[Liversidge]

Quote

The (modern) LTC is functionally identical to a system where Ace = 3; King = 2; Queen = 1 and Void = 6; Singleton = 3; Doubleton = 1, which in turn is functionally identical to Ace = 4.5; King = 3; Queen = 1.5; Void = 9; Singleton = 4.5; Doubleton = 1.5.

Many thanks for that.
Not sure I understand why you have scaled up the ratios. I have constructed a hand S Axx H QJxx D Qx C Qxx. With LTC I get 7 Losing Tricks. Using your scaled up ratios I get 12 (4.5 + 1.5 + 3 + 1.5 + 1.5). I am guessing that 18-7 = 11 which is roughly equivalent to your 12. Or am I well wide of the mark?

[Zelandakh]

The reason for scaling up is to make the numbers equivalent to the 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 Milton Work scale. That means that you can use a single system with adjustments rather than 2 completely different methods. This helps to emphasise the core idea that evaluation changes constantly, not only when a fit is found.

Your example hand is around 9 losers (1.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5); I say around as I do not have the book for the full range of adjustments. Even in the original LTC (which is equivalent to all of the A, K and Q counting 3 points) this would be 8 losers (2 in each suit). In my equivalence formula you do not count the queen in Qx, in the same way as this is not counted in LTC. So 4.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 9. This answer is always (12 - L) * 3, where L is the Loser count. You can see this from using a king as the basic counting block - 1 in MLTC, 3 in MWC.

This also brings us on to another major area of adjustment that I did not bring up in the previous mail. I suggest subtracting a full point for short honours, so something along the lines of A = 3.5, K = 2, Q = 0.5, J = 0, QJ = 1.5, Qx = 0.5 (+1 for shortage), Jx = 0. As you can pehaps see, this evaluation process starts to become somewhat involved quite quickly, which is probably why beginners are shied away from it and towards the massive simplification of Milton Work. I am not convinced that is such a good idea - it is a good idea to have some idea about the limitations of the system and how to overcome them without turning to an alternative massive simplification such as the MLTC.

[rmnka447]

Liversidge, on 2014-January-27, 12:09, said:

As a novice, I struggle a bit to fully grasp some of the expert advice given here. I am still using mechanistic guidelines to get me through. With an agreed 8 card suit, I count 6 losers in my hand, and assume 9 losers in partner's hand, making 15 in all, so in the absence of anything else to guide me the highest I'd go to would be 3 hearts, but only if I had to after a 2 spade bid from my opponents. It's a primitive rationale. I can see that it lets the opposition into the bidding and they might bid and make 3 Spades. Is it a reasonable approach for a novice?

The preference back to 2 ♥ does not promise any more than 2 ♥. With 3 or more ♥s, it's normal for responder to raise directly, or start a temporizing sequence with a raise on the second round (invitational or better). Here responder has shown a limited hand (6-9), so is very unlikely to hold 3 ♥s.

As someone suggested, if they balance in at 2 ♠ in the pass out seat, opener might compete at 3 ♣. That tells opener's whole story (5-5) and gives responder the chance to take a preference. I'd expect more often than not responder would pass 3 ♣. The reason why I'd expect 3 ♣ to played more often is that responder holding 3 ♣s and 2 ♥s will normally preference back to 2 ♥ as in this auction. Opener promised no more than 4 ♣ with the 2 ♣ bid, so it would be normal for responder to prefer to play in the known 5-2 fit rather than a possible 4-3 fit.

Responder might pass 2 ♣ if holding a really ratty response and 4 ♣.

At IMPs, vulnerable, I'd seriously consider passing out 2 ♠ if the opponents competed to it. The absolute minimum nature of the opening bid and very mediocre, at best, ♣ suit make competing further a bit risky.

BTW, I'm in the pass over 2 ♥ camp.