[rhm]

Codo, on 2013-February-15, 04:58, said:

AS you seem to be serious, a serious answer:

if you open light, opps have no chance to open. So besides the construcitve effect, each opening has a destructive effect too. So it has benefits to open weak hands and to get your suit in at once.
But if you play standard bidding systems however, a 1♦♥♠ opening already shows from 12 to 22 HCPS. You may overload the response structure if you have to take care for bad 11 counts too.

I am aware, but the question is, if opening light where is your floor?
If I take your argument at face value Precision players could open hands from 5 to 15 HCP instead of 12 to 22 HCP.
If opening light is such an advantage you would expect them to have no more trouble differentiating 5 from 15 than 12 from 22 HCP.

In 2001 Rodwell gave an interview to Bridgematters, where he said:

"I don’t think opening a hand like Jx Axxxx Kxxx Qx with 1H is winning bridge." (Something I see recommended here sometimes by strong club players)
...
"I think opening light, though not too light, has advantages at all forms of the game, in the sense you are announcing certain minimal values and something about your shape. You’re just positioning yourself well, primarily for a competitive auction. If you knew your opponents were never going to bid, you would probably be better off playing sounder opening bids
The hand still has to have something that you think is worth 11 points to open. I don’t want to go lighter than that."

I think that summarizes it for me and I may be ten years behind. I do not know whether Meckwell have changed their mind in the meantime.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

lowerline, on 2013-February-15, 06:17, said:

Being a non-expert player, I use the (new/adjusted) LTC to help me decide whether to open.

As I have pointed out a few times here before, this is functionally equivalent to A = 3; K = 2 (unless singleton); Q = 1 (unless singleton/doubleton); void = 6; singleton = 4; doubleton = 2. To convert, change the MLTC figure into a WTC figure by subtracting from 12 and multiply by 2. For example, a 7 loser hand would be 10 "points", (12-7) * 2 = 10. The OP hand has 8.5 MLTC losers and 7 MLTC points - (12 - 8.5) * 2 = 7. It should be obvious to you from this that the MLTC is a fairly poor evaluation tool for general hands, and certainly considerably worse than the kind of judgement that Mike described. It should also be obvious that you can simplify your MLTC calculation significantly just by switching over to using Queen Points (QPs, the normal name for 3/2/1 point count). You can also use a modified Milton base for this, where A = 4.5; K = 3; Q = 1.5. The equivalent shortage numbers would be 9/6/3 and to convert from MLTC numbers use (12 - losers) * 3.

Many people seem to think that the MLTC is something highly clever and different in some way from "just counting points". In truth it is even worse than being a Walrus since it is a bean counter method with wildly inaccurate numbers attached. At least modified Milton with upgrades/downgrades tends to put you roughly in the ballpark, even if it cannot make up for the experience and judgement of genuine experts.

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2013-February-15, 06:30, said:

If I take your argument at face value Precision players could open hands from 5 to 15 HCP instead of 12 to 22 HCP.

Tell me, what proportion of hands (for Dealer) have 12 to 22 hcp? What proportion have 5 to 15? Notice a difference? Notice in particular a difference in frequencies at the bottom end? Yes, there are good reasons not to use a 5 to 15 range. There is also good theory to suggest that opening an 8 to 12 range is very good though, effectively splitting hands up into 0-7, 8-12, 13+ ranges. Much of the theory of Forcing Pass systems relies on this division. There is quite a difference between 10 to 15 (or even 8 to 14) and 5 to 15. I am not sure which Strong Club players have suggested the latter; I have certainly never seen it recommended.

[hrothgar]

rhm, on 2013-February-15, 06:30, said:

If opening light is such an advantage you would expect them to have no more trouble differentiating 5 from 15 than 12 from 22 HCP.

Plot the two PDFs and describe the relevant differences

[lowerline]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-15, 06:49, said:

As I have pointed out a few times here before, this is functionally equivalent to A = 3; K = 2 (unless singleton); Q = 1 (unless singleton/doubleton); void = 6; singleton = 4; doubleton = 2. To convert, change the MLTC figure into a WTC figure by subtracting from 12 and multiply by 2. For example, a 7 loser hand would be 10 "points", (12-7) * 2 = 10. The OP hand has 8.5 MLTC losers and 7 MLTC points - (12 - 8.5) * 2 = 7. It should be obvious to you from this that the MLTC is a fairly poor evaluation tool for general hands, and certainly considerably worse than the kind of judgement that Mike described. It should also be obvious that you can simplify your MLTC calculation significantly just by switching over to using Queen Points (QPs, the normal name for 3/2/1 point count). You can also use a modified Milton base for this, where A = 4.5; K = 3; Q = 1.5. The equivalent shortage numbers would be 9/6/3 and to convert from MLTC numbers use (12 - losers) * 3.

