
Ø The notion of DELTA (D) Page 59
CHAPTER 4 : Point count adjustments in competitive bidding
Ø Key principles governing Overcalls Page 63
Ø Point count adjustments in the opponent’s suit Page 67
Ø Point count adjustments to the rest of the hand :
Offense to Defense Ratio Page 73
Ø Point count adjustments to balanced hands Page 79
Ø Illustrations / Example hands Page 80
Ø The Optimal point count : Summary Page 91
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING

FOREWORD

In a first book, « Optimal Hand Evaluation », published in 2019,

I introduced a number of corrections to make to the Goren/M. Work
point count to reach “optimal” hand evaluation accuracy – including
revolutionary new findings that removed the many roadblocks that
stood, for so long, in the way of accurate hand evaluation.
As many of these corrections were new to readers, that first book
focused on non-competitive bidding situations where no further point
count adjustments were needed as a result of competitive bidding.
The time has now come to deal with this topic and that is precisely
what this book proposes to do and illustrate.
As the “Optimal Hand Evaluation” is the very foundation on
which this sequel is based, this book starts with a 35-page overview
and two-page summary of it. But reading first “Optimal Hand
Evaluation” is highly recommended as it contains all the rationale
and statistical references justifying the point count as well as a great
number of example hands illustrating its accuracy.
I welcome any questions or comments you may have which you can
send to this e-mail address : [email protected]
May you find this sequel a worthy complement to the Optimal hand
evaluation point count !

Patrick Darricades
 OPTIMAL HAND
© EVALUATION ♦

___________________________________________________

OVERVIEW OF THE

OPTIMAL POINT COUNT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and preamble Page 1

Honor point count Page 2
Length point count Page 4
Distribution point count Page 5
Counting opening hands in HLD pts Page 6
Fit points Page 13
Distribution-Fit points Page 17
Wasted Honor points Page 18
Misfit points Page 24
Other point count corrections Page 28
Point count in response to a NT bid Page 29
Point count summary table Page 33
Converting points to tricks Page 35
Implications of the point count on bidding
_________________________________________________

1
2
 OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION POINT COUNT

CHAPTER 1
________________________

Introduction
This overview presents an abbreviated version of the Optimal Hand
Evaluation point count. While it will cover all point count corrections
to make to the Goren point count, it will not go over the rationale
and statistical references justifying it.
The detailed justifications and rationale for the point count can be
found in the book : “Optimal Hand Evaluation”, published in 2019.
Reading this book first is highly recommended as it refers to the
statistically validated findings that led to this point count and also
provides over 100 example deals illustrating its validity and accu-
racy, and comparing it to other point counts.
Note : Those having read “Optimal Hand Evaluation” and having
mastered its point count can skip over this abbreviated version and
go directly to page 43.
Preamble
From 1950 on, the point count which has been universally taught and
used has been the Goren point count which associated Distribution
points for short suits (3, 2, 1 pts for, respectively, a void, a singleton,
a doubleton and 5, 3, 1 points for the same short suits in a support
hand with 4 trumps) with M. Work’s Honor point count which gave
4, 3, 2, 1 points to, respectively, an Ace, a King, a Queen, a Jack.
This point count was widely adopted by world-class players, and all
players, as it was simple and generally believed to be reasonably
accurate, particularly for balanced hands played in a NT contract.
Yet we have known for many years now that the Goren/Work point
count is far, very far from being reasonably accurate. But, until 2019,
no other point count was able to provide a significantly more accurate
hand evaluation point count.
The Optimal point count was the first to identify key new disco-
veries that removed the roadblocks that stood in the way of point
count accuracy. It exposes the multiple flaws and deficiencies of the
Goren point count and makes it irrelevant and obsolete.
This document covers all elements of the Optimal point count and
concludes with a two-page summary table of all these elements.

3
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT

Accurate hand evaluation is a function of five key elements, all

precisely quantified in points by the Optimal point count :
– Points for Honors.
– Points for suit Length.
– Points for Distribution.
– Fit and Misfit points.
– “Wasted Honor points”.

HONOR POINTS
1. The most serious statistical studies have validated that the top four
honor cards should be assigned the following point values :
Ace : 4 ½ pts King : 3 pts
Queen, with another honor : 2 pts Jack, with another honor : 1 point
Queen, isolated (Q x x, Q 10 x) : 1 ½ pts Jack, isolated : ½ point
As shown above, Queens and Jacks have variable values, depending
upon whether they accompany another honor or not.
Examples : ª Axxx ª Axxx ª Axxx
© QJx © Qxx © Qxx
¨ AKxx ¨ KJxx ¨ Jxxx
§ xx § xx § Kx
15 H pts 10 H pts 9 ½ H pts
The 1st hand counts 9 pts for 2 Aces.
The 2nd hand counts 4 ½ pts for the Ace, 1 ½ pts for the isolated
Queen. The 3rd hand counts 1 ½ pts for the isolated Queen and
½ point only for the isolated Jack.
And therein lies the first and most fundamental flaw of the Goren/
M. Work point count which gives the Queen and Jack fixed, constant
values of 2 pts and 1 point, respectively, and does not assign half-
points when appropriate. It is based on a false premise, like teaching
that one Rim + one Tire = one Wheel, when this is true only when
the tire size precisely matches the rim size.
2. And Tens also have a variable value, as follows :
Isolated or with an Ace : their value is zero points.
When with a King : ½ point.
When with a Queen : 1 point. i.e. K Q 10 x = 6 pts. Q 10 x = 2 ½ pts.
When with a Jack : 1 point and J 10 x is worth 2 points as the two
being “touching” actually upgade the Jack’s value to 1 point.

4
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – H points

Examples : ª A J 10 x ª Axxx ª A 10 x x
© J 10 x © Q 10 x © Q 10 x
¨ KQxx ¨ K J 10 x ¨ K J 10 x
§ xx § xx § Kx
The 1st hand adds up to 13 ½ pts : 6 ½ pts for A J 10, 2 pts for J 10 x.
The 2nd hand adds up to 12 pts : 2 ½ pts for Q 10 x, 5 pts for K J 10 x.
The 3rd hand adds up to 15 pts : zero pts for the 10 with an Ace.
And that is the second major flaw of the Goren/M. Work point count
as it does not account for the appropriate value of Tens. And that
value can vary considerably from zero pts to one full point each !
As a result, the Goren/M. Work point count gives the same number
of 11 H pts to the following hands :
ª Qxxx ª K Q 10 x
© Qxx © xxx
¨ A 10 x x ¨ A Q 10 x
§ Kx § xx
While the Optimal point count gives the first hand 10 ½ H pts but
13 ½ H pts to the second – a significant difference, for two hands that
are quite different in trick-generating potential !
The variable values of Queens, Jacks and Tens are critically
important to accurate hand evaluation. And the above honor point
count applies equally to opening hands and to responding hands.
3. Furthermore, the total absence of any Ace, or King or Queen in a
hand is very detrimental to a hand’s value which should then be
downgraded by 1 point.
Therefore, deduct 1 point from an Aceless hand, a Kingless hand, or
a Queenless hand.
Note : the deduction of 1 point from an Aceless hand only applies to
opening hands, as a responding hand is not expected to have an Ace.
Examples : ª A J 10 x ª AKxx ª AJxx
© xxx © xxx © Axx
¨ KQJx ¨ AKxx ¨ Axxx
§ xx § xx § xx
12 ½ H pts 14 H pts 12 ½ H pts
(no Q) (no K, no Q)
Note : Point deductions from a hand should not exceed 2 pts.
The point deduction for no King, no Queen is a critically important
element of the Optimal point count’s accuracy.

5
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – H points

4. “Quality“ suit. The presence of 3 honors in a suit of 5 cards or

more adds considerable value to a hand. “Synergy” points should be
counted for them as these 3 honors will, in most cases, enable the full
development of the suit, unobstructed.
1 point must be added for 3 honors (or more) in a 5-card suit, as well
as for 3 honors plus the 10 in a 4-card suit (K Q J 10 and A Q J 10),
while 2 pts must be added for 3 honors (or more) in a 6 + card suit.
Finally, the following basic corrections (identified long ago but too
often ignored) must be included : Honors located in short suits have
a lesser value and must be downgraded : by 1 point for a singleton
honor, including a singleton Ace, or two honors doubleton (hand
“blockage”).
Summary of Honor point count

Ace : 4 ½ pts K : 3 pts Q w/ A, K or J : 2 pts isolated Q : 1 ½ pts

J w/ A, K or Q : 1 pt isolated J : ½ point
10 isolated or with an Ace : 0 pt 10 with a King : ½ pt
10 with a Queen or a Jack : 1 pt J 10 x : 2 pts
- 1 pt for an Aceless (Opening hands), Kingless or Queenless
hand
3 honors in a 5-card suit : + 1 pt In a 6 + card suit : + 2 pts
- 1 point for one honor singleton, for 2 honors doubleton

The honor point count summarized above applies to all contracts –

No Trump or suit contracts.

POINTS FOR SUIT LENGTH

The traditional point count underestimates the value of long suits,
particularly long suits of 6 + cards. Long suits have their own specific
value, independently of the value of short suits.
However, the honor strength of suits of 5 or 6 cards does matter
and Length points should only be added when 5 or 6-card suits are
headed by at least Q J or K, i.e. by at least 3 honor points.
Points for suit Length should be counted as follows :
5-card suit (headed by Q J or K minimum) : 1 point
6-card suit (headed by Q J or K minimum) : 2 points
With fewer than 3 H pts, count zero pts for a 5-card suit, count only
1 point for a 6-card suit, not 2.
6
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – L and D points

7-card suit and longer : 2 pts for each card from the 7th on, whether
or not the suit has an honor. These 2 pts per card from the 7th on
are added to those counted for a 6-card suit.
These points for Length apply to each long suit and for All contracts,
whether NT or a suit contract and they are added to honor pts.
The responder, however, must count no more than 2 pts for Length,
initially. Example opening hands :
ª AQxxx ª Axx ª Kxx
© xxx © J 10 x x x © Q 10 x
¨ AKx ¨ AKx ¨ A J 10 x x
§ xx § xx § xx
15 HL pts 13 H pts (no Q) 13 HL pts
No L pts in hearts
The third hand counts 7 ½ HL pts in diamonds and 2 ½ H pts in hearts.

DISTRIBUTION POINTS
In attributing a distributional value of 1 point to one doubleton,
Goren’s 3 2 1 Distribution point count for short suits introduced a
serious distortion to hand evaluation by giving the same distribu-
tional value of 1 D point to 4 4 3 2 and 5 3 3 2 hands, the same 2 D
pts to 5 4 2 2 and 5 4 3 1 hands, the same 3 D pts to 6 3 2 2 and
6 3 3 1 hands, etc.
In reality, one single doubleton has no distributional value in an
opening hand – it is two doubletons that are worth 1 D point.
The significant consequence of this is that 4 4 3 2 hands have no
distributional value and 4 3 3 3 hands then have a negative distribu-
tional value of minus 1 point relative to 4 4 3 2 hands.
Furthermore, a void has a distributional value of 4 pts, not 3. It is
worth two singletons.
Thus, Goren’s 3 2 1 Distribution point count for short suits in an
opening hand is quite inaccurate. It must be replaced by the 4 2 1 0
count for a void, a singleton, two doubletons and one doubleton. So:
Void : 4 pts Singleton : 2 pts Two doubletons : 1 point
1 doubleton : 0 points 4 3 3 3 distribution : - 1 point.
Note : This Distribution point count only applies to opening hands,
as responding hands only count distribution points once a trump Fit
has been found – but the 1 point deduction for a 4 3 3 3 distribution
also applies to responding hands, and to all contracts.

7
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – H + L + D points

Most importantly, to accurately assess the total value of a hand,

these Distribution points must be added to Honor points and to
points for Length. This is fundamental to the Optimal point count.
As this is a significant departure from the traditional point count, it
warrants a short analysis, which follows.
COUNTING OPENING HANDS IN H + L + D (HLD) POINTS
From the beginning of Contract Bridge, the practice has been to
count initial distribution points in opening hands either for long suits
or for short suits, but not for both – a very serious mistake which has
prevented hand evaluation from being accurate.
1. Counting points for long suits has consisted of counting 1 point
for each card beyond the fourth card of any suit – but this method
does not differentiate between 4 3 3 3, 4 4 3 2 and 4 4 4 1 hands, or
between 5 3 3 2, 5 4 2 2 and 5 4 3 1 hands, etc.
A seriously flawed proposition.
2. Counting points for short suits, an alternative distribution point
count adopted and popularized by Charles Goren since 1948, has
consisted of counting 1 point for each doubleton, 2 pts for each
singleton and 3 pts for a void – but this method does not differentiate
between 4 4 3 2 and 5 3 3 2 hands, or between 5 4 2 2 and 5 4 3 1
hands, or between 6 3 2 2 and 6 3 3 1 hands, etc.
Clearly a proposition just as flawed as the long suit one.
PURPOSE OF HAND EVALUATION
The very purpose of hand evaluation is : 1) to assess, as accurately as
possible, the number of tricks that a hand can be expected to generate
– not just its trick-taking potential, and 2) to communicate it, as best
as possible, to the partner.
And not distinguishing the major difference between trick-taking
potential and trick-generating potential is central to a key issue
which has blindsided Bridge experts since the beginning of Contract
Bridge. Starting with E. Culbertson’s Honor trick count which gave
the Ace credit for only one trick – when statistical findings have
established, since 1976, that the Ace is worth 1.78 tricks in a No
Trump contract, and 1.34 tricks in a suit contract.
And counting an opening hand in either H or HL or HD pts, instead
of HLD pts, is just as serious a mistake ! Here is why :
The trick-generating potential of a hand varies considerably depen-
ding upon its distributional structure – which is precisely what L and
D points are meant to translate !

8
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – H + L + D points

Therefore, counting only H or HL points does not achieve the very

purpose of hand evaluation. Worse, it is totally counter-productive,
as a few examples will easily demonstrate, starting with this hand :
ª AKQJxxx © xxx ¨ xx § x
With just a ª singleton in partner’s hand (a 7-card suit will find a
void in partner’s hand only 7 % of the time), the above hand will
generate 7 tricks 96 % of the time. 7 tricks = 19 total points (27 pts for
10 tricks at 4 ª = 2.7 pts per trick x 7 tricks = 19 pts).
Yet, this hand is given only 13 total HL or HD pts in traditional count
– far, far below the hand’s value of 7 winning tricks. The optimal
point count gives this hand 18 ½ total pts (+ 2 pts for 3 honors in a
6 + card suit, 4 L pts for a 7-card suit, and 2 D pts for the singleton).
Now, if a heart is moved to the long suit, spades, an additional trick
gets generated for 8 tricks = 21 ½ pts. Yet, the traditional HL or HD
counts give this hand only 1 additional point, to 14 pts !
While the optimal count goes up by 3 pts (2 pts for the 8th spade + 1
point for two doubletons) to 21 ½ pts.
The deal below, from the 1981 World Championship final, vividly
illustrates the absurdity of counting an opening hand in H pts only :
ª AQxxx ª K J 10 x
© K 10 x x © Ax
¨ --- ¨ xxxx
§ KJxx § AQx
Both teams, playing Precision Club, bid the two hands above to 4 ª
and missed the grand slam – that is because the West hand was only
valued as 13 H pts, 3 pts short of the 16 H pts needed for a strong
1 § opening.
But West actually has 19 HLD pts! Had he opened 1 §, East, with his
own 16 H pts, would have known immediately that their side was in
slam zone !
– And counting H pts only, initially, has other serious implications
on bidding, as well. That is because a point-zone of 3 H pts actually
covers 3 HLD point-zones, or more! Thus, a 12 to 14 H point-zone can
be a 4 4 3 2 hand of 12 H pts or a 6 4 3 0 hand of 14 H pts which
equates to 20 HLD pts! That’s 3 HLD point-zones : 12/14, 15/17 and
18/20 HLD pts. And, not only is describing, economically, more than
2 point zones not possible, but any bid that exceeds a 6 HLD point
zone takes you outside the bidding safety level !

9
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – H + L + D points

Hereunder is another illustration : Your partner opens 1 ª. What do

you do with this hand ? :
ª xx
© QJxx
¨ xx
§ J 10 x x x
It depends on which of these two hands partner has :
Opener A Opener B
ª AKxxx ª AKxxxx
© xx © AKxx
¨ KQxx ¨ xxx
§ xx § ---
Opposite opener A you’d better pass – down one (or more !).
But then you will miss out on your 4 © game opposite opener B !
That is because the 12/14 H 1 ª opening is much too wide (3 HLD
point zones) and places the partnership outside the bidding safety level
right from the opening bid !
The conclusion is unequivocal : Opening hands must imperatively
be counted in HLD points! And that is the very premise of the
Optimal point count.
And Bridge bidding has never recovered from this historic mistake of
counting opening hands in H pts only (or HL or HD pts for that matter) –
and strong Club bidding systems, needing 16 + H pts to open 1 §, do not
escape this historic mistake.
Furthermore, the Optimal point count assesses very accurately
hands with long suits and eccentric distribution which some experts
have advocated to count in number of tricks.
The following 8-card single-suit hand is a good example of this :
ª KQJxxxxx
© Ax
¨ xx
§ x
This hand produces, by itself, 8 winning tricks at a spade contract =
21 ½ pts (27 pts for 10 tricks = 2.7 pts per trick x 8 = 21.5 pts).
The traditional count gives this hand only 18 HD pts, the equivalent
of fewer than 7 winning tricks, while the optimal point count gives
it 21 ½ HLD pts (2 pts for each card beyond the 6th + 2 pts for 3 honors
in a 6 + card suit, 4 ½ pts for its Ace, 2 D pts for its singleton, 1 D
point for its two doubletons).

10
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – H + L + D points

The example above confirms the traditional point count’s inability to

accurately evaluate such hands and demonstrates that the optimal
point count eliminates having to resort to a “trick” count for such
eccentric hands.
Here are a few hands to practice counting in HLD pts.
ª xx ª xxx ª Axx ª Axxx
© A J 10 x x © A J 10 x © Q 10 x © Qx
¨ AQx ¨ K Q 10 x ¨ K J 10 x x ¨ K Q 10 x x
§ xxx § xx § xx § xx
13 HL pts 12 ½ H pts 13 HL pts 13 ½ HLD pts
(no K) (two 10s w/ (5-card suit) (2 doubletons)
a Q or J)

ª Axxxx ª xx ª AQx
© QJxx © AJx © Q 10 x x x x
¨ Kxx ¨ K Q 10 x x x ¨ KJx
§ x § xx § x
13 ½ HLD pts 14 ½ HLD pts 16 HLD pts
(6-card suit & (6-card suit w/o
2 doubletons) 3 H pts = 1 L pt)
All above hands should be opened.

