[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2022-April-03, 11:14, said:

Personally my view is that using any form of losing trick count to make slam decisions is a very poor approach. Any form of LTC can be a minor assist in the subtle task of hand evaluation, but raising it to an important metric confuses the map with the territory. Sort of akin to the way the Walruses of the bridge world thought point count was all that mattered

Metrics don’t win tricks. Cards win tricks…if they are the right cards in the context of partner’s cards.

On slam auctions, or near-slam auctions, absent preemption, a sound bidding method should virtually always establish or rule out fits and identify controls, and for interior fillers, a player should know that, say, the Queen of partner’s 5 card suit is valuable or that xxx is usually less valuable opposite a 5 card side suit than is xx, and so on.

I don’t know of any good player who uses any form of arithmetic to assess slam potential, beyond the most basic notrump quantitative auctions, and even there judgement, in terms of location of high cards, texture of suits etc plays a role on many hands.

Read the MSC in The Bridge World where true world class players discuss difficult bidding issues. I don’t pretend to be current and I don’t pretend to know how every player writes, but I cannot recall a single instance of an expert panelist discussing using these sorts of arithmetical formula. Yes, there will sometimes be references to, say, this hand being a ‘4 loser hand’ or such but never a comment that says..’and partner has shown a MLTC of 3.5 therefore slam is cold..or has no play, etc.

Imo spending the sort of effort we see described here on this approach can only detract from learning how to bid in the real world. It is akin to the very long discussions that we used to see about ZAR points. What we never saw was any pair using such an approach ever winning anything🤓

I’ll change my tune when proponents of the MLTC start winning or even qualifying for significant events (I apologize to any who have already)

Yes, but.

If your partner opens a suit you have four of, and you potentially cover SIX losers, that looks like slam zone to me. It doesn't mean you Blackwood right away. It does mean you try to make you ambitions clear as early as possible.

[PeterAlan]

DavidKok, on 2022-April-03, 03:34, said:

mw64ahw, on 2022-April-03, 00:15, said:

I assume 7.5 for the 12-14 weak NT.

That doesn't sound accurate.

Taking a simple characterisation of weak NT as all 5332, 4432 & 4333, 12-14, and a simple loser count with all Qxx(x)(x) = 2 losers, then the average (mean) of this loser count is 7.49.

[mikeh]

bluenikki, on 2022-April-03, 13:49, said:

Yes, but.

If your partner opens a suit you have four of, and you potentially cover SIX losers, that looks like slam zone to me. It doesn't mean you Blackwood right away. It does mean you try to make you ambitions clear as early as possible.

I think you misunderstand me.

If I have 4 card support for partner’s 4 or more suit, especially 5 or more, I like it. If I happen to hold the A or King, I like it a lot.

If I hold a good hand elsewhere in addition, again I like it.

If I have gf values immediately, I begin an exploratory auction. If I don’t, but partner shows extras, again I begin an exploratory auction.

In doing so, we try to identify degree of fit, side Aces and Kings and/or side shortness. Bidding is often, especially in slam sequences undisturbed by preemption, a dialogue…an exchange of information which often includes not only specific information as above but also general info such as ‘in the context of what we’ve shown so far, do I like my hand or do I think I’ve now told you all I can?’

In none of this process would either partner be using a numerical evaluation, whether it be high card points or MLTC or distributional points. We worry about what winners we can identify and what losers we think we have.

Now, to do this with some degree of accuracy requires detailed methods and significant experience. My point is that advancing players would, imo, be better served working on these parts of the game rather than being sidetracked into learning what is ultimately, imo, a dead-end with limited upside.

I know I sound like a broken record (a saying whose meaning may be obscure to players younger than me), but I’ve never had any discussion with any expert who thinks valuation techniques can ever be reduced to a simple number. Some, for notrump opening purposes, may refer to KnR values, but very very few experts ever downgrade out of their ranges even when KnR suggests they do. Experts often upgrade…rarely downgrade. And while I don’t use KnR, I’ve found that my ‘I like this hand’ or ‘I don’t like this hand’ pretty much mirrors KnR.

So put away the adding machines and your algorithms and learn how to value your cards based on the auction…the degree of fit, the controls or lack of them, the texture of suits and so on.

