[Vampyr]

OP, why did you quote yourself and attribute the quote to other forum members? This is a serious no-no.

The hand in your most recent post will usually not take a trick, no matter what calculations you make that demonstrate (according to you) that it will.

[gwnn]

Yes, Lmax=9 according to your formula but your opponents can take as many as 12 tricks if spades split very poorly (did you read my post?). So your formula is off by 3. Hence my question: what do you mean by maximum? Are you just discounting the possibility of losing a trick in the 4th round of playing a suit? If you are, please say so. Then we are back to basic losing trick count in which we take every card a loser except 4th and subsequent cards. If you mean something else by maximum possible loser, please define what you mean.

[diana_eva]

 gwnn, on 2014-April-29, 02:55, said:

Are you just discounting the possibility of losing a trick in the 4th round of playing a suit? If you are, please say so. Then we are back to basic losing trick count in which we take every card a loser except 4th and subsequent cards.

I think you cracked the code

[Vampyr]

 gwnn, on 2014-April-25, 04:56, said:

What exactly do you mean by maximum number of losers, if it is not what we normally mean by maximum and losers? Could you define these terms so that we can understand what your formulas refer to?

Yes, that would be helpful.

Anyway I think that gwnn is probably correct that we are just arriving at basic LTC in a rather roundabout fashion.

LOL

EDIT: crossed previous post

[gwnn]

LTC_max=min(L1,3)+min(L2,3)+min(L3,3)+min(L4,3) is equivalent to your formula, assuming no 10-card or longer suits (the cutoff of 10 cards as opposed to 9 cards seems arbitrary anyway). You just discount any card beyond the 3rd of any suit.

[WellSpyder]

I decided early in the life of this thread that I wouldn't bother reading it since it didn't seem to be addressing a very interesting question, or at least not in a way that added anything. Today I noticed that it had got quite long and thought perhaps people had found something of interest after all, so I took another look.

Oh well, it won't be the only mistake I make today, I guess.

[Zelandakh]

Rather than wading through a bunch of pseudo-maths, could you post your evaluation nunbers for the first 10 or 15 distributions. I have previously posted equivalent numbers for other evaluation methods and this makes for an easy comparison. In addition you need to provide some indication as to what weighting the hcp side will have so that the numbers can be properly scaled. The truth is that the distributional sides of ZP and the 531 scale work pretty well when analysed.

It might be that your formulae are just an equivalent transformation of one of these, or perhaps you have changed the scalings somewhat. If the former then the work is of no practical interest; if the latter then we can consider whether the changes represent an improvement or not. My intuitive guess would be that the distributional numbers represent an improvement over MLTC but no improvement over ZP or 531; but it would be nice to see the numbers to know for sure because intuition is often wrong.

PS: as an aside, I stand by my comment in the mod thread that works of this type would be of much greater benefit to I/A players and suggest that you post there next time if you successfully improve upon your ideas.

[gergana85]

 gwnn, on 2014-April-25, 04:56, said:

gergana85, if I see correctly, Lmax is 9 for 5530, right? P1, P2, P3 are all 0 for this distribution.....

I have accepted (see post № 1) that each fourth and next card is winner. This is a probabilistically assumption, based on the practice. It could be assumed that the 5th and the subsequent cards are winners or the every 6th and next cards are winners or as you say - every 7th and the next card are winners, etc. But these assumptions are not acceptable in terms of probability theory. The reason is that the assumption "the fourth and each subsequent card is a winner" is sufficiently likely to be accepted as true. The others also may be accepted as truth. But in this case some distributions remain outside the analysis (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, 5-4-2-2, 5-4-3-1, 5-4-4-0, etc.).
As everyone knows, bridge is a game of probabilities. That is why it obeys the laws of the theory of probability - аs someone said, the bridge is not "rocket science" and everything is based on assumptions. Maybe you know that the main instrument for some sciences (eg quantum mechanics) is the theory of probabilities. Any conclusions that are made in them are based on the theory of probability. Moreover, they are proved by practice. For this reason, no one rejects them and accepts them as useful.
Are your examples useful? I would say no! And not because they can not happen, but because there is no way the player with these hands to be an active player.
I ask you, would you open the auctions with distribution:

♠ххххх
♥ххххх
♦ххх
♣void

If someone did, it would be too adventurously. This hand has a value only if your partner opened the action with 1♥ or with 1♠.
Assuming that the trump is the spade, the losers in this hand are actually equal to 9. In all likelihood, the 4th and 5th trumps will be the winners. Also winners will be the 4th and 5th hearts (if timely develop this suit). And notice we are talking about most likely event, but not talking about possible event. In connection with this I mean that there is no need to invent any possible events, refuting the probable events. It's not difficult, but it is incorrect.
Consider the following hand:

♠АКQJ109
♥AKQJ
♦AКQ
♣void

Should be appoint contract 7♠? Or maybe to prevent any hazards you will have to pass (because any of the opponents might have ♠8765432 ♥void ♦void ♣765432) and probably cannot win more than 6 tricks when the lead is ♣A? Probably you understand the absurdity of the situation! I could go on with examples, but this is not necessary. I will just say that you do attempt to put me in an absurd trap.