Let’s now look at the Optimal point count at work on deals taken
from actual international tournaments.
1986 World Championship.
ª AJx ª xxx
© KJx © Qxxx
¨ AKxx ¨ Qxx
§ Axx § Jxx
At both tables the bidding was as follows :
2 NT (20/21 H pts) 3 NT
Down one. East bids 3 NT as he counts his hand for 5 pts.
But East should have passed as his hand only has 1 ½ pts : 3 pts for its
two isolated Queens, + ½ point for its isolated Jack, minus 1 point for
its 4 3 3 3 distribution and minus 1 point for no King.
Furthermore, West’s hand actually has no more than 19 ½ pts (no
Queen and 4 3 3 3).

11
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – H + L + D points

Rosenblum Cup (USA), 2006.

ª Jx ª Q 10 x
© xxxx © A
¨ AKQx ¨ xxx
§ Axx § K J 10 x x
Only one pair found the 3 NT game !
The majority of pairs opened 1 ¨ and ended up in 1 NT or 3 §.
But East has 12 HL pts, not 10 H pts, and all pairs should have ended
up in 3 NT. It is hard to believe that world-class players, in 2006,
would only give 4 pts to a 5-card suit headed by K J 10 !

Quarter finals of European Championships, teams, 2008.

ª Kxxx ª xxx
© Axx © Kxxx
¨ Axx ¨ KJxx
§ AKx § xx
3 NT was played by 20 of 24 teams! Successfully only once.
Clearly a case of two hands rich in Aces and Kings – without Queens.
West players counting their hand for 18 H pts, opened 1 § and jump-
rebid 2 NT – on which East players, counting their hand for 7 pts, bid
3 NT.
But West has 17 ½ pts, not 18 : 13 ½ pts for 3 Aces minus 2 pts for
4 3 3 3 and no Queen. He should have opened 1 NT, 15/17. On which
East, with 6 pts, not 7 (no Queen) would now pass.

National Selection, teams, 2008.

ª Jxx ª Axx
© Qxx © Kxx
¨ AKxx ¨ Qxx
§ KJx § Qxxx
The bidding was most often :
1¨ 2 NT (11/12 H pts)
3 NT
Down one. East counting his hand for 11 pts invites an opener with
14 pts to bid 3 NT.
But far from having 11 pts, East only has 9 ½ pts, with two isolated
Queens and a 4 3 3 3 distribution. He should have bid 1 NT, limited
to 10 pts, not 2 NT. West further contributes to over-reaching to 3 NT
as he only has 12 ½ pts, not 14 (isolated Queen and Jack and 4 3 3 3).

12
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – H + L + D points

National Open, teams, 2012.

Even the very best world-class players seem to have difficulty
judging their hands properly, as illustrated by the following hand
opened a weak NT, 12/14 pts, by the Italian pair, Fantoni and Nunes,
multiple World Champions :
ª Axx
© xxx
¨ Ax
§ KQJxx
But this hand should be counted for 17 HL pts, not 14 ! (1 point for 3
honors in a 5-card suit, 1 point for the 5-card suit, 9 pts for 2 Aces).
Wouldn’t you pass – instead of playing 3 NT – with the following
hand, on a weak 1 NT opening :
ª Kxx
© xxxx
¨ Kxx
§ Axx

____________________________________________________________

Let’s conclude this first segment by a summary of what we have

covered so far, which you will find on the next page.

13
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT

SUMMARY COUNT OF H, L AND D POINTS

HONOR Points

Ace : 4 ½ pts K : 3 pts Q w/ A, K, J : 2 pts isolated Q : 1 ½ pts

J w/ A, K, Q : 1 pt isolated J : ½ pt
10 isolated or with an Ace : 0 pt 10 with a King : ½ pt
10 with a Queen or a Jack : 1 pt J 10 : 2 pts
-1 point for a hand with no Ace (Opening hands), no King
or no Queen (maximum deduction of 2 pts).
3 honors in a 5-card suit : + 1 pt In a 6 + card suit : + 2 pt
-1 pt for one honor singleton, for two honors doubleton

LENGTH Points

1 point for a 5-card suit (headed by at least 3 H pts i.e. Q J)

2 pts for a 6-card suit (headed by at least Q J, if not 1 pt only)
2 pts for each card from the 7th on (even without any honor).

DISTRIBUTION Points

Void : 4 pts Singleton : 2 pts Two doubletons : 1 point

One doubleton : zero pts 4 3 3 3 distribution : -1 point

Opening hands must be counted in HLD pts.

Responding hands are counted in HL pts, initially – no more
than 2 L pts are counted.

The point count summarized above applies to all opening hands.

Responding hands, however, count Distribution points only once a
Fit has been found.
While this point count may appear complex, on first reading, you
will find that you can master it after a few hours, or days, of practice.
Now let’s look, next, at the other point count corrections that should
be made to reach optimal accuracy.

14
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – Fit AND MISFIT POINTS

FIT POINTS

The traditional point count does not appropriately quantify Fits of

8 or more cards, nor does it quantify Misfits.
Totally ignoring Fits in side suits (suits other than the trump suit) and
therefore suit Fits when playing No Trump contracts is a major flaw.
And it is probably on this topic of Fits and Misfits that the traditional
point count is the most deficient and inaccurate.
This deficiency can now be corrected and is being dealt with in the
section below – which is of capital importance.
1. FIT POINTS.

Fit points are critically important and are of two types :

A) Length-Fit points for suits of 8 + cards between partners, and
B) Distribution-Fit points for short suits in hands having an 8 + card
trump Fit.
In both cases, the traditional point count is totally inadequate.
A) LENGTH-FIT POINTS.
While focusing on quantifying the value of short suits, the traditional
point count totally missed the importance of a Fit of 8 cards or more
between two hands of the same side – and the value of such Fits
applies to all suits, not just the trump suit, and to all contracts,
whether NT or in a suit ! A revolutionary new finding and most often
a decisive factor. LENGTH FIT points should be counted as follows :
8-card Fit : 1 point ( 4 - 4, 5 - 3 or 6 - 2 Fit)
9-card Fit : 2 points ( 5 - 4, 6 - 3 or 7 - 2 Fit)
10 + card Fit : 3 pts ( 5 - 5, 6 - 4, 7 - 3 or 8 - 2 Fit)
No more than 3 pts for 11 + card Fits as H + L pts duplicate.
And remember to add 1 point for honor(s) in any suit with a Fit
when the initial count of these honors is less than 4 points (King or
Queen or Jack or K 10 or Q J or J 10).
Caution : Two “mirror” hands – i.e. two hands with exactly the same
distribution, including the same long suit – must be downgraded as
they do not enable any ruff nor the generation of additional tricks
through developing long suits. As well, to a lesser degree, two
“mirror” suits must also be downgraded.
2 pts should be deducted for two “mirror” hands, while 1 point
should be deducted for two “mirror” suits.

15
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – Fit POINTS

Let’s look at some example hands, starting with 9-card fits.

« How to find 6 NT ? » – Le Bridgeur, 1980.
ª Ax ª xx
© xxx © AKQx
¨ Kxxxx ¨ AQxx
§ AKx § Qxx
In the tournament the above deal comes from, not a single pair
found the 6 NT contract. And the commentator asked : « How to
find 6 NT when the two hands only have 31 H pts ? ».
Most Wests opened 1 ¨, rebid 1 NT and Easts concluded in 3 NT.
But the Optimal point count reveals quite a different reality.
First, West has 15 HL pts (9 pts for two Aces, 1 point for the
5-card suit, -1 point for no Queen) and East has 17 ½ H pts for a
total of 32 ½ HL pts, to which 2 pts should be added for the
9-card ¨ fit – a fit just as pertinent at NT as it is for a ¨ contract !
And the 6 NT contract could be bid as follows :
1 NT (15/17 HL pts) 2 ¨ (game-forcing Stayman)
3 ¨ (5 diamonds, no 4-card Major)
Upon West’s 3 ¨ bid, East knows that his side is in slam zone :
15 + HL pts + 17 ½ H pts + 2 pts for the 9-card ¨ fit = 34 ½ pts.
Note that if you transfer one small diamond from each hand
to, let’s say spades, the two hands now only add up to 29 ½ H pts
(4 3 3 3 and no fit) and you no longer have a slam.

« Evaluation of Bridge hands » – J-R. Vernes/B. Charles, 1995.

ª Ax ª xxx
© xxx © Axx
¨ xx ¨ Axxx
§ A Q 10 x x x § Kxx
This deal comes from the above-mentioned book in which the
authors wonder how to reach 3 NT with these two hands which
only add up to 23 HL pts in traditional count.
Well, the answer is simple : count Fit points !
West has 13 HL pts (no King) and East has 10 H pts (4 3 3 3 and
no Queen) + 3 pts for the 9-card § fit with the King = 26 pts.
And East will discover the 9-card § fit right upon West’s rebid :
1§ 1¨
2 § (6 + clubs)

16
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – Fit POINTS

« How good is your Bridge hand ? » – R. Klinger/A. Kambites.

ª xxx ª Axx
© xx © Axx
¨ Ax ¨ KQJx
§ AKQxxx § xxx
In this deal from the above-mentioned book, the bidding report-
ed was :
1§ 1¨
2§ 3 NT
West counts his hand for only 15 or 16 HLD pts and East, without
distributional value, does not “see” a slam and settles in 3 NT.
But West has 18 H/19 HLD pts, not 15 HL pts (9 pts for two Aces,
4 pts for the 6 clubs with 3 honors). He should have rebid 3 §,
not 2 §. East could now add to his 14 pts (-1 for 4 3 3 3) 2 pts for
the 9-card § fit = 16 HF pts + 17 HLD pts minimum = 33 pts :
slam zone. The auction could then be :
1§ 1¨
3§ 4 § ? (RKC Ask, § trump)
4 ¨ (3 Key cards) 4 © ? (trump Q ?)
4 NT (yes, § Queen) 6 NT
6 NT with only 28 pts (-1 for 4 3 3 3) in Goren’s point count !

Bidding contest – Bridge Magazine, 2007.

ª KJxx ª Qx
© xx © Axxx
¨ AKxxx ¨ Qxxx
§ xx § Axx
The question asked was : « What do you bid after this auction ?: »
1¨ 1©
1ª 2 NT
?
Comment from the contest moderater : « The large majority of
champions answering the quiz passed on 2 NT – nothing unusual here
with only 11 H pts facing 11/12 H pts. But 3 NT was on, thanks to the
diamond suit running ».
Well, had West shown his 5 diamonds by bidding 3 ¨ on East’s
2 NT, East could now add 3 points for the 9-card ¨ fit with the
Queen and, with 13 ½ HF pts, he could now bid 3 NT over 3 ¨.

17
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – Fit POINTS

Now, let’s look at some hands with 8-card fits :

World Championship, teams, 1969 (USA/Italy).
ª AQx ª KJxx
© Kx © Axxx
¨ AKxxx ¨ Qxx
§ xxx § KQ
Both teams played 3 NT. Without a major-suit fit or a 9-card ¨ fit,
East, with 14 H pts, does not “see” a slam opposite a 16 or 17 H
pts 1 NT opening and settles in 3 NT after a 2 § Stayman bid.
But West has 18 HL pts, not 16 or 17, and if East can discover
opener’s 5 diamonds, the Optimal point count will enable him to
count a total of 34 HLFit pts between the two hands :
18 HL + 14 H + 2 pts for the 8-card ¨ fit with the Queen = 34 pts
= slam zone.
And 6 NT should not be difficult to get to after a start such as :
1¨ 1©
2 NT (balanced, 18/19 HL pts)

Final of World Championship, teams, 1984.

ª Q J 10 x x x ª Kx
© Axx © J 10 x
¨ Ax ¨ xxxx
§ Ax § Kxxx
One team played 4 ª, down one, while the other played 2 NT.
The right contract is 3 NT.
West has 18 ½ HL/19 ½ pts (no King) and East has 7 H pts (no
Queen) + 2 pts for the 8-card ª fit with the King = 27 ½ total pts.
And the bidding could be :
1ª 1 NT
3 ª (6 spades, 17/19 pts) 3 NT
Without distibutional values, 3 NT should be preferred to 4 ª.

Regional tournament, 2005 (U.K.).

ª xxxx ª xxx
© Axx © xx
¨ AQxx ¨ K J 10 x
§ Ax § KQJx

18
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – Fit POINTS

The bidding was, most often (Acol) :

1 NT (12/14 H pts) Pass
And the 3 NT game was missed.
But East has 11 H pts, not 10, and should invite to game, on which
West, with 14 ½ pts (no King), will bid 3 NT. These two hands
actually add up to 26 ½ pts with 1 point for the 8-card ¨ fit.

Regional tournament, 2012.

ª Axx ª xx
© xx © Axx
¨ Kxx ¨ AQJxx
§ AQxxx § K 10 x
In this tournament, most West openers rebid 1 NT, 12/14 H pts, on
which East responders, counting their hand for 15 HL pts, did not
“see” a NT slam and invariably concluded in 3 NT.
But the correct point count is this : West has 15 HL pts, not 13 H or
14 HL pts. On a 1 NT opening of 15/17 HL pts, East has 17 ½ HL pts
(1 point for 3 honors in a 5-card suit) and can readily envision a
possible slam. The bidding could then have been the following :
1 NT (15/17 HL) 2 ¨ (forcing Stayman)
3 § (5 §, no 4-card Mjr) 3 ª ? (Guard spades ?)
3 NT (Yes, ª guarded) 4 § ? (RKC Ask, § trump)
4 NT (2 Keys with § Q) 5 ¨ ? (K & Q ¨ Ask)
5 NT (¨ King) 6 NT
Once West’s 5 clubs are known, East can add 2 pts for the 8-card
§ fit with the King and can count a minimum of 34 HLF pts for his
side = slam zone. All that is left for East to do now is to inquire
about West’s Key Cards before concluding in 6 NT.
(West cannot have another King for 7 NT, as this would then give
him 18 HL pts and he would not have opened 1 NT).
With the 8-card ¨ fit, E/W actually have 36 ½ HLF pts – for two
hands counted 29 HL pts in Goren’s point count.

B) DISTRIBUTION-FIT POINTS.
Distribution-Fit points in a support hand with 2, 3 or 4 trumps are
the difference between the number of trumps held by the support
hand and the number of cards in the support hand’s shortest suit.
Applying this rule translates as follows for each specific case :

19
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – Fit POINTS

– In a hand with 2-card trump support : a doubleton counts for

0 point (2 - 2), a singleton for 1 point (2 - 1), a void for 2 pts (2 - 0).
– In a hand with 3-card trump support : a doubleton counts for
1 point (3 - 2), a singleton for 2 pts (3 - 1), a void for 3 pts (3 - 0).
– In a hand with 4-card trump support : a doubleton counts for
2 pts (4 - 2), a singleton for 3 pts (4 - 1), a void for 4 pts (4 - 0).

Caution : This calculation does not apply to a hand having

5 trump cards as these 5 cards would not constitute trump
support – they would be the long side of the suit, whether Partner
has 4 or 5 cards in that suit. Therefore, that hand should only count
the distribution points that apply to an opening hand i.e. 2 pts for
a singleton, not the difference between 5 trumps and the short suit.
The following table recaps the above mentioned values :

Number of trumps in Fit support ….. 4 3 2

DISTRIBUTION-FIT POINTS Void .… 4 pts 3 pts 2 pts
Singleton .… 3 pts 2 pts 1 pt
Doubleton .…. 2 pts 1 pt 0 pt

As the above table shows, the traditional 5 3 1 distribution point

count for, respectively, void, singleton, doubleton in a hand with a
4-card trump support is not accurate : a doubleton in a hand with
4-card support is worth 2 pts, not 1.
These Distribution-Fit points must be counted in addition to the
points attributed for long suits (1 point for a 5-card suit, 2 pts for a
6-card suit, etc.), to the points attributed for fits, and to the points
attributed for honors in a fit.

WASTED HONOR POINTS

A factor that will significantly modify the value of a hand, particu-

larly when it comes to suit contracts, is the effective value of honors
depending upon whether they are opposite a long suit or a short
suit in partner’s hand.
Statistical data reveal that honors lose an important part of their
value when they are opposite a singleton or a void in partner’s
hand : in these cases, on average, 2 points should be deducted as
“wasted” opposite a singleton, while 3 points should be deducted
as “wasted” opposite a void – with fewer than 2 or 3 pts opposite
a short suit, just deduct the points that you counted in that suit.

20
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – WASTED HONOR POINTS

The only exception being the Ace with no other honor, which
should not be downgraded when opposite a singleton.
Conversely, a suit without a single honor opposite a singleton or a
void has no “wasted honor pts” and the hand must be upgraded :
by 2 points opposite a singleton, by 3 points opposite a void.
That is because, in these cases, the honors in the hand opposite the
short suit complement fully those held by the hand with the short
suit and, furthermore, the short suit will often enable the elimi-
nation, through ruffing, of one or more small losing cards held by
the hand opposite the short suit.
Note : the suit without a single honor opposite a singleton, or
void, should have 3 cards (or more) to count + 2 or + 3 pts. Two
cards only will provide no more than one ruff for which a value of
2 D pts has already been accounted for by the partner.
Let’s look at some examples now, illustrating both the Distribution
-Fit points and “wasted honor points”.
Bridge Dictionary – G. Versini, 1968.
ª KQxx ª AJxx
© x © xxxx
¨ xxx ¨ xx
§ AQxxx § Kxx
This example, from the above-mentioned book, prompted this
comment from the author : « in a case like this one, where the hands are
valued at 23 HDS pts – far below the 27 HDS pts needed for a game – the
Goren point count does not adequately translate this perfect Fit and honor
mesh ».
50 years after this very pertinent observation, we should have
found a more accurate hand evaluation method that counts 29 total
pts between these hands, not 23! Now, at long last, we have :
West has 14 ½ HLD pts, not 11 H/12 HL pts! And East has 7 ½ H pts
(no Q) + 1 point for the 8-card ª Fit + 2 pts for the 8-card § Fit with
the King + 2 D pts for the ¨ doubleton with 4 trumps + 2 pts for “no
wasted honor pts” in © = 29 HLDFit pts.
And bidding the 4 ª contract could be done as easily as follows :
1§ 1ª
3 © (“mini-Splinter”) 4ª
Clearly, the Optimal point count should make bidding these hands
much easier !
21
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – WASTED HONOR POINTS

Bidding contest – Le Bridgeur, 1978.

ª Kxx ª Axx
© AKxx © Q 10 x x
¨ AQx ¨ KJxxx
§ xxx § x
Comment from the contest moderator : « Some hands seem to defy
traditional hand evaluation! Applying the traditional trump support
count to East’s hand only brings the combined total to : 16 H + 14 S = 30
HDS pts, far below the 33 pts needed for a slam ».
Well, that was 1978 !... Today, we know better : on West’s 1 NT
opening and 2 © response to East’s 2 § Stayman, East can count 17
HLDF pts (3 pts for the § singleton in a hand with 4 trumps) and
knows that his side is in slam zone opposite a minimum opener.
Up to the bidding system now to get to 6 ©.
These two hands actually add up to 36 pts with 1 additional point
for the 8-card ¨ fit + 2 pts for no “wasted honor pts” in clubs.

« Prepared deals » tournament, 2002.