[mw64ahw]

What you describe is your own algorithm for reaching a contract albeit using a less obviously numerical approach. MLT is just another tool that encompasses those elements you use.
In the above example do you stop at 4♠ or move ahead given you know opener is balanced with both Majors? I know I take the extra step where a lot of club players pass and the majority of the time the slam is there or I stop in 5, with any losses mostly being attributed to my poor card play.

[mikeh]

mw64ahw, on 2022-April-04, 02:24, said:

What you describe is your own algorithm for reaching a contract albeit using a less obviously numerical approach. MLT is just another tool that encompasses those elements you use.
In the above example do you stop at 4♠ or move ahead given you know opener is balanced with both Majors? I know I take the extra step where a lot of club players pass and the majority of the time the slam is there or I stop in 5, with any losses mostly being attributed to my poor card play.

You have it backwards when you say that ‘MLT….encompasses those elements you use’, which is the problem, imo. A proper approach to evaluation is far more nuanced, far more subtle than MLT. Of course elements that result in a good valuation in MLT are likely to be present in and play a role in expert valuation, but to suggest that MLT ‘encompasses’ how experts value hands reflects that you don’t understand expert bidding. That’s ok….nobody (or virtually nobody) becomes expert without a lot of play and, importantly, playing with and against, and being involved in long discussions with, experts. Most players never get that experience, and many who do don’t have whatever it is that allows some to become expert. It isn’t just intelligence. Some of the smartest people I’ve met, enthusiastic about bridge, are not and never will be expert

Meanwhile, thinking that MLT or any other numerical algorithm capable of use at the table is better than or even equal to expert judgement will prevent you ever learning the latter.

I’m not saying that in a perfect world, with massive computer power and adequate time at the table, a purely arithmetic or mathematical approach wouldn’t be ‘the best’. I’m not claiming experts have supernatural powers. I’m merely stating that to replicate expert technique in an arithmetical model that can be learned and applied by humans and reduced to ‘a number’ isn’t feasible…or if it is, hasn’t yet been done.

Of course how I (and there are many experts with better judgement than I have) value hands could, if I ever understood it in detail, be reduced to an algorithm or two, but why bother? It’s mostly subconscious, which is good because one only has so much conscious cognition to use at the table.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2022-April-02, 06:20, said:

---

<snip>
As you'll have guessed, that's not what happened at my table. The auction ended after 1nt 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ 4♠
I can't seem to convince partner that a jump to game here should only be made with a hand that they are highly embarrassed having opened. 1nt 2♦* 2♥ 2♠ 3♠ 4♣ 4♠ shows a hand unable to cooperate in slam.
<snip>

The 4S bid does not really exist, the 2D created a GF, starting a fit auction, 3S tells partner we have located a fit.
Nothing more / Nothing less. If you really want, 4S should deny ANY 1st / 2nd round control outside the agreed trump suit,
which means you end up with your weak NT QJx collection.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2022-April-04, 01:30, said:

I think you misunderstand me.

If I have 4 card support for partner’s 4 or more suit, especially 5 or more, I like it. If I happen to hold the A or King, I like it a lot.

If I hold a good hand elsewhere in addition, again I like it.

If I have gf values immediately, I begin an exploratory auction. If I don’t, but partner shows extras, again I begin an exploratory auction.

In doing so, we try to identify degree of fit, side Aces and Kings and/or side shortness. Bidding is often, especially in slam sequences undisturbed by preemption, a dialogue…an exchange of information which often includes not only specific information as above but also general info such as ‘in the context of what we’ve shown so far, do I like my hand or do I think I’ve now told you all I can?’

In none of this process would either partner be using a numerical evaluation, whether it be high card points or MLTC or distributional points. We worry about what winners we can identify and what losers we think we have.

Now, to do this with some degree of accuracy requires detailed methods and significant experience. My point is that advancing players would, imo, be better served working on these parts of the game rather than being sidetracked into learning what is ultimately, imo, a dead-end with limited upside.

