Are these 5-3-3-2 hands with 13 HCP equal?

[Bertil]

These three ordinary 5=3=3=2 hands with 13 HCP each don't seem to be
of equal value.

T9xxx KQT9x T9xxx
QJx QJx QJx
AQx KQx KQJ
Ax xx KJ
QT 2.5 2 1.5
B-R 13 11.5 11.5
4C 12 12.9 10.5
PP -2 -1.6 -2.8

QT=quick tricks; B-R= Martelli's /Bergen's computer count;
4C=Kaplan's count;
PP= Kurt's Push Point adjustment to Work point count, if I remember
correctly.

Each hand seems to qualify for an opening bid by Bergen's Rule of 20.
Note that the 1st hand has more QT and B-R count than 2nd hand.

What quantitative value should an ordinary player put on each hand?

What value would a computer program put on each hand?

Would each hand qualify for an openng bid?

Also, consider inverting each hand to a 2=3=3=5 type with the long
suit in clubs.

Bertil

[Lorne]

"Bertil" wrote in message
news:263e041d-d078-439d...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

..................................

I suggest a simple rule to start with is count your HCP. If 12+ open. If
less but you think it might be an opening bid open with 7 losers but pass
with more. So each hand is an opening bid. Take away the DQ and only the
second hand qualifies. Obviously with less than 10 HCP you would not
normally open except as a pre-empt. If you are sure you want to open but
not sure about level then pre-empt with 1 or less QT.

[Nick France]

They are all openers with the 2nd the best of the lot and the third a
very marginal opener. If you were using the standards where 1NT were
16-18 the last one would not be an opener.

I am waiting for the point of this.

Nick France

[HoneyMonster]

I think I concur. In first seat I'd open the first hand 1NT if playing
weak NT, or 1S playing strong. The second hand 1S playing either, and the
third hand 1NT if weak, otherwise pass.

Like (I assume) many others, I think that if Stig were to put aside his
abacus, use some judgement and actually try playing bridge, he might find
it worthwhile.

[Bertil]

> it worthwhile.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

With your vaunted judgment you should be national champ and winner of
other cup events.
But you ain't because your judgment is inferior. You are delusional
about your ability.
Let me remind you of what Ira Corn wrote: " if a player has a
mathematical formula that
limits the judgment area, then a better bidding average of accuracy
will result from relying
on the formula rather than on the judgment capability". Think about it
and learn from an expert.

Bertil

[Will in New Haven]

Were you one of the players who finished first in the two events where
we finished second at the recent Connecticut sectional? Oh, that's
right, you don't play. You obsess about opening-bid standards and post
your obsessions here.

All three hands in your original post are opening bids. And Ira Corn
was never an expert. He EMPLOYED expert bridge players.

--
Will in New Haven

[Player]

They aren't.

Ron

[tussock]

Bertil wrote:

> These three ordinary 5=3=3=2 hands with 13 HCP each don't seem to be
> of equal value.

Depends what you mean by value, dunnit. They're all 1/4 of a 52-card
deck, and thus without any value at all if the other 3/4 aren't in play.

> T9xxx KQT9x T9xxx
> QJx QJx QJx
> AQx KQx KQJ
> Ax xx KJ

Zars 28 26 24 (or 26, depending on how you count).

> QT 2.5 2 1.5
> B-R 13 11.5 11.5
> 4C 12 12.9 10.5
> PP -2 -1.6 -2.8

> Each hand seems to qualify for an opening bid by Bergen's Rule of 20.

More importantly, they have 13 HCP, and your partner only needs a flat
11-12 for a fair go at 3NT, so you need to open.

> What quantitative value should an ordinary player put on each hand?

An "ordinary" player should count 13 HCP and open something.

> What value would a computer program put on each hand?

Exactly what the programmer tells it to. They're like that.

> Would each hand qualify for an openng bid?

I'd open them all 1S, though the last is sub-minimum for suit play. But
then, I'm bidding out shape; have to show the 5 spades now or never.

> Also, consider inverting each hand to a 2=3=3=5 type with the long
> suit in clubs.

All open a weak 1NT, 12-15. 1C is reserved for strong hands.

--
tussock

[Eric Leong]

Hand one has 7 LTC
Hand two has 6 LTC
Hand three has 7 LTC and no ace

I certainly would not open hand 3.

Eric Leong

[Henry Lockwood]

On Nov 25, 2:36 am, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > What value would a computer program put on each hand?
>
>     Exactly what the programmer tells it to. They're like that.

I'm a programmer for a living, and it doesn't always seem that way...

Back to the original topic, not all 13-HCP hands are equal. Stig's
done a good job of constructing some very unequal ones here.

I'd open all of these; I like light openings so you could take a K off
hand 3 and I'd still open the bidding at favourable. Put it this way:
if you pass, will partner ever believe you have this good a hand? I'd
say that partner being able to trust you is more important than
fooling opponents, at least the majority of the time.

