BBO Discussion Forums: 5422 COG? - BBO Discussion Forums

mycroft, on 2021-May-24, 10:49, said:

As many (e.g. Zelandakh) have pointed out on these forums, the standard LTC is equivalent to counting 3 points for each each

* ace
* king at least doubleton
* queen at least third

and 3, 6 and 9 points for each doubleton, singleton and void, respectively.

Why would any good player use that method as a tie-breaker?

You're still palming the "only form of analysis" card, and I can see it between your fingers.

I have an 18 Work hand. Is it a 12 LTCP hand or an 18 LTCP hand (using your "count")? Which one's better? Is a 12LTCP 18 count really 18, or do we treat it as 17 until we find out if partner's 6-9 covers our losers or are in our short suits? How about a 15LTCP hand? Or an 18 LTCP hand?

I have a 21 count, but they could take 5 top tricks vs. I have a 21 count, but they can at worst take 3 top tricks. Which one's better? LTC is a great "shortcut" way to determine (or to talk about) a "good" X vs a "bad" X. One of many, sure, but a good one nonetheless.

Come on, this is just as "good or bad 18" as "does it have a singleton" or "do we have a 8- or a 9-card fit". On other hands, where slam is a possibility, obviously "losers" matter, and whether they're the A or the Q, they have to be covered if you're planning on the fourth card in that suit being your 12th trick.

There are those who overemphasize LTC - you can find my story of the *Precision* partner I played with who agreed to play 10-12 1NT NV and we missed game because he passed a flat 10 "because I don't open 10 loser hands" (I mean, I could agree with that, but don't agree to play a preemptive 1NT opener then!). But that's not what's being discussed here.

For a more concrete example, what you're saying is that "Axxxx Axxxx Ax x is evaluated the same as QJx QJ QJxx QJxx, why would a good player use HCP as a tiebreaker?"

Because when you're comparing 6-LTC hands, a 12 count is probably worse than an 18 count? Especially opposite 6-9?

mycroft, on 2021-May-25, 11:15, said:

LTC is a disguised way of counting points for high cards and short suits, so a better comparison would be with Goren points, a method desgined to measure the same thing.

Okay, two tries and you're still telling me "nothing to see here" with pips actually showing between your fingers. You don't want an answer, you want to be right.

Okay, you're right. Now let me listen to MikeH and see if I can learn something from his analysis that is so obviously wrong.

nullve, on 2021-May-25, 05:22, said:

Why would any good player use any single metric to be a determinant of what to do?

I realize that the Bergen’s of the world, writing for the vast majority of players, who are non-expert, like to provide simple (I’d say simplistic) rules. This goes back at least to Goren.

When I discuss bidding with good players, we never, and I mean never, talk in numbers as a representation of our hand. Yes, of course, we will mention how many hcp we hold, but that’s a minor aspect. We discuss shape, but never in terms of ‘I added x points’ for my length or shortness. We discuss degrees of fit, and ways to assess them in the auction. We discuss whether we have ‘soft’ values, or are control rich.

More commonly, we describe how we feel about the hand...that feeling often changing during the auction. We may discuss holding working cards or cards that don’t appear to be working.

In suit bidding, we never say things such as ‘I had 13 points in support of your suit’.

The closest we come to stressing hcp is in quantitative notrump bidding, and even there we look at much more than ‘how many points do I have’

So when I referred to my view that this was not a very good 18 count, one of the many factors I look at is a rough and ready LTC. I also look at spots. AJ987 is much better than AJ543, as a simple example... and look at our spade suit on this hand as one factor I weighed in coming to the view that I didn’t like this 18 count much....in the universe of 5S4H 18 count hands.

To actually explain my thought processes when I look at a hand would usually, especially for hands like this, take a huge amount of space. In real life, much of the process is subconscious, because I’ve played a lot of bridge, read probably as much, and certainly had many discussions with players I consider my peers and, fortunately, a number with players I consider my betters.so it isn’t easy for me to always articulate, completely, why I see a hand a certain way. I do try to set out the main points and did so here in my earlier posts.

On the actual hand, my 2H bid should, I think, be raised to 3H. It’s close, but that spade holding is great, and the heart 10 may well be valuable, as indeed it would often be on this hand, plus I have an Ace on the side.

Not surprisingly, given that both players have close decisions, game is ok but not wonderful

Btw, I definitely did follow simplistic rules when I was a relative beginner...adding points for length or shortness and so on....learning that one needed 26 ‘points’ for a major suit game, 28 for a minor game and so on. So I’m not dumping on those methods, anymore than I’d criticize a child, new to riding a bicycle, for having training wheels....and if all one wants is a social pastime, then why go to all of the work needed to become expert?

nullve, on 2021-May-25, 05:22, said:

Why would any good player use any single metric to be a determinant of what to do?

