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
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 "