HenryL

[rhm]

suit 14(-) 12(+) 12(-)
NT 14 13(+) 13(+)

Those who prefer hand 2 to hand 1 are wrong in my opinion, though hand
2 might play better opposite a weak misfitting hand.
The Rubens Kaplan evaluator is also wrong here . It values honors in
long suits too highly.
Hand 2 is closer to hand 3 than to hand 1.
I open all hands, but on hand 3,1S with misgivings. It is a weak-
notrump type hand.

Rainer Herrmann

[Frances]

> Bertil- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't know who HoneyMonster is so I don't know if he is a "national
champ" or not. How do you know he is 'delusional' about this ability?
I can tell you that I am, and I also find most of your posts a waste
of time. Like Nick France, I simply do not see what you are trying to
achieve with all these threads.

Of course all 13 counts are not of equal value. I don't know of anyone
who claims they are.
Of course any decent player will evaluate them differently.
There is no simple formula that creates a perfect initial valuation of
a hand. There may be a complex formula that articulates what good
players do automatically, but you don't seem to be trying to find it,
you just keep posting hands and comparing different simple formulae.

Which turns out to be the best hand will depend on how the auction
progresses. All the 'simple' formulae that try and improve on HCP say
hand three is the worst.

Whether they are opening bids or not depends on partnership style; as
we open most balanced 11s we would open all of these.

[dak...@aol.com]

I'm getting 2.22 1.80 1.41 comparison.
Is this an attempt to justify your opening bid minimum?
What IS opened?
Or which opener qualifies for strong rebid if/when responder asks?
'Inverting' ie. switching spades with clubs makes these hands
less useful as the 4S hoped contract is off-the-table.

[jogs]

It falls on deaf ears. 11-21 with a five card spade
suit. Open 1S. On this round we don't care whether
this hand is on the top or bottom of the range.
As the auctions progresses, we will reevaluate
the hand.

[Bertil]

On Nov 24, 8:08 pm, Will in New Haven

> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Your expertise seems to be in downgrading others so you can elevate
yourself. Pathetic.
Ira Corn's philosophy was adopted by the experts on the Dallas Aces
team.Their success
speaks for his expertise.You could never rise to his level. You also
lack ethics. Have you ever
made a positive and constructive contribution to bridge? If so, list
it here.

Bertil

[derek]

On Nov 25, 10:19 am, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It falls on deaf ears.  11-21 with a five card spade
> suit.  Open 1S.  On this round we don't care whether
> this hand is on the top or bottom of the range.
> As the auctions progresses, we will reevaluate
> the hand.

_We_ will, Stig somehow seems to feel that he can come up with the
perfect bidding sequence if only he knows exactly what his hand is
worth before the first bid.

[Bertil]

To open any hand with 12+ HCP, whatever that is, seems superficial,
since it does not account for
quality of honor cards. E.g. would you open QJxxx-QJx-QJx-KJ? If so, I
suggest you consult Bergen's
booklet "Hand Evaluatiion".and also his Adjust-3 count. He would
probably rate it as 13-3-1=9pts.
This hand rates as 9.1 pts by the 4C method and probably as 10- by
Kleinman's method based on
a 13-9-5-2 count, which is very close to the B-R count.

Bertil

[Bertil]

> Eric Leong- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with Klinger's book.
He makes it very clear that LTC applies only after an 8-fit or better
has been found.
Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening hands?

Bertil

[jogs]

Hands are worth X +/- e before the bidding. And e
is nearly 10 points.

[Nick France]

> Bertil- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You seem to be talking about yourself Stig. Have you ever won a
sectional or regional event or placed in a National event so we can
judge your playing ability. Competing against others is how you find
out how your ideas work. I'm currently in Seattle just to see how
much further I still have to go. Competition is the real test of what
you have learned and what you still have to learn. Until you try,
your comments about the ability of others has no weight at all.

Nick France

[Charles Brenner]

Where the quote makes sense is in the realm of partnership agreement,
not in the realm of judgment. For example yesterday I read an essay by
Philip Martin (very smart guy, close to top level before semi-retiring
from bridge) suggesting a formulaic approach to specifying what the
weaker hand should have for various slam-moving actions in a
particular kind of bidding sequence, and the merit he advocated for
his approach isn't that his formulas implement great judgment, but
rather that using even imperfect formulas implements a clear agreement
for the partnership. Thus, strong hand knows without doubt what hands
are possible and what hands are impossible for partner hence whether
to make a further try. Weak hand in turn knows without doubt what he
has already shown and hence what secondary features of his hand
constitute "extras".

A similar approach *could* be taken to opening bids, but even if it
were the point isn't what Bertil is suggesting. Deciding what hands to
open and what not to open is hardly even a matter of judgment, only of
style. At least, I have never heard any player, expert or even non-
expert other than Bertil, claim the contrary. It will make very little
difference where you draw the line on opening, so long as your partner
knows.

[Martin Ambuhl]

On 11/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bertil wrote:

> Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with Klinger's book.
> He makes it very clear that LTC applies only after an 8-fit or better
> has been found.
> Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening hands?

Klinger makes the claim that LTC should not be used for opening the
bidding except for opening bids specifically playing strength.