Many people seem to think that the MLTC is something highly clever and different in some way from "just counting points". In truth it is even worse than being a Walrus since it is a bean counter method with wildly inaccurate numbers attached. At least modified Milton with upgrades/downgrades tends to put you roughly in the ballpark, even if it cannot make up for the experience and judgement of genuine experts.

I cannot say that I fully understand what you are saying here... The hand in the OP has 11hcp. According to the original LTC it has 7 losers which is enough to open an 11hcp hand. According to the new-LTC it has 9 losers, while only 7.5 losers are allowed to open an 11hcp hand. No, it is not clear to me why new-LTC in combination with hcp is worse than any of the other methods you mention... From a practical point of view the new-LTC is certainly easier to apply at the table than QPs or the modified Milton base because you don't have to change your hcp reference framework.

Steven

[helene_t]

lowerline, on 2013-February-15, 08:13, said:

From a practical point of view the new-LTC is certainly easier to apply at the table than QPs or the modified Milton base because you don't have to change your hcp reference framework.

I suppose it is subjective what we see as easy to apply, but for me, using two scales instead of one makes things complicated. I would rather rescale the new-LTC's so that they become comparable to HCPs (say a 12-19 range for balanced hands would be a 12-19 range regardless of whether one scale or the other was used). But that's just me.

[Zelandakh]

It obviously is easier since you have miscounted, unless you have also made the (good) change to downgrade doubletons by 1/2 a loser too. If you do this then the distributional values for MLTC points are 6/3/1, still far too high but slightly better.

You say the OP hand has 11 hcp. I say that it has 10 hcp after taking account of the various factors. It also has 8.5 losers in the MLTC (or 9 if you count ♦xx as 2.5 losers). This is functionally identical to calling it 7 MLTC points (or 6 if you count ♦xx as 2.5 losers). Your "boundary conditions" are thus:
6.5 losers = 11 MLTC points
7.5 losers = 9 MLTC points
8.5 losers = 7 MLTC points

You can get your MLTC points by taking your Milton number and reducing by 1 for every "counting" honour, or by the face value for any non-counting honour (K, Q, Qx). Then add distributional points on the 6/4/2 (or 6/3/1 for the 2.5 loser modification) scale. Or you can just count the points up as normal but with different values (3/2/1). How is this harder than using a completely different and absolutely unnecessary mechanism? Even better, if you are actually using the LTC for decisions in the later auction, you save yourself all the unnecesary addition and subtraction. Instead we have that a 7 loser hand is 10 points. Two 7 loser hands make game so game = 20 points. Simple. Just use precisely the same process as you have been using as a beginner.

As for why MLTC is poor, well first to state the obvious, jacks do have some value, especially in combination with higher honours. But the biggest problem is that it overvalues shortness horribly. You probably learned as a beginner to value shortages on the 3/2/1 scale. That is, a void is worth a king, a queen 2/3 of that and a doubleton 1/3. Now look at the MLTC. A void is now worth 3 kings! Now you can argue that this is reasonable when there is a huge trump fit but without a fit? You have to be joking. Finally, let me give you an example to illustrate what I mean. You hold -/KJ32/KJ32/Q5432. 10hcp and 2+2+1+6 = 11 MLTC points = 6.5 losers. Are you opening a club or a diamond? This hand is potentially even more fun if the long suit is diamonds and the void clubs. And that is a hand with only one queen - it could be worse. I hope you check the Belgian equivalent of the "very light openings" box!

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-15, 06:59, said:

Tell me, what proportion of hands (for Dealer) have 12 to 22 hcp? What proportion have 5 to 15? Notice a difference? Notice in particular a difference in frequencies at the bottom end? Yes, there are good reasons not to use a 5 to 15 range. There is also good theory to suggest that opening an 8 to 12 range is very good though, effectively splitting hands up into 0-7, 8-12, 13+ ranges. Much of the theory of Forcing Pass systems relies on this division. There is quite a difference between 10 to 15 (or even 8 to 14) and 5 to 15. I am not sure which Strong Club players have suggested the latter; I have certainly never seen it recommended.

