[Siegmund]

I have not had good success getting to the 3-level on a lot of 9-loser hands.

For a time I played a system where 1H-2S = 4 trumps, 6-9, singleton somewhere and 1H-3C = 4 trumps, 6-9, no singleton. The former was a big winner; the latter never seemed to lead to anything miraculous. I eventually gave up and started putting the flattest of my 4-card raises back into 1M-2M.

IIRC Klinger recommended defining 1M-4M as 7-loser hands without many face cards (5-5s and some 5-4-3-1s,virtually never 5332). You can stretch it a little bit farther than that, but not as far as you have.

At first glance, I think you would be close to a workable scheme if you made all your raises about a half trick stronger.

As for adjusted LTC vs 3-2-1 count, adjusted LTC *IS* 3-2-1 count with downgrading of honors in short suits. IMO the adjustment does more harm than good.

[phil_20686]

Honestly, LTC is a terrible way to evaluate hands as a first touch. It is useful in some situations, but I'm pretty sure it was basically invented as a way to encourage fairly terrible players to bid a bit more, by persauding them that there was a rule to make it safe.

LTC makes Axxx x Axxx Axxx the same as Qxxx x Qxxx Qxxx, both are seven loser hands. Does that mean I should do the same with both? Obviously not. I can obviously construct a similar argument for HCP: AKxxxx AKxxxx x - is not the same as Kxxx Axx Kxx Axx.

Sure you can modify stuff, but all these modifications basically tell you that an expert looks at his hand and bids something, and then later tries to make up an evaluation tool that justifies his bidding. Rather than depend on some evaluation write in your system file a typical minimum hand and a typical maximum hand and then argue in the PM about where a given hand falls on the scale if you don't agree.

Constructing a bidding system based on some definite evaluation method is absurd imo. No evaluation method is even remotely close to comprehensive. Look at a hand, decide what its worth, and then bid something. If it doesnt work out remember it, and use your failures to refine your bidding.

[phil_20686]

straube, on 2012-January-28, 12:38, said:

Wait. I'm not arguing with LOTT. I asked your opinion as to whether we should shove the preemptive bids into 2S. I wasn't thinking that a preemptive 3S bid was not valuable.

I was thinking that...

1) a lot of folks don't even have a 3S preemptive bid. Some of them even pass with Kxxx x xxxx xxxx ! Just awful.
Others make a forcing NT and then try to play 2S. Shows opponents zero respect.

2) we have a direct raise of 2S which can be crap and is at least a little preemptive. Though raising to only 2S is not what I want to do with Kxxx x xxxx xxxx, I was considering the frequency of this sort of hand vs the frequency of a hand with four spades, high ODR, and about 8.5 LTC. If the latter were much higher frequency, then it might pay to yield 3S to that bid.

So I think you're right (about keeping 3S weak). Plus I looked at some hands and feel like I really would like a 3S weak raise and that the 8.5 LTC hand isn't frequent enough to assign 3S to that.

Having a junk raise to two spades, is really not valuable. You will only have to raise a few times on xxx xx Axxxx xxx, before you find partner with Q8xxx in his suit and go for a random 500 on a nothing board. I put my 2s raise as about 5-9 with three trumps, Counting two for a singleton with three trumps, and taking away two HCP for any hand with xxx in the trump suit. I also have a Mixed raise available, but no true preemptive raise. So with Kxxx x xxxx xxxx I would bid 2S then 3S. A preemptive raise to 3S is relatively useful, but hardly criticial. Its actually quite rare to have hands with four trummps, some shape, and so few HCP that you are unsuitable for a mixed raise. At favourble I might sneak Kxxx x xxxx xxxx into a mixed raise for tactical reasons.

[ArtK78]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-29, 09:26, said:

Honestly, LTC is a terrible way to evaluate hands as a first touch. It is useful in some situations, but I'm pretty sure it was basically invented as a way to encourage fairly terrible players to bid a bit more, by persauding them that there was a rule to make it safe.

LTC makes Axxx x Axxx Axxx the same as Qxxx x Qxxx Qxxx, both are seven loser hands. Does that mean I should do the same with both? Obviously not. I can obviously construct a similar argument for HCP: AKxxxx AKxxxx x - is not the same as Kxxx Axx Kxx Axx.

Sure you can modify stuff, but all these modifications basically tell you that an expert looks at his hand and bids something, and then later tries to make up an evaluation tool that justifies his bidding. Rather than depend on some evaluation write in your system file a typical minimum hand and a typical maximum hand and then argue in the PM about where a given hand falls on the scale if you don't agree.

Constructing a bidding system based on some definite evaluation method is absurd imo. No evaluation method is even remotely close to comprehensive. Look at a hand, decide what its worth, and then bid something. If it doesnt work out remember it, and use your failures to refine your bidding.

Phil, you are looking at it completely wrong.

No one would argue that Axxx x Axxx Axxx is the same as Qxxx x Qxxx Qxxx. Neither would one argue that QJx QJx QJxx QJx is the same as Axx Axx xxxx Axx, even though both are 12 HCP hands. But, when used properly as ONE of the tools of hand evaluation, LTC can help one evaluate how well two hands fit to more accurately determine the proper level for the contract.