Note that CAB players (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.

His ignoring the Roman players is amazing. He claims, for example, on
p.11 that after Courtney & Walshe's 1935 book "It was given scant
attention then ... and cam to light again in 1961 through the endeavors
of Maurice Harrison-Gray...". Apparently Klinger is unaware of
Belladonna & Avarelli's successes in the period between 1935 and 1961.
He claims (p.69) that "The concept of 'cover cards' was devised by
George Rosenkranz...". George Rosenkranz knows better, and has
frequently in writing acknowledged that the Roman players provided the
concept. They were using 'cover cards' at least by the early 1950s.
Apparently Klinger hasn't even bothered to read Rosenkranz.

If you want a real laugh, check section (5) of the appendix. This has a
riotous confusion of categories. According to Klinger,
a) S:Axxxxx H:Kxxx D:xx C:x (7 HCP)
is a better 7 loser hand than
b) S:AJxxxx H:KJxx D:QJ C:Q (14 HCP)
This his arithmetic.
(1) (2) (3) (2)-(3) LTC
Controls Control HCP correction net
points
Hand a 3 10 7 +3 -1/2 loser 6 1/2 LTC
Hand b 3 10 14 -4 +1/2 loser 7 1/2 LTC

Take Klinger and his _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ with a grain of salt.

[Fred.]

I would open the two on the left 1H in most
systems. Playing SA I would consider
passing the hand on the right, but bid 1NT
if non-vulnerable and playing a 12-14 NT.
I would not open the hand a 13-15 1NT.

Inverting the hands, I would open the two
on the left 1C in SA, but definately pass
the hand on the right.

Fred.

[Carl]

On Nov 25, 7:35 am, Frances <franceshin...@googlemail.com> wrote:


> There may be a complex formula that articulates what good
> players do automatically, but you don't seem to be trying to find it,
> you just keep posting hands and comparing different simple formulae.
>

That's a pretty keen statement. While I doubt it would be any
variation of a numeric equation, some sort of template set might do
the trick. Not very useful at the table, either.

What qualifies as an opener surely depends on what also qualifies as a
response. Your opening most balanced 11 pointers is something
responder needs to know :)

[Bertil]

This is one of the most interesting posts I'v seen in a long time.
But it's also confusing. It seems to say that any hand with 7 or
fewer LTC can be opened at the one level.
Surely a 7-6-0-0 type hand with no HCP would not qualify. Nor do I
think a hand like Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx
would qualify even though it has only 7 LTC. So what other rules must
one apply with 6-7 LTC?
E.g would xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x qualify and should one pass Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-
QT ?
Searching for LTC at Google did not help. All sites say LTC must be
based on a good fit.

Bertil

[Martin Ambuhl]

On 11/25/2011 10:20 PM, Bertil wrote:
> On Nov 25, 3:53 pm, Martin Ambuhl<mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bertil wrote:
>>
>>> Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with Klinger's book.
>>> He makes it very clear that LTC applies only after an 8-fit or better
>>> has been found.
>>> Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening hands?
>>
>> Klinger makes the claim that LTC should not be used for opening the
>> bidding except for opening bids specifically playing strength.
>>
>> Note that CAB players (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
>> using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
>> Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
>> using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
>>
>> His ignoring the Roman players is amazing. He claims, for example, on

>> p.11 that after Courtney& Walshe's 1935 book "It was given scant

>> attention then ... and cam to light again in 1961 through the endeavors
>> of Maurice Harrison-Gray...". Apparently Klinger is unaware of

>> Belladonna& Avarelli's successes in the period between 1935 and 1961.

>> He claims (p.69) that "The concept of 'cover cards' was devised by
>> George Rosenkranz...". George Rosenkranz knows better, and has
>> frequently in writing acknowledged that the Roman players provided the
>> concept. They were using 'cover cards' at least by the early 1950s.
>> Apparently Klinger hasn't even bothered to read Rosenkranz.
>>
>> If you want a real laugh, check section (5) of the appendix. This has a
>> riotous confusion of categories. According to Klinger,
>> a) S:Axxxxx H:Kxxx D:xx C:x (7 HCP)
>> is a better 7 loser hand than
>> b) S:AJxxxx H:KJxx D:QJ C:Q (14 HCP)
>> This his arithmetic.
>> (1) (2) (3) (2)-(3) LTC
>> Controls Control HCP correction net
>> points
>> Hand a 3 10 7 +3 -1/2 loser 6 1/2 LTC
>> Hand b 3 10 14 -4 +1/2 loser 7 1/2 LTC
>>
>> Take Klinger and his _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ with a grain of salt.
>
> This is one of the most interesting posts I'v seen in a long time.
> But it's also confusing. It seems to say that any hand with 7 or
> fewer LTC can be opened at the one level.

Well, not really. Remember that I wrote>> Note that CAB players (whom

>> Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
>> using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
>> Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
>> using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.

The key words are "as the primary evaluation method" for CAB players and
"as a primary evaluation method" for Roman players. They both included
some count of high card content, as well, as one example. Further, the
early 1950s Roman correction for isolated non-losing Ks and Qs is better
than anything Klinger has on offer.