I apologize for the error. It does not change the meaning of what was said.

[gwnn]

That hand has 10 cards, I think you just beat the record for the worst example hand on the forums (BBF has many 12- and 14-card example hands but I've never seen 16 and 10 carders).

So you accept that your method is simply equivalent to LTC up to 10-card suits. Why should anyone use your method and not LTC?

Even a trained monkey can apply the LTC formula (consider every 4th card and beyond a winner), while your formula is much longer.

[MrAce]

 gwnn, on 2014-April-30, 04:00, said:

That hand has 10 cards, I think you just beat the record for the worst example hand on the forums (BBF has many 12- and 14-card example hands but I've never seen 16 and 10 carders).

So you accept that your method is simply equivalent to LTC up to 10-card suits. Why should anyone use your method and not LTC?

Even a trained monkey can apply the LTC formula (consider every 4th card and beyond a winner), while your formula is much longer.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 02:40, said:

OP, why did you quote yourself and attribute the quote to other forum members? This is a serious no-no.

I fully agree that quoting yourself and attributing this to other forum members is a serious no-no.

However, given that:
- OP has little experience in these forums
- probably meant to reply to the responses by MrAce and me to the text she did quote
- probably didn't know how to nest quotes (how do you reply to a smiley?)

we should be a little forgiving.

I, at least, didn't think that (s)he wanted to spread the idea that MrAce and I were supporting the OP's views, and that we did that by miraculously writing a joint post on this subject.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-30, 10:13, said:

- probably didn't know how to nest quotes (how do you reply to a smiley?)

Actually I don't know how to quote nested quotes with the new software; can anyone help? Also is there a way to change the colour scheme? The current one makes me a little ill.

[Trinidad]

You use "Multiquote" (button at right bottom of each post) to select every post that you want to include. Then you click "Add reply" (at the bottom of the page). The editor will show something like this:

[ quote name='Trinidad' timestamp='1398874413' post='791557']
- probably didn't know how to nest quotes (how do you reply to a smiley?)
[/ quote]
[ quote name='Vampyr' timestamp='1398881838' post='791569']
Actually I don't know how to quote nested quotes with the new software; can anyone help? Also is there a way to change the colour scheme? The current one makes me a little ill.
[/ quote]


This will look like this in your post:

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-30, 10:13, said:

- probably didn't know how to nest quotes (how do you reply to a smiley?)

 Vampyr, on 2014-April-30, 12:17, said:

Actually I don't know how to quote nested quotes with the new software; can anyone help? Also is there a way to change the colour scheme? The current one makes me a little ill.

Then you cut and paste "[ quote name='Vampyr' timestamp='1398881838' post='791569']" to move it to the start of the post and you get:

[ quote name='Vampyr' timestamp='1398881838' post='791569']
[ quote name='Trinidad' timestamp='1398874413' post='791557']
- probably didn't know how to nest quotes (how do you reply to a smiley?)
[/ quote]
Actually I don't know how to quote nested quotes with the new software; can anyone help? Also is there a way to change the colour scheme? The current one makes me a little ill.
[/ quote]

This results in:

 Vampyr, on 2014-April-30, 12:17, said:

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-30, 10:13, said:

- probably didn't know how to nest quotes (how do you reply to a smiley?)

Actually I don't know how to quote nested quotes with the new software; can anyone help? Also is there a way to change the colour scheme? The current one makes me a little ill.

I hope this helped with the nesting. I don't know how to fix the color scheme.

Rik

[gergana85]

 gwnn, on 2014-April-30, 04:00, said:

Even a trained monkey can apply the LTC formula.

Even untrained monkey would have noticed that the method LTC is not true. I do not know about you.

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-30, 13:19, said:

I hope this helped with the nesting. I don't know how to fix the color scheme.

tx

[Zelandakh]

 gergana85, on 2014-May-02, 06:33, said:

Even untrained monkey would have noticed that the method LTC is not true. I do not know about you.

Then please show us how your method evaluates some hands. Take a basic ♠Axxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxx ♣Jxx. How many points for high cards and shape? Then please do the same for 4432, 5332, 4441, 5422, 5431, 5440, 5521 and 5530 hands. That should get us somewhere in comparing whether the MLTC is more or less accurate than your idea. I am not willing to work through your nunbers and do this for myself so if you want some constructive input you are going to have to do the legwork.

[gwnn]

 gergana85, on 2014-May-02, 06:33, said:

Even untrained monkey would have noticed that the method LTC is not true. I do not know about you.