ª QJxx ª AKxx
© x © xxx
¨ AKxxx ¨ Qxx
§ Axx § Kxx
The bidding was, almost invariably :
1¨ 1ª
3ª 4ª
And the 6 ª slam was missed.
West counting his hand for 16 HD pts – instead of 18 HLD – makes a
rebid indicating 17 to 19 HDS pts which does not enable East, with
his 12 pts, to “see” more than 31 total pts and consider a slam –
particularly without the knowledge of West’s © singleton.
But the reality is quite different : on his partner’s 1 ª, West should
count his hand for 18 HLD pts + 2 pts for the 8-card ª Fit with Q J
+ 1 for the © singleton with 4 trumps = 21 pts. That’s enough points
for a “splinter” bid in hearts. East could then add to his 11 H pts (-1
point for 4 3 3 3) 2 pts for “no wasted honor pts” in hearts for a
minimum of : 20 + 13 = 33 total pts = slam zone. Actually, the total
number of points between the two hands adds up to 36 pts, with 2
additional pts for the 8-card ¨ Fit with the Queen.

22
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – WASTED HONOR POINTS

Regional tournament, 2006.

ª xxx ª Axx
© AKQxxx © xx
¨ Axx ¨ KQJxx
§ x § xxx
The bidding was often :
1© 1 NT
2© 2 NT or 3 ¨
3© 4©
And the 6 © slam was missed. Here again, nothing unusual in tradi-
tional count.
But West’s hand has 20 HLD pts, not 15 HL (4 pts for the 6 hearts with
3 honors and 9 pts for 2 Aces). However, this more accurate point
count will still not be sufficient to point to a slam unless West
describes a much stronger hand than described by his 2 © and 3 ©
rebids – truly horrible rebids – and his § singleton.
A strong § opening could lead, instead, to the following auction :
1 § (16 + HL pts) 1 NT (7/12 HL pts)
2 © (6 + ©, 18/20 HLD) 2 NT (relay)
3 § (§ singleton)
East could then count, in his own hand : 12 ½ HL pts + 2 pts for “no
wasted honor pts” in clubs = 14 ½ pts + 18 minimum = slam zone.
All East has to do now is to check on Key Cards before concluding
in 6 ©. Two hands which add up to 35 ½ HLDF pts with 1 additional
point for the 8-card ¨ Fit – but counted only 27 HLD “Goren” pts !

Regional tournament, 2009.

ª KQxxx ª Axx
© AJx © xx
¨ xxxx ¨ A J 10 x
§ x § xxxx
The bidding was most often :
1ª 2ª
Pass

23
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – WASTED HONOR POINTS

Here again, nothing unusual in traditional point count…

But East has 11 HDFit pts (9 pts for 2 Aces, 2 pts for ¨ J 10, minus
2 pts for no King, no Queen but + 1 for the 8-card ª Fit + 1 D point
for the © doubleton). Thus, East’s 2 ª raise (limited to 10 pts) was
not the right bid.
But the key is to detect West’s § singleton opposite East’s four small
clubs. Not very difficult, if East “relays”, such as :
1ª 1 NT (forcing)
2 ¨ (5 ª 4 ¨, 13/15 HLD) 2 © (3rd suit forcing)
3 © (3 hearts = § singleton) 4ª
Upon learning of West’s § singleton, East can add to his 11 HDFit
pts, 2 pts for “no wasted honor pts” in § + 1 point for the 8-card ¨ Fit
= 14 HLDF pts + 13 HLD pts minimum in West = 27 pts = 4 ª.
___________________________________________________________

You will find, on the next page, a table summarizing the elements
we just covered.

24
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT

SUMMARY OF FIT POINTS AND WASTED HONOR POINTS

FIT Points

8-card Fit : + 1 pt 9-card Fit : + 2 pts 10 + card Fit : + 3 pts

+ 1 for honor(s) in suit(s) with a Fit when the honor(s) are < 4 pts
These Fit points count for All suits and All contracts (suit or NT)

DISTRIBUTION-FIT Points WITH A TRUMP FIT

The difference between the number of trumps and the number of

cards in the support hand’s shortest suit.

Number of trumps : 4 3 2
Distribution-Fit points Void : 4 pts 3 pts 2 pts
Singleton : 3 pts 2 pts 1 pt
Doubleton : 2 pts 1 pt 0 pt

WASTED HONOR Points

Honors (except Aces) opposite a singleton : -2 pts

opposite a void : -3 pts
Not a single honor : opposite a singleton : + 2 pts
opposite a void : + 3 pts
An Ace without any other honor opposite a singleton or a void :
No point deduction. An Ace third opposite a singleton : + 1 point

Next, we will cover the other point count adjustments needed for
incremental precision to reach optimal accuracy.

25
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – MISFIT POINTS

MISFIT Points

The precise quantification of “downgrading” and “upgrading” into

“wasted honor points” that was just reviewed refers to corrections
made by the hand that is opposite one with a short suit.
And the same principle applies when a player is short in partner’s
long suit – and that situation is just as important.
Indeed, one of the most critical challenges in Bridge is to be able to
detect quickly a misfit between two hands – before reaching too high
a level. And to avoid exceeding the bidding safety level, an effective
hand evaluation method should accurately quantify misfits.
Yet, the traditional point count totally ignores the precise quantifi-
cation of misfits – and it is indeed on the key issues of Fits and Misfits
that its deficiencies are the most significant.
We will now address the key issue of misfits.

A. MISFIT POINTS IN A SUIT

A misfit in a suit occurs when one player is short in his partner’s long
suit – which is always a weakness when the long suit is of 5 cards or
more. And being short in partner’s long suit must be defined not just
as a singleton or a void but also as a doubleton without any honor.
And the negative value of such misfits can and must be quantified,
similar to that applying to the “wasted honor points” count :
– When a player has a void in partner’s long suit (5 + cards), he must
downgrade his hand by 3 points ; when he has a singleton in partner’s
long suit, he must downgrade his hand by 2 points (whether or not
the singleton is an honor) and when he has a doubleton without any
honor in partner’s long suit, he must downgrade his hand by 1 point.
So, in summary :
– Deduct 1 point for a doubleton without any honor in partner’s long
suit ( 5 + cards).
– Deduct 2 points for a singleton in partner’s long suit – even if the
singleton is an honor.
– Deduct 3 points for a void in partner’s long suit.
Following are some examples illustrating this misfit point count.

26
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – MISFIT POINTS

Final of National selection, 1981.

ª xx ª Qxx
© A J 10 x x © Q
¨ Kxxx ¨ QJxx
§ Kx § AQxxx
3 teams out of 4 played 3 NT, down two. The auction was often :
1© 2§
2¨ 3¨
3© 3 NT
Comment by the reporter of the deal : « Can East, with his 13 points,
be expected to stop short of game ? That is beyond anyone’s capability…».
13 points? What 13 points ?!... East only has 9 ½ pts, not 13. Let’s count
them together : 7 ½ HL pts in clubs, 3 pts in diamonds, ½ pt for the
singleton © Q minus 2 misfit pts for the © singleton in West’s 5-card
suit, + 1 ½ pts for the isolated ª Q, minus 1 for no King = 9 ½ pts.
Therefore, East’s 2 § bid was inappropriate and the bidding should
have been :
1© 1 NT
2¨ 3¨
Pass
West does not have the points for a game – in NT or in diamonds.

From M. Bergen’s 2002 booklet on « Hand Evaluation ».

In this booklet, M. Bergen refers to the following hand, opened 1 NT
by one of his readers :
ª A 10 x © A 10 x x x ¨ A x x § A x
And comments on it as follows : « This hand is much too strong to be
opened 1 NT. Counting 4 ½ pts per Ace + ½ point for two 10s = 18 ½ pts,
plus upgrading for the 5-card © suit. Open this hand 1 © ».
Well, such a point count will lead straight to 3 NT opposite this
hand :
ª KQx © xx ¨ Kxxx § xxxx
A contract guaranteed to fail with opponents taking at least 3 clubs
and 2 heart tricks before Declarer can score 9 tricks.
But the right point count would avoid bidding this doomed contract.

27
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – MISFIT POINTS

First, the opener’s hand is, in fact, worth 17 HL pts, certainly not
18 ½ +, once 2 pts have been deducted for no King and no Queen –
and zero points for two worthless Tens.
But it should be opened 1 © anyway (rather than 1 NT with a 5-card
Major) on which partner should count his hand for 7 H pts only, not
8, as 1 misfit point should be deducted for a doubleton without any
honor in opener’s 5-card suit. The bidding can then be :
1© 1 NT (7/9 HL pts)
2 NT (invites game) Pass (minimum)

European championships, 2006 (France/Israel).

ª Axxxx ª ---
© Jx © Kxxx
¨ Axx ¨ KQJxxx
§ Kxx § 10 x x
The French team plays 3 NT, down two. That is because the misfit
was not precisely quantified.
On West’s 1 ª opening, East must count his hand for 10 pts : 13 HL
pts (10 pts in diamonds for 6 ¨ with 3 honors + 3 for the © K) minus
3 pts for the ª void in opener’s 5-card suit = 10 pts. Therefore, a 2 ¨
response by East is inappropriate. Instead, a 1 NT response would
avoid over-reaching to 3 NT and the side should be able to sign off
in 2 or 3 ¨.

Exercise : « Whose fault is it ? » – Le Bridgeur, 2012.

ª x ª KJxxx
© Kxx © Axx
¨ AKxxxx ¨ Qx
§ Kxx § J 10 x
The bidding was : 1 ¨ 1ª
2¨ 2 © (3rd suit forcing)
3¨ Pass
Comments from the East player who submitted the deal : « Result :
made 4 ¨ – but 3 NT was missed… After my strong 2 © bid, I had nothing
more to add! But shouldn’t West, with his strong 13 pts, have bid 3 NT ? ».
It’s always the partner’s fault, isn’t it ?!...

28
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – MISFIT POINTS

But having 3 NT bid by the player with a singleton is not the

solution. And a poor point count has its share of the blame too.
East has 12 ½ HL pts (2 pts for J 10 of §) which justifies a perfectly
descriptive 2 NT bid on his part and bids NT from the right hand,
too, instead of 2 © which describes… nothing.
Now West, with his 15 ½ HL pts (2 pts for 6 diamonds + 1 point for
3 Kings but - 1 point for no Queen) can add 1 point for a guaranteed
8-card ¨ Fit but deduct 2 pts for his singleton in partner’s long suit :
14 ½ pts + 11 HL minimum = 25 ½ pts. West can now bid 3 NT.

« Practice your defence » – Le Bridgeur, 2011.

ª Qxxx ª AJ
© Q © Axxxx
¨ Qxxxx ¨ 10 x x
§ AQx § Kxx
The bidding was : 1 ¨ (!) 1©
1ª 2§
2 NT 3 NT
Down 2. Impressive opening by West !… who must have “seen” 11
or 12 H pts in his hand ?!... when he only has 9 !
With no point to be added for the 5 diamonds not headed by at least
Q J or K, -1 pt for no King and only ½ point for the © singleton Q,
West only has 9 H pts and 11 HLD and should not open.
The bidding should have been :
Pass 1©
1ª 1 NT (12/14 HL)
Pass
Now, on East’s 1 © opening, West has even fewer than 9 H pts !
He has a total of 7 pts once 2 pts are deducted for the © singleton
misfit in opener’s 5-card suit. West must pass on opener’s 1 NT.

B. MISFIT POINTS IN NO TRUMP

Misfits also exist at NT : when there is a singleton (or, worse, a void)
in one hand or the other. These cases were identified by J-R. Vernes
who wrote this on the subject, in 1995 :
« A singleton is always a weakness at NT. But statistical analysis reveals
that the importance of a singleton, in a NT contract, varies considerably
depending upon whether it is in dummy’s hand or in declarer’s hand.

29
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT – MISFIT POINTS

This is quite naturally explained by the fact that a singleton in

declarer’s hand exposes dummy to a lead “through” its guard(s) in the suit,
which is not the case when the singleton is in dummy’s hand.
It results from this that one must avoid, as much as possible, to announce
NT himself when his hand has a singleton ».
Therefore, a clear distinction should be made between the two
situations. This can and should be precisely quantified, as follows :
when a NT contract is proposed by one player or the other, 2 points
should be deducted for a singleton in the hand of the player bidding
NT first, while 1 point should be deducted for a singleton in the hand
of the player who supports a NT bid by his partner.
If the short suit is a void (playing a NT contract with a void is not
recommended!), deduct 3 pts in the first case, 2 pts in the second case.

OTHER POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS

There are two final point count adjustments to make for “incremental
precision” to reach optimal accuracy.

A) Semi-fit points.
There is a “semi-Fit” when a hand has an honor doubleton, other than
an Ace, in partner’s long suit of 5 + cards. This applies to both hands
– whether in response to an opening bid or in a rebid position.
An Ace doubleton does not need to be upgraded, as its 4 ½ pts value
already factors this in; the upgrade applies to the King, the Queen
and the Jack .
– In such cases, 1 semi-fit point must be added. Thus, a Jack
doubleton in partner’s long suit counts for 1 point (instead of zero),
a Queen doubleton counts for 2 points (instead of 1) and a King
doubleton counts for 4 pts (instead of 3).
This upgrading of a doubleton King, Queen or Jack in partner’s long
suit is justified by the fact that they will, in most cases, considerably
facilitate the development of partner’s long suit.
B) Abundance of Kings and Queens in the same hand.
Furthermore, another factor has never before been identified and
quantified : and that is that the abundance of Kings (3 or 4) in the same
hand warrants one additional point. Here is why :
First, the average statistical value of a King is 3.15 pts, which means
that half a point should be added for 3 Kings.

30
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT

But the true value of 3 or more Kings in the same hand is actually
greater than half a point as these multiple Kings add value to any and
all Queens in partner’s hand, whether the Queens are isolated or not.
Therefore, it is in fact the absence or the abundance of Kings (3 or 4)
which determines, in part, the value of Queens – and of Jacks and,
to a degree, of Aces, as well – in the two hands of the same side.
Thus, the following corrections must be made to the number of
points attributed to Kings :
Add 1 point for a hand with 3 Kings.
Add 2 pts for a hand with all 4 Kings to compensate for the 1 point
deduction that will be made by a partner with no King.
And 1 point must be added to a hand with all 4 Queens to compen-
sate for the 1 point that partner will deduct from his hand for having
no Queen as 4 Queens will, in most cases, add value to the Kings and
Jacks in partner’s hand.
It should also be noted that a responder holding all 4 Aces (rare)
should add 1 point to his hand to compensate for the 1 point that the
opener has deducted from his hand for having no Ace.

POINT COUNT IN RESPONSE TO A NT BID

Last, but not least : In response to a NT opening, 1 NT or 2 NT, almost

all Bridge books refer to points being counted as honor pts, HL pts
for some, and specifically that the 2 § Stayman response requires 8
H pts minimum on a 15/17 1NT opening, 10 H pts on a 13/15 1NT
opening or 11 H pts on a 12/14 weak 1 NT opening.
The justification being that : 1) if a 4 - 4 fit in a major is not found, the
side must have at least 23 H pts to play at the level of 2 NT, and
2) you should not look for a NT game with fewer than 25 H pts.
But we know now that this is a serious point-count error – as it doesn’t
take into account Fit points which apply just as well to NT contracts.
As a result, a hand which has been opened 1 NT can be upgraded by
as many as 4 or 5 pts just by finding an 8-card Fit.
The following examples will illustrate this :
ª Axx ª x
© AQxx © Kxxx
¨ Kxx ¨ QJxx
§ Axx § xxxx
4 © should be bid here even though East only has 6 H pts.

31
 POINT COUNT IN RESPONSE TO A NT BID

For East to pass on a 15/17 1NT opening for having less than the
“prescribed” 8 H pts would therefore be a serious mistake.
In response to a NT opening – or to a NT rebid by the opener – the
responder must count his HLD points, not his H points only !
The principle of this rule is quite logically this : one of the two hands
of the same side must always count its distribution points – and since a
NT opener does not count D pts, the responder must count his D pts.
In the example above, East should therefore count 2 D pts for his
ª singleton, which gives him 8 HD pts, enabling him to bid a 2 §
Stayman. Once the © Fit has been found, East can count his hand for
8 HD pts + 2 pts for the 8-card © Fit with the King + 1 point for a
singleton with 4 trumps = 11 HDF pts. The points for 4 © opposite a
1 NT opening.
And modifying these hands to remove East’s singleton and the © Fit,
could still give them a point count justifying, this time, 3 NT, like :
ª Axx ª xx
© AQx © Kxxx
¨ Kxxx ¨ QJxxx
§ Axx § xx
East, with 8 HLD pts (1 D point for the 2 doubletons) must not pass !
If he can find the 9-card ¨ Fit, his 10 HL pts (+ 3 pts for the 9-card ¨
Fit with Q J) will enable him to bid to 3 NT.
Here again, passing on a 15/17 1NT opening, counting East for only
6 H pts or 7 HL pts, would be a serious mistake.
Conclusion : On a NT opening, the responder must count his D
pts. To make a Stayman bid, he needs 8 HLD pts on a 15/17 H pt NT
and he needs 10 HLD pts on a 12/14 H pt NT.
Making it a pre-requisite for the side to have no less than 23 H pts to be
able to play 2 NT to make a 2 § Stayman inquiry over a 1 NT opening
is a serious error.
When the responder does not find an 8-card Fit in a Major while the
opener is minimum, in most cases it will be better to play a suit
contract, even at the level of 3, rather than 2 NT.
Let’s look at some examples illustrating this point count after a 1 NT
opening.

32
 POINT COUNT IN RESPONSE TO A NT BID

Regional tournament, 2005 (U.K.).

ª xxxx ª Axx
© Axx © xx
¨ AQxx ¨ Kxxx
§ Kx § Q J 10 x
The Acol bidding was, almost invariably :
1 NT (12/14 H) Pass
And the 3 NT game was missed.
But East has 11 ½ H pts (1 point for the 10 with the J), not 10, and
should have bid an invitational 2 NT, on which the opener should
bid 3 NT as he has 14 H pts (9 pts for 2 Aces), not 13.
Actually, these two hands add up to 27 ½ HF pts with 2 pts for the
8-card ¨ Fit with the King. And the full value of the § 10 and of the
8-card ¨ Fit are vividly illustrated in this deal !

ND 1 (National Division), team of four, 2015.

One last example now, illustrating several elements of the optimal
point count :
ª Axx ª x
© Kxxx © A J 10 x
¨ AKxx ¨ J 10 x x x
§ Kx § xxx
In the quarter-finals of ND 1, in 2015, 3 teams out of 4 bid as follows :
1 NT (15/17) Pass
East, not having the “prescribed” 8 H pts, passed…
Cumulative point count errors which led to missing the 4 © game.
East must count his HD points on a NT opening! and, of course, his
Tens. Which gives him 8 ½ HD pts (-2 pts for no King, no Queen), not
6 H pts. He should make a 2 § Stayman inquiry. With 1 point for the
© Fit + 1 more point for the ª singleton with 4 trumps, the side may
now be able to find the © game. Maybe...
But the first point count mistake comes from the opener who has
18 H pts, not 17 (9 pts for two Aces + 1 point for 3 Kings -1 point for
no Queen). Opening the West hand 1 NT was therefore not the right
bid.