I never suggested it,on the contrary. I only showed to what conclusions certain arguments lead.

BridgeMatters: Light openings—is there a certain point where light openings become ineffective?

Eric Rodwell: Absolutely. Paul Soloway and Bobby Goldman tried it back in the 80s when there was a real proliferation of extremely aggressive pre-empting and whatnot, before 1-3-5-8 came along [doubled not-vulnerable contracts now go down 100-300-500-800]. They thought they should really be doing some light stuff, so they had a system they called Attack, where, not vulnerable, they were playing that opening one bids were 8 to 14 and the strong club started at 15. One of my students was playing with one of them, so he played this. I found that partner opening 1S with 5-3-3-2 distribution and an 8 count just really made for a lot of problems for us, more than for the opponents. I find it is better to either pass or, if your spades are good enough, to open some sort of weak two bid, rather than open a super-light one bid.

Rainer Herrmann

[lowerline]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-15, 09:18, said:

It obviously is easier since you have miscounted, unless you have also made the (good) change to downgrade doubletons by 1/2 a loser too. If you do this then the distributional values for MLTC points are 6/3/1, still far too high but slightly better.

You say the OP hand has 11 hcp. I say that it has 10 hcp after taking account of the various factors. It also has 8.5 losers in the MLTC (or 9 if you count ♦xx as 2.5 losers). This is functionally identical to calling it 7 MLTC points (or 6 if you count ♦xx as 2.5 losers). Your "boundary conditions" are thus:
6.5 losers = 11 MLTC points
7.5 losers = 9 MLTC points
8.5 losers = 7 MLTC points

You can get your MLTC points by taking your Milton number and reducing by 1 for every "counting" honour, or by the face value for any non-counting honour (K, Q, Qx). Then add distributional points on the 6/4/2 (or 6/3/1 for the 2.5 loser modification) scale. Or you can just count the points up as normal but with different values (3/2/1). How is this harder than using a completely different and absolutely unnecessary mechanism? Even better, if you are actually using the LTC for decisions in the later auction, you save yourself all the unnecesary addition and subtraction. Instead we have that a 7 loser hand is 10 points. Two 7 loser hands make game so game = 20 points. Simple. Just use precisely the same process as you have been using as a beginner.

As for why MLTC is poor, well first to state the obvious, jacks do have some value, especially in combination with higher honours. But the biggest problem is that it overvalues shortness horribly. You probably learned as a beginner to value shortages on the 3/2/1 scale. That is, a void is worth a king, a queen 2/3 of that and a doubleton 1/3. Now look at the MLTC. A void is now worth 3 kings! Now you can argue that this is reasonable when there is a huge trump fit but without a fit? You have to be joking. Finally, let me give you an example to illustrate what I mean. You hold -/KJ32/KJ32/Q5432. 10hcp and 2+2+1+6 = 11 MLTC points = 6.5 losers. Are you opening a club or a diamond? This hand is potentially even more fun if the long suit is diamonds and the void clubs. And that is a hand with only one queen - it could be worse. I hope you check the Belgian equivalent of the "very light openings" box!

Ok, now it is clear to me you mean something different with MLTC than I do with new-LTC... See my first post for the explanation on new-LTC.
I have not miscounted. The original hand was QT3/QJT86/J4/KQ9. Missing AK in spades = 5 half-losers; missing AK in hearts = 5 half-losers; missing AK in diamonds = 5 half-losers; missing A in clubs = 3 half-losers. Total = 18 half-losers or 9 losers. So clearly not an opening hand. Only followers of the original LTC (7 losers) would open this hand.
You are right about your last example though. The count is the same with the old or the new LTC. But like any other hand evaluation method, that is easy enough to apply at the table, you will always find hands that it doesn't evaluate correctly. Still, new-LTC is better than old-LTC most of the time... But whatever aid you use, it is never an excuse for eliminating common sense. I would never open your example hand. It might come as a surprise to you but I'm known around here as a sound opener... ;-)

Steven

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-15, 09:18, said:

If you do this then the distributional values for MLTC points are 6/3/1, still far too high but slightly better.

