I used to, prior to about 2000 or so, advocate a light bridge (morning only orals) that began with PCT but over time blood testing proved even that to impair recovery, and practical results proved it unnecessary for strength or size. It wasn't a bad program, but with time it proved not the best either.
I would definitely not begin a bridge until feeling fully recovered, and then would use only little enough that still maintains good LH levels.
In terms of overall risk/benefit, as opinion I think a pretty valid measure is total grams of anabolic steroids used per year. If you're using more grams per year whether distributed differently or not, that's more aggressive.
In other words, for a valid comparison as to whether bridging is "better" or not, at least as a thought experiment take away the same number of grams from your cycles... does the overall program now sound better or worse? Or if considering adding the bridge while keeping the cycles the same, then at least as a thought experiment consider adding the same amount to your cycles.
I've from time to time done moderate "supplementation" such as 100 mg/week Masteron and have always moderately liked the effect, but that happened in years in which for whatever reason I didn't do any or not much cycles, so I felt it made sense to me for the overall year.
As opinion, in a year of using anabolic steroids seriously, I'd much rather either be here (having a powerful cycle) or there (having natural production, hormone levels, and overall natural body function back to their best as fast as possible) rather than also have considerable time that's neither here nor there. So I don't personally see bridging as being an optimal strategy.
And on your specific bridging plan: Agreed with cycobushmaster, that's blast and cruise rather than a bridge. The Primo alone might count as a bridge, but add in the HCG and I don't see LH production having much chance of being normal.