> Surely a 7-6-0-0 type hand with no HCP would not qualify. Nor do I
> think a hand like Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx
> would qualify even though it has only 7 LTC. So what other rules must
> one apply with 6-7 LTC?

When I played Animal Acol (the MIT form of Baronized Acol, dating from
David Beer's teams in the 1950s and played almost as the MIT system at
least into the early 1970s), our standards were
1) Balanced 12 with 2 QT or
2) Unbalanced 7 LTC with 3 controls, or possibly KQ-KQ.
This worked very well for us. And remember that Lowenthal's Canary Club
-- unfortunately not playable in most ACBL events outside long team
matches or clubs that allowed almost anything -- opened 7 LTC with no
promise of defensive values. He took the limitation of non-1C openings
by the 17+ 1C bid seriously. I should point out that many Canary
players use Roman LTC rather than Klinger's variety. This makes sense
in that Canary can be roughly described as Roman with the 1C and 1NT
bids switched (and a positive relay instead of a negative one).

And yes, Animal players would open Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx, CAB and Canary
players might open it, and Roman players would not. The primary reason
Roman players would nor (except perhaps in 3rd seat), is that the system
constrains them to bid this as a spade 1-suiter (1S ... 2S) or a sound
minimum S-C two suiter (2S). Both are unappealing.

> E.g would xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x qualify and should one pass Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-
> QT ?

The first is missing a card. I suppose you want 7 LTC, so
xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-xx or xxx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x.
Again, Animal players open both, CAB and Canary players might, and Roman
players would not. Some Roman players might open the second or both
with 1H, since treating these as a heart 1-suiter isn't sick-making. To
open 1D and bid 1NT (showing 5 hearts) over the negative 1H step (or 2H
over higher responses) is too rich a path on this collection.

Notice that Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx has 7 1/4 Roman LTC, and the long cards are
suspect as non-losers (adding in the Blue team correction for length,
this is 7 3/4 LTC).

xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-xx and xxx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x are also 7 1/4 Roman LTC, and the
long cards are even more suspect (adding in the Blue team correction for
length, these are 8 LTC).

Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-QT is 7 1/2 Roman LTC, but 13 HCP is usually too much to
pass. The QT doubleton, isolated Q in Qxx, and absence of aces will
persuade some to pass, while others will not consider them
disqualifying. Animal players might well pass, CAB players would
probably open 1H. Roman players would probably open 1H but might pass.

[derek]

You really need to refine your search methods. BridgeGuys.com talks
about _opening_ based on LTC, and that site pops up first in almost
any search for bridge info.

http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LosingTrickCount.html:

"A player, in deciding to open the auction, uses the Initial Count. An
opening bid is based on:

1. not holding more than 7 losers.
2. holding adequate high card values, including 2 defensive tricks.
3. a sound rebid."

I like that "adequate high card values". That probably sums up my
opening hand evaluation pretty well.

[ttw...@att.net]

On Nov 24, 1:29 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
These three ordinary 5=3=3=2 hands with 13 HCP each don't seem to be
of equal value.

        T9xxx     KQT9x      T9xxx
        QJx        QJx           QJx
        AQx       KQx           KQJ
        Ax          xx              KJ

Just for fun, one can be old fashioned ask "What would Goren do?" (Or
more accurately, what would Goren have taught; he might have done
things differently.)

All have 13 HCP and 1 distribution point.
The first hand is 14 points, easy bid and re-bid. Worth opening.
The second hand is 13 points, deduct 1 for no aces, easy bid and re-
bid. Worth opening.
The third hand is 12 points, deduct 1 for no aces and 1 for the Club
Jack. Iffy. Easy bid and rebid though.
All probably make a good weak NT opener (although, the second may be
worth opening 1S even playing weak NTs).

[Fred.]

I would have a problem on the first hand
playing as Goren wrote, since while the
suit has five cards, I don't think it is
rebiddable by his standards. I think I
would open 1S. For a rebid, I would
pass 1NT, raise 2D or 2H, and rebid either
2D (NF promising 4) or 2S over 2C whichever
felt lucky.

This is a much easier hand to bid with
2/1 GF (or AGF) where, depending on your
aggreements, 2S is essentially a waiting
bid or you can raise 2D or 2H or your can
bid 2NT without extras.

Fred.

[Bertil]

> opening hand evaluation pretty well.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.
Also, I Googled 'Losing Trick Count" and BridgeGuys was the 4th entry
and it has none of the info
you quoted. I then continued the Google search and found another
BridgeGuy entry in the middle
of next page. It has the info you quoted, and thus the Guys seem to be
of two minds.
As for 'adequate HCP" that is in the mind of the card holder and
provides no standard or guide.

Would a hand with only three Aces and 5-3-3-2 shape qualify for an
opening bid with 8 LTC?
I think the answer is that LTC should not be applied to any balanced
hand, where HCP +QT should be used.

