[StevenG]

Zelandakh, on 2015-June-07, 17:46, said:

Do you see the trick now? If you have understood, it should now be trivial for you to produce a point count system equivalent to the original LTC. Once you see what it really means it becomes painfully obvious just how bad that method is. And yet many club players use it and swear by it. And that is why it is my opinion that the LTC has on average lowered the standard of bridge. Even if there are a few who understand what it does, most users do not and are too blinded by the marketing. It is just another point count method, no more, no less.

I think you are completely wrong on this, Zel. Learning the LTC massively improved my bridge, because it gave me an insight into how to evaluate unbalanced hands. Now, I'm not stupid and I don't use it blindly. After the initial revelation, I slowly worked out what was good and what was bad. But I still do a HCP count and a raw LTC, and if the answers suggest different things, then I stop and think about WHY they are different, and that gives me clues as to how to reevaluate my hand in the light of an ongoing auction.

I have a longstanding partnership with an essentially social player who uses the (raw) LTC without understanding what's going on. I had a longstanding club/tournament partnership with another player who generally bids well, but doesn't declare well and doesn't use LTC. On distributional hands, we find good contracts in the former partnership, but miss them in the latter. So, my belief is that LTC raises the standard of club-level bridge, even for those who do not make sensible adjustments.

[gwnn]

ArtK78, on 2015-June-07, 23:21, said:

I read what you wrote. I just don't agree with you.

Do you disagree with the "made club bridge worse" statement, which is obviously controversial, or his maths that shows that MLTC considers a void to be worth 9 points, or do you disagree with the concept that 9 points is too much for a void? Or do you disagree with all of the above, or perhaps, on a more metaphysical level, you disagree with the concept of Zelandakh as a person?

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2015-June-08, 02:57, said:

Do you disagree with the "made club bridge worse" statement, which is obviously controversial, or his maths that shows that MLTC considers a void to be worth 9 points, or do you disagree with the concept that 9 points is too much for a void? Or do you disagree with all of the above, or perhaps, on a more metaphysical level, you disagree with the concept of Zelandakh as a person?

Nobody disagrees with Zelandakh as a person. We all like him.
However, there is a good reason to raise more aggressively with a side suit void rather than holding AKQ in a side suit.
An evaluation method which does appreciate this difference does not equalize a void with AKQ.
But there might be Bridge wisdom to raise in both cases to the same level.
If your chances making your contract are poorer with the void you might still show a profit.
High cards are a zero sum game. The aces you hold can not be held by your opponents.
Distribution is not a zero sum game.
In other words some deals contain a total of 40 HCP and some much more.
I like an evaluation method, which appreciates this tactical differences, which Zelandakh mathematics does not.

When I show a limit raise over partner's 1♥ opening I might hold ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦Axxx ♣xxxx or ♠Kxx ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣Kxx
I could not care less whether Zelandakh believes the singleton spade in the first case is not worth 5 HCP.
I believe it is good Bridge to raise with both hands to the same level and invite game.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

So, LTC is meant not to measure how likely we are to make a given contract, but how likely it is right to bid a given contract (given that opponents might be making something on their own)? That's a good defense of LTC. It's not, however, how most proponents seem to use it.

[rhm]

cherdano, on 2015-June-08, 03:37, said:

So, LTC is meant not to measure how likely we are to make a given contract, but how likely it is right to bid a given contract (given that opponents might be making something on their own)? That's a good defense of LTC. It's not, however, how most proponents seem to use it.

I am not sure, but the distinction is crucial.
It is my impression that those who like LTC like it, because it improved their game, which means they get better results using LTC.

Rainer Herrmann

[ArtK78]

MLTC, applied properly, is a very valuable hand evaluation tool and a very valuable bidding tool.

I will not get into a discussion of how club level players use MLTC. In my experience, club level players have never heard of MLTC let alone have any idea of how to use it properly. So any discussion of how club level players use MLTC is, for lack of a better word, pointless.

[Zelandakh]

StevenG, on 2015-June-08, 01:35, said:

I think you are completely wrong on this, Zel. Learning the LTC massively improved my bridge, because it gave me an insight into how to evaluate unbalanced hands.

rhm, on 2015-June-08, 04:22, said:

It is my impression that those who like LTC like it, because it improved their game, which means they get better results using LTC.

I think these 2 quotes together give some insight of themselves. Looking for insight into evaluating unbalanced hands, an easy solution might be to add a little for aces, subtract a little for quacks and add some points for distribution. Yet for whatever reason books for beginners using point count are sometimes reluctant to go into any detail, perhaps for fear of causing confusion on balanced hands. You ought to gain just as much insight from the one approach as the other as they are exactly the same thing.

Rainer's point is also one that can easily be incorporated into a point count method and with more flexibility than through the MLTC. For example, you might decide to use traditional dp values (5/3/1) for uncontested auctions but MLTC dp values (9/4.5/1.5) for contested auctions. Or use a compromise such as 8/4/2, 7/4/1 or whatever. This allows for finer tuning to be done. You might also decide that a singleton king or doubleton queen is worth more than zero hcp some of the time. When a player has been taught bridge the right way, with an eye to thinking and not just following some rules by rote, the MLTC is more of a straightjacket. Admittedly though, if someone has only been taught hcp and no distribution it is going to improve their evaluation in the short term. In the long run they would have been better off learning how to evaluate distribution the "normal" way though.

[MrAce]

StevenG, on 2015-June-08, 01:35, said:

I think you are completely wrong on this, Zel.

If Zel told me that my name is not Timo, I would probably go check my birth certificate again b4 I tell him that he is "completely wrong"

Just saying.

[Siegmund]

MLTC is indeed mathematically the same thing as 3-2-1 point count with some special rules for evaluating shortness. It desperately needs a new name. It doesn't have the slightest connection to actually counting tricks. (It may well be better than the 4-3-2-1 count- thats a different topic.)

LTC is imperfect but is a spectacular tool for teaching intermediates how to think about which cards will take tricks or not and why. The value is not so much in the evaluation itself -- though that isn't bad for such a simple method -- as in the fact it corresponds to actual numbers of tricks.

As to LOTT - even more imperfect - but it had a HUGE impact on the average player's bidding style, bigger than any other book written in the last 50 years. Lawrence's book... *cough*... phoned in. There's a reason it has disappeared from sight for the last 10 years.

[nige1]

Siegmund, on 2015-June-10, 20:08, said:

MLTC is indeed mathematically the same thing as 3-2-1 point count with some special rules for evaluating shortness. It desperately needs a new name. It doesn't have the slightest connection to actually counting tricks. (It may well be better than the 4-3-2-1 count- thats a different topic.) LTC is imperfect but is a spectacular tool for teaching intermediates how to think about which cards will take tricks or not and why. The value is not so much in the evaluation itself -- though that isn't bad for such a simple method -- as in the fact it corresponds to actual numbers of tricks.
As to LOTT - even more imperfect - but it had a HUGE impact on the average player's bidding style, bigger than any other book written in the last 50 years. Lawrence's book... *cough*... phoned in. There's a reason it has disappeared from sight for the last 10 years.

A = 1.5, Kx = 1, Qxx =0.5, Doubleton = 1, Singleton = 2. Void = 3. Trump control = 1
is a good approximation to LTC. It results in an almost identical trick evaluation, using addition, rather than subtraction. LOTT is also a crude but effective aid to judgement.