33
 POINT COUNT IN RESPONSE TO A NT BID

A 1 ¨ (or a strong §) opening would enable West to reach the proper

point count immediately upon East’s 1 © reply as he could add 2 pts
for the 8-card © Fit with the King + 2 D pts for the § doubleton with
4 trumps = 22 HDF pts + 5 H pts minimum in East = 27 HDF pts.
Actually, E/W have 3 additional pts for the 9-card ¨ Fit with J 10.
Better yet, a strong 1 § opening would allow to bid the game from
the West hand, thus protecting the § K against a club lead :
1 § (16 H +) 1 ¨ (less than 7 HL pts)
1 NT (18/20 HL) 2 § (Stayman)
2© 4©
10 ½ HDF pts in East + 18 HL pts in West = 28 ½ pts = 4 ©

This last example deal features several key elements of the Optimal
point count : 9 pts for 2 Aces, + 1 point for 3 Kings in the same hand,
-1 point for no Queen, -2 pts for no King, no Queen, 2 pts for J 10, no
points for a 5-card suit with fewer than 3 H pts, and Fit pts.

___________________________________________________________

You will find on the next page a complete and final 2-page summary
of the Optimal point count.

34
 OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION

COMPLETE SUMMARY OF OPTIMAL POINT COUNT

HONOR Points

Ace : 4 ½ pts K : 3 pts Q w/ A, K, J : 2 pts isolated Q : 1 ½ pts

J w/ A, K, Q : 1 pt isolated J : ½ pt
10 isolated or with an Ace : 0 pt 10 with a King : ½ pt
10 with a Queen or a Jack : 1 pt J 10 : 2 pts
No Ace : -1 point (Opening hands only).
No King : -1 point 3 Ks : + 1 point 4 Ks : + 2 pts
No Queen : -1 point 4 Qs : + 1 point
3 + Honors in a 5-card suit : + 1 pt In a 6 + card suit : + 2 pts
-1 pt for one Honor singleton (incl. Ace) for 2 Honors doubleton
Q doubleton (Q x) : 1 point J doubleton (J x) : zero pts

LENGTH Points

1 point for a 5-card suit (headed by at least 3 H pts i.e. Q J)

2 pts for a 6-card suit (headed by at least Q J, if not 1 pt only)
2 pts for each card from the 7th on (even without any honor).

DISTRIBUTION Points

Void : 4 pts singleton : 2 pts Two doubletons : 1 point

One doubleton : zero pts 4 3 3 3 distribution : -1 point
A singleton at a NT contract : -1 point

Opening hands must be counted in HLD pts and the above

point count applies to all opening hands.
Responding hands are counted in HL pts only – 2 L pts max.
initially. They will add D pts once a Fit has been found.

35
 OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION

COMPLETE SUMMARY OF OPTIMAL POINT COUNT

FIT Points

8-card Fit : + 1 pt 9-card Fit : + 2 pts 10 + card Fit : + 3 pts

+ 1 for honor(s) in suit(s) with a Fit when the honor(s) are < 4 pts
These Fit points count for All suits and All contracts (suit or NT)

DISTRIBUTION-FIT Points WITH A TRUMP FIT

They are the difference between the number of trumps and the
number of cards in the support hand’s shortest suit.
Number of trumps : 4 3 2
Distribution-Fit points Void : 4 pts 3 pts 2 pts
Singleton : 3 pts 2 pts 1 pt
Doubleton : 2 pts 1 pt 0 pt

WASTED HONOR Points

Honors (except Aces) opposite a singleton : -2 pts

opposite a void : -3 pts
Not a single honor (w/3 + cards) : opposite a singleton : + 2 pts
opposite a void : + 3 pts
An Ace without any other honor : opposite a singleton : + 1 point

MISFIT Points

Opposite a long suit (5 + cards) in Partner’s hand :

-3 pts for a void -2 pts for a singleton
-1 pt for a doubleton without an honor
2 perfectly “Mirror” Hands : -2 pts 2 “Mirror” suits : -1 pt

SEMI-FIT Points

+ 1 for doubleton K x, Q x, or J x in partner’s long suit (5 + cards).

36
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT

CONVERSION TABLE : CONVERTING POINTS TO CORRESPONDING TRICKS

To be of value, a point count must translate into corresponding tricks,

at each specific playing level – partial, game or slam.
The table below reflects that relationship.
CONVERSION TABLE – BETWEEN POINTS AND TRICKS

At the level of : 8 Tricks 9 Tricks 10 Tricks 11 Tricks 12 Tricks 13 Tricks

_______ _______ ________ ________ _______ _______
Total points needed
At No Trump : 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 37 +

At a suit : 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 +

The number in bold, in the middle of each series of three numbers,

represents the optimal number of total points between two hands
needed to bid to the level of tricks indicated :
For part-score and game contracts, the first number in each series
corresponds to a probability of success around 45 % and constitutes
the minimum number of points required to play at that level, the
middle number corresponds to a 50 to 55 % success probability, the
third number corresponds to a 60 + % success probability.
For small slams, the first number corresponds to a success
probability of 50 % (minimum number of points required to play at
that level), the middle number corresponds to a success probability
of 55 to 60 %, while the third number corresponds to a success
probability of 65 % +.
For grand slams, the first number corresponds to a 70 % success
probability (minimum number of points required to play at that
level), the middle number corresponds to a success probability of
75 %, while the third number corresponds to a probability of 80 %.
The key reference numbers to remember – those allowing an
optimal chance of success – are therefore the following :
26 points (HLF pts) to play 3 NT, 27 pts (HLDF pts) to play a game
contract in a Major suit, 30 pts (HLDF pts) for a game contract in a
minor suit, 33 pts (HLDF pts) for a small slam in a suit and 34 pts
(HLF pts) for a small slam in NT.

37
 CONVERTING POINTS INTO CORRESPONDING TRICKS

And the total number of points shown above, unlike the traditional
point count, includes All points : Honor pts, Length pts, Distribution
pts, Fit and Misfit pts, and “wasted honor pts” !
The optimal point conversion table above is based on empirical
statistics (see, at the bottom of this page, the methodology used).
Finally, an important precision and reminder : having 27 total pts
between two hands does not mean that a game in a Major can be
“predicted” – the count only indicates that the two hands have the
points corresponding to a potential game.
The true test of an accurate evaluation method is the reverse, and
that is : when a contract has the right odds to be bid and played, then
the evaluation method should show the corresponding points for it.
And not just 75 or 80 % of the time ; The optimal point count meets
that criteria over 95 % of the time. And you can easily verify this
yourself through your own compilation of empirical statistics.
The corollary of the above statement is just as important : when the
optimal point count does not add up to a minimum of 25 total pts
for 3 NT or 32 total pts for a suit small slam, you can be 95 % sure
that these contracts are not odds-on and should not be bid.
And both above statements can certainly not be made by any other
existing hand evaluation method !
N.B. The above optimal point conversion table was arrived at
through the analysis of some 6 875 contracts (observed in over 4 000
deals) as follows : on every deal, any odds-on contract, whether in
North/South, East/West or both, was recorded with the correspon-
ding probability of success and the number of optimal points the
side had.
For example, of all 3 NT contracts recorded as odds-on, only 3.4 %
had fewer than 25 total optimal pts, 25 % had 25 pts, 34 % had 26
pts, 28 % had 27 pts and about 10 % had over 27 pts; then 25 optimal
pts was identified as the minimum needed for a 3 NT contract.
Then, each number was compared to the success probability (%) to
establish which point count corresponded to a contract with a 45 %
success probability, or 50 to 55 %, etc.
___________________________________________________________

38
 Implications of the Optimal point count on bidding

As we will see next, the Optimal Hand Evaluation point count has
far-reaching implications on some bidding practices and principles
which warrant mention. Such as :
– Bids that ignore or prevent the accounting of possible Fit pts should
be abandoned, such as the invitational 2NT response to a 1NT
opening, or the “quantitative” 4 NT jump on a 1 NT or 2 NT opening.
Such bids should be given meanings other than the traditional ones.
– “Splinter” bids at the level of 4 must have a minimum of 15 HLDF
pts (15/17 point zone, instead of 13/15), as 13 or 14 HLDF pts
opposite an opener with a minimum 13 HLD pts hand will not add
up to 26 + pts whenever a singleton (or a void) finds “wasted honor
pts” in partner’s hand.
– The discovery that Fit points count for all suits and all contracts,
including No Trump, now rules out “hiding” a 6-card minor single-
suit behind a No Trump opening. Illustrations :
Readers’ mail, 2010 – Le Bridgeur.
ª A 10 x ª Kxx
© Ax © xxx
¨ xx ¨ xxxx
§ A K 10 x x x § Qxx
« We bid as follows : 1 § 1¨
2 NT Pass
« And missed the 3 NT game. What did we do wrong ? ».
The wrongdoing isn’t the players’ fault – it comes from the poor
bidding system played which prevents the appropriate point count.
East, with its 3 ½ pts (- 1 for 4 3 3 3), cannot bid 3 NT without knowing
about West’s 6 clubs – a fact well “concealed” by the opener !
Had East known it, he could have added 3 pts for the 9-card § Fit
with the Queen. A different auction could have been :
1§ 1¨
3 § (6 §, 17/19 HLD) 3 © ? (© guarded ?)
3 NT (yes, © guarded) Pass

– The unequivocal fact that opening hands must be counted in HLD

pts, not in H or HL pts only, dictates that weak 2 openings in a Major
must be 12/14 HLD pts, not 7 to 10 H pts which put the partnership
outside the bidding safety level and are, therefore, unplayable !

39
 IMPLICATIONS OF THE OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION ON BIDDING

Illustration : North, you hold this hand :

ª Kx
© QJxxx
¨ Axxx
§ xx
And your partner opened a weak 2 ª of 7/10 H pts. Which of these
two hands could he have ? :
Hand A Hand B
ª Q J 10 x x x ª AQxxxx
© Kx © Kxx
¨ xxx ¨ x
§ Qx § xxx
If he has hand A, you must not bid on as 2 ª already goes down one,
when the opponents don’t even have a play for a game in a Major –
but then you will miss 4 © opposite hand B.
And that is because hand A only has 10 HLD pts (one point only for
the § Q doubleton, one point only for the two doubletons, -1 point
for an Aceless opening hand). With your 13 ½ HLFit pts in spades in
North, the total isn’t close to 27 pts – if you knew it, you would pass.
Hand B, on the other hand, has 13 ½ HLDF pts + 2 pts for the 8-card
© Fit with the King + opener’s 13 ½ pts = 29 pts. And when you can
count on an opener having, at least, 12 HLD pts, you can safely
“relay” to discover South’s 6 ª 3 © 3 § 1 ¨ distribution and play
4 ©! Such as :
ª AQxxxx ª Kx
© Kxx © QJxxx
¨ x ¨ Axxx
§ xxx § xx
2 ª (6 ª, 12/14 HLD) 2 NT ? (relay)
3 ¨ (¨ singleton) 4©
Counting opening hands in H pts only is pure heresy! And is often
the reason weak 2 ª or © openings “boomerang” against their own
side.
– And this also applies to balanced hands which must be counted in
HL pts, not H pts. Thus, it is inconceivable to open the following
hand 1 NT, 13/15 or 14/16 or 15/17 H pts :

40
 IMPLICATIONS OF THE OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION ON BIDDING

ª Ax
© Q 10 x
¨ AKQxx
§ xxx
The above hand has 18 ½ HL pts ! (9 pts for 2 Aces, 2 ½ pts for Q 10,
1 L point for the 5 diamonds + 1 point for 3 honors in a 5-card suit).
Opening that hand 1 NT will invariably miss the 3 NT game opposite
a partner with this hand :
ª xx
© AKxx
¨ xxx
§ xxxx
18 ½ HL pts + 6 ½ H pts (no Queen) + 1 ¨ Fit pt = 26 HL pts = 3 NT.
– The critical importance of identifying precisely the length of suits,
for Fit pts, as well as singletons (or voids) in order to account for
“wasted honor pts”, prohibits jump raises that do not describe a short
suit. Illustration :
ª AQxx ª Kxxxx
© x © xxx
¨ AKxxx ¨ xx
§ xxx § KQx
If, in traditional bidding, the auction is :
1¨ 1ª
3 ª (ª Fit, 17/19 HLDF) ?
What is East to do now? He knows nothing about West’s ©/§
residual distribution. If West has a § singleton, he must pass.
But then, he will miss 4 ª if West has a © singleton...
Instead of : 1¨ 1ª
3 © (mini-splinter, ª Fit) 4ª
West’s “mini-splinter” indicates that he has 17/19 HLDF pts with at
least an 8-card ª Fit and a © singleton. East can now add 2 pts for
“no wasted honor pts” in hearts for 28 + HLDF pts = 4 ª.
– As well, “trial” bids following a trump raise should no longer be
inquiring about partner’s holding in a suit but should, instead, be
short-suit trial bids in order to assess “wasted honor pts”. Example :

41
 IMPLICATIONS OF THE OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION ON BIDDING

ª Axx ª xxx
© A K 10 x x © Qxxx
¨ QJxx ¨ K 10 x
§ x § KJx
If, in traditional bidding, the auction is :
1© 2©
3 ¨ (¨ strength ?) 4©
With the complementing diamond honor West is looking for, East
will conclude in 4 ©, but it won’t help – as the key is for West to
identify his singleton, enabling East to assess “wasted honor pts”.
While a 3 § “short suit” trial bid will enable East to stop in 3 ©.
Last, but not least, the most significant implication.
– All opening hands must be counted in HLD pts and opening bids
at the one level must be limited to a 6 HLD point zone : A) to stay
within the bidding level safety, and B) to enable a rebid, at the level
of two or three, to describe a point-zone no wider than 3 HLD pts.
Thus, if a 1 © or 1 ª opening covers a 6 HLD point zone of, say, 12 to
17 HLD pts, then this necessarily dictates using one opening bid to
identify hands above 17 HLD pts. The implication is unequivocal :
a strong 1 § (or strong 1 ¨) opening bid must be used to do that !
Thus, a 1 § opening would describe all hands of 18 + HLD pts, also
in 2 point-zones of 3 HLD pts : 18/20 and 21/23 + HLD pts.
So, now, playing a strong 1 § opening is no longer a “systemic choice
or personal preference” – it is a “must” for any bidding system !
This definitely fixes the most fundamental problem of traditional
bidding : a point range too wide for openings of 1 §, 1 ¨, 1 © or 1 ª,
a flaw denouced by H. Schenken as far back as 1963 when he wrote,
in his introduction to his bidding system « Better Bidding in 15
minutes : The Schenken Club », that « Traditional (American) bidding is
inaccurate and ineffective and has become obsolete… Its biggest problem
being the wide range of the opening of one ».
At the same time, bidding will benefit from the other advantages a
strong 1 § opening provides :
– Its forcing nature prevents an inappropriate Pass by a weak partner
while enabling him to know immediately the partnership’s minimum
strength – a significant benefit when opponents intervene.

42
 IMPLICATIONS OF THE OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION ON BIDDING

– The most economical 1 § opening gives partner the most bidding

space to describe his hand – and that’s as it should be as it is the
strong hand that should have the weaker hand described.
– It enables partner to make precise and aggressive “limit” bid
responses directly at the levels of two and three with 7/9 HL pts with
the assurance that their side has a minimum of 25 HLD pts.
– It also means that 1© and 1ª openings can now be “light”
openings in the 12/14 HLD point range. Thus, the following hands,
which would often be two passed hands in traditional point count and
bidding, can be bid to 7 © :
ª KQxxx ª Axxx
© K J 10 x x © Axxxx
¨ --- ¨ xxxx
§ xxx § ---
With 9 H pts (no Ace) but 15 HLD pts, West can open 1 ª and the
partnership should not fail to end up in 7 ©.
___________________________________________________________

As was illustrated above, the implications of the optimal point count

on bidding are significant and applying them is sure to lead to much
improved bidding and better results.
___________________________________________________________

43
44
 OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING

CHAPTER 2
________________________

Point count adjustments in competitive bidding

ASSESSING CURRENT HAND EVALUATION PRACTICES

In my first book, « Optimal Hand Evaluation », I repeatedly

referred to the extensive statistical studies conducted by J-R. Vernes
and B. Charles and the far-reaching conclusions they reached.
Yet, their studies made no reference to point count adjustments to
make to hands once the opponents have entered the bidding.
And they are not the only ones having neglected, if not ignored, this
crucial part of hand re-evaluation.
Rather surprising, considering that competitive bidding occurs over
60 % of the time !
What we do know is J-R. Vernes’ Law of Total Tricks * – published in
1966 in French and unveiled, in English, by the American champion
Larry Cohen, in 1992, in his book “To bid or not to bid”.
* Law of Total Tricks : Name given by J-R. Vernes to a principle which
enables “predicting” the total number of tricks that can be made by both
sides, each with their respective best trump suit, this total being appro-
ximately equal to the total number of trumps held by both sides.
And this translates into a simple rule : In competitive bidding situations,
with honor points relatively evenly-divided between the two sides (from 17
to 23 H pts), a side can ask for at least as many tricks as it has trumps,
with little risk as the bidding level is protected by “distributional safety” :
either the contract bid will make or the opponents would have made a
contract worth more than the penalty incurred.

Author’s Note : Far from being a “Law” – the total number of tricks
being equal to the total number of trumps held by both sides holds true
less than 40 % of the time (refer to the 2004 book « I Fought the Law »
co-written by the American champion M. Lawrence and A. Wirgren) –
the principle and its rule can be a useful guide and have constituted a
significant advance in competitive bidding as the total number of tricks
will be, in most cases, within one, + 1 or - 1, of the total number of
trumps – approximately being the key word in J-R.Vernes’ definition.
Thus, we will start with assessing “The Law” before moving on.

45
 COMPETITIVE BIDDING : THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

The very premise of the “Law of Total Tricks” is that the number of
trumps held by each team is the predominant factor that determines
the total number of tricks that can be expected from both teams in
competitive bidding situations.
In itself, a rather questionable premise as it is self-evident that
a number of other factors are just as important, in particular, the
hands’ distribution as well as the nature and location of honors –
factors particularly well-assessed by the Optimal point count.
And this also makes the “distributional safety” principle – a side can
bid for as many tricks as it has trumps – just as questionable.
A simple example deal will suffice to illustrate this :
ª AKxxx ª Qxxx
© K 10 x © AQxx
¨ xxx ¨ xx
§ Qx § xxx
9 spades, 9 tricks.
Now, “The Law” tells you that if you add one spade to East’s hand,
you can bid up to 4 ª in a competitive bidding situation as your
number of trumps is the predominant factor in determining the
number of tricks that you can expect and/or bid to.
Clearly, that is not so : it depends entirely on which card you traded
for your 5th spade. If it comes from a heart or from a club, you still
have 4 losers in clubs and diamonds – and the Optimal point count
gives East 12 HLDF pts. Opposite 13 HL pts, that’s the points for 3 ª,
not 4 ª. And the opponents do not have 4 © to play.
While if it comes from a diamond, a suit which now becomes a
singleton, your losers are down to three and you should bid 4 ª.
And the Optimal point count for East becomes 13 HLDF pts + 2 pts
for “no wasted honor pts” in diamonds = 28 total pts = 4 ª.
A “mini-splinter” bid will get you there.