Bertil

[Andrew B]

On 26/11/2011 22:37, Bertil wrote:
> On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, derek<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> You really need to refine your search methods. BridgeGuys.com talks
>> about _opening_ based on LTC, and that site pops up first in almost
>> any search for bridge info.
>>
>> http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LosingTrickCount.html:
>

> Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.

Try omitting the colon at the end.

[derek]

> Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.

Not surprisingly, you're an idiot. It works just fine, even using it
from YOUR post. And it says exactly what I quoted. Why I even bother
to try to help someone with such a closed mind is beyond me. Bye.

[Bertil]

> to try to help someone with such a closed mind is beyond me.  Bye.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Let me recap so everybody will understand why I respond as follows.
I clicked on the website you posted but it was dead,
I posed a specific problem but you were unable to make a rational
answer.
Instead you resorted, as you have done in the past, to a vile
invective and signed off with Bye.
Does that mean I've rid myself and RGB of the premier shithead, after
HS departed?
If so, I say Hallelujah, Praise the Lord and good riddens of stinking
rubbish. I should be so luckey.
Imagine I just celebrated Thanksgiving hoping for peace and harmony
and good fellowship at RGB
only to be rudely taken back to an ugly reality created by you over a
period of time.
But I predict you'll soon be back for more humiliation, because you
are a masochist and a sick mongrel or cur.
See you later Aligator or in a while Crocodile, or maybe you are just
a Snapping Turtle. Bite my shorts.

Bertil

[Bertil]

> > Bertil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Lacking your vast experience and know how of other systems I'm unable
to comment on your post.
But I would like to ask why you made no mentioning of other LTC
counts, such as the New LTC from
an article in BW in 2003 by Koelman. It's based on counting half
losers for missing honors.
Specifically it counts 3 for the A, 2 for the K and 1 for the Q, for a
total of 6 halves or 3 losers.
This seems equal to counting Axx=1.5, K=2 and Q=2.5 in Klinger's
system.
Using this count one would treat a 5-3-3-2 hand with only three Aces
as 6.5 or 7 losers,
depending on where the 3rd A is located, and thus the hand could be
opened in tems of LTC.
Is the NLTC used by experts?

Bertil

[Charles Brenner]

Do you have some kind of mental filter that helps you automatically
ignore helpful and pleasant posts such as that of Andrew B (not to
mention my own post helpfully explaining how you misunderstood Ira
Corn), while honing in on those who reply to you with rude drivel? Yes
Derek was wrong but you don't need to be helpless.

Charles

[Bertil]

> Charles- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The 6th Edition of the ACBL Encyclopedia says that Ira Corn won Mixed
Pairs 1963,
Men's Team 1968 and Vanderbilt 1973. That in my mind shows expertise.

Bertil

[Bertil]

> Bertil- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The other day I tried to e-mail my son but it was undelivered twice
because of typos.
So why would I try to retype the website given, that is much more
complicated.
It's up to the poster to correct his typos.
I trusted the ACBL Editors with regard to Ira Corn. So why is there an
argument?

Bertil

[HoneyMonster]

Unsurprising.

> So why would I try to retype the website given, that is much more
> complicated.

Yes, pressing the backspace key once is hard work.

> It's up to the poster to correct his typos.
> I trusted the ACBL Editors with regard to Ira Corn. So why is there an
> argument?

There is no argument; merely laughter.

[Martin Ambuhl]

On 11/27/2011 7:48 AM, Bertil wrote:

>
> Lacking your vast experience and know how of other systems I'm unable
> to comment on your post.
> But I would like to ask why you made no mentioning of other LTC
> counts, such as the New LTC from
> an article in BW in 2003 by Koelman. It's based on counting half
> losers for missing honors.
> Specifically it counts 3 for the A, 2 for the K and 1 for the Q, for a
> total of 6 halves or 3 losers.

This is nothing more than including controls. It gives you the first 3
steps of the 4 Aces count (for non-losers), as Kaplan remarked in the 4C
article. Add in Work HCP, and you have the Vienna (Bamberger) count:

(1) (2) (1)+(2) (3) (1)+(2)+(3)
Non-losers Controls 4 Aces' HCP Vienna
A 1 2 3 4 7
non-losing K 1 1 2 3 5
non-losing Q 1 0 1 2 3
J 0 0 0 1 1

Now, what do you do with losing Ks and Qs or with Js. There is always
someone ready to claim an old idea as his very own, brand new,
revolutionary contribution.

[Charles Brenner]

> The 6th Edition of the ACBL Encyclopedia says that Ira Corn won Mixed
> Pairs 1963,
> Men's Team 1968 and Vanderbilt 1973. That in my mind shows expertise.

You have no idea what I wrote about Ira Corn. I'm not among those who
put him down. Again, your filter for hearing only drivel seems to be
on - rather than reading what I wrote you apparently decided to
substitute what you remember someone writing, and consequently your
comment is a total non sequitur. Interesting.