I know I sound like a broken record (a saying whose meaning may be obscure to players younger than me), but I’ve never had any discussion with any expert who thinks valuation techniques can ever be reduced to a simple number. Some, for notrump opening purposes, may refer to KnR values, but very very few experts ever downgrade out of their ranges even when KnR suggests they do. Experts often upgrade…rarely downgrade. And while I don’t use KnR, I’ve found that my ‘I like this hand’ or ‘I don’t like this hand’ pretty much mirrors KnR.

So put away the adding machines and your algorithms and learn how to value your cards based on the auction…the degree of fit, the controls or lack of them, the texture of suits and so on.

Somewhere I read "With a suit fit, no valuation method is better than Losing Trick Count. Without a suit fit, none is worse." I had thought it was in Kelsey. But checking his "Faulty Valuation" chapter, I find he said only "For estimating the number of tricks the combined hands will produce in a trump contract . . . there is nothing to beat the Losing Trick Count." He does not mention it again in the chapter.

Carl

[mw64ahw]

mikeh, on 2022-April-04, 01:30, said:

So put away the adding machines and your algorithms and learn how to value your cards based on the auction…the degree of fit, the controls or lack of them, the texture of suits and so on.

I'm not sure you've answered the question about what the expert does in the above auction with a non-expert partner. Do you investigate the slam after 4♠ opposite a Weak NT with both Majors or do you pass? You've identified that the bidding was flawed, but little else.

a) We know we have the fit-MLT should generally only be used with 8+-card fits. The MLT will value a 9 card fit better than an 8 card fit so degree of fit is there
b) There are 8 controls-the values assigned for missing controls are included in the MLT so these are covered
c) Texture of suits-a more refined MLT approach adjusts for 10s&Js
d) Singletons,voids etc. are accounted for in the MLT calculation.

So all the elements you mention are included in/encompasses by the calculation. Yes I would prefer the 3♠ bid so that 2 loosing tricks can be identified or not, but that's not the situation we're in, but using expert judgement or otherwise the 5 level feels safe so I move ahead.

The article below was written by an expert looking for better accuracy by incorporating a LT count in their Jacob y 2NT. All experts use point counts & hand revaluation to guide their judgement, so why not add an additional tool to your armoury? Is such a tool not part of learning how to value your cards?
https://bridgewinner...t-2-y3k2ujge2k/

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, as you could see if you read other threads in his history, MikeH *does* use all of these tools, including some form of LTC. He just doesn't stop there, he analyzes the specific hand in the context of the specific auction to find out the information he needs for the decision he is making. He's saying that metrics - any metrics - don't take tricks, they paint a roadmap that you can use start your investigation if you're going to take 10/12/13 tricks or not - and maybe decide where on that roadmap you're investigating.

We all know about the weaker players who "but I had 15 points" this and "I only had a 5 count" that. They need experience and tools to move beyond this. But many tool-teachers point out the flaws in Walrus-thinking and then say "this is so much better". And then (as MikeH also has said before) show a whole bunch of examples that are friendly for the tool (and one or two of the oops ones, but don't think about those). And many of the readers of said books read this as "oh this tool is better, I'll use that" - to just as much the exclusion of everything else as the point-counters. Whether it's LTC (with or without zero-to-150 "modifications" or "adjustments"), ZAR, Rule-of, or whatever the new cool is, it becomes the thing, and is held to just as much reverence as the Walrus does his Work-count. And all the bad boards now get explained away as "but I had a 5-loser hand" (but not on this defence) or "but I had 6 cover cards" (that didn't cover actual losers because shape) instead of "but I had 15 points".

There is no truer variation of "the bad craftsman blames his tools" than this. And Mike is simply saying "the tools are there, but the table doesn't get built by tools. Even if you have a full roller-case of them, but especially if you've replaced your 'all you have is a' hammer with an electric screwdriver."

And the thing about some of these tools - MLTC in particular, frankly, as I've said before - is that their best use is to codify and simplify a lot of "1990s expert judgement" in a way that experts can use as a shortcut when explaining (5 words instead of 5 paragraphs), near-experts can use as the "aha" moment that lets them get to the next level of judgement ("okay, all those '5 paragraph' explanations I've been getting in the bar after make sense now!"), and less-than-experts can use to fake a level of expert judgment they don't have (but even faking it will still make them better at judgement than 1950s experts).

