billyjef

Re-looking at this hand, part of my problem was assuming the 1♦ opener's reverse into ♠ showed at least 5♦, thus the probability of a diamond ruff seemed to be significant and time sensitive.

I use an unstable application called Lead Captain, in fact it crashed before the simulation finished. http://www.bridgecap...eadCaptain.html . It doesn't definitively say that such and such will defeat the contract, only that some leads have a higher percentage of defeating the contract, assuming I get the parameters correct. My memory is that a heart lead, jack or 7, were top on the list, then the diamond ten, when my computer decided it had enough. I ran it first with only 1,000 example hands, but was frustrated because the diamond lead didn't come out on top, so had it run like 100,000...LOL. It was more than 1/2 way through when it crashed, so I realized I needed to man up and concede to the heart lead. :rolleyes:

"I don't consciously use LTC anymore" It is, as it seems it was for you, of great value to examine hands afterwards, using various metrics, even metrics we will never use at the table, because that builds up our bridge judgment that becomes intuitive at the table. When I look at hands now, I often and immediately, see their intrinsic strength, in the moment and situation, and I am able to observe fluid like, how that changes as the situation and moment changes. This comes, from what OP is doing, in my opinion. "It also afforded a very simple way of evaluating how high to bid, which had gained importance with contract." This skill is still very important, useful and shouldn't be, IMO, dismissed as marginal at best. I know you aren't dismissing LTC outright, and it is right not to glorify it as the only evaluation tool that one needs, and I didn't feel the OP was saying that, but it is still a very valuable tool for discussing the general intrinsic trick taking value of a hand objectively, even if it isn't absolute and money in the bank. So yes, no good player speaks of any metric as the Rosetta stone of a hands true value, but all the ones I know, do look at and speak about a hands referencing losing/winning count. Finally, stating LTC as outdated yet recommending other metrics that are equally dated, is too much of a dismissal for me to let ride. As clearly you know, much can be mined from that which others call outdated. I really did think this was a great post if you removed the implications that LTC was any more or less inferior to any other single metric. The warning is appreciated, but that same warning goes to worshiping HCP, Honor Tricks, Quick Tricks, Binky points etc. :)

It is what I use and I am also a student of Kevin's :)

BTW, I regularly make a thorough study of such hands using different metrics; KnR, Richard Palvicek Freakness (to determine whether the hand is better evaluated, at the table, with some sort of LTC or Kleinman) where, I, personally, not suggested in anyway by Richard, hands with less than 4 freakiness, I deem balanced and use Kleinman and with 4 or more I use ZL, Garozzo Modified New LTC, even for opening with the caveat that it has at least two quick tricks; I've correlated potential playing tricks for balanced and distributional hands with HCP playing strength, ZL and Kleinman. And then, most importantly, in my opinion, and for my self, to try and improve my bridge judgement, I eyeball tricks I can reasonable expect a hand can take...just to keep everything real and compare that to the expectations of the different measuring tools. I do spend too much time trying to suss out hands situational trick expectation because it is declaring where I am most weak at and where I need to spend more time :).

I count anything that contributes to the trick taking potential of the hand. Regular TOX often has no length, but for the big TOX, where I have a good suit and the trick taking expectation of 17+ points, I count length because I expect to be declaring it in my suit. You are right, I count length. Certainly slam isn't there double dummy, but in the auction where an unpassed responder bids a new suit, and thus is unlimited, slam can't be counted out with the strength we have. KnR is pratically too complicated to use at the table, even for it's inventors. You can use the evaluator here: http://www.jeff-gold...cgi-bin/knr.cgi , which also refers to Kleinman as well. Or you can download a program with various metrics including KnR and Kleinman here, http://tedmuller.us/...idEvaluator.htm .

I see the other posters wisdom, and upon running simulation, a heart lead has a better chance.

1: Much trouble would be solved if west chose to double first: 17 working points, with spades. KnR gives it 18.35. It's losing count using Garozzo modified New Losing Count (zl), ♠AJT=1zl; ♥AQT=1zl; ♦xx=2.5; ♣AT=1 for a total of 5.5zl. 5.5zl has the playing strength of 18 hcps, or a hand that expects to take 7 tricks. We can eyeball this as well, 4/5 tricks in ♠, 2 tricks in ♥ and a club trick are all good expectations if we are declaring. I'd like to see the auction go, (♦)-X-(2♦)-XX (now 10 card fit is known)- 4♠. partner is a passed hand and can push on if thinks it is wise, with ♦K in front of ♦ bidder, I'd pass 4♠. 2. South again has a 17 working point hand, KnR= 17.55. North, with the known 9 card fit, thus the one to make the first upgrade, will evaluate his zl as 9.5, 10 raw (♠=3, ♥=2.5, ♦=2, ♣=2.5, minus 1/2 for 4th trump and doubleton, 9.5. Once south knows of the fit, her 5.5 opposite maximum 10z. gives the partnership 9.5 playing tricks. One could just bid 4♠ or use one of the game tries as msjennifer suggest, or could even bid 3 of the red suits. North, knowing she has better than the minimum expected, no wastage in clubs, can find 4♠ as well. 3. Once south knows of the 9 card fit, she can subtract 1 full loser from her hand, 1/2 for the 4th trump and doubleton and 1/2 for the singleton king seems fair enough. She now has 5.5zl hand again, and should make a 3♠ invitation at minimum, or just bid 4♠ depending on pdship style. N is unlimited, but west is sitting behind strength, so slam is unlikely to be missed.