The predominant factor determining the number of tricks you

can expect is the hand’s distribution, not the number of trumps !
Shorts suits, and their location, determine how effective
your trumps will be.

46
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

And the issue of 5 - 5 fits happens to be essential to assessing the

value and effectiveness of “The Law” and comparing it to that of
the Optimal point count. So, let’s study it, first, before moving on.
– On 5 - 5 fits, the Optimal point count considers both hands as
opening hands, each hand having the long 5-card suit, and counts
D points for short suits accordingly – 4 pts for a void, 2 pts for a
singleton, 1 point for 2 doubletons – not the difference between the
number of trumps and the number of cards in its short suit. Let’s see why.
– While a 6 - 4 fit is substantially superior to a 5 - 4 fit (the 6th card
adds a whole trick to the side, every time !), a 5 - 5 fit : A) does not
add much value to a 5 - 4 fit (it will only add a trick through an
additional ruff, not through length), and B) the fit points given to
5 - 5 ten-card fits actually over-rate the total value of the suit.
The following example suit illustrates the above :
ª AQxxx ª K 10 x x
7 ½ HL pts 3 ½ H + 1 H + 2 F = 6 ½ HF
This suit is given a total of 14 HLF pts by the Optimal point count.
It will produce 5 tricks, which equate to 13 ½ pts (5 tricks x 2.7
pts/trick). Very close, indeed.
Now, this same suit with a 5th spade in East :
ª AQxxx ª K 10 x x x
7 ½ HL pts 4 ½ HL + 1 H + 3 F = 8 ½ HLF
This suit is now given a total of 16 HLF pts by the Optimal point
count – but the suit will still produce only 5 tricks.
The point count over-rates the value of the suit by 2 ½ pts because of
the duplication of length pts and honor pts. One more ruff will be
needed to make up for the overcount. It is to reduce this overcount
that the Optimal point count counts D pts for short suits as above.
Now, for two complete hands with the same spades – first, with a
9-card fit :
ª AQxxx ª K 10 x x
© Kxx © QJxx
¨ Axx ¨ x
§ xx § xxxx
15 HL pts 6 ½ H pts
On West’s 1 ª opening, East can add 1 pt for the ª K + 2 fit pts for
his 9-card ª fit + 3 D pts for his singleton with 4 trumps = 12 ½ pts.

47
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

The two hands add up to 27 ½ HLDF pts. The points for a 4 ª game.
Now, with 5 spades in East :
ª AQxxx ª K 10 x x x
© Kxx © QJx
¨ Axx ¨ x
§ xx § xxxx
15 HL pts 7 ½ HL pts
On West’s 1 ª opening, East now adds 1 pt for his ª King, 3 pts
for his 10-card ª fit + 2 D pts for his singleton, not 3, and his point
total adds up to 13 ½ HLDF pts. One can see that the 5th spade
does not add value to the hand and the Optimal point count gives
this hand only 1 point more than the previous hand.
Here is another example, first with a 9-card fit :
ª A Q 10 x x ª Jxxx
© Axx © x
¨ Jxx ¨ KQxx
§ xx § QJxx
12 ½ HL pts (no K) 8 ½ H pts
On West’s 1 ª opening, East can count 14 ½ HDF pts. The two
hands add up to 27 HLDF pts – good for a 4 ª game which will be
bid. A game not likely to be bid in traditional point count.
Now, with 5 spades in East :
ª A Q 10 x x ª Jxxxx
© Axx © x
¨ Jxx ¨ KQx
§ xx § QJxx
12 ½ HL pts 14 ½ HDF pts
With 2 D pts for his singleton, East has the same number of points
as the previous hand – and one can see that the 5th spade adds no
value to this hand. The same 3 “losers” as with the previous hand.
Interestingly, 30 years after his unveiling of “The Law” (1966),
J-R. Vernes’ own statistics show (1995) that a 5 - 5 fit (5th trump)
adds no value to a 5 - 4 fit – not a third of a trick, not a tenth of a trick !
Yet, J-R. Vernes’ 1995 statistics on 5 - 5 fits did not alter the appli-
cation of “The Law”. Could it be because they debunk his Law?...

48
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

Now, let’s look at a few example deals in competitive bidding

situations, starting with the one below :
A strict application of “The Law” would have you bid 4 © on your
partner’s 1 © opening with the following hand. The auction being :
1© double 4© double
ª Qxx ª Jxx
© AKxxx © Q 10 x x x
¨ xx ¨ QJx
§ KQx § xx
Down three, doubled – a rather costly bid, particularly when the
opponents’ optimal contract is 2 ¨ !
In Optimal point count, East has 9 HLF pts (minus 1 for no King, +
4 pts for the 10-card © Fit with Q 10) and would call for a 2 © raise.
The following hands, however, show a very different picture :
ª Qxx ª KJx
© AKxxx © Q 10 x x x
¨ xx ¨ x
§ KQx § xxxx
Now the Optimal point count gives East 12 ½ HLDF pts (2 pts for
the singleton) and calls for a 3 © raise. Same number of trumps, so
what is different with these hands ?
What is different is : A) East’s hand distribution, with a singleton
this time, and B) the nature and location of East’s honors, with the
ª King instead of ¨ Q J. A major difference simply not accounted
for by “The Law” !
Here is now an example deal from the book “I Fought The Law”:
ª AQxxx ª KJxxx
© x © Qx
¨ Kxx ¨ xxx
§ J 10 x x § Qxx
The auction was :
South West North East
1© 1ª 3ª* 4ª
double ----------- all pass ----------

49
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

* North’s 3 ª bid is a “splinter” bid showing 4 + hearts, a ª

singleton and the strength of an opening bid.
East dutifully followed “The Law” by bidding 4 ª, but the contract
went down three after the opponents led the Ace and King of clubs
followed by a club ruff, before cashing the © Ace and two diamonds.
He would have been better advised to use the Optimal point count
giving him no more than 10 ½ HLF pts and pass…

Let’s now look at more complex competitive bidding in action, as

illustrated by the very basic deal configuration below :
ª A Q 10 x x
© x
¨ Kxxx
§ Jxx
ª x ª Jxx
© A Q 10 x x © Kxxx
¨ Jxx ¨ x
§ Kxxx § A Q 10 x x
ª Kxxx
© Jxx
¨ A Q 10 x x
§ x
Each side has 9 trumps, and there is 5 © to play in East/West and
5 ª in North/South : a total of 22 tricks, that is three more than the 19
tricks predicted by J-R. Vernes’ Law of Total Tricks (18 respective
tricks + one trick for the double Fit on each side) – a “Law” which
discourages bidding beyond the level of 4 © or 4 ª and which could
therefore lead to bidding such as :
West North East South
1© 1ª 3© 3ª
Pass Pass 4© 4ª
At unfavorable vulnerability, East/West will not defend in 5 © over
4 ª as only 18 “total tricks” can be predicted.
And a 4 ¨ ”splinter” bid by East, instead of 3 ©, would not change
the rest of the auction.

50
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

Whereas the optimal point count gives East 18 HLDFit pts, as it does
to South (not 14 or 15 pts), which immediately enables East, and
South, to count a minimum of 30 + total pts on their side. The auction
could then be quite different, such as :
1© 1ª 3§ 3¨
5§ 5¨ 5© 5ª
6© Pass or 6 ª
East’s 3 § bid indicating 5 good clubs and 15 + HL pts, West can now
add to his own 14 HLD pts : 3 pts for his 9-card § Fit with the King,
+ 1 point for his singleton with 4 club trumps = 18 HLDF pts, and he
can now safely bid 5 § – and the same holds true for South’s 5 ¨.
West will then have no difficulty bidding 6 © in defence over 5 ª.
Both sides will certainly bid at least to the 5-trick level.

Another example, this one comparing three different deals :

Deal A ª AQJxx
© x
¨ QJxx
§ Axx
ª xx ª xx
© A 10 x x x © Kxxxx
¨ Kxx ¨ Axx
§ KQx § Jxx
ª Kxxx
© QJ
¨ xxx
§ xxxx
Followers of “The Law” are likely to bid as follows :
West North East South
1© 1ª 4© 4ª
Pass Pass Pass
There are 10 hearts on one side, 9 spades on the other, but only 17
“total tricks” : 9 in hearts and 8 in spades – that’s two less than the
19 tricks predicted by “The Law”, and 4 ª will go down two while
4 © would have gone down one. Not an “optimal” outcome…

51
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

Here again, the optimal point count’s precision would lead to more
appropriate bidding : East has 12 HLDF pts (minus 1 pt for no Queen)
and should only bid 3 ©, not 4 ©. South will bid 3 ª and that is where
the bidding should end.
Deal B – Now let’s transfer a spade from East to South, with the four
hands of this deal being as follows :
ª AQJxx
© x
¨ QJxx
§ Axx
ª xx ª x
© A 10 x x x © Kxxxx
¨ Kxx ¨ Axx
§ KQx § J 10 x x
ª K 10 x x x
© QJ
¨ xxx
§ xxx
East/West still have 10 hearts, but North/South now have 10 spades
for a “Lawful” prediction of 20 total tricks. But there are only 19 total
tricks : 11 in hearts and still only 8 in spades. Followers of “The Law”
are likely to bid as follows :
West North East South
1© 1ª 4© 4ª
Pass Pass ?
What is East to do now ? Is South defending against 4 © with just a
4-card ª Fit, with only 19 “total tricks” makable on this deal, or does
he have 5 spades or more ??...
The optimal point count would be more helpful : East has 15 ½ HLDF
pts (2 D pts only for the singleton and minus 1 point for no Queen)
and knows that his side is no more than 1 point short of the points
for 5 ©. He will bid 5 © and will make 5 !...
How many spades North/South would make is immaterial.
Distribution, and honors and their specific location, are the predo-
minant relevant factors determining the number of tricks that can be
expected, much more so than the number of trumps !
And that is what the optimal point count measures with accuracy !

52
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

Deal C – Now let’s reduce both sides to 9 trumps, with the four
hands being as follows :
ª AQJxx
© x
¨ QJxx
§ Axx
ª xx ª xx
© Axxxx © KQxx
¨ Kxx ¨ Ax
§ KQx § Jxxxx
ª Kxxx
© Jxx
¨ xxxx
§ xx
Followers of “The Law” are likely to bid as follows :
West North East South
1© 1ª 3© 3ª
Pass ? ?
If East and South bids are based on their trump Fit according to “The
Law” instead of a point calculation, what are North and East to bid
now ?!… Which side has a game to play?
And how is anyone to know that North/South only have 8 tricks in
spades while East/West have 10 tricks in hearts ?…
Once again, the optimal point count will be more helpul : East has
14 HLDF pts (2 pts for the 9-card Fit, 2 pts for a doubleton with
4 trumps) and will therefore have no problem jumping directly to
4 ©, leaving South in the dark as to what to do.
And how many spades North/South could make is irrelevant.
Again, the number of trumps held by each side is just one factor to
consider : what counts is the combination of honors and their loca-
tion, as well as distribution, and then the number of trumps.

Here is another example, this time pointing to another flaw of

thinking strictly in terms of trump length and “Lawful” competitive
bidding instead of point count :

53
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

ª AKJx ª Qxxx
© xxx © ---
¨ Axxx ¨ xxx
§ Kx § AQJxxx
The auction was :
1 NT 2© 3©* 4©
4ª ----------- all pass ----------
* East’s 3 © cue-bid shows shortness in hearts, four spades and
about 10 + H pts.
But on West’s 4 ª East has 18 HLDF pts (-1 pt for no King but 2 pts
for 3 honors in a 6-card suit + 2 ª Fit pts) : slam zone opposite 15 +
H pts! He should have continued to bid, such as :

5§ Pass
5¨ Pass 5©* Pass
6§ Pass 6©** Pass
7ª
* East’s 5 © cue-bid now shows a © void and interest in slam.
* * His 6 © cue-bid now shows interest in a grand slam if West’s
¨ control is the Ace, not the King, and with strong spades.

Bidding contest.
« All vulnerable, what do you bid in East with the following hand after the
auction below ? » :
South West North East
1¨ 2¨ 3§ ? ª KJxxx
(5 ª 5 © © xxx
14/17 HD) ¨ xx
§ KJx
The most popular response was : 4 ª – in accordance with The Law:
bid to the level of 4 with 10 trumps in competitive bidding situations.
A rather problematic bid with a Partner having the hand below :
ª AQxxx
© Q J 10 x x
¨ Qx
§ x

54
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

4 ª, down 3, as the opponents will ruff a third round of ©. A rather

“expensive” bid when the opponents only had a part score in
diamonds with the following hands :
ª xx ª x
© Ax © Kxx
¨ AJxxx ¨ Kxxx
§ Axxx § Q 10 x x x
North/South have 9 diamonds and 9 clubs and would make 10 tricks
in diamonds or clubs. East/West have 10 spades but can only make
7 tricks in spades. There are only 17 Total Tricks, 3 fewer than the 20
tricks predicted by “The Law” (19 trumps + one trick for the double
Fit on each side).
That’s because, in this deal, East/West have several honors which
are not productive i.e. “wasted” opposite a singleton.
Another illustration that Distribution and “productive” honors are
more critical factors than the number of trumps.
Now, can a point count capture those factors ?... Well, let’s see :
East has 8 HL pts (no Q) + 3 pts for the 10-card ª Fit + 1 point for the
8-card © Fit minus 2 pts for “wasted club honors” as West being 5 ª
5 © is very likely to be short in clubs = 10 HLF pts.
Unless partner is maximum with 16/17 HLD, East/West do not have
the points for a 4 ª contract. East should bid 3 ª, not 4.
West, being minimum (14 ½ HLD pts), will pass, whether or not South
bids 4 §. Here again, the optimal point count would be more helpful.
Now, let’s modify East’s hand by transferring one of his spades and
his § King to hearts. The East/West hands would now be :
ª AQxxx ª KJxx
© Q J 10 x x © Kxxx
¨ Qx ¨ xx
§ x § Jxx
One less trump but 9 tricks in hearts or spades, 2 more than the 7
tricks in spades in the previous deal. And this time, the point count
is quite different : East now has 6 ½ H pts (no Q) + 2 pts for the
9-card ª Fit + 3 pts for the 9-card © Fit with the King + 2 D pts for
the ¨ doubleton with 4 trumps + 2 pts pts for “no wasted honor pts”
in clubs = 15 ½ HLDF pts !
This time, a 4 ª bid is amply justified – when “The Law” would
advocate to bid no higher than 3 ª.

55
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

4 ª goes down one but North/ South would make 5 § or 5 ¨ with

the hands below :
ª xx ª xx
© Ax © xx
¨ AJxxx ¨ Kxxx
§ Axxx § KQxxx
Furthemore, East/West total points, 15 + 15, would allow the side to
bid up to 5 ª to defend against a 5 § contract if North/South bid it.
Such a scenario would not likely be considered by “Law followers”
as East/West only have 9 trumps, not 10, and will count on 19 “Total
Tricks” which wouldn’t justify bidding 5 ª over 5 §.

International tournament, 2007.

ª KJxxx
© x
¨ A 10 x x
§ Axx
ª Ax ª x
© Kxxxx © A 10 x x x
¨ QJx ¨ xxx
§ Kxx § Q 10 x x
ª Qxxxx
© QJ
¨ Kxx
§ Jxx
All vulnerable – The auction was most often :
West North East South
1© 1ª 4© 4ª
Pass Pass 5© ?
From there, the bidding varied : some Souths passed with North
doubling : two down and 500 points for North/South. Some Souths
bid 5 ª, doubled by West, down three and 800 points for East/West.
Some bidding !...
The “Law of Total Tricks” has obviously become “Law” for a great
many world-class players in the last 15 to 20 years !

56
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

Which explains the above bidding : East players, weak in honor pts,
fear that North/ South will be strong in honor pts and likely to have
a game in spades. A pre-emptive jump to 4 © seems appropriate and
is justified by The Law’s “distributional safety” : 10 tricks asked for
with 10 trumps.
Following the same principles, South bids 4 ª – feeling even more
secure as he can count with certainty on at least 20 “Total Tricks” in
hearts and spades (10 hearts + 10 spades).
According to the same principles, East bids 5©, a safe defense against
4 ª : either 5 © will make or it goes down one or two tricks but then
North/South had a 4 ª game.
From there, there can be no winners as this deal yields only 17 total
tricks : 8 in spades and 9 in hearts, 3 fewer than the 20 predicted by
“The Law”…
Let’s see whether bidding according to the optimal point count
would have avoided this mess :
East, with 12 HLDF pts on a 10-card © Fit (-1 point for no King) should
bid 3 ©, not 4, on which South will bid 3 ª.
From there, there is no justification for either West or East to bid
again, as neither has anything to add to what each has already said.
3 ª will be the final contract, not doubled – one down while East/
West had 3 ©. The auction has been optimal for both sides.
It seems that bidding according to the optimal point count would
have been better advised, for both sides…

To conclude this chapter, I cannot resist quoting the deal shown in

the book “I Fought The Law” which Mike Lawrence relates, playing
with Alan Sontag in Matt and Pam Granovetter’s 1993 Bridge Today
tournament.
Sitting South, with East/West vulnerable, he is dealt the following
hand, the auction unfolding as follows :
South West North East
ª A J 10 x Pass Pass 1§ Pass
© xx 1ª double 3ª 4¨
¨ Axx ?
§ 10 9 x x
His comment : “Had East passed, I would have bid 4 ª in a flash – but I
had just read Larry Cohen’s book about “The Law”… Our side has 8
trumps; their side has most likely 9 diamonds. Total number of tricks : 17”.

57
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT VS THE “LAW OF TOTAL TRICKS”

“The Law” is clear : If we can make 4 ª, our opponents will only make 7
tricks in diamonds – down 800. So, I doubled”.
This turned out to be the complete deal :
ª KQ9x
© Axxx
¨ x
§ KJ8x
ª x ª xxxx
© QJ9xx © Kx
¨ QJ8xx ¨ Kxxx
§ xx § AQx
ª A J 10 x
© xx
¨ Axx
§ 10 9 x x
“My Club lead gave the declarer a free finesse. We took our 3 Aces and they
took the rest. -710 pts, on the first board. Not a good beginning…”.
Ignoring “The Law” would have been better advised…
North’s 3 ª raise meaning 17/19 HLDF pts, in Optimal point count,
South, with 9 H pts (no K, no Q) + 2 D pts for the © doubleton with
4 trumps = 11 HDF pts = 4 ª.
Conclusion : The “Law of Total Tricks” is seriously flawed in deter-
mining which level to bid to in competitive bidding situations
because it attributes far too much importance to a single key factor :
the number of trumps held by each side in their own trump suit.
Furthermore, the value of an additional trick it attributes to a 5th card
in a 5 - 5 trump fit is totally misguided and defies J-R. Vernes’ own
statistical findings !

