[nullve]

mycroft, on 2021-May-26, 13:28, said:

So let's make the opener, hear partner's response, and then start evaluating.

Make the opener based on what? Shape (3442) and... ?

[mycroft]

Oh come on. You make the bid your system tells you to with that hand and strength. Oddly enough, most systems have pretty well-understood (by the partners) lines on what to open, and what tools to use (which could be "mah Holy Judgement", as long as the agreement in practise isn't illegal).

You're trying everything to get someone to say "these tools are bad, other tools are good." It won't work. All hardware sucks, all software sucks, all hand evaluation sucks, just in different ways. That's why bridge is hard, and why experience is valuable, and why experts are better than intermediates that need to rely on their tools because their evaluation isn't better than "blindly use tools" yet (or potentally ever).

"A bad craftsman blames his tools". A good craftsman uses his tools, and the appropriate tools for each problem, to implement his design; not the other way around.

[nullve]

mikeh, on 2021-May-26, 16:37, said:

I bet you can’t identify a single expert who thinks that the value of a hand is best determined when you pick up the hand and before the auction starts.

Nor after just one round of bidding (e.g. 1♠-1N) for that matter.

mikeh, on 2021-May-26, 16:37, said:

You seem fixated on ‘winning’ an argument based on an utterly mistaken understanding of what others are saying.

[...]

I have never and expect I will never use LTC as you suggest it should be used (ie as some kind of metric to be translated into points) nor in the simplistic fashion that you seem to think I use it.

I thought it was clear that

1) LTC is already (equivalent to) a point count method
2) I don't think it should be used by anyone

[nullve]

mycroft, on 2021-May-26, 13:28, said:

So let's make the opener, hear partner's response, and then start evaluating.

mycroft, on 2021-May-27, 11:15, said:

Oh come on. You make the bid your system tells you to with that hand and strength.

I'm confused.

If a player thinks it's close between Pass and 1N on a), b) or maybe a different hand c) that also has 3442 shape, what would your advice be?

mycroft, on 2021-May-27, 11:15, said:

You're trying everything to get someone to say "these tools are bad, other tools are good." It won't work. All hardware sucks, all software sucks, all hand evaluation sucks, just in different ways.

Some methods are genuinely worse than others. The others don't have to be good for that to be true. (Which hand valuation methods have I said are good?)

[mikeh]

nullve, on 2021-May-27, 12:01, said:

Nor after just one round of bidding (e.g. 1♠-1N) for that matter.


I thought it was clear that

1) LTC is already (equivalent to) a point count method
2) I don't think it should be used by anyone

Lol

What is clear is that you think that anyone who, in any fashion, considers LTC as part of