If you are playing Leb, as now it seems you were, then 3♣ is not an underbid.

South could overcall 2NT, not that I wouldn't want more than the AT, but it ain't Christmas either :). I agree with the rest, pass is fine, 3♣ is an underbid.

any diamond and if partner gets a ruff, he'll know to return hearts.

I'll search it out. I still think it is bazaar that we don't routinely measure an hand evaluation by it's accuracy to predict expected trick taking potent. I sympathize with the desire to use whatever wins the most, and that can be satisfactory enough. But when the majority of people can't tell you how many tricks they are contracting to take when they open the auction or bid...something is lost, I think. I was lost; then I woke up ;) How many tricks is an opening hand in ones system? How many tricks are an invitational/limit raise in that system? Tricks for a constructive raise? etc. Ask your average player, they can tell you the HCP range, but potential tricks those HCP represents?

It's interesting how my "objectivity" often gets interpreted as condemnation because I speak critically of something. I love your father's WTC. I think the idea of WTC is a lot as it is more accessible to visualizing the trick taking potential of the hand. I think, as you suggest, that the trick expectation of short suits is too liberal. But that is just a intuitive guess. I don't know definitively. As a teacher of New LTC, because, I too, know it is a good estimate of trick-taking potential at suit contracts, I have to make concerted efforts to help students realize how using NiLT, as one student calls it, translates into winning tricks. And it isn't just student's, even among other advocates of LTC, the fact we are trying to estimate a hands trick taking potential gets lost in the minutia of each persons favorite LTC adjustments. On the upside, several new students in the past year, hearing how I emphasize intrinsic trick taking potential, when asked to evaluate their hand, will reply, "In (my suit or at notrump) I expect my hand to take (such number) of tricks." Even I'm not that fluent in trick taking language; my mind first goes to HCP or LTC. All this is why I titled the thread HCP Matrix...I could have called it the LTC Matrix or KnR Matrix...where what is measured by the tool is lost in a fantasy world where the measured is inconsequential to the worship of the tool. I find myself in such Matrices all the time. In life and bridge, for me, nothing is sacred. Keeping that in mind, everything is subject to critical analysis without intending judgement.

I hope you didn't think I was disparaging the tools, just the opposite. I regularly evaluate my hands with HCP, various LTC, QT and DT, always important, Kleinman, KnR and eyeballing tricks. As I mentioned right at the beginning of the post you quoted, measuring the trick taking potential of a hand is complex and elusive. That's why the tools were invented. What I am disparaging is the loss of what those tools measure, the trick taking potential of the hand.

Trying to estimate the trick taking potential of a hand is indeed often complicated (and elusive). What frustrates me is that it seems the masses and even some "advanced" players have no concept of the trick taking potential of a hand, rather, only evaluate hands by the fictional HCP, or Losing Trick Count, Binky Points or whatever...all good tools, but what they measure has become loss, and only the tool is worshipped. I watch a lot of TV, and I sympathize with the masses, fantasy is seductive, but it is frustrating when everything is talked about in terms of HCP and you ask, how many tricks is that, and all you get back are :huh:. Sussing out "N tricks + S tricks != NS tricks" is a lost art worthy of bringing back, IMO.

:)

So for Goren, it can be deduced, grossly: 3NT = 26/9 = 2.89 HCP per trick (2.85 HCP to make 1NT)4 of a major = 26/10 = 2.6 HCP per trick (2.5 HCP to make 2 of a suit)5 of a minor = 29/11 = 2.64 HCP per trick Modern 3NT on 24 HCP = 24/9 = 2.7 HCP per Trick "about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable" Meckwell's sporting 3NT = 23/9 = 2.6 HCP per Trick Modern Light 2/1 = 11+12 = 23 HCP for a major = 23/10 = 2.3 HCP per Trick. At some point, accounting for "about the right percentages to make bidding game profitable", and increased trick taking skills by declarer (don't defender's skill's ever improve equally), there must be a threshold for significant diminishing returns?

:P

Did Goren, Work or anyone do any sort of correlation of tricks to HCP? How many tricks is 13 HCP expected to take? It seems like it should be expected to take 5 tricks; and two 13 point hands should take 10 tricks at least, what, about 90% of the time, for the 26 HCP game? 2/1 Game force, "You have an opening hand, I have an opening hand, we can make game to 3NT or 4 of a major?" And yet, yesterday everyone opened 12 HCP hands, today, 11 HCP hands seem to becoming the new minimum, for everyone, not just precisionists (just got back from a 4-day tourney and couldn't help but notice that). Does this mean that combined 22HCP game is the new 26 HCP game? What is real? B-)

I fantasize that in a bygone era before High Card Points were invented, bridge players talked about how many tricks their hands had.

Stephen Tu 24 : 34 billyjef Correct link: https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:a1f7937f.1331.11e9.a82b.0cc47a39aeb4-1546943950&u=billyjef

Practical advice for sure. Sadly, my curiosity consistently overwhelms such sensibilities. B-)

Stephen Tu 24 : 34 billyjef https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:92efed7e.1331.11e9.a82b.0cc47a39aeb4-1546943925&u=billyjef

Diana_Eva 66 : 16 billyjef https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:92efed7e.1331.11e9.a82b.0cc47a39aeb4-1546943925&u=billyjef Thanks for the whooping Diana B-)

Aww man, I wanted someone else to have already done all the work! :rolleyes: I will create a project out of it and add it to my lists of projects. Thanks John.