Help
Add Reply
jillybean, on 2025-June-27, 14:18, said:
Where is MikeH?
Lurking
More seriously, Ive written on hand evaluation a number of times and any response I place here will inevitably duplicate earlier posts .although my thinking does change over time, so its possible that my current thinking may seem slightly at odds with prior suggestions.
I dont bother with different varieties of LTC. Imo, LTC, no matter which version one uses, is one of the cruder valuation schemes around, and spending any mental energy on more sophisticated versions is not where I want to put my ever-diminishing cognitive resources.
I do use it .in the original simple method. But its very much a back up method .i use it only when I feel very uncertain about the call Im considering, and I am not very uncertain very often.
One aspect of playing complex methods, an aspect I dont think gets sufficient explicit reference, is that a well designed complex method solves many of the problems that arise when using simple methods.
Simple methods often create situations in which one must decide to take a fairly committal step while lacking important information. Bridge is a game of incomplete information, and simple bidding methods tend to convey less information than do complex ones (assuming, as always, a well designed system played by two players who rarely forget their methods).
The more one has to rely on guessing .aka exercising judgment .the more important hand evaluation becomes and the more factors one can consider, the better.
A simple example might help. You play 2/1 with 5 card majors but you play a very simple version. 1S 2S .where 2S is very wide range .6-10, 3-4 spades if 10, then soft values.
As opener, with a decent but not huge hand, you have to decide whether to make a game try.
At the other table, they play multiple ways to raise .they can distinguish between minimum hands with 3 trump by going through 1N. They can show 7-10 with 3 trump by raising to 2S. They can show constructive 4 card raises by jumping to 3C .they can show a mixed raise by jumping to 3S.
So their opener has considerably more information than you do. His valuation process is going to be much easier, and he will rarely need to weigh more than the two or three methods that he most relies upon .and, for me, the LTC isnt one of those.
Complex methods minimize a wide range of such issues indeed, complex methods should never be adopted other than to solve or minimize the impact of problems encountered with simpler methods.
For me, pretty much as Ive written before, I look at
Hcp
Nature of my hcp cards I prefer aces and kings to queens and jacks the latter tend to be soft if not accompanied by the former
The bidding .thus my valuation changes with every bid
Distribution
Degree of fit
Location of honours .like them in my length or in partners suit(s), like them in combination more than in isolation
Most of the time my valuation is subconscious and results in a feeling more than a calculation. Thus I may like my hand or I may dislike my hand. The same hand may have me liking it during one auction and disliking it during another ..depending on the information supplied by the other players. When I like my hand, Im aggressive. When I dont, Im conservative.
LTC rarely, if ever, causes me to like or dislike a hand .at least not consciously. Of course, given the factors I do weigh, LTC is sort of implicit in some of what Im considering. A long suit headed by the AK makes me happy without explicitly counting that my LTC is going to be good.
MultiQuote