Having played Romex which is a system which uses LTC extensively in its bidding structure, I find that evaluating hands in terms of LTC and cover cards is quite useful.

Dismissing the usefulness of LTC out of hand is silly.

[phil_20686]

ArtK78, on 2012-January-29, 09:54, said:

Phil, you are looking at it completely wrong.

No one would argue that Axxx x Axxx Axxx is the same as Qxxx x Qxxx Qxxx. Neither would one argue that QJx QJx QJxx QJx is the same as Axx Axx xxxx Axx, even though both are 12 HCP hands. But, when used properly as ONE of the tools of hand evaluation, LTC can help one evaluate how well two hands fit to more accurately determine the proper level for the contract.

Having played Romex which is a system which uses LTC extensively in its bidding structure, I find that evaluating hands in terms of LTC and cover cards is quite useful.

Dismissing the usefulness of LTC out of hand is silly.

All evaluation methods are basically silly. You look at your hand and the sequence and you know how much its worth. If you are in unfamiliar territory you produce a few sample hands for partner based on his bidding and see how many tricks you can make.

When I see a bidding structure set out in terms of losers it does not fill me with confidence. The reason things like "mixed raise" seem a bid vague is because experts are basically quite vague about why they make a certain bid. Its partly descriptive, partly tactical, often partly a gambit vs weaker players, and partly state of the match. A structure like this is bad for lots of reasons, not the least in that it massively helps your oppo declarer if they ask about your hand evaluation methods and your strict rules. A bid of variation is good.

[PrecisionL]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-29, 09:26, said:

Honestly, LTC is a terrible way to evaluate hands as a first touch. It is useful in some situations, but I'm pretty sure it was basically invented as a way to encourage fairly terrible players to bid a bit more, by persauding them that there was a rule to make it safe.

LTC makes Axxx x Axxx Axxx the same as Qxxx x Qxxx Qxxx, both are seven loser hands. Does that mean I should do the same with both? Obviously not.

I don't know which LTC book(let) you have read, but Qxxx x Qxxx Qxxx is 8 1/2 losers - there are adjustments for lone honors. Part of LTC is the concept of cover cards. A Q is 1/2 of a cover card outside of trumps and As and Ks are counted as full cover cards, but the K value depends on the position of the missing A.

LTC is a reasonable method when you have an 8-card or better fit for limit raises and evaluating 15+ hcp balanced hands.

[straube]

Siegmund, on 2012-January-29, 03:03, said:

I have not had good success getting to the 3-level on a lot of 9-loser hands.

For a time I played a system where 1H-2S = 4 trumps, 6-9, singleton somewhere and 1H-3C = 4 trumps, 6-9, no singleton. The former was a big winner; the latter never seemed to lead to anything miraculous. I eventually gave up and started putting the flattest of my 4-card raises back into 1M-2M.

IIRC Klinger recommended defining 1M-4M as 7-loser hands without many face cards (5-5s and some 5-4-3-1s,virtually never 5332). You can stretch it a little bit farther than that, but not as far as you have.

At first glance, I think you would be close to a workable scheme if you made all your raises about a half trick stronger.

As for adjusted LTC vs 3-2-1 count, adjusted LTC *IS* 3-2-1 count with downgrading of honors in short suits. IMO the adjustment does more harm than good.

I'd be interested in your specific recommendations. 2S=what? 2N=what? 3H=what? 3S=what? 4S....

[straube]

Definitely not on Phil's side. First, we're using Klinger's "Modern" LTC which counts aces and queens differently. Imo, it starts to closely mirror evaluation structures that are based on hcps/distibution points.

Besides which, evaluation structures are both 1) a tool for communicating support to partner and 2) a check on one's own evaluation of a hand.

I've used a couple of different evaluation methods as a guide to determine what my hand is worth. Sometimes, these tools tell me that my hand is worth more or less than my first impression. For myself, this has usually led me to make a better bidding decision.

Naturally, the better bidder one is, the less one will rely on such tools and the more on one's own judgment. Still, I bet most experts count their points before they make a bid.

The other point is that I think our 2S bad raise is a big winner. We have to be careful vulnerable, but it will be harder to defend against 1S P 2S than against 1S P P.

[Zelandakh]

akhare, on 2012-January-27, 11:28, said:

That's an interesting point. Perhaps, considering QPs in addition to loser count might provide the answer on whether it's advisable to blast to 4M?

For the uninitiated, QPs is A=3, K=2, Q=1...

For the uninitiated, MLTC is functionally identical to a method where A=3, K=2, Q=1...

[gwnn]

slightly off topic:

straube did you consider

1♠-2♥=5+ ♥ GF or 3 spades, weak single raise
1♠-2♠=constructive raise?

[straube]

gwnn, on 2012-January-30, 07:04, said:

slightly off topic:

straube did you consider

1♠-2♥=5+ ♥ GF or 3 spades, weak single raise
1♠-2♠=constructive raise?

No. I think 1S-2H as a 2-way wouldn't empower opener to bid...so we would lose 1S-2H, 2N+ sequences.