I realize that the Bergen’s of the world, writing for the vast majority of players, who are non-expert, like to provide simple (I’d say simplistic) rules. This goes back at least to Goren.

When I discuss bidding with good players, we never, and I mean never, talk in numbers as a representation of our hand. Yes, of course, we will mention how many hcp we hold, but that’s a minor aspect. We discuss shape, but never in terms of ‘I added x points’ for my length or shortness. We discuss degrees of fit, and ways to assess them in the auction. We discuss whether we have ‘soft’ values, or are control rich.

More commonly, we describe how we feel about the hand...that feeling often changing during the auction. We may discuss holding working cards or cards that don’t appear to be working.

In suit bidding, we never say things such as ‘I had 13 points in support of your suit’.

The closest we come to stressing hcp is in quantitative notrump bidding, and even there we look at much more than ‘how many points do I have’

So when I referred to my view that this was not a very good 18 count, one of the many factors I look at is a rough and ready LTC. I also look at spots. AJ987 is much better than AJ543, as a simple example... and look at our spade suit on this hand as one factor I weighed in coming to the view that I didn’t like this 18 count much....in the universe of 5S4H 18 count hands.

To actually explain my thought processes when I look at a hand would usually, especially for hands like this, take a huge amount of space. In real life, much of the process is subconscious, because I’ve played a lot of bridge, read probably as much, and certainly had many discussions with players I consider my peers and, fortunately, a number with players I consider my betters.so it isn’t easy for me to always articulate, completely, why I see a hand a certain way. I do try to set out the main points and did so here in my earlier posts.

On the actual hand, my 2H bid should, I think, be raised to 3H. It’s close, but that spade holding is great, and the heart 10 may well be valuable, as indeed it would often be on this hand, plus I have an Ace on the side.

Not surprisingly, given that both players have close decisions, game is ok but not wonderful

Btw, I definitely did follow simplistic rules when I was a relative beginner...adding points for length or shortness and so on....learning that one needed 26 ‘points’ for a major suit game, 28 for a minor game and so on. So I’m not dumping on those methods, anymore than I’d criticize a child, new to riding a bicycle, for having training wheels....and if all one wants is a social pastime, then why go to all of the work needed to become expert?

Heh, I'm not at your level, I still say such things as "15-17 points in support of spades" - as an explanation of my 1m-1M; 2M raise.

I'm sure I'll get better eventually :-).

mycroft, on 2021-May-25, 11:15, said:

Does the 2nd hand really compute to 6 losers in any LTC method??? It's an 8 loser hand the way I learned LTC.

johnu, on 2021-May-25, 18:12, said:

6 losers is based on a suit contract so the Ax suits are only 1 loser

I knew that one was going to be confusing. I was being told that since all 6-loser hands are "equal" in LTC, that it was a bad way of tie-breaking 18s (even though the second example wasn't 18, it was 10). So I showed that since all 12HCP hands are "equal" in Milton Work count, it was a bad way of tie-breaking 6-loser hands (even though my second example was an 8-loser+).

And then went back to his example to show the card he was palming with is "if it's a method of evaluation, it must be the only method of evaluation, and that's really dumb" (which, of course it would be, if anyone actually did that).

Sorry to confuse.

mycroft, on 2021-May-25, 21:13, said:

I've never meant to say that. (When did I say it?)

What I meant to say is that if you're going to use a method just as a tie-breaker, then it probably shouldn't be LTC, because it's a terrible method.

That it is a terrible method may not be obvious until you view it as a point count method designed to measure essentially the same thing as the Goren point count method, namely the value of high cards and short suits. Then you get apparent absurdities like AJ843 AK93 Q9 A6 and Q9843 KQ93 T9 K6 being both worth 18 LTC-derived points (but 19* and 12 Goren points, respectively).

Good luck constructing a pair of hands where it is the Goren count and not the LTC-derived count that leads to absurdity! So why not use the Goren count as a tie-breaker instead of the LTC? How can that not be (much) better?

* not counting a distributional point for ♦Q6 doubleton

But the whole point is that you don't use LTC to tie-break between those two hands - that's "only method of evaluation" thinking. It's screamingly obvious which one's better - the 18 count. (note that here, you're using Work count/Goren count to tie-break between 6-LTC hands, not the other way around! Note how it works really well!) Same as you don't use Work count to tie-break between my nice-6-loser aces-and-spaces and the awful flat quacky 8LTC hand; you don't have to, there's no tie to break!

You use LTC (and potential cover cards, depending on the auction) to tie-break between 18 counts, or between 12 counts. Show me hands where *that's* terrible.
You, as Mike says, use internal texture. Shape. Majors vs Minors (especially after 1x-1NT NF). Everything else.

It's only a terrible method if it's the only method you use. Of course, you can say that about anything.