As for why MLTC is poor, well first to state the obvious, jacks do have some value, especially in combination with higher honours. But the biggest problem is that it overvalues shortness horribly. You probably learned as a beginner to value shortages on the 3/2/1 scale. That is, a void is worth a king, a queen 2/3 of that and a doubleton 1/3. Now look at the MLTC. A void is now worth 3 kings! Now you can argue that this is reasonable when there is a huge trump fit but without a fit? You have to be joking. Finally, let me give you an example to illustrate what I mean. You hold -/KJ32/KJ32/Q5432. 10hcp and 2+2+1+6 = 11 MLTC points = 6.5 losers. Are you opening a club or a diamond? This hand is potentially even more fun if the long suit is diamonds and the void clubs. And that is a hand with only one queen - it could be worse. I hope you check the Belgian equivalent of the "very light openings" box!

This is just too simplistic and the conclusions are wrong.
Early research into this matter was flawed. It concentrated far too much on constructive bidding alone.
A good bidding partnership in my view is not one, who bids pair of hands correctly, but ones, which take their opponents potential into account as well.
It takes all four hands being dealt into account.
Even if you know nothing about the other hands a 3/2/1 scale is certainly very conservative for singletons and clearly undervalues voids. It is nice to opponents!
I much rather use a 6-3-1 scale instead.
But even for constructive purposes the 3/2/1 scale is flawed severely. A singleton is clearly worth more than 2 doubletons.
For example all else being equal a 5431 distribution is significantly more promising than a 5422 distribution, particularly for high level trump contracts, which are disproportionally more important than low ones.
Similarly a void is worth more in relation to singletons or doubletons.
All else being equal do you prefer a 7330 or a 7222 distribution? The question in itself is a joke and a 3 point difference between 7330 and 7222 looks to me about right.
The same applies if you compare 6430 to 6421 distribution.
What shortness is worth depends on duplication and trump-fit, but the more distribution you have the more likely a good trump fit will exist.
There is good statistical reason to be optimistic!
But one thing is true: The variance in value for shortness is higher than with HCP. If you end in notrump it may have dropped to zero.

HCP evaluation is different to shortness evaluation.
An honor you have been dealt has not been dealt to an opponent. There are 40 HCP in every deal. It is a zero sum game.
Therefor if you have been dealt a lot the opponents will have nothing and (usually) can do nothing.
Distribution is tactical and not a zero sum game.
There is good reason to be aggressive with distribution. It is very good tactic to start describing and competing as early as possible.
The 1-3-6 evaluation for shortness, based on a 40 HCP deal, may or may not be overvaluing shortness for pure constructive reasons, but it is certainly an excellent measure for competitive and tactical reasons.
Sometimes your evaluation will be too optimistic, but in the long run you will come out ahead!
That MLTC is conservative with balanced hands and optimistic with distributional hands is excellent for deciding whether to open the bidding or not in close cases.
I am opening ♠-♥KJ32♦KJ32♣Q5432 with 1♦, but consider it borderline, and certainly with a void in clubs. Of course this could turn out badly, but I like my chances.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2013-February-18, 05:04, said:

The 1-3-6 evaluation for shortness, based on a 40 HCP deal, may or may not be overvaluing shortness for pure constructive reasons, but it is certainly an excellent measure for competitive and tactical reasons.

I agree with you and in situations where I count points for shortages then it is always with a 5-3-1 rather than a 3-2-1 count. Naturally, that is only a guide but I find it a decent starting point. The difference between that and 6-3-1 is minimal. But MLTC is not using 6-3-1 in a 40 point deck; it is using 6-3-1 in a 24 point deck. That is a completely different thing. The best equivalent in Milton would be using 9 - 4.5 - 1.5 for shortages. I am sure you would agree that these figures are too high.

[nige1]

Antrax writes "First seat all vul. at matchpoints, I chose to open the above and it led to a bad result. I'm wondering if I should've passed, and why [SNIP].

Partner forced to game (2/1) [SNIP] We had an intelligent auction that established that we have no 8 card fit and no ♦stopper, so we played 4♥-1. Not the worst result (3NT is down more and there were several) but I was wondering after the hand if we were unlucky or if I should just pass - I tried applying that principle of upgrading early and then showing a minimum throughout, but I guess this time the shoe doesn't fit "

---

Free, on 2013-February-14, 13:55, said:

Even MOSCITO (a very light opening system) doesn't open this garbage. Btw, any particular reason why you didn't play 4♠ in the Moysian?

