|
Hand Evaluation
Part IV
by Brian Senior
We ended last article by saying that
not only the distribution of a hand's long suits but also its sidesuit
shape affected its potential; the more unbalanced the distribution
the better. So 5-4-3-1 distribution is better than 5-4-2-2 and 5-4-4-0
even better. Why is this?
5-4-2-2 shape basically offers
two possible trump suits, while 5-4-3-1 offers two suits plus support
for a third one if partner has five cards there. 5-4-4-0 is even
better because it offers three possible trump suits. Also, when
it comes to the play, the shortage offers a potential ruffing value
which may provide extra tricks if your trump fit is good enough
and, even if the ruffs would have to be taken with the longer trump
holding, and so might not actually produce extra tricks, you have
control in the suit and cannot lose quick tricks there. If you have
two doubletons, you will usually need a lot of high cards in the
suits between the two hands if you are to avoid losers. With 3-1
or 4-0 shape, you might get lucky that what high cards partner does
hold are in the right suit, or he may have shortage opposite your
three or four card suit.
This applies with all shapely hands.
If partner has three or four small cards opposite your three or
four card suit, you will have losers there, but there is scope to
get lucky and find his strength opposite your length and his weakness
opposite your shortage, giving you fewer losers. The more balanced
your own hand, the harder it is to get lucky in this way.
Let's look at a few examples to check
that we are on the same wavelength. Which of these hands would you
prefer to hold?
| (i) |
 |
A
K 7 3 2 |
(ii) |
|
A
K 7 3 2 |
|
 |
A Q J 4 |
|
|
A Q J 4 |
|
 |
7 |
|
|
7 5 |
|
 |
10 9 5 |
|
|
10 9 |
Both have 5-4 shape and all the honour
strength in the long suits a positive feature but
hand (i) is better because of the sidesuit shape. Imagine that partner
holds something like:
|
Q
J 8 6 |
|
K 7 3 2 |
|
A 2 |
|
A Q J |
Holding hand (i), 6
is cold and you have the club finesse for the overtrick; holding
hand (ii), a diamond lead leaves 6
needing the club finesse you still make an overtrick when it succeeds,
but you go down if it fails. Of course, 6
might still be cold, subject to a 3-2 trump break, but are you sure
you wouldn't end up in spades?
| (iii) |
|
K
10 7 4 |
(iv) |
|
A
Q 10 8 5 |
|
|
Q 8 6 5
3 |
|
|
K Q J 5
3 |
|
|
A Q |
|
|
7 4 |
|
|
K J |
|
|
8 6 |
Unless partner has a very suitable
hand for you, (iii) leaves you needing all sorts of finesses and
guesses, and losers in your long suits which will probably be unavoidable.
Meanwhile, (iv) gives you solid holdings in the two important suits,
no guesses, no finesses, and is a much more promising hand.
| (v) |
|
A
Q 10 8 5 |
(vi) |
|
A
Q 10 8 5 |
|
|
A K 6 4
|
|
|
A 10 6 4 |
|
|
10 3 |
|
|
K 5 3 |
|
|
8 5 |
|
|
8 |
Now the two main judgement factors
are in conflict. Hand (v) has all its strength in the two main suits,
but (vi) has the better distribution. As long as the position of
the honours is reasonable, the distribution is more important, so
in this case (vi) comes out on top, but if a 5-4-3-1 hand had very
badly placed honours it would be possible for a 5-4-2-2 hand of
the same HCP to be better.
Here, for example, if (vi) was changed such that it had three small
diamonds and a singleton K,
it would be sufficiently weakened as to make (v) the more promising
holding.
It is possible to have too much strength in your long suit, such
that some of it is likely to be wasted.
| (vii) |
|
J
6 3 |
(viii) |
|
K
J 3 |
|
|
A K Q J
10 9 |
|
|
Q J 10 9
6 3 |
|
|
Q 4 |
|
|
A Q |
|
|
8 3 |
|
|
8 4 |
Hand (vii) includes a beautiful suit
which is guaranteed to provide six tricks. Unfortunately, it is
not likely to produce much else. The minor heart honours are not
really pulling their weight. Give partner three small hearts and
the J
might just as well be a small card, while the Q
will also be unnecessary about half the time. Better then to have
those high cards elsewhere. Hand (viii) does not have a solid suit,
but it has one which will be solid once the ace and king are knocked
out. Meanwhile, two of the side suits have useful honour combinations
which could provide more than the two tricks we have given up in
the heart suit.
Of course, this idea can be overdone. We want a decent suit which
will play O.K. opposite a small singleton or doubleton. So QJ10953
is fine but 1076432
would be a liability.
Again, 6-3-3-1 is better than
6-3-2-2.
Hand (x) is clearly the best of the
three, having a decent suit, good honours outside and the better
shape. Hand (xi) has better shape than (ix) but the honours are
less well placed, the bare ace in particular being a negative feature
as you have no flexibility in deciding when to play it, and the
main suit is poor. These negative factors are sufficient to outweigh
the superior distribution of hand (xi) and I would say that (ix)
is the second most promising of these three hands.
So judgement is not a matter of applying
blanket rules which will always rank with the same importance. Extra
shape is generally more important than the position of high cards,
but only within reasonable limits. Sufficiently good or bad honour
dispersion can eventually outweigh differences in shape. We will
continue our look at Hand Evaluation in the next article.
|