I'm trying to keep my replies short to make it easier for people to read them and to avoid misunderstanding. I regularly fail at this aim unfortunately. So let me try to explain what my point was. As opposed to you, I did not insult you when I brought up monkeys, be they trained or untrained (so let's not go down this rabbit hole where you feel like I insulted you so you reply by a bigger insult to which I'm supposed to reply by an even bigger one, etc - I am not really interested in that stuff, and I trust you are also not). It was not an insult to you or your method, but a compliment to the simple LTC formula (it is so simple that a monkey could apply it). My point was that the formula I gave (LTC_max=min(L1,3)+min(L2,3)+min(L3,3)+min(L4,3)) is equivalent to LTC's basic underlying principle and also equivalent to your formula except for 10-card and longer suits. My point was also that the LTC formula is easier to apply than yours. It's not even really a formula, it's just something you can do with your eyes when you look at your cards (count all the cards that are in the top 3 of any suit). You don't need to worry about P2 and P3, you just look at the top 3 cards of suits and count them. You don't need to know how to add, subtract, anything. You just need to know how to count to at most 12: 1, 2, 3, ... Let me illustrate how a trained monkey would do it. Let's say we have 4432, in that order.

xxxx
xxxx
xxx
xx

Now you take any card that is in the top 3 of that suit and capitalise it:

XXXx
XXXx
XXX
XX

11 capital X=> 11 losers. Your method will give 19-8=11, equivalent. Great. Let's check a 3-suiter where you need to apply your correction:

xxxxx
xxxx
xxxx
-

Enter the chimp:
XXXxx
XXXx
XXXx
-

9 losers. You give 19-9-1=9, the same result.

Let's check one where we have S2=2, say, a 9-2-2-0:
xxxxxxxxx
xx
xx
-

XXXxxxxxx
XX
XX
-

7 losers. You give 19-11-1=7.

For any distribution, except 10-card suits or longer, the LTC formula will be equivalent to yours.

If you don't think so, bring me a counter example. Do not compare me to various animals in the zoo. Do try to read my post this time.

I did not say anything whether I agree or disagree with LTC. It may well be that the LTC is very deeply flawed. But then your formula will be equally flawed (except the 10-carders, as noted above).

[mikeh]

I can hardly believe that this thread has persisted for so long. Take another look at the OP's ideas and ask yourself, seriously, would ANY good player ever even consider applying this sort of valuation at the table? Ever?

I think it reasonable to infer that the OP is not a good player. That is not meant as an insult. The OP may, for all I know, have the talent to become a good player, so I am not commenting upon inherent traits or abilities. Becoming a good player requires time and exposure to the game as played and understood by already-good players.

I have read widely. I have had the pleasure of playing with, as partners and teammates, some truly world class players, and have discussed bridge with them. I have had coaching from Kokish and Fred. I don't say that to stake any claim to personal status or authority, but merely to establish the fact that I do have some understanding of how good players think at the table, even if I can't match them myself.

I cannot imagine any expert using the OP method. Given that it adds a layer of complexity to what is actually a pretty simple aspect of hand valuation why should any advancing player want to use it? What edge does it give?

As gwnn points out, the method is generally equivalent to LTC, which is incredibly simple, and a method I commend to all improving players as a minor part of their hand evaluation tool kit. So the OP method claims to yield more accurate valuations when we hold a 10 card suit...so what? How often do you get one, and how much difference do you think using the OP method would make to how you bid the hand? Let me guess: very, very rarely and none, respectively.

People who create this sort of valuation method are not merely seeing the trees while missing the forest: they are focusing on the twigs when they should be considering the entire ecosystem.

Unfortunately bridge players, and especially those of us who frequent online discussion groups tend to fall into rabbit holes and then have a difficult time recognizing that that is where we are

[Zelandakh]

Mike, you are obviously right with respect to the Lmax part of his idea and any sensible person would use the method you described rather than the posted formula. I did not want to get into that and essentially lost interest in following the "maths" as soon as I saw this. Instead I wanted to concentrate on practicalities, on how this method is going to evaluate a hand in practise. By doing this it should be easier to show the OP why the method is equivalent to one of the alternatives or where it falls down in comparison. Of course I might be surprised and even learn something!

We BBFers are often pretty hard on new posters here. Most that come with new ideas have missed something obvious and get ridiculed for that. Unfortunately in many cases that leads them to becoming trollish rather than constructive posters, or just leaving completely. So forgive me if I am being over-tolerant - I would like the OP to feel welcome here and that the idea was at least taken seriously and understood. Perhaps by understanding why it does not work they will improve and come back with something better, or just become a better player. Or even if not, a productive forum member.

It was pointed out recently that the forums are in something of a decline. So let us try to make an effort to make new members feel welcome, even those we do not agree with. Otherwise we may as well all give up and trudge on over to BW.

[jogs]

 mikeh, on 2014-May-02, 10:16, said:

People who create this sort of valuation method are not merely seeing the trees while missing the forest: they are focusing on the twigs when they should be considering the entire ecosystem.

Unfortunately bridge players, and especially those of us who frequent online discussion groups tend to fall into rabbit holes and then have a difficult time recognizing that that is where we are

I never understood why anyone could care about the initial precise valuation of a hand. When the hand is sorted, is it worth opening and if so, what should the opening bid be? The worth of the hand isn't static. It changes as we learn more about the other hands during the auction.