The Optimal hand evaluation point count is far superior to

“The Law of Total Tricks” in determining which level to bid
to in competitive bidding situations – and that is because it
appropriately assesses all 6 key determining factors :
– The accurate valuation of distribution and of D-fit points.
– The accurate valuation of honors and of suit quality.
– The accurate valuation of fits, including secondary fits.

58
 JUMP-OVERCALLS : THE NOTION OF DELTA (D)

CHAPTER 3
_____________________

JUMP-OVERCALLS : THE NOTION OF DELTA (D)

Having said this about “The Law”, there is a specific hand-type
which is well suited to the application of “The Law” : 6 + card suits,
short in the suit bid by the opponents.
PREAMBLE
Jump-overcalls, whether made at the level of two (1 ¨ – 2 ©) or
three (1 ª – 3 ¨), have traditionally been made with a 6 + card suit,
in 2 different point-zones : either weak, as a pre-emptive bid, for
some, or strong (16 + H pts) as a constructive bid, for others.
Interestingly, J-R. Vernes found that neither approach yielded
positive results! In the 10 World Championships he analysed, 13
strong jump-overcalls were made at one table and not at the other
– 4 were successful and gained a total of 790 pts, while 8 were not
and lost a total of 3 230 pts !
51 weak jump-overcalls were made at one table and not at the
other, 10 successfully gained a total of 3 570 pts, while 27 did not
and lost 10 960 pts ! (the other 14 deals yielding even results).
THE NOTION OF DELTA (D)
What J-R. Vernes found was that jump-overcalls were effective
when their hands were short in the suit opened by the other side,
either a singleton or a void.
He called the difference between the length of the overcall suit and
the length of the short suit the Delta (D) and observed that, to be
effective, a jump-overcall at the level of two should have a Delta of
5 : a 6 + card suit (or its equivalent : a 5 – 5 two-suiter) with a
singleton in the suit opened, and 16 + HD pts, while a jump-overcall
at the level of three should have a D of 6 : a 6 + card suit (or a 5 – 5
two-suiter) with a void in the suit opened, or a 7-card suit with a
singleton in the suit opened, and 18 + HD pts.
A significant finding which makes it possible for the overcaller’s
partner to immediately determine the probable total number of tricks
that can be made by both sides – in reference to the “Law”.
Let’s look at some illustrations of this notion to clarify its meaning.

59
 JUMP-OVERCALLS : THE NOTION OF DELTA (D)

1955 World Championship – North dealer. E/W vulnerable.

ª QJx
© AQxxx
¨ Jx
§ A 10 x
ª xx ª A K 10 x x x
© x © KJxx
¨ Axxx ¨ xx
§ Jxxxxx § x
ª 10 x
© J 10 x
¨ KQxxx
§ KQx
On North’s 1 © opening, Konstam, East, jump-overcalled to 2 ª and
his side ended up playing 4 ª, doubled, down two – when North/
South did not have a 4 © contract.
As can be seen, Konstam’s hand did not meet the D criteria for an
overcall at the level of two. He should have overcalled 1 ª, not 2.

1956 World Championship – West dealer.

ª ---
© AQxxxx
¨ Kx
§ Q J 10 x x
ª K J 10 x x x ª xxxx
© xx © x
¨ AQx ¨ J 10 x x
§ Kx § Axxx
ª AQx
© KJxx
¨ xxxx
§ xx
On West’s 1 ª opening, North jump-overcalled to 3 © and, ultima-
tely, on West’s final 4ª bid, North/South played 5©, doubled, down
one. A winning bid as East/West would have made 4 ª.
As can be seen, despite North’s hand low honor point count, it meets
two of the conditions for a 3 © jump-overcall, with 6 hearts and a
ª void (D of 6), even though he is 2 pts short of 18 HD pts (actually,
20 ½ HLD pts). If South can rely on North having a Delta of 6, he can
add to it his own Delta of 1 (4 hearts minus 3 spades) = 7.

60
 JUMP-OVERCALLS : THE NOTION OF DELTA (D)

This total of 7, added to 13 (total number of cards in a suit), equals a

total number of 20 trumps which suggests a total of 20 probable tricks.
Therefore, he should defend against 4 ª by bidding 5 ©.
Of course, the optimal point count would lead South to the same
conclusion : he has 15 ½ HLDF pts which would give him all the
points he needs to bid to the level of 5.

1959 World Championship – West dealer.

ª Q J 10 x x x
© x
¨ Ax
§ K J 10 x
ª Kx ª Ax
© AQJxxxx © Kxx
¨ xx ¨ K Q 10 x x
§ xx § xxx
ª xxx
© 10 x
¨ Jxxx
§ AQxx
On West’s 1 © opening, North’s hand meets the conditions for a 2 ª
jump-overcall : 6 spades, a © singleton (D of 5) and almost 16 HD pts
(actually, 17 ½ HLD pts). If South can rely on North’s bid to promise
a Delta of 5, he can add to it his own Delta of 1 (3 spades minus 2
hearts). This total of 6, added to 13 equals 19 probable “total tricks”.
This means that if East/West can make 9 tricks in hearts, so can
North/South make 9 tricks in spades and South will know that he
can compete to 4 ª against a 4 © contract. One can see that one side
makes 4 © while the other makes 3 ª. Bidding 4 ª yields a positive
result, vulnerable or not.
Of course, the optimal point count would lead South to the same
conclusion : he has 9 HDF pts so he knows that his side has the points
for at least 3 ª. He will bid to 4 ª if need be.

1965 World Championship (Bermuda Bowl).

ª Axx ª Q 10 x x x
© x © xxx
¨ xx ¨ xxx
§ KQJxxxx § xx

61
 JUMP-OVERCALLS : THE NOTION OF DELTA (D)

On South’s 1 © opening, West’s 3 § overcall would have been justi-

fied with a D of 6 and 18 ½ HLD pts (sorry, “Goren point counters”,
West does not have 18 HD pts !).
Despite East’s lack of values, 3 § would only be down one (even
though North/South is likely to find their 4 © contract).

1975 World Championship (Bermuda Bowl).

ª xx ª Kxxx
© A K 10 9 x x x © Jxx
¨ --- ¨ xxx
§ Q 10 x x § AJx
On South’s 1 ¨ opening, West’s 3 © double-jump overcall was justi-
fied with a D of 7, even though short of 18 HD pts (actually, 19 HLD
pts) and East/West competed to 5 © – making, as the cards were.

1997 European Championships.

ª xxx ª xxx
© Ax © Jx
¨ A Q 10 x x x x ¨ Jxx
§ x § KQxxx
On South’s 1 © opening, West was right to restrain himself to a 2 ¨
overcall. His D was only of 6, not 7. A 3 ¨ overcall, instead, would
have led to a very expensive, doubled 5 ¨ sacrifice against 4 © in
North/South.

While the following hands would justify the following jump-

overcalls on a 1 ¨ opening from opponents :
ª AKxxxx ª K 10 x ª A Q 10 x x x x
© xxx © A Q 10 x x x x © K 10 x
¨ x ¨ x ¨ ---
§ KQx § xx § xxx
2 ª : 16 ½ HLD pts 2 © : 17 HLD pts 3 ª : 19 HLD pts
D 5 : 6 ª, ¨ singl. D 6 : 7 ©, ¨ singl. D 7 : 7 ª, ¨ void

62
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING

CHAPTER 4
______________________

What we just reviewed in the previous two chapters applied to

competitive bidding at a fairly high level; but this only occurs occa-
sionally and rather infrequently.
What occurs much more frequently is the need to assess the value
of your hand after a low-level competitive bid has been made by
your opponents, either as an opening bid or as an overcall over
your own bid. And this is what we will cover next.
INTRODUCTION
Competitive bidding occurs in over 60 % of the deals played in
tournaments and it would be redundant to state its importance and
the number of points gained or lost over it in tournaments.
Yet, the bidding generally used by the overcalling side is still, too
often, based on principles and teachings that have proved ineffe-
ctive and do not appropriately address a great number of specific
situations, in particular which point count adjustments need to be
made when assessing the value of your hand in competitive bidding
situations.
While this book will not cover the subject of competitive interven-
tions, which warrant separate books, it will identify the most funda-
mental principles which apply to competitive bidding and how the
Optimal Hand Evaluation point count can and should be applied
to them. This chapter will deal with this topic in two ways :
– First, it will state some key principles of competitive interven-
tions, statistically validated by J-R. Vernes who conducted exten-
sive statistical analysis of competitive bidding in the ‘60s, over more
than 5 000 bidding sequences in 2 400 deals played in 10 world
championships, from 1953 on.
His findings were revealed in his 1966 book “Modern Competitive
Bidding” and several were significant ( but remain mostly unknown
as his book was never translated or published in English).
– Second, it will outline how the Optimal Hand Evaluation point
count can and should be applied to your hand in competitive bidding
situations.

63
 KEY PRINCIPLES GOVERNING OVERCALLS

STATISTICAL FINDINGS
I. HAND EVALUATION
Even though, nowadays, most world-class players assess their
hand in HD pts for the purpose of competitive intervention, many
players still assess their hand in “winning tricks” and overcall
according to the old Culbertson rule of “2 and 3” which is :
“To avoid losing more than 500 points (game value), your overcall bid,
should it be doubled for penalty, must not go down more than two tricks,
vulnerable, or three tricks, not vulnerable”.
But such reasoning is totally misguided as it is based on the assum-
ption that all missing honors and tricks are in the opponents’ hands
and that the overcaller’s partner has nothing in his hand that can
be of value to the overcaller !
This, of course, is nowhere near the reality “at the table” and in the
over 2 400 relevant deals played in the 10 world championships
analysed by J-R. Vernes, only 6 of 480 overcalls made at the level of
one with a 5 + card suit, were the final contract played, doubled –
3 of the 6 outcomes being advantageous to the overcaller !
Today, at a time when the hand evaluation point count has become
more precise and accurate than ever, it can be said unequivocally
that evaluating a hand, for overcalling purposes, in number of
“tricks” is pure heresy !
But then, so is it to count its points in H or HL or HD pts !
They must, of course, be counted in HLD pts. And this is even more
critical in the case of interventions for which the distribution of a
hand must be accounted for the first time around as there may not be
future opportunities to do so and communicate it to the partner.
But some adjustments need to be made to the hand evaluation point
count as it applies to overcalls – adjustments that will be analysed
in this chapter.
Interestingly, very few Bridge books address this issue.

II. KEY PRINCIPLES GOVERNING OVERCALLS.

Let’s first review some of the most significant principles governing
competitive bidding in general and specifically overcalls, such as :
– An intervention is mostly beneficial when the overcaller’s side
plays the final contract. If it does not, the intervention benefits, more
often than not, the side which opened the bidding by indicating to
the declarer where the opponents’ honors and lengths are.

64
 KEY PRINCIPLES GOVERNING OVERCALLS

– The risks taken by the overcaller are much greater than the
opener’s as the opener’s partner has much information about what
his side holds while the overcaller knows nothing about his
partner’s hand and exposes his side to a potentially severe penalty.
– Yet, the vulnerability is generally not a factor that should influ-
ence whether to intervene or not. The popular belief that a competing
side should have greater honor strength when at unfavorable vuln-
erability is not based on fact – as, while the risk is greater, so is the
reward and “the math” amply confirms this.
– As for the point strength needed, to overcall in a suit at the level
of one requires at minimum 12 + HD pts. The belief that an overcall
with fewer points is justified because “it takes up declarer’s side
bidding space and suggests to partner a good lead that will often help
defeat the contract” is clearly “debunked” by statistical findings.
In the 10 world championships analysed, the lead influenced the
result in only 9 cases out of 135 competitive overcalls made at the
level of one with a 5 + card suit with fewer than 12 HD pts – 6 of
these 9 cases being positive for the defense.
Furthemore, the side having overcalled with fewer than 12 HD pts
won 10 deals and 1 830 pts but lost 16 deals and 6 800 pts.
And similar statistical data on overcalls made at the level of two
indicate that 14 + HD pts are needed for such overcalls.
Translating HD pts into HLD pts means that 12 HD pts become
13 HLD pts and 14 HD pts become 15 HLD pts (+ 1 point for the
5-card suit). As to the upper limit of such bids, in both cases it must
be no higher than 18 HLD pts as a 4 HLD point-range is the maximum
allowed to respect the bidding level safety, while a 6 HLD point-range
applies at the level of one i.e. point-ranges of 13/18 HLD pts for
overcalls at the one-level, of 15/18 HLD pts at the two-level.
So, I will use these point ranges throughout from here on : 13/18,
15/18 and 19 + HLD pts.
– Too many Bridge books dealing with competitive bidding would
have us believe that having a strong 5-card suit is the foremost
requirement for an overcall at the level of two, the hand’s strength
being rather flexible… But this is also not borne out by facts.
Of 214 overcalls made at the level of two in the same 10 world
championships, 77 % of them (165), were made with a 6 + card suit
or a 5 – 5 two-suiter (17). In 40 cases, overcalls were made with a
suit of only 5 cards but they had a second suit i.e. 5 4 3 1 or 5 4 2 2
hands – they yielded even results between points gained and lost.
The 9 overcalls made with 5 3 3 2 hands all yielded negative results.

65
 KEY PRINCIPLES GOVERNING OVERCALLS

This brings us to some major flaws of traditional overcalls as related

to hand evaluation.
– Similar to what is being applied by traditional bidding to opening
hands, the point-range of overcalls is just as wide and ineffective.
For example, 12 to 17 H pts or 14 to 19 HD pts is the point-range
advocated for an overcall at the level of two over a 1 ª or 1 ©
opening. But that is way too wide a range for a level at which the
point-range must not exceed 4 HLD pts! Illustration :
South opened 1 ª, and West/East have the following hands :
ª xxx ª x
© K Q 10 x x © Axxx
¨ A J 10 x ¨ Kxxx
§ x § xxxx
The traditional point count has West’s hand as 12 HD pts and West
should therefore pass as he does not have the 14 HD pts needed for
overcalling 2 © at the level of two. The bidding will likely be :
South West North East
1ª pass 3ª pass
And the 4 © game will be missed. But West’s hand has 15 ½ HLD pts.
It should not be passed.
Now let’s add an Ace to West’s hand and replace its ¨ J 10 by the
¨ Queen. West’s hand then becomes :
ª Axx
© K Q 10 x x
¨ AQxx
§ x
This hand is now counted 17 HD pts in traditional count. This time,
West will overcall 2 ©. Opposite a hand limited to a maximum of 19
HD pts, East having 12 pts (2 pts for the 9-card Fit, 3 pts for the
singleton with 4 trumps), is not likely to consider a 6 © slam, with a
maximum total of 31 pts.
But West’s hand has 20 HLD pts, not 17 HD pts ! However, doubling
1 ª to show a strong hand would say nothing about West’s hand and
would make it rather difficult for East to bid over North’s 3 ª raise.
In any case, even if he bids 4 ©, the bidding will very likely end there.
But these two hands add up to 35 ½ HLDF pts ! (+ 2 Fit pts for the
¨ 8-card fit + 2 pts for “no wasted honor pts” in clubs).
Surely, a better way to bid these hands must be devised !

66
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING

1. POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS IN THE OPPONENTS’ SUIT

A). BASED ON LENGTH IN THE OPPONENTS’ SUIT

The very first rule that applies to competitive bidding is well known :
Length (3 + cards) in the opponents’ suit is bad. While shortness (singl-
eton or void) in the opponents’ suit is good.
This stands to reason as either shapes one’s hand to be offensive
(likelihood of a long suit of 5 + cards) or defensive (more balanced).
Therefore, the very first factor to assess and quantify is the value –
negative or positive – of one’s length in opponents’ suit.
The following point count adjustments apply to unbalanced hands
that call for a suit overcall (point count adjustments applying to
balanced hands, best suited for NT, will be covered in a separate
chapter).
Deduct 1 point for 3 cards in opponents’ suit.
Deduct 2 points for 4 cards in opponents’ suit.
Deduct 3 points for 5 cards in opponents’ suit (rare).
Add 1 point (from 2 pts to 3 pts) for a singleton in opponents’ suit.
Add 1 point (from 4 pts to 5 pts) for a void in opponents’ suit.
A doubleton in opponents’ suit is neutral – thus, no point count
adjustment is warranted.
Illustrations : Opponents open 1 ©. You hold, in that suit :
© xx No point count adjustment.
© xxx - 1 L point = -1 point
© Axx - 1 L point = 3 ½ pts.
© Axxx - 2 L point = 2 ½ pts.
© x + 1 D point = 3 pts (from 2 D pts).
© --- + 1 D point = 5 pts (from 4 D pts).

Summary

Deduct 1 point for 3 cards in opponents’ suit.

Deduct 2 points for 4 cards in opponents’ suit.
Deduct 3 points for 5 cards in opponents’ suit (rare).
Add 1 point (to 3 pts) for a singleton in opponents’ suit.
Add 1 point (to 5 pts) for a void in opponents’ suit.

The above applies to suit overcalls, not to balanced hands.

67
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS IN OPPONENTS’ SUIT

B). BASED ON HONORS IN THE OPPONENTS’ SUIT

In this area, statistical data often challenge conventional wisdom.
– An Ace in the opponents’ suit is neutral : it keeps its offensive and
defensive value of 4 ½ pts, regardless of whether or not it takes an
honor of the opponents or combines with an honor in partner’s hand.
Nothing unconventional here.
– A King in the opponents’ suit has a variable value : alone, it should
be downgraded by 1 point, while with the Jack, no point count adjus-
tment is warranted, and with the Queen, it should be upgraded by
1 point when located behind the opponents’ suit, but should be down-
graded by 1 point when located before the opponents’ suit.

Below are illustrations and justifications for these adjustments.

Opponents open 1 © and you hold, in that suit :
© Kxx opposite partner’s : x x or x x x or 10 x x or J x x
Partner’s holding adds no value and the King can be estimated to
make ½ trick and to have defensive value = 2 pts. The King should
be downgraded by 1 point. There is no reason to assume where the
missing Ace is located, before or after the King, as the opener could
have Q J 5th just as he could have the Ace.
© Kxx opposite partner’s : J 10 x or Q x x or Q J x
Partner’s holding now brings 1 sure trick to the side – two tricks with
Q J – and has defensive value, as well = 4 pts. The King should still
be downgraded by ½ to 1 point considering the points attributed to
partner’s honors. Note that this value is independent of the King’s
position, whether before or after the opponents’ suit.
© Kxx opposite partner’s : A x x
The Ace and King will make two tricks + their defensive value = 6.5
pts. Here again, the King should be downgraded by 1 point consider-
ring that the Ace is counted 4 ½ pts and this value is independent of
the King’s position, whether before or after the opponents’ suit.
© Kxx opposite partner’s : A J x
This combination will make 2 ½ tricks (7 pts) + their defensive value
= 7.5 pts. Here again, the King should be downgraded by 1 point.
Conclusion : downgrade a lone King by 1 point, regardless of
whether the King is located before or after the opponent’s suit.

68
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS IN OPPONENTS’ SUIT

– Let’s now look at the K J combination.