FrancesHinden, on 2013-February-14, 13:55, said:

We play strong NT, 2/1 and fairly light openers (i.e. this hand is pretty close to an opener and might well be opened if feeling frisky).
As long as partner knows your opening style (and you have some system to show the strong hands) there's no problem.

rhm, on 2013-February-15, 06:30, said:

In 2001 Rodwell gave an interview to Bridgematters, where he said: "I don't think opening a hand like Jx Axxxx Kxxx Qx with 1H is winning bridge." (Something I see recommended here sometimes by strong club players) ..."I think opening light, though not too light, has advantages at all forms of the game, in the sense you are announcing certain minimal values and something about your shape. You're just positioning yourself well, primarily for a competitive auction. If you knew your opponents were never going to bid, you would probably be better off playing sounder opening bids The hand still has to have something that you think is worth 11 points to open. I don't want to go lighter than that." I think that summarizes it for me and I may be ten years behind. I do not know whether Meckwell have changed their mind in the meantime.

I wonder if Rodwell has changed his opinion? IMO, using a strong club system, this is an opening bid. Also, using some natural systems, this hand is a possible opener;. I disagree with Frances: IMO, using SAYC or 2/1, as Antrax demonstrates, opening light is more dangerous. The ♦ duplication means game is lousy although, as Free says, 4♠ is slightly better than 4♥ . We've all played worse games. OK. OK. Serves us right for opening light

[nige1]

rhm, on 2013-February-18, 05:04, said:

This is just too simplistic and the conclusions are wrong. Early research into this matter was flawed. It concentrated far too much on constructive bidding alone. A good bidding partnership in my view is not one, who bids pair of hands correctly, but ones, which take their opponents potential into account as well. It takes all four hands being dealt into account. Even if you know nothing about the other hands a 3/2/1 scale is certainly very conservative for singletons and clearly undervalues voids. It is nice to opponents! I much rather use a 6-3-1 scale instead. But even for constructive purposes the 3/2/1 scale is flawed severely. A singleton is clearly worth more than 2 doubletons.
For example all else being equal a 5431 distribution is significantly more promising than a 5422 distribution, particularly for high level trump contracts, which are disproportionally more important than low ones. Similarly a void is worth more in relation to singletons or doubletons.
All else being equal do you prefer a 7330 or a 7222 distribution? The question in itself is a joke and a 3 point difference between 7330 and 7222 looks to me about right. The same applies if you compare 6430 to 6421 distribution.
What shortness is worth depends on duplication and trump-fit, but the more distribution you have the more likely a good trump fit will exist. There is good statistical reason to be optimistic! But one thing is true:
The variance in value for shortness is higher than with HCP. If you end in notrump it may have dropped to zero.

HCP evaluation is different to shortness evaluation. An honor you have been dealt has not been dealt to an opponent. There are 40 HCP in every deal. It is a zero sum game. Therefore if you have been dealt a lot the opponents will have nothing and (usually) can do nothing. Distribution is tactical and not a zero sum game. There is good reason to be aggressive with distribution. It is very good tactic to start describing and competing as early as possible. The 1-3-6 evaluation for shortness, based on a 40 HCP deal, may or may not be overvaluing shortness for pure constructive reasons, but it is certainly an excellent measure for competitive and tactical reasons. Sometimes your evaluation will be too optimistic, but in the long run you will come out ahead! That MLTC is conservative with balanced hands and optimistic with distributional hands is excellent for deciding whether to open the bidding or not in close cases.
I am opening ♠-♥KJ32♦KJ32♣Q5432 with 1♦, but consider it borderline, and certainly with a void in clubs. Of course this could turn out badly, but I like my chances.

More than half a century ago, Charles Guthrie (my father) devised his winning trick count. A = 2, K = 1, Q = 1/2. Void = 3, singleton = 2, doubleton = 1. Trump-control = 1.
A simple method for the arithmetically challenged like me It works OK
Now, Rainer has convinced me that voids and singletons are worth less, and doubletons a lot less.

[Cascade]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-February-14, 13:55, said:

Our card says "we open most 11-counts" but I'd still pass this one unless I was love all at matchpoints, and then I'd only open it for a laugh.

Love all but not favourable? What is the reason for this distinction?

[straube]

knr 9.6
DK 10

[WellSpyder]

Cascade, on 2013-February-18, 12:56, said:

Love all but not favourable? What is the reason for this distinction?

You score when oppo go down if you are at favourable vulnerability than at love all.