[MickyB]

Chamaco, on Jan 28 2005, 03:57 PM, said:

Quote

Problem is, LTC is fundamentally flawed, as it rarely takes into account jacks and tens having value,

It seems to me that in virtually ANY hand evaluation system, tens are rarely accounted for, and even jacks are left to subjective hand evaluations (unless we apply faithfully Milton Work Point count, which seems to be not so highly regarded).

So I would say that basically, almost any hand evaluation system largely depends on "adjustments" and "common sense" to account for Jack an Tens, and that LTC - if aplied with common sense adjustments as any other method - cannot be indicated as much worse than most other methods in this regard.

Quote

and it overrates distributional hands in comparison to those based on high cards.

Is that true ?
In my experience, LTC, when used in its non-basic form (e.g. Qxx is NOT 2 losers but rather 2.5/2.75 or so, account for likely working or not working finesses based on bidding etc), tends to work rather well, ESPECIALLY for weak distributional hands.

If you know what the mean value of a jack or ten in a suit contract is, and assign each card that value initially before adjusting based on everything else you know, you will land up closer to the true value of the hand than if you initially give them no value and go from there.

Counting with a 40 HCP deck, 3 HCP is worth approximately one trick, so LTC is working on something like a 9-6-3 shortage count and a 4.5-3.0-1.5 honour count. Giving shortage that high a valuation assumes that:

Partner will have no wasted honours opposite your shortage
Any suit with 4+cards will be able to win the 4th round onwards with its small cards

[luke warm]

MickyB, on Jan 28 2005, 12:55 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 28 2005, 06:12 PM, said:

remember, he didn't state it as an opinion... he stated it as a matter of fact

As far as I am aware, it isn't possible to prove whether Bergen raises suck or not, so what can "Bergen Raises suck" be other than an opinion?

it can be a statement of fact... bergen raises belong in a whole category of conventions that are neither right nor wrong, per se, but are played or not based on a person's philosophy, or the authority one gives another

bergen obviously doesn't think they suck... the question then comes down to, by what criteria does one grant another the authority to judge? this is not the same thing as two experts (expert status being based on objective standards - actual results) having a difference of opinion... as a general rule, a real expert will always acknowledge the value of another's opinion, even while disagreeing with it

i don't see anything wrong with my asking, because of my own ignorance of the matter, for the nature and depth of a person's theoretical knowledge and/or experience as his way of explaining a statement of fact...

[Fluffy]

Chamaco, on Jan 28 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jan 28 2005, 11:06 AM, said:

What I Don't unnderstand is the 6+ HCP you said, mini splinters are invitational, not barrage, ,these means, if partner has nothing at all on the splintered suit he shoiuld bi game even with 12 HCPor so, mini splinter is for 9-10 range.

In my opinion, the best way to define the range of these "feature-showing" jumps(minisplinter for shortness, fitshowing jumps for good sidesuits) is in terms of LOSERS, not hcp.

well, maybe the term 2.5 useful cards is better than 9-10 range, anyway it is the same concept.