Charles

Charles

[Martin Ambuhl]

A followup of my own post of 11/27/2011 at 6:37 PM:

> On 11/27/2011 7:48 AM, Bertil wrote:
>
>> But I would like to ask why you made no mentioning of other LTC
>> counts, such as the New LTC from
>> an article in BW in 2003 by Koelman. It's based on counting half
>> losers for missing honors.
>> Specifically it counts 3 for the A, 2 for the K and 1 for the Q, for a
>> total of 6 halves or 3 losers.

Note that this is exactly the same as the balancing Aces and Queens that
Klinger so despises. The effect of counting the excess of Aces over
Queens and modifying the LTC by 1/2 for each excess (of deficient) Ace
over Queens yields (for non-losers)
A 1 1/2
K 1
Q 1/2

There is no reason at all why I should mention Koelman's repacking of
old goods. And it is a bad idea to modify the LTC in this way.
Controls and Loser Count are conceptually different. Count each, or
simply note that a hand with more Aces than (non-losing) Queens is
control-rich and with more (non-losing) Queens than Aces is
control-poor, if you must conflate the two categories.

[Bertil]

> There is no argument; merely laughter.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The laughteryou seem to hear is just the graying of asses.
I asked you to list your contributons to the world of bridge and
you've come up with nothing as expected,
because you are just a blowhard selfinflated windbag, incapabable of a
constructive contribution.
You're one of the asses. And birds of a feather flock together.

Bertil

[KWSchneider]

On Nov 24, 2:29 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Stig wrote...

>These three ordinary 5=3=3=2 hands with 13 HCP each don't seem to be
>of equal value.

Let me reformat [for fixed font, which is what we all should be using]
and correct the PP results so I can accept attribution.

T9xxx KQT9x T9xxx
QJx QJx QJx
AQx KQx KQJ
Ax xx KJ

QT 2.5 2 1.5
B-R 13 11.5 11.5
4C 12 12.9 10.5

Corrected results====================
PP[spades] 13 14 11
=Tricks 5.2 5.6 4.4

To your questions:

1) They each have 13 HCP. Hand 2 can take the most tricks [spades are
trump].
2) Hands 1 and 2 are 1S openings, Hand 3 is a notrump hand, 1N
opening [playing 12-14]
3) Simple PP evaluation is enough - a computer program is
unnecessary
4) Making the long suit clubs just changes the trump suit...

Kurt

[Bertil]

> Charles- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You claimed I had misunderstood what credentials Ira Corn had, that
made me rate him an expert.
I quoted the info from the ACBL Encycl. and you seem to be upset. Why?
What did I misunderstand?
The 4th Edition of the Encylc. states that I.Corn also won several
regional titles.
I find it noteworthy that Will in NH has failed to explain his opinion
about I.Corn. Does he lack ethics?

Bertil

[Player]

What is the matter with you? You are one of the rudest people on this
site and yet you accuse others of rudeness. You post silly questions,
like the one in this post and then don't listen to the answers. Take a
long hard look at yourself.
Ron

[Charles Brenner]

> You claimed I had misunderstood what credentials Ira Corn had, that
> made me rate him an expert.

I said nothing even remotely like that. I said you misunderstood what
*he meant*, and I defended what he said on the assumption that he
means the same thing by those words as others, experts, who say
similar things mean. Please read my actual post, then feel free to
apologize.

> I find it noteworthy that Will in NH has failed to explain his opinion
> about I.Corn. Does he lack ethics?

I am not Will, but I begin to understand. Your comment to me is
understandable if your worldview is that there is you, and everyone
else, and to you everyone else is more or less indistinguishable and
you see nothing wrong with confusing them with one another. I don't
share that view. I think of myself as different than other people,
including Will for example.

Anyone other than Charles Brenner is not me. I like it when people
grant me the minimal respect of recognizing my individuality, as I do
yours.

Charles

[Bertil]

> Ron- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So you think posting a qustion that yields different answers is
silly.
I think the purpose of a forum is to raise questions that can clarify
how people value specific hands. You seem to want bland pablum.

As for rudness , it comes from like begets like. Darek has vowed to
disrupt and harass me on any post I make wether he agrees, disagrees
or doesn't care about the subjet matter. He is determined to make an
ass
of himself, just like HS used to do. He can't stand it that some of my
ideas get published in BW, while he has nothing to contribute.
When in Rome, do like the Romans. Fight fire with fire.

Bertil

[Bertil]

I'm having a problem trying to figure out what you mean. If you're
saying you agree with Will's
opinion about I.Corn, then I've explained why I disagree. If you mean
something else, please clarify.

Bertil

> > I find it noteworthy that Will in NH has failed to explain his opinion
> > about I.Corn. Does he lack ethics?
>
> I am not Will, but I begin to understand. Your comment to me is
> understandable if your worldview is that there is you, and everyone
> else, and to you everyone else is more or less indistinguishable and
> you see nothing wrong with confusing them with one another. I don't
> share that view. I think of myself as different than other people,
> including Will for example.
>
> Anyone other than Charles Brenner is not me. I like it when people
> grant me the minimal respect of recognizing my individuality, as I do
> yours.
>

> Charles- Hide quoted text -

[Nick France]

> Bertil- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Letters to the editor are not the same as being published

Nick France

[jogs]

The BridgeBulletin just published part 1 of
a series of articles in Losing Tick Count.
December 2011.