Sure you could use Goren Count. Or Culbertson QTs. Or Rule-of. Or AT minus QJ. Or ZAR. or... They might have a slightly different break-point line, but they'll all do the same thing - looking at a hand on two, close to orthogonal, axes zeros in on what you're looking for.

Really, what we're all doing is deciding "is this a great/good/okay/bad/awful 18", as itself, or in context of the auction. We're using shortcuts to explain our judgement, and possibly using those same shortcuts to make that judgement. 30 years ago without all these shortcut tools, explaining why this is a bad 18 to Jillybean would take *pages* (it would look an awful lot like Mike's last, in fact). Now, you can say "a 6-loser 18 shouldn't be treated as 18, that's below average, and this hand has bad spots and no known fit. I don't think I want to game force with it. Bid 2♥, and if partner raises, reconsider." And it would be a hallmark of an expert (as opposed to just Flight A) that they *could* and *did* do this consistently, intuitively applying what we can now objectively teach as "90% efficiency" tools to intermediates willing to learn.

Now, systems based on LTC - combined with cover card analysis by responder - actually can work, because if my "non-losers" are Qs, my partners are Aces as often as when my cards are Aces and theirs are Queens (shape issues aside, but QJTx is just as "not 3 points" opposite a stiff in a trump contract as it is "not a cover card", and system will help analyze that, too). My 6-loser 13 count matches just as well with partner's 3-cover 12 count as my 6-loser 18 count matches with their 3-cover 7.

Is it as good as the people here who swear by it think it is? Probably not. It's probably as good as their ability to use a "HCP and judgement" system is for them, though, if not better.

But for the purposes of this discussion, that is totally irrelevant, because that's *not what's happening here*.

Winstonm, on 2021-May-25, 18:42, said:

No, the 2nd hand with 4 suits headed by QJ. 2 losers in each suit x 4 suits = 8 losers.

mycroft, on 2021-May-26, 09:26, said:

a) Axx ATxx A9xx xx (8 losers)

b) KQx KQTx Q9xx xx (6 losers)

LTC tells us that b) is much better a).

Double dummy analysis (hardly the last word on hand evaluation, I admit) tells us a) is better than b).

Opposite what? a game-forcing heart raise? 1NT response? The second is much better than the first after (Goren) 1H-3H or (2/1) 1D-1H-2H-..., because partner's HCP are all cover cards, and now my suits run. Who knows whether it's 4 or 6 opposite the first (well, partner, obviously)?

I have to admit that playing a weak NT, I'd much rather have the latter than the former for my 1NT opening, especially if it gets passed out.

So let's make the opener, hear partner's response, and then start evaluating.

nullve, on 2021-May-26, 12:32, said:

BUM-RAP point count which adjusts for undervalued aces for a) is 13-1/2 HCP (A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.5, J=3/4, 10=1/4). For b), 10-3/4 HCP. Of course, bridge is a partnership game so partner's hand opposite a) is likely to be quacky, ie more Work count overvalued queens and jacks, while the hand opposite b) is more likely to be ace heavy, more Work count undervalued aces.

To adjust for the queen heavy b) hand, you need to add a point or so to partner's hand compared to a).

nullve, on 2021-May-26, 12:32, said:

I bet you can’t identify a single expert who thinks that the value of a hand is best determined when you pick up the hand and before the auction starts.

Whether your hand 1 or 2 will seem to me to be the better will depend on the auction.

As a trivial example, if the auction begins 2H on my right, pas pass double, I’m happier with hand 2 than with hand 1 and if you subtracted the heart 10 from (1), the LTC remains the same, yet hand (2) is far better than (1) whether I pass or, maybe at adverse vulnerability) bid 3N.

On the other hand, if partner opened a gambling 3N, I’d far rather have hand (1) than hand (2).

You seem fixated on ‘winning’ an argument based on an utterly mistaken understanding of what others are saying. You have somehow created, solely in your own mind, at least two (in my count) silly propositions that you appear to think are espoused by, amongst others, me. My advice: stop while you’re behind, because it ain’t getting any easier for you.

I have never and expect I will never use LTC as you suggest it should be used (ie as some kind of metric to be translated into points) nor in the simplistic fashion that you seem to think I use it. As Mycroft observed, my reference to LTC, in the context of this thread, was that my view was that this 18 hcp 5422 hand had a relatively poor LTC within the universe of 5422 18 counts. Where the heck did you, as it seems you did, go from that to thinking that I used any single metric, let alone a basic LTC, as a ‘tie-breaker’ when deciding, as I did, to bid 2H?

I cannot help but suspect that you personally use very different means of hand evaluation than do I. As I’ve tried to say many times, I don’t assign ‘numbers’ to my view of any but the most basic balanced notrump hands, and even then I’m influenced by many other factors beyond hcp. It’s simply not the way I think about the game, nor is it the way any of my partners or teammates think about hands.

johnu, on 2021-May-26, 12:14, said:

Aha. Thanks.