© KJx opposite partner’s : x x or x x x
will bring 1 ½ tricks to the side = 4 pts. No point count adjustment is
warranted. And there is no reason to assume whether these honors
are before or after the opponents’ suit.
© KJx opposite partner’s : Q x or Q x x or Q 10 x
will bring 2 tricks to the side = 5.5 pts. And that is regardless of
whether K J x is located before or after the opponents’ suit.
No point count adjustment since 1 or 1 ½ pts are given to a lone Q.
– Now for the K Q combination.
© K Q x opposite partner’s : x x or x x x or J x or J x x
Now, it is reasonable to assume that, in the large majority of cases,
the missing Ace is held by the opponent having bid the suit.
In this case, K Q x will, this time, generate 2 tricks when located after
the opponents’ suit, but only 1 trick when located before the oppo-
nents’ suit (unless partner holds the Jack). This is a case where the
position of K Q x relative to the opponents’ suit does matter.
1 point should be deducted when before the opponent’s suit, but
should be added when after the opponent’s suit.
– Now for the Queen.
– A Queen in the opponents’ suit does not warrant any point count
adjustment : either it is isolated and only counts for 1 ½ pts, or it
accompanies another honor and the value of the combination is
properly valued. Here is, below, an illustration of this.
Opponents open 1 © and you hold, in that suit :
© Q x x opposite partner’s : x x or x x x or 10 x x or J x x
will bring half a trick to the side, on average = 1.4 pts. The points
attributed to a lone Queen. No point count adjustment is warranted.
© Q x x opposite partner’s : K x or K x x or K J x
This holding was previously analysed with the King holding.
No point count adjustment is warranted as 1 point will be deducted
from a lone King, while no point will be deducted from K J x which,
combined with Q x x, produces two sure tricks and the combination
is worth 5.5 pts.
Here again, the value of these combinations of honors is indepen-
dent of the Queen’s position, before or after the opponents’ suit.

69
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS IN OPPONENTS’ SUIT

© QJx opposite partner’s : x x or x x x or 10 x x

will, most often, bring 1 trick + its defensive value = 3.5 pts. And that
is regardless of whether Q J x is located before or after the opponents’
suit. No point count adjustment is warranted.
© QJx opposite partner’s : K x or K x x
This was previously analysed with the King. No point count adju-
stment as 1 pt will be deducted from the King. And whether Q J x is
located before or after the opponents’ suit is immaterial.
– And now, in closing, for Jacks.
– A Jack in the opponents’ suit, when isolated, does not, generally,
bring value to the side. Its ½ point count should be discounted.
Surprisingly however, when with a 10, a J 10 x combination retains
its 2-point value more often than not.
Illustration – Opponents open 1 © and you hold, in that suit :
© J x x opposite partner’s : x x or x x x or 10 x x
The lone Jack brings no value to the side. Its half-point value should
be discounted, and that’s regardless of whether J x x is located before
or after the opponents’ suit.
© Jxx opposite partner’s : Q x or Q x x or K x or K x x
This combination was previously analysed under the Queen and/or
King holdings. Its half-point value should be discounted.
© J 10 x opposite partner’s : x x or x x x
Brings no value to the side. Its 2 point-value should be discounted.
And that’s regardless of its position relative to the opponents’ suit.
© J 10 x opposite partner’s : Q x or Q x x
Will, most often, bring 1 trick to the side + defensive value = 3.5 pts.
And that’s regardless of whether J 10 x is located before or after the
opponents’ suit. No point count adjustment is warranted.
© J 10 x opposite partner’s : K x or K x x
Will, most often, bring 1 trick to the side + defensive value = 4 pts.
And that’s regardless of whether J 10 x is located before or after the
opponents’ suit. The combination of J 10 x with K x x should be
downgraded by 1 point but since the lone King will be downgraded by
1 point, no further point deduction should be applied to J 10 x.

70
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS IN OPPONENTS’ SUIT

© J 10 x opposite partner’s : K Q x
This combination will bring two sure tricks to the side + its defensive
value = 6.5 to 7 pts. J 10 x retains its full 2-point value.
© J 10 x opposite partner’s : A x x
produces only 1 sure trick but combined with the Ace the combi-
nation has substantial defensive value and is worth 4 pts. The 2 pts
given to J 10 x should be fully discounted.
© J 10 x opposite partner’s : A Q x
is worth 2 ½ tricks + substantial defensive value = 8.5 pts. No point
deduction applies.
As shown above, only in two cases (when opposite nothing or oppo-
site a lone Ace) should the 2-point value given to J 10 x be discounted.
In all other cases, it retains a 2-point value, and that’s regardless of
whether it is located before or after the opponents’ suit.
This clearly defies standard practice which, first, gives 1 point only to
a J 10 x combination and, second, advocates to discount that point
when the combination is in the opponents’ suit.
Note : If you feel more confortable downgrading J 10 x from 2 pts to
1 point, know that you will then be off by 1 full point in every case.
Furthemore, contrary to popular belief, the value of honors in the
opponents’ suit is, in most cases, independent of their position before
or after the opponents’ suit, whereas 1 point should be deducted
from a lone King in all cases.
In summary – in the opponents’ suit : the only point count adjust-
ments are few and simple to remember : deduct 1 point from a lone
King, and a lone Jack is worth nothing. Only exception : deduct 1 point
from K Q located before the opponents’ suit, add 1 point when after.

– An Ace retains its 4 ½ pts. No point count adjustment.

– A Queen, with or without the Jack : no point count adjustment.
– A King : alone, deduct 1 point (regardless of its position).
with the Jack, no point count adjustment.
with the Q, -1 pt when before the opponents’ suit.
+1 pt when after the opponents’ suit.
– A Jack without the 10 : discount its ½ point value.
– A Jack with the 10 : retains its value of 2 pts. No adjustment.

71
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS IN OPPONENTS’ SUIT

Practice – Opponents open 1 ©.

What is your point count for your heart holding in each of these cases ? :
© J 10 x 1 point -1 point for 3 hearts in opponents’ suit.
© Qxx ½ point -1 point for 3 hearts in opponents’ suit.
© QJx 2 points. -1 point for 3 hearts in opponents’ suit.
© Kxx 1 point. -1 point for 3 hearts, -1 pt for the lone K.
Yes, Q J third is worth more than King third! And it
is easy to demonstrate that it will produce, defensi-
vely, one trick more often than a King third will.
© KJx 3 pts. -1 point for 3 hearts in opponents’ suit.
© KQx 3 pts or 5 pts. -1 point for 3 hearts in opponents’ suit
-1 point when before the opponents’ suit,
+1 point when after the opponents’ suit.
© Axx 3 ½ pts. -1 point for 3 hearts in opponents’ suit.
© AJx 4 ½ pts. -1 point for 3 hearts in opponents’ suit.
© AQx 5 ½ pts. -1 point for 3 hearts in opponents’ suit.
© Kxxx 0 pts. -2 points for 4 hearts, -1 point for a lone King.
Yes, this certainly defies the traditional point count !
© QJxx 1 point. -2 points for 4 hearts in opponents’ suit.
Yes, Q J fourth is worth more than K fourth !
© AQxx 4 ½ pts. -2 points for 4 hearts in opponents’ suit.
© K x x x x 0 pts. -3 pts for 5 hearts, - 1 point for a lone King.
© x 3 pts. +1 point for the singleton in opponents’ suit.
© --- 5 pts. +1 point for the void in opponents’ suit.

The above adjusted point count is of major importance – and it

certainly challenges the traditional point count and conventional
wisdom !

72
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS OUTSIDE OPPONENTS’ SUIT

2. POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS OUTSIDE OF OPPONENTS’ SUIT

THE NOTION OF OFFENSE TO DEFENSE RATIO

Another important rule of competitive bidding is that an intervention

should preferably lead the side intervening to playing the final contract
as, if it doesn’t, the intervention will, in most cases, be quite helpful
to the opposing side by revealing much of their distribution and honor
holding. Therefore, determining quickly and accurately whether
your hand warrants or not an overcall is critically important.
If your hand has offensive power, giving you a good chance to play
the final contract, it likely warrants an overcall; while if your hand
has more defensive than offensive power, it should discourage you
from bidding : best to defend than to declare a contract.
Let’s illustrate this with some example hands, below.
Hand A Hand B
ª K Q J 10 x ª Q 10 x x x
© Ax © K 10
¨ K 10 x x ¨ AKJx
§ xx § xx
Hand A is likely to generate 5 ½ tricks playing spades, thanks to its
concentrated honors in its long suit, spades. But defensively, against
a heart or a club contract, it may only make 3 tricks.
It is clearly an offensively-oriented hand and the Optimal point
count gives it 18 HLD pts.
While Hand B may only make 3 to 4 tricks playing spades but is just
as likely to make 3 or 4 tricks playing defensively against a heart or
a club contract, and probably more than that against a NT contract.
It is clearly a defensively-oriented hand and the Optimal point count
gives it 15 HD pts – 3 fewer points than hand A, even though it has
the same honors : one Ace, 2 Kings, one Queen, one Jack and two
tens.
As a rule, it can be said that concentrated honors in long suits give the
hand offensive power, as do short suits in unbalanced hands, while
honors spread over several suits and located in doubletons or
tripletons give it defensive power.
Let’s look at two other hands, below.

73
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS OUTSIDE OPPONENTS’ SUIT

Hand A Hand B
ª A J 10 x x ª Q 10 x x x
© x © Kxx
¨ KQxx ¨ AJxx
§ xxx § x
Hand A is likely to generate 3 or 4 tricks playing diamonds or
spades, as it could, playing defensively against a heart or club
contract. It is both offensively and defensively oriented.
The Optimal point count gives it 14 ½ HLD pts – and would give it
15 ½ HLD pts over a 1 © opening from the opponents.
While Hand B – with the same honors as hand A – is not likely to
make more tricks playing spades or diamonds than it will playing
defensively against a heart or club contract. The Optimal point count
gives it only 13 HD pts and only 11 HD pts over a 1 © opening from
the opponents (-2 pts for 3 hearts and the lone © King).
So, one can see that the Optimal point count decreases the point
count of a hand that is more defensive than offensive; in effect, it has
built into its count a “formula” that translates defensive hands into
fewer points, thus discouraging bidding with a defensive hand.
Now, is there more to this “formula”? The answer is : yes. It consists
of applying to the rest of the hand point count adjustments similar to
those made in the opponents’ suit.
And they apply to any and all suits of 3 or 4 cards and in the very
same way since we have learned that the point count adjustments
are independent of the position of honors whether before or after the
opponents’ suit, with just one exception – K Q x whose value will be
unchanged, instead of varying from -1 point to +1 point, as the
position of the Ace is unknown relative to the position of K Q x.
Why apply these point count adjustments to honors in suits of 3 or 4
cards only? That’s because the Optimal point count already tran-
slates with great accuracy the strength, or weakness, of 5-card suits,
such as :
ª Q 10 x x x 2 ½ pts weak 5-card suit.
ª QJxxx 4 pts moderate 5-card suit.
ª KQxxx 6 pts good 5-card suit.
ª AKxxx 8 ½ pts very strong 5-card suit.

74
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS OUTSIDE OPPONENTS’ SUIT

And the same applies to doubletons, such as :

ª xx zero pts very weak doubleton.
ª Qx 1 point weak doubleton.
ª Kx 3 pts good doubleton.
ª Ax 4 ½ pts strong doubleton.
This leaves us with the task of defining more accurately the value of
honors in suits of 3 and 4 cards. These adjustments, in suits of 3 or 4
cards, are very few and quite simple, as follows :

– An Ace retains its 4 ½ pts. No point count adjustment.

– A Queen, isolated or not : no point count adjustment.
– A King : alone, deduct 1 point, regardless of its position.
with the Jack or Queen : no point count adjustment.
– A Jack : alone, discount its ½ point value.
with the 10 : No point count adjustment (= 2 pts).

Bottom line : The adjusted point count spares you the need to assess
whether your hand is offensive or defensive – the adjusted point count
does that for you !
Let’s now use practice hands to illustrate this count.
TThe process to follow is this : on an opponent bidding a suit, first
apply to your hand the Optimal point count, second, make the
appropriate point count adjustments in the opponents’ suit and
third, make the appropriate point count adjustments to suits of
3 and 4 cards outside of the opponents’ suit.
– Opponents open 1 ©. Count your hand’s adjusted points (AOC for
Adjusted Optimal Count).
ª KQJxx © xx ¨ AJx § Qxx
Optimal point count : 15 HL pts. AOC : 15 pts. No point count
adjustment. A point count which translates well the 5 tricks that can
be expected playing in spades, versus 3 tricks defensively. Bid 1 ª.

ª QJx © Kxx ¨ KQxxxx § x

Optimal point count : 14 HLD pts (no Ace). AOC : 12 pts (-1 point for
3 hearts and -1 point for the lone © King). Pass. You do not have
anywhere near the points for a 2 ¨ overcall.

75
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS – PRACTICE HANDS

ª QJx © x ¨ AKxxxx § xxx

Optimal point count : 14 ½ HLD pts. AOC : 15 ½ pts (+1 point for the
© singleton in opponents’ suit). Bidding 2 ¨ is now very appropriate.
The Optimal point count translates perfectly the 5 tricks that can be
expected, playing in diamonds, versus only 2 to 3 tricks defensively.
ª Kxx © Qx ¨ AJxx § Kxxx
Optimal point count : 12 ½ H pts. AOC : 10 ½ pts (-2 pts for the 2 lone
Kings). Your hand is much too weak for a take-out double.
ª xxx © x ¨ AQxx § KQxxx
Optimal point count : 14 ½ HLD pts. AOC : 15 ½ pts (+1 point for the
© singleton). This hand warrants a 2 § overcall (15/18 HLD pts).
ª K Q 10 x x x © x ¨ xxx § Axx
Optimal point count : 14 ½ HLD pts. AOC : 15 ½ pts (+1 point for the
© singleton). This hand warrants a jump 2 ª overcall : 6-card suit,
singleton in opponents’ suit, Delta of 5 and 15/18 HLD pts.
ª Axx © --- ¨ K Q 10 x x x x § xxx
Optimal point count : 18 ½ HLD pts. AOC : 19 ½ pts (+1 point for the
© void in opponents’ suit). This hand warrants a jump 3 ¨ overcall :
7-card suit, void in opponents’ suit, Delta of 7 and 19 + HLD pts.
– Now opponents have opened 1 ¨. Count your hand’s adjusted pts
for each of the following hands.
ª Axxx © x ¨ Kxx § KQxxx
Optimal point count : 15 ½ HLD pts. AOC : 13 ½ pts (-2 pts for
3 diamonds and the lone K). Overcalling by 2 § would not be wise.
ª AKx © x ¨ J 10 x x § Kxxxx
Optimal point count : 14 ½ HL pts (no Queen). AOC : 11 ½ pts !
(-2 pts for 4 cards in diamonds, -1 point for the lone § King).
A hand which would have been opened is now worth 11 ½ pts only.
The adjusted count translates very well the hand’s defensive nature.
ª K Q 10 x x © xxx ¨ Axx § xx
Optimal point count : 11 ½ HL pts. AOC : 10 ½ pts (-1 point for
3 diamonds). Statistical findings show that a 1 ª overcall would be
misguided and will lead to a negative outcome more often than not.

76
 POINT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS – PRACTICE HANDS

ª AJxx © Kxx ¨ x § KQxxx

Optimal point count : 16 ½ HLD pts. AOC : 16 ½ pts (-1 point for the
lone © King, +1 point for the ¨ singleton). Clearly, a take-out double.

– Now, opponents have opened 1 NT. Count your hand’s adjusted

points for each of the following hands.
ª AQx © x ¨ KQxxxx § xxx
Optimal point count : 15 ½ HLD pts. AOC : 15 ½ pts. Overcall 2 ¨.
ª AJxx © x ¨ Kxx § KJxxx
Optimal point count : 14 ½ HLD pts (No Queen). AOC : 13 ½ pts (-1
point for the lone ¨ King). Do not overcall : no 6-card suit, and not
the points to justify a 2-level overcall.
ª AJxxx © xx ¨ Kx § KJxx
Optimal point count : 13 ½ HLD pts (No Queen). AOC : 13 ½ pts.
Do not double or overcall 2 ª. You do not have the points for either,
nor do you have a singleton or a 6-card suit.
ª Axxx © x ¨ KQxxx § KJx
Optimal point count : 16 ½ HLD pts. AOC : 16 ½ pts. 5 4 3 1 shape and
well over 15 HLD pts : a 2 ¨ overcall is warranted.

Let’s now close this section by looking at the two hands below :
Hand A Hand B
ª x ª A Q 10 x x x
© xxx © x
¨ AQxxxx ¨ xxx
§ KJx § KJx
On a 1 © opening from the opponents, hand A has 13 ½ HLD pts after
deducting 1 point for the 3 cards in opponents’ suit and should elicit
a pass from West. While hand B – same honors + the ª 10 – has 16 ½
HLD pts after adding 1 point for the singleton in the opponents’ suit
and qualifies for a jump-overcall to 2 ª : a 6-card suit, a singleton in
the opponents’ suit, a D of 5 and 15 + HLD pts.

77
78
 OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING

Point Count Adjustments to Balanced Hands

The point count adjustments to be made to balanced hands contem-

plating a No Trump overcall are somewhat different from those just
outlined but in one area only :
– Different point deductions for length in opponents’ suit, notably
no point deduction for having 3 cards in the suit bid by opponents.
1. point count deduction for Length in opponents’ suit
For balanced hands contemplating a NT overcall, having a tripleton
in opponents’ suit becomes a favorable feature rather than a handicap
– while having a doubleton in opponents’ suit rules out a 1 NT overcall
and calls, instead, for a double or a suit overcall.
That is because, in addition to making the hand’s distribution more
favorable to a NT overcall, a guarded tripleton allows a hold-up play
(in the suit led by the opponents) – twice when the guard is an Ace.
Illustration : the following hand allows a 1 NT overcall over a 1 ª
opening by opponents :
ª Axx © KQxx ¨ Kx § QJxx
while interchanging the spades and diamonds in this hand would
favour doubling 1 ª rather than a 1 NT overcall.
– Deducting 1 point from the hand above for its 3 cards in the
opponents’ suit would be misguided : when contemplating a NT
overcall over a suit bid by the opponents, no point deduction should
apply to a tripleton in the opponents’ suit.
– Holding 4 cards in the opponents’ suit, however, does become a
liability for two reasons : A) the 4th card will not generate an addi-
tional trick in that suit for the overcaller, neither does it represent
additional protection against a run of the suit by the opponents, and
B) if that card was located in another suit, instead, it would bring
value to the overcaller’s hand, for example by turning a 4-card suit
into a 5-card suit, thus giving the hand more offensive value.
1 point (but 1 point only, not 2) should be deducted from a hand with
4 cards in the suit bid by the opponents.
– And holding 5 cards in the opponents’ suit (rare) is an even greater
liability, for the same reasons, and calls for a 2-point deduction.
Conclusion : For balanced hands contemplating a NT overcall, the
point deduction for length in the opponent’s suit is 1 point less than
what it is for a suit overcall.