Still LTC is not useful for flat hands in low
level contracts. Too few bids exchanged for
partnerships to properly assess their losers.

[Charles Brenner]

Apparently you are, but why you are having difficulty is absolutely
incomprehensible.

My original message was very clear, and supported Corn. Yet you
accused me of being like Will (no offense Will, but in this case I
wasn't similar).

I patiently explained that you were confused, and briefly pointed you
in the right direction. But your confusion continues.

> If you're
> saying you agree with Will's
> opinion about I.Corn, then I've explained why I disagree.

Did you read my words above "I defended what [Corn] said"? Does that
sound like agreeing with Will? It's a total mystery to me why you even
mention Will in replying to me. My original post to you had zero to do
with whatever Will said, positive or negative. Subsequently I told you
that. Yet you keep mentioning Will anyway.

> If you mean
> something else, please clarify.

Sorry Bertil, I have clarified and clarified.

I don't think that you are stupid -- your recent letter in the BW was
perfectly coherent and intelligent. But your comprehension here is
well below the normal range and I cannot imagine what more I could
have said to be more clear. I presume that you have mental obstacles
that come and go.

Charles

[Bertil]

> Nick France- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You need to look up the Wikipedia definition of "Publication" and
"Letter to the Editor".
When you submit a letter to the Editor, it will be reviewed and
revised one or more times
by the Editorial Board of experts before it is published.
After I submitted my article "A Modified Long Suit Evaluator" to BW I
also subitted a shortened version
to BB but the Editor never responded. That's the standard at ACBL.

What was the purpose for your post? What did you try to say?Are you
totally ignorant of the legal definition
of copyright and intellectual property rights?

Bertil

[Nick France]

No but you are of what is considered common usage. You implied your
full article was published in Bridge World. What was in Bridge World
was a short letter. Since I have published a couple of full articles
in the Conn Kibitzer should I claim to have made a contribution to
bridge. I, at least, understand that mine's were one any good bridge
teacher could of written to help beginner's. It was not something to
try to equate to the likes of Goren or Grant.

If your comments on this group were like your short letter, you might
find your opinion actually being listen to by members of the group.

Nick France

[Carl]

On Nov 29, 8:57 pm, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I presume that you have mental obstacles that come and go.

Bertil (Stig) has been working on the opening bid since I first
discovered this newsgroup, circa 1999, and likely prior to that. The
obstacle seems to be finding the perfect mathematical formula to
accept/deny what is/is not a valid opening bid. Once he gets passed
that point, presumably the next step in the auction will become his
current project.

He is an intelligent person, no question. But he flusters easily and
then blusters on ad naseum, especially if one disagrees with a
premise. People here who have tried to help Stig through some of the
evaluations have been more or less chased away with insults.

Most of us accept the fact that if you set an easy to remember and
work-at-the-table rule, it will, by necessity, encompass some bad
hands and omit some good ones. While a great number of players use the
Rule of 20 as a smart place to start, Stig dismisses it because it is
imperfect.

I've given up trying to be of use and not subject to abuse.

[derek]

On Nov 27, 11:07 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you have some kind of mental filter that helps you automatically
> ignore helpful and pleasant posts such as that of Andrew B (not to
> mention my own post helpfully explaining how you misunderstood Ira
> Corn), while honing in on those who reply to you with rude drivel? Yes
> Derek was wrong but you don't need to be helpless.

Huh? Where?

The only thing I said that was even debatable was that Stig is an
idiot. And it isn't _very_ debatable.

[Bertil]

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

How does copyright laws and public domain determine which of my three
hands qualify for an opener?

Bertil

[derek]

On Nov 29, 10:31 am, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As for rudness , it comes from like begets like. Darek has vowed to
> disrupt and harass me on any post  I make wether he agrees, disagrees
> or doesn't care about the subjet matter. He is determined to make an
> ass
> of himself, just like HS used to do. He can't stand it that some of my
> ideas get published in BW, while he has nothing to contribute.

I know I'll be sorry, but...

I have never "vowed" to disrupt or harass you. In fact, I haven't
even bothered to respond to you all year. This time, I not only
didn't harass you, I made a _constructive_ post to answer a question
you'd asked of Martin Ambuhl. _You_ decided to deny that it was a
valid point even though you insist you couldn't read what I was
referencing and display a complete inability to cut-and-paste a URL.
Nevertheless, the link was only a citation and not actually necessary
to make the point, as I cited the actual passage - which you proceeded
to deny even existed on the website you claimed not to be able to
find.

So you proceeded to denigrate me, and I called you an idiot. You're
right, "like begets like" and you're the one doing the begetting.

As for getting "published" in Bridge World, I really couldn't care
less. At least I'm literate.

[Bertil]

> partnerships to properly assess their losers.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Jenn Jones states clearly in special font "It should only be used
after a fit is established".
I wonder what the Aug.2006 article "Losing-Trick-Count Investigations"
in BW says about
applying LTC to opening hands?