But Mike's argument continually is "you eventually have to throw the crutch away, or use it only as orientation, if you want to get better. And as you get better, you'll find yourself innately evaluating the hand at least to the crutch level, so you won't need it at all - provided you haven't shackled yourself to it." He's not saying it's bad, or not useful - just that any single valuation-blinkers are.

Your replies are full of "MLTC this" and "MLTC that" - and nothing else. Which means you're not getting - or not accepting - his point. Whether you bid like you speak or do in fact use MLTC as a "coarse location" to determine what to fine-tune, it *looks* like you are a MLTC-Walrus, moving to a MLTC-zealot or evangelist. Which is fine. But like the LDS people that knock on the door of my friend the 30-year UCC minister and DD...

[mikeh]

mw64ahw, on 2022-April-04, 08:06, said:

I'm not sure you've answered the question about what the expert does in the above auction with a non-expert partner. Do you investigate the slam after 4♠ opposite a Weak NT with both Majors or do you pass? You've identified that the bidding was flawed, but little else.

a) We know we have the fit-MLT should generally only be used with 8+-card fits. The MLT will value a 9 card fit better than an 8 card fit so degree of fit is there
b) There are 8 controls-the values assigned for missing controls are included in the MLT so these are covered
c) Texture of suits-a more refined MLT approach adjusts for 10s&Js
d) Singletons,voids etc. are accounted for in the MLT calculation.

So all the elements you mention are included in/encompasses by the calculation. Yes I would prefer the 3♠ bid so that 2 loosing tricks can be identified or not, but that's not the situation we're in, but using expert judgement or otherwise the 5 level feels safe so I move ahead.

The article below was written by an expert looking for better accuracy by incorporating a LT count in their Jacob y 2NT. All experts use point counts & hand revaluation to guide their judgement, so why not add an additional tool to your armoury? Is such a tool not part of learning how to value your cards?
https://bridgewinner...t-2-y3k2ujge2k/

I want to be careful that I do not come across as denigrating McCallum, who won several world titles some decades ago and a number of NA national titles, all playing in fields in which male players were not permitted. Since she was (and may still be) a professional player and few female pros get much acceptance in open events, playing strictly women’s events may be more a reflection of economic reality than any lack of skill comparable to the top male players of her time

Be that as it may, and while some fairly good players commented favourably on some aspects of her ideas, I see zero evidence in top flight play that anyone plays it.

Now, some do play that a 2N response to 2S need not be gf, but that has nothing to do with LTC or MLTC.

To give you an example, in my partnership in Salsomaggiore, after 1S 2N we bid:

3C any non hopeless minimum. 3D asks for shortness, step responses, none, clubs, diamonds, hearts

3D 5 spades, extras. 3H asks shortness, steps as above

3H 6+ spades, extras. 3S asks, etc

3S a void somewhere. 3N asks

3N 17-19 some 5332

4C/D/H. Natural, 5-5 or better, good suit texture, extra values

4S. Horrible opening hand. Fewer than 3 controls and ugly besides (we open virtually all 11 counts and some 19s)

We limit our values before we show shape. Thus over 3C responder often doesn’t ask, since he has no slam interest opposite a minimu.

Extras means a nice 14 count, but most 14 counts won’t qualify. Depending on vulnerability we won’t be 5332 with 14-16 if that is our 1N range and we won’t be 5332 with 11-12 or a bad 13 if that is our notrump range. These factors influence what constitutes extras.

If responder is interested in shape, he can usually ask and then knowing our hcp range and shortness, we’re in a pretty good position to embark on exchanging control information if we’re in the slam zone. Neither of us ever do a ‘losing trick count’ analysis nor do we need to.

We instead count actual winners and actual losers…not some non-specific ‘loser count’ but identifying where we lack controls and where we have tricks….in the actual hands we hold.

As mycroft ably wrote…once you know how to bid efficiently you don’t need your MLTC. If you can’t yet bid efficiently, focusing on MLTC or any arithmetical formula is going to prevent you from learning how to bid

As for how I bid with a non-expert, it depends on why I’m playing.