79
 OPTIMAL HAND EVALUATION IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING

2. point count deductions applying to honors

For balanced hands contemplating a NT overcall, quite
naturally, the point deductions applying to honors are the same as
the ones applying to hands considering a suit overcall.
As a reminder, they are few and quite simple : deduct 1 point for a
lone King, in any suit of 3 or 4 cards, deduct ½ point from a lone Jack,
in any suit.
3. Illustrations / Example practice hands
Let’s now look at a number of example hands which will be used as
practice hands as well as for comparison purposes with the tradi-
tional point count.
Over a 1 ª opening by your opponents, count your adjusted points
and assess whether to overcall 1 NT, 15/17 pts, with the following
hands :
ª AJx © KQxx ¨ Ax § Q J 10 x
No. This hand’s AOC is 19 H pts, not 17 pts (9 pts for 2 Aces, 1 point
for the 10 with a Jack). It is much too strong for a 1 NT overcall.
It calls for a forcing bid, such as a take-out double.
ª Kxx © KJx ¨ AJx § QJxx
No. This hand only has 14 ½ H pts, initially (-1 point for 4 3 3 3),
not 15. And its AOC is 13 ½ pts once 1 point is deducted for its lone
ª King. Pass is the only wise option. “Balanced hands defend”.
ª Axx © Kxxx ¨ Ax § Q J 10 x
Yes. This hand has 16 H pts, initially (9 pts for 2 Aces, 1 point for
the 10 with the Jack), not 14. its AOC is 15 pts after deducting 1 pt
for its lone King. Passing or doubling would be misguided.
ª Axx © KQx ¨ A J 10 x x § xx
Yes. This hand has 17 HL pts (9 pts for 2 Aces, 2 pts for ¨ J 10,
1 point for the 5-card ¨ suit), not 14. And its AOC is still 17 pts.
Passing or doubling or a 2 ¨ overcall would be seriously misguided.
ª KJx © Axx ¨ K Q 10 x x § xx
Yes. This hand has 15 ½ HL pts (4 ½ pts for the Ace, 1 point for the
10 with the Queen, 1 point for the 5-card ¨ suit), not 13 H pts.
Its AOC is the same : 15 ½ HL pts. Passing or doubling or a 2 ¨
overcall would be horrible bids !

80
 ILLUSTRATIONS / EXAMPLE PRACTICE HANDS

ª QJxx © AQx ¨ Kxx § QJx

No. This hand has 14 ½ H pts, initially (minus 1 point for 4 3 3 3),
but its AOC is only 12 ½ pts once 1 point is deducted for 4 cards in
the opponents’ suit and another for the lone King). Pass. A partner
with a perfectly matching hand to make a 3 NT contract, such as :
ª xx © KJxx ¨ AQx § Kxxx
will re-open the bidding with a balancing double, after this auction :
1ª Pass Pass Double

ª Kxx © QJx ¨ Axx § KQxx

No. This hand has 14 ½ H pts (4 3 3 3). Its AOC is 13 ½ pts (-1 point
for the lone ª King). Do not bid 1 NT as you do not have anywhere
near 15 pts. “balanced hands defend”. Neither do you have the points
for a take-out double. Pass.
Here again, should your partner have the perfectly matching hand for
your side to have a 3 NT contract, such as :
ª Qxx © A 10 x x ¨ Kxx § Axx
He will be re-opening the bidding with a balancing 1 NT, after :
1ª Pass Pass 1 NT (11/14 HL pts)

___________________________________________________________

Many – most – of the example hands shown above illustrate well

how misguided traditional bidding would be in finding the appro-
priate overcall, particularly without making the needed point count
adjustments.
Counting points accurately is critically important to appropriate
bidding and therefore to reaching the optimal contract.
Some of the bidding recommendations shown above defy
traditional practice but they are based on conclusions drawn from
statistical findings. Continuing to bid as in the past will give the
same results as in the past…
____________________________________________________________

81
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING : EXAMPLES

Illustrations from deals bid in tournaments

Let’s now look at the Optimal hand evaluation point count at work
with deals bid and played by world-class players in tournaments.

1954 World Championship (France/USA).

ª Q J 10 x x ª Kxxxx
© xx © x
¨ Axx ¨ J 10 x x
§ KJx § Axx
In both rooms, South opens 1 ©. In one room, the US player, in West,
elected to pass and the French team, in North/South, got to 4 ©,
which makes. In the other room, the French player in the West seat
overcalled with 1 ª and the team ended up in 4 ª.
The 1 ª overcall was justified as the West hand has 13 ½ HL pts.

1955 World Championship (UK/USA).

ª A K 10 x x x ª xx
© KJxx © x
¨ xx ¨ Axxx
§ x § Jxxxxx
In one room, on a 1 © opening by South, Konstam, in West, overcalls
by 2 ª and the UK team ended up in 4 ª, doubled, down two.
This deal was previously reported in the section on jump-overcalls
(page 16) related to the hand’s Delta (D).
Now, we can see that the Optimal adjusted point count gives West
only 13 HLD pts (no Queen) after deducting 2 pts for the 4 cards in
opponents’ suit. The points for a 1 ª overcall, not 2 ª.

Bidding contest, 1964.

« After South opened 1 ª, what do you bid, in West, with this hand ? » :
ª xxx
© Axxxxxx
¨ Kx
§ x
The majority of experts consulted answered : 2 ©. In the 1960
Olympiads this hand comes from, 2 © was bid, doubled, down two.

82
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING : ILLUSTRATIONS

But this hand has 11 ½ HLD pts : no Queen and minus 1 point for
3 cards in opponent’s suit. In addition to having only 6 ½ H pts…
There is simply no justification for such an overcall whatsoever !

1969 World Championship (Italy/China).

ª --- ª Jxxx
© AJ9xxxx © xx
¨ xxx ¨ Qxx
§ Axx § KJxx
On South’s 1 ª opening, West overcalled 2 ©. The overcall is justified
as West has 17 HLD pts (-2 pts for no Q, no K, but 4 L pts for 7 hearts,
and 5 D pts for its void in opponent’s suit).

International tournament, 1972.

ª xxx ª AQJxxx
© Axx © xx
¨ AQJxxx ¨ xxx
§ x § xx
In one room, the bidding was :
South West North East
1© Pass 3© -- All Pass --
3 ©, down one – but West/East missed their 4 ª contract.
But West has 16 HLD pts (-1 pt for no King, -1 point for 3 hearts in
opponents’ suit) and should have overcalled 2¨, giving East a
chance to bid his spades over North’s 3 © bid and find their 4 ª
contract.

International tournament, final 1982.

ª AQx ª Kxx
© AQxx © xx
¨ Kxx ¨ xxxx
§ xxx § KJxx
In one of the two rooms, the bidding was :
South West North East
1© 1 NT double -- all pass –

83
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING : ILLUSTRATIONS

Two down, - 500 pts. A misguided 1 NT overcall due to a poor point

count. West only has 13 H pts, not 15 : -1 pt for 4 3 3 3, -1 point for
4 hearts in opponents’ suit, -1 point for the lone ¨ King.

Teams match, 1982.

ª KQJxx ª xx
© QJxx © Kxxx
¨ x ¨ xxx
§ K 10 x § AQxx
The bidding was often :
South West North East
1¨ 1ª Pass 1 NT
Pass ?
When this hand occurred, one West passed while another bid 2 © and
ended up in 4 ©, which made.
But West has 16 ½ HLD pts (-1 for no Ace, + 1 for 3 honors in a 5-card
suit, 3 pts for the ¨ singleton in opponents’ suit) and should bid 2 ©.
East could then add 2 pts for his 8-card © fit with the King + 2 D pts
for his ª doubleton with 4 trumps. The points for 4 ©.

National tournament, 1988.

ª Ax ª K 10 x x
© K Q 10 x x x © Jx
¨ x ¨ xxx
§ Kxxx § Axxx
The bidding was often :
South West North East
1¨ 1© Pass 1ª
Pass 2§ ---- all Pass ----
And East/West missed their 4 © contract.
This is an excellent example where West would have been well
advised to jump-overcall to 2 © to reveal his 6 hearts, his ¨ singleton
and D of 5 with one single bid. And he has 17 ½ HLD pts (3 pts for his
¨ singleton in the opponents’ suit but -1 point for his lone § King).
East could now add 2 pts to his hand for “no wasted honor pts” in
diamonds and the bidding would then be :

84
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING : ILLUSTRATIONS

South West North East

1¨ 2© Pass 2ª
Pass 3§ Pass 4©
East would now bid 4 © as he has 7 H pts (no Queen) + 2 pts for his
8-card © fit with the Jack + 2 pts for “no wasted honor pts” in
diamonds + 1 point for his 8-card § fit = 12 pts. Opposite 15 + HLD
pts = 27 pts = 4 ©.

International tournament, 1989.

ª Qxx ª xxx
© AKxxxx © Jxx
¨ Kxx ¨ xxx
§ x § KQxx
The bidding was often as follows :
West North East South
1ª Pass 2¨
2© double --- all pass ---
East/West play 2 ©, doubled. 3 down for - 800 pts.
North/South took three spade tricks (the third spade being ruffed),
three diamond tricks (the third ¨ being ruffed) before cashing the
§ Ace and the © Queen. Three down.
West was rightfully severely punished for an unjustified overcall :
he did not have 14 HD pts or 15 HLD pts. He only has 13 HLD pts once
2 pts have been deducted for 3 cards in each of the opponents’ suits
and another point deducted for an isolated King.
Similarly, West should not overcall 2 ª with the following hand :
ª AKQxx ª xx
© xxx © xx
¨ Kxxx ¨ xxx
§ x § KQxxxx
After : West North East South
1© Pass 2©
West does not have 14 HD pts or 15 HLD pts, nor does he have a
6-card ª suit. He only has 14 ½ HLD pts after deducting 2 pts for three
cards in opponents’ suit and the lone King.
85
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING : ILLUSTRATIONS

Similarly, with the following hand, West should not overcall 2 ¨,

after the opponents’ 1 ª opening :
ª xxx ª QJx
© Kxx © xxx
¨ A Q 10 x x x ¨ xxx
§ x § KQxxx
West only has 12 ½ HLD pts once 2 pts have deducted for the three
hearts and the lone King. In the tournament this deal comes from,
some Wests did overcall 2 ¨, doubled, down three for - 800 pts, with
a spade ruffed and the © Ace offside.
While, with the following hand, a 2 ¨ overcall is amply justified on
a 1 ª opening from opponents :
ª xx
© KQxx
¨ A Q 10 x x x
§ x
As, this time, West has 16 ½ HLD pts.

Regional tournament, 1998.

ª x ª xxx
© A J 10 x x © Qxx
¨ QJx ¨ Kxx
§ K 10 x x § AQxx
The bidding was often :
South West North East
1ª Pass 3ª -- All Pass --
And East/West missed an excellent 4 © game.
But West has 17 HLD pts (3 pts for his ª singleton in the opponents’
suit), and he should have overcalled 2 © (better than double with
5 hearts as East will not bid hearts with less than 4 hearts), even
though he does not have a 6-card suit.
East, with his © fit and 12 HF points, would then have no difficulty
bidding 4 © over North’s 3 ª.

86
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING : ILLUSTRATIONS

Regional tournament, 1998.

ª AQx ª x
© Kxx © Q J 10 x x x x
¨ Kxx ¨ xx
§ QJxx § xxx
At one table, the bidding was :
South West North East
1ª 1 NT 2ª 3©
Pass Pass double -- All Pass --
Down two, after the opponents ruffed a third round of clubs and the
¨ Ace being offside.
But West did not have 15 H pts. He only has 12 ½ pts (-1 for 4 3 3 3
and -2 pts for the two lone kings); he should have passed over 1 ª.
“Balanced hands defend”.

Regional tournament, 2003.

ª xxx ª Kx
© AKQxxx © xx
¨ x ¨ xxx
§ Qxx § A J 10 x x
The bidding was often :
South West North East
1¨ 1© 2ª* -- All Pass –
* 2 ª was weak, pre-emptive. East/West missed their 4 © game.
This is another excellent example where a 2 © jump-overcall from
West would have been well advised : a singleton in opponents’ suit,
a 6-card suit, D of 5 and 18 HLD pts (3 pts for the ¨ singleton).
East could then bid 4 © over North’s 2 ª as he could count his hand
worth 11 ½ HLF pts (-1 point for no Queen, + 2 pts for “no wasted
honor pts” in diamonds) opposite partner’s 15 + HLD pts.

87
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING : ILLUSTRATIONS

Rubber game.
ª Kxx ª Qxx
© AJx © xxx
¨ KQxx ¨ Jxx
§ Q 10 x § AKxx
The bidding was :
South West North East
1ª 1 NT Pass 3 NT -- All Pass --
Down one. And that’s as it should be as the bidding is the result of
an awful point count! These two hands have nowhere near 25 pts.
West only has 14 H pts, not 15 (-1 for 4 3 3 3, -1 for its lone ª King).
However, East is the main culprit here as his jump to 3 NT is awful :
he only has 8 ½ pts, not 10 (4 3 3 3 and only 2 pts, not 3, for the iso-
lated Queen and Jack). Had he bid 2 NT, West would have passed.

International tournament, 2003.

ª Qx ª xx
© K 10 x x © xx
¨ AKJxx ¨ Qxxxx
§ xx § KQxx
At one table, the bidding was :
South West North East
1© 2¨ double 4¨
Pass Pass double -- All Pass --
Down two, the © Ace being offside.
East is not at fault here as he has 11 ½ HDF pts. But West did not have
14 HD or 15 HLD pts. He has 16 HLD pts, minus 2 pts for 4 hearts in
opponents’ suit, -1 pt for the lone © King = 13 pts and without a
singleton, nor a 6-card suit, a 2 ¨ overcall is simply inconceivable !
He should have passed over 1 ©. And North/South did not have a
game in either Major.

Regional tournament, 2012.

ª x ª Kxxx
© Qxxx © xxx
¨ Kxx ¨ xx
§ AKxxx § QJxx

88
 OPTIMAL POINT COUNT IN COMPETITIVE BIDDING : ILLUSTRATIONS

The bidding was :

South West North East
1¨ 2§ Pass 3§
Pass Pass 3¨ 4§
double ------------ all pass -------------
Down two. And East is not at fault as he has 11 HDF pts. But West
did not have 14 HD pts and should not have overcalled 2 §. He has
15 HLD pts minus 2 pts for 3 diamonds in the opponents’ suit and the
lone ¨ King = 13 HLD pts.

2019 World Championship, seniors. France vs Denmark.

ª Jxx ª KQ
© KJ8xx © 10 x x
¨ x ¨ AKJ98x
§ QJ8x § 10 9
On South’s 1 § opening, the French player in West overcalled 1 ©,
East bid 3 ¨ and the team ended up playing 4 ©, doubled, vulnerable
Down 3 for - 800 and a loss of 12 IMPs !
While the outcome was rather unlucky for the French team, what can
West expect to gain from his 1 © overcall? The hearts do not exactly
represent an outstanding lead and his hand is not likely to “buy” the
final contract. Without an Ace, West only has 9 ½ HLD pts. He did
not have the points for an overcall and had no justification for it.
Well, 12 of 20 Wests on BBO made the same overcall! Sadly, that is
the state of competitive bidding in Bridge, in 2019…

2019 World Championship, seniors. Semi-finals, board 27.

ª xx ª 10 9 8 x x
© Qx © xxx
¨ Qx ¨ A 10 x x
§ AJ98xxx § K
This is another deal from the same World Championship.
In all cases but one, West players overcalled a weak 3 § on South’s
1 ¨ opening – doubled, down 2 for - 500 pts. And that is with East
producing two unexpected winners for his side…
Confirmation of J-R. Vernes’ statistical findings that weak (or strong)
jump overcalls are counter-productive and should be, instead, in the
15/18 HLD point-range and meet the Delta criteria.

89
90
 THE OPTIMAL POINT COUNT : SUMMARY

In summary, the example deals we just looked at clearly illustrate

the critical need to adjust our point count after the opponents have
bid, to reflect :
1. The positive, offensive impact of being short in the opponents’ suit.
2. The negative impact of having 3 cards or more in the opponents’
suit, making your hand better suited for defense than offense.
3. Furthermore, isolated Kings are vulnerable to competitive bidding
situations and need to be downgraded by 1 point.
Let’s conclude by reviewing some key findings revealed by the
Optimal Hand Evaluation point count :
> Its Optimal accuracy is undeniable and its application is sure to
lead to improved bidding and, thus, to better results “at the table” for
players of any level : intermediate, advanced or world-class.
> It has established essential fundamental premises, such as :
– Opening hands must be counted in HLD pts and, to be within
the “bidding safety level”, opening bids at the level of one must be
within a 6 HLD point-range, and within a 3 HLD point-range for open-
ings at the level of two.
This has a compulsory major implication : Hands of 18 + HLD pts
must be opened a strong, forcing 1 § which will differentiate, in the
process, hands of 12 to 17 HLD pts from hands above 17 HLD pts.
– Its accounting of fit and misfit points, for any and all contracts,
including NT, rules out some traditional practices, such as : including
a 6-card suit in a No Trump opening, an invitational raise to 2 NT or
a “quantitative” 4 NT jump on a 1 NT opening, among others.
> In competitive bidding, point count adjustments are required, in
particular to account for the impact of the number of cards held in the
opponents’ suit, reflecting a hand’s offense to defense ratio.
Hopefully, the two books published on these subjects : “Optimal
Hand Evaluation” and its sequel : “Optimal point count in compe-
titive bidding” will be found educational on the whole subject of hand
evaluation and will contribute to improving your bidding and
achieving better results “at the table”.
____________________________________________________________

I welcome any comments readers may have. Please feel free to

address questions/comments to : [email protected]

91
INTERMEDIATE/ADVANCED

Optimal Point Count in

Competitive Bidding
In his first book, Optimal Hand Evaluation, the author introduced a
number of corrections to the Goren point count to reach “optimal”
hand evaluation accuracy. That first book focused on non-competitive
bidding situations where no further adjustments were needed as a result
of the opponents’ bidding. This book now deals with this specific topic.

First, it challenges the very premise of the Law of Total Tricks and
compares the results of its application “at the table” by world-class
players to the effectiveness of the Optimal point count. Then, it reveals
how to precisely quantify:
• The point-count adjustments that should be applied to hands
that are short or long in a suit bid by the opponents.
• Which point-count adjustments should be made to honors.
• How adjustments translate a hand’s Offense to Defense ratio.
• What adjustments apply to balanced hands.

This book begins with an overview and two-page summary of the

Optimal point count. The full rationale and statistical support data
justifying the point count can be found in the first book, as well as
over 100 example hands illustrating its accuracy.

PATRICK DARRICADES (Canada) learned to play bridge as a teenager,

but quickly became more interested in the theory of the game than
in playing it competitively. His studies of the statistical work of J-R.
Vernes (which formed the basis for the Law of Total Tricks) led to his
first book, Optimal Hand Evaluation, and now to this sequel, which deals
comprehensively with competitive bidding situations.

A N HO NO RS eB OOK FR OM
M A STE R P O I N T PR ESS