[Liversidge]

I have come across several 'systems' for evaluating a hand. I know expert players can do this intuitively, but for novices like me these systems can be very helpful scaffolds. Up to now my understanding has been that until a possible suit contract has been identified, you should only add points for length, 1 point for every card over four in a suit. But if a suit contract emerges as a possibility during the bidding, you should switch from counting length to counting shortage, 5-3-1 for a void/singleton/doubleton, but downgrading it if you have less than 4 card support (e.g. a 6-2 fit). There are other more subtle areas such as whether the suit is spades, or whether honour cards are touching, or are there 10's in the hand, etc., and I am slowly getting better at this, but yesterday I came across a system from a highly respected teacher that suggests counting both length and shortage when evaluating a hand for a suit contract after a fit has been found.
In this system, all other things being equal,and with 4 card support, a 4-4-3-2 hand would have 1 distribution point and a 5-4-2-2 would have three distribution points. The qualifying statement was: 'add points for length provided you intend to use the length'.

[Stephen Tu]

Liversidge, on 2014-August-08, 11:11, said:

I have come across several 'systems' for evaluating a hand. I know expert players can do this intuitively, but for novices like me these systems can be very helpful scaffolds. Up to now my understanding has been that until a possible suit contract has been identified, you should only add points for length, 1 point for every card over four in a suit. But if a suit contract emerges as a possibility during the bidding, you should switch from counting length to counting shortage, 5-3-1 for a void/singleton/doubleton, but downgrading it if you have less than 4 card support (e.g. a 6-2 fit). There are other more subtle areas such as whether the suit is spades, or whether honour cards are touching, or are there 10's in the hand, etc., and I am slowly getting better at this, but yesterday I came across a system from a highly respected teacher that suggests counting both length and shortage when evaluating a hand for a suit contract after a fit has been found.

It's perfectly reasonable to count for both, it just uses a different scale, and both methods will often come out to the same thing. Since the shortness only method is 5/3/1 while the count both is 3/2/1 for shortness, once you add the length back in they are often identical. E.g. 5431 = +3 shortness only, or +1 length +2 shortness counting both, either way is +3 for distribution. Some hands might be +/- 1 point difference depending on how you count.

In the end it doesn't really matter, it's all just estimation anyway, and same features are upgraded either way, and it only affects your decisions on the margins. Long suits are good if you can use them as trumps or establish & run them. Shortness is good, better the bigger your trump fit is. Secondary honors like Qs/Js are much better when in your side's long suit(s), aces are also better in your long suits, but in general you'd rather have your quacks in your suits and aces outside than the other way around for equivalent # of HCP.

[whereagles]

The advice I usually give is to count one or the other. Not both simultaneously.

[Stephen Tu]

whereagles, on 2014-August-08, 15:00, said:

The advice I usually give is to count one or the other. Not both simultaneously.

For what reason though? I can't see how it really matters much when both methods give you the same answer +/- 1 for the most common shapes.

If I were to stick to one method I would do length+shortness because I do think 5431 take more trick on average than 4441 and 6331 > 5431 for the same HCP, and counting for length reflects this while counting for shortness only does not. Though maybe not the full point difference the method gives.

OP be careful adding too much for shape on some hand types, in time you learn things like 4441/5440 can be a bit overrated by some of those point schemes, as is 7222. Over time you develop a feel for these things and subconsciously devalue accordingly. As you get better you start making borderline decisions by postulating average hands for partner for the range he has shown and playing them out in your head to estimate how many tricks are likely coming home.

[whereagles]

for statistical reasons, i guess (ask the french author where i got the idea from lol)

[Zelandakh]

There are lots of ways of doing it. I do not count length for suit purposes at all but rather shortage once a it is found. For NT purposes, for example when considering opening 1NT, I think of cards beyond the 4th in a suit as a plus factor, something akin to half a point. I think that if we were looking for a perfect formula without adjustments then a method that took account of both length and shortage would be best but that the method outlined by Stephen is probably not as good as the regular 5/3/1. In practise it is easier to start with something simple and apply adjustments but many of those adjustments are worth less than a whole point so you either need to change the scale or start factoring in fractions or plus/minus factors.