I do not, as a rule, play with non experts for the very selfish reason that I cannot play bridge with a non-expert in the manner that I enjoy. I can’t bid with subtlety. I can’t collaborate in a dialogue because partner lacks the languages skills

But in home games, as we had most weeks before COVID, I played short segments with many non-experts, a couple of whom were barely beyond beginner status

There, I simply used my judgement and essentially made or tried to make the decisions for the partner.

But once in a while I have played full sessions or more with a non-expert friend. If he or she wants to learn, I will not mastermind. I’ll keep it simple but I’ll let partner make decisions even if I expect them to be wrong. That way, after the session, we can discuss.

But I’d never dream of using MLTC, lol. I doubt I’d ever even mention LTC to most, out of fear people might think it’s a good tool, as opposed to a very minor (but occasionally useful) assist.

[mycroft]

And I guess on the other side - because to a certain extent I am on the other side - Mike's continual harping on "experts use judgement and specifics, you won't be an expert if you keep holding on to that crutch" sounds an awful lot like the "you'll never get to be a good player unless you always play the hardest events" people. That may be true, but the people that try and fail, don't go back to their safe zones, they don't come back.

I will never be an expert at MikeH's level. That would have required[*] different decisions in my life, and those bridges are burned. I could make different decisions *now* and get better than I am, but at a cost that I am not at this moment willing to make. But I don't *want* to be an expert at that level. I want to play my best, maybe get better, and enjoy the game of bridge for another 20 years. And to do *that*, we need to support players at all levels - including the Work-Walruses and the MLTC-Walruses - because (at least given the goal of "having a game in 20 years") the only wrong way to play bridge is to stop playing it. And there's an awful lot of "if you 'can't play' [to whatever level of 'can't play' the speaker is talking about], then you don't matter" out there - especially on that other site.

That doesn't mean he's wrong - you, and I, and the other thousands of players will not become experts until we step away from our crutches and learn to think. Whether it's system crutches or evaluation crutches or Rules during play or even how to prepare for an event. It's just that his goal for you, me and those other thousands of players aren't mine, maybe aren't yours, and certainly aren't those of more than 10 of the thousands.

Now, to go back to giving Mike credit - because I do, he's amazing as a player, and amazing for bridge in the West and online - he doesn't have the "you don't matter if you can't play" attitude. He does sometimes go down the "you'll never get to my level unless" path, ignoring the "that's not the goal" or "well, that'll never happen anyway" signs; but he *always* does give a full explanation of his analysis, written at the level of the person asking. And I'm not all that upset about his crusade against the odd Tool-of-the-day Zealot, because he does in fact have a point, and if he can convert the Zealot into a User, and immunize the potential converts from the Evangelist, that's all to the good. About as tilting at windmills as with the non-bridge Zealots and Evangelists, in my cynical opinion, but I'm not one to talk about quixotic behaviour...

* Necessary but not sufficient condition, obviously...

[mw64ahw]

mycroft, on 2022-April-04, 09:00, said:

Oddly enough, as you could see if you read other threads in his history, MikeH *does* use all of these tools, including some form of LTC. He just doesn't stop there, he analyzes the specific hand in the context of the specific auction to find out the information he needs for the decision he is making. He's saying that metrics - any metrics - don't take tricks, they paint a roadmap that you can use start your investigation if you're going to take 10/12/13 tricks or not - and maybe decide where on that roadmap you're investigating.

We all know about the weaker players who "but I had 15 points" this and "I only had a 5 count" that. They need experience and tools to move beyond this. But many tool-teachers point out the flaws in Walrus-thinking and then say "this is so much better". And then (as MikeH also has said before) show a whole bunch of examples that are friendly for the tool (and one or two of the oops ones, but don't think about those). And many of the readers of said books read this as "oh this tool is better, I'll use that" - to just as much the exclusion of everything else as the point-counters. Whether it's LTC (with or without zero-to-150 "modifications" or "adjustments"), ZAR, Rule-of, or whatever the new cool is, it becomes the thing, and is held to just as much reverence as the Walrus and Work-count. And all the bad boards now get explained away as "but I had a 5-loser hand" (but not on this defence) or "but I had 6 cover cards" (that didn't cover actual losers because shape) instead of "but I had 15 points".

There is no truer variation of "the bad craftsman blames his tools" than this. And Mike is simply saying "the tools are there, but the table doesn't get built by tools. Even if you have a full roller-case of them, but especially if you've replaced your 'all you have is a' hammer with an electric screwdriver."

