[gergana85]

MrAce, on 2014-May-31, 09:00, said:

Na, don't get too excited. Only Gonzalo cares about who you are and why you are here and that is probably because he was bored. Trust me no one is losing their sleep over you or conspiracy.

It seems you are viewing the forum as a liability. Please do not take it that way. Especially in this case. Furthermore my criterias for interest in the topic are others - for example, one of them is the number of those comments topic. You are not interested in the topic. Well, say it clearly. If you specify a reason - it will be fine. If you can’t - it's OK. But you do not speak on behalf of others. It's too ambitious. Hardly you are authorized to represent all people.

Pavel Bogev

[Zelandakh]

gergana85, on 2014-June-02, 00:50, said:

Furthermore, the my criterias for interest in the topic are others - for example, one of them is the number of those that comments topic.

Very bad criterion to use. Any forum regular knows about trolling and trolls often get very large threads. Do you want to be an internet troll? I hope not, in which case judge by the content of the responses and not the volume.

[gwnn]

Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality Anyone can add small numbers and subtract them from 13 or some other number, but not everyone can find lines in grand slams like inquiry and rhm.

Disclaimer: this post does not intend to harm anyone's feelings or make fun of anyone else but myself. Terms and conditions may apply.

[gergana85]

'timestamp=, on 2014-May-31, 09:00, said:

Double post. Sorry.

[gergana85]

Zelandakh, on 2014-June-02, 02:11, said:

Very bad criterion to use......

I was not quite right with examples. I meant "meaningful comments." Your comments are indeed such and I will answer them soon.

[Zelandakh]

Am not sure there is any need. As I understand it the formula of "13 - # of cards above 3 in all suits" will give the correct answer in all cases except those where you are counting the assumed top honours in a long suit. Ignoring those special cases, all your formula does is to adjust to the above formula when the third suit also has cards above 3, right?

More than that, unadjusted LTC is arguably the worst evaluation method around. It is the same as A=3, K=3, Q=3, dbl=3, sgl=6, void=9 (with K bare, Q bare or Qx = 0). Anyone should be able to see that is a bad idea. I realise you are not progressing on to actual evaluation but anything else is of no practical use to a bridge player.

So I cannot currently see any merit in this, neither mathematically nor from a bridge perspective. It is a shame - as a bridge-playing mathematician who was once involved in research I would love to have found something interesting here. But all I can see is something trivial being dressed up as useful research. Well it might be enough to fool some old Prof into giving a 2:1 for a final year project...if they knew nothing about bridge anyway. But do not expect to be writing it up as a doctorate thesis any time soon.

[gergana85]

gwnn, on 2014-May-31, 14:25, said:

Hey Pavel, thanks, I checked those sites, .....

Hi Csaba. If I understood correctly, you ask me what are the sources that have helped me in my work. I do not have sources. I've only ever analyzed all 39 distributions and I have proven that the distribution strength depends on the sum of the two longest suits. I have not created a method to evaluate the hand.

Pavel Bogev

[gwnn]

No, that is not what I am asking you. You claimed that LTC gives the loser count as 12-(number of A, K, or Q). In particular, any hand with 0 HCP will have 12 losers, according to your interpretation of LTC. I claim that is not true and gave some examples. Can you provide any counter examples?

[Lurpoa]

MrAce, on 2014-April-25, 04:16, said:

Who let the dogs out ?!

This is not funny !

No intention to offend :