Bertil

[jogs]

Most auctions have too few bids.
QJ, Qx, Jx, xx
These four doubletons can't all be worth the
same nothing. Unless you know partner's
holding in that suit, you can't accurately
estimate tricks.
Over the spectrum of all possible hand space,
QJ is better than xx. Every modern bidding
evaluation system I've seen published ignores
variance. The estimate should be X tricks
+/- e error of the estimates. Once you accept
that this 'e' error of the estimates almost always
is greater than one, you will appreciate that
three and four decimal place accuracy for X
is pointless.

[Charles Brenner]

A thought: The post I've been referring to, my first post in this
thread, dated Nov 25, begins "Where the quote makes sense is in the
realm of partnership agreement, not in the realm of judgment." You
never found it and read it did you?

[Bertil]

It evidently takes one to know one. And who would be better qualified
than a scumbag like you.?
I don't want to disappoint Carl by picking on somebody at random and
for no reason.

Bertil

[Jürgen R.]

"Carl" <Ca...@CarlRitner.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cd7495ec-b20e-4f5e...@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 29, 8:57 pm, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I presume that you have mental obstacles that come and go.
>
> Bertil (Stig) has been working on the opening bid since I first
> discovered this newsgroup, circa 1999, and likely prior to that. The
> obstacle seems to be finding the perfect mathematical formula to
> accept/deny what is/is not a valid opening bid. Once he gets passed
> that point, presumably the next step in the auction will become his
> current project.
>
> He is an intelligent person, no question. But he flusters easily and
> then blusters on ad naseum,

Two errors in one latin phrase?
Isn't it better not to try to appear erudite?

[Charles Brenner]

On Nov 30, 7:06 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:07 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you have some kind of mental filter that helps you automatically
> > ignore helpful and pleasant posts such as that of Andrew B (not to
> > mention my own post helpfully explaining how you misunderstood Ira
> > Corn), while honing in on those who reply to you with rude drivel? Yes
> > Derek was wrong but you don't need to be helpless.
>
> Huh?  Where?

Andrew B explained the situation. Here again for the hard of reading:

On Nov 26, 3:56 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

> > >http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LosingTrickCount.html:

>
> > Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.
>

> It works just fine, even using it from YOUR post.

Please don't bother to argue that "does work" is somehow technically
justified despite your editing error.

[Bertil]

On Nov 27, 10:07 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 27, 4:10 am, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 6:56 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>

> > > > Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.
>

> > > Not surprisingly, you're an idiot.  It works just fine, even using it
> > > from YOUR post.  And it says exactly what I quoted.  Why I even bother
> > > to try to help someone with such a closed mind is beyond me.  Bye.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Let me recap so everybody will understand why I respond as follows.
> > I clicked on the website you posted but it was dead,
> > I posed a specific problem but you were unable to make a rational
> > answer.
> > Instead you resorted, as you have done in the past, to a vile
> > invective and signed off with Bye.
>

> Do you have some kind of mental filter that helps you automatically
> ignore helpful and pleasant posts such as that of Andrew B (not to
> mention my own post helpfully explaining how you misunderstood Ira
> Corn), while honing in on those who reply to you with rude drivel? Yes
> Derek was wrong but you don't need to be helpless.
>

> Charles- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Here you stated I missunderstood Ira Corn. When you can specify what I
misunderstood, we can
give this issue a merciful burrial, never to be spoken about again.

Bertil

[Bertil]

On Nov 29, 2:03 pm, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> partnerships to properly assess their losers.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LTC may not be the panacea of hand evaluation that many seem to
think.
Back in 2002 Peter Cheung stated at his website TRIPOD that 'LTC has
not been a good
predictor of the number of tricks the partnership will take".

Also, in 2008, David Kirkpatrick expressed doubts about the LTC in his
statistical analysis of hands.
He published an article about the statistical rationale for LTC "Why
the LTC works (sometimes)."
It looks very learned.

Bertil

[Carl]

On Dec 1, 7:18 am, Jürgen R. <jurg...@arcor.de> wrote:

>
> Two errors in one latin phrase?
> Isn't it better not to try to appear erudite?
>

Heck, I'm more eruditer than most.

I think. Now I have to go look it up. Sheesh.

[jogs]

If you use a rigid definition of 'good predictor
of tricks', none exist. One should seek the
best predictors possible. Variance, that is
population variance, is used to measure relative
values of various systems. The more variables
used in the system, the lower the variance or
better the predictor.
Any learned article comparing systems should
include variance of the predictors and how closely
the predictor's mean is to the true population
mean.

[Bertil]

You are probably most eruditist of all RGBers.

Bertil

[Charles Brenner]

That is of course exactly what I specified in my Nov 25 post (as I
mentioned also yesterday), my first post in this thread which I have
several times referred you to, and yesterday partly quoted. If you use
Google Groups, it is #12, at least now, assuming a tree display.

(It's a little off-putting that you tell me in advance you will ignore
("merciful burial") whatever point you learn that I have. If you
change your mind after reading it, best to "reply" to the post itself,
not to this one.)

Charles