And the thing about some of these tools - MLTC in particular, frankly, as I've said before - is that their best use is to codify and simplify a lot of "1990s expert judgement" in a way that experts can use as a shortcut when explaining (5 words instead of 5 paragraphs), near-experts can use as the "aha" moment that lets them get to the next level of judgement ("okay, all those '5 paragraph' explanations I've been getting in the bar after make sense now!"), and less-than-experts can use to fake a level of expert judgment they don't have (but even faking it will still make them better at judgement than 1950s experts).

But Mike's argument continually is "you eventually have to throw the crutch away, or use it only as orientation, if you want to get better. And as you get better, you'll find yourself innately evaluating the hand at least to the crutch level, so you won't need it at all - provided you haven't shackled yourself to it." He's not saying it's bad, or not useful - just that any single valuation-blinkers are.

Your replies are full of "MLTC this" and "MLTC that" - and nothing else. Which means you're not getting - or not accepting - his point. Whether you bid like you speak or do in fact use MLTC as a "coarse location" to determine what to fine-tune, it *looks* like you are a MLTC-Walrus, moving to a MLTC-zealot or evangelist. Which is fine. But like the LDS people that knock on the door of my friend the 30-year UCC minister and DD...

I think we should be on the same page. Having responders hand I know that the combined hands have slam potential, but there is further bidding to go to establish the trick taking potential so in this context I use it for initial orientation and wait for further information from either side. For slams in particular I will aim to establish the controls, shape, number of Trump honours etc.

This thread is about a) what should the correct bid should have been over 2♠, and b) what to do over 4♠.

I think we all understand the answer to a), and I have provided a rational for moving above 4♠ in terms of both MLT&tp; I could have mentioned control count, the 2 doubletons, partners likely hcp concentration etc., but I choose 2 metrics in my initial post to justify the judgement.
AL78 hands made a judgement that a 5♣ cue should be wothwhile; I play Kicbo to show an even number of Keycards with 4NT. This then leads to an easy slam decision by South with additional bidding establishing the trick taking potential for the grand.

[mycroft]

But QJx QJxx Axxx Qx (which doesn't meet my previous criteria for 4♠, but still). Or anything else that's extremely quacky, especially in the round suits. Which is what you expect for 4♠. At least when I was playing 2-way, this auction is how I showed a GF 5-spade hand (4 spades would bid 2NT after 1NT-2♦; 2♥, and partner would show me the spades on the way), so I wouldn't guarantee - frankly, wouldn't expect - 4 spades.

Sure, my example is deliberately crafted garbage, but the OP hand is just magic - HCP is all the controls we're missing, literally zero wasted values (even the 10s opposite Ax might be useful), and the fourth trump (and no wasted ♠J either). Sure it's 12 but it truly is magic. Which was *my* initial comment.

Would I have tried? Probably. Is it obvious? No. Is it without risk? Well, likely 5 is fine, but see my hand above. I am not going to be happy with a 4-1 break at the 5 level, no matter what partner's hand is - and any round-suit loser puts 6 in jeopardy (and your tools might take you there). And when it goes down, well, "if you're not going to listen to my warning"...

Sure, the MLTC people say this isn't an opener with it's 8-ish losers. But if you're not going to open a flat 12 with a 12-14 1NT, you're not playing a 12-14 NT. Call me Walrus after everything I've just said, but: 1NT is the Walrus of bids, especially with the "upgrade, but never downgrade"; and 12-14 is at least semi-preemptive. If you don't open 1NT you're passing (at least in K/S) and the opponents get their free run (or with OP's North, you're never going to get your strength across). Like any preempt, sometimes it bites you.

You gave a reason why you thought you would go anyway. Mike is telling you that it's not a good reason - at least not if you use it mindlessly. Your response is "look at all the people who think MLTC is great". His response - and mine - is "yeah, but they don't use it mindlessly either, even if they teach or evangelize it." Not even Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen.

[Edit: just reread. "I can show 4 KC, which should let partner know what to do with slam." I'll just say "I don't have enough experience to be able to make those judgements." and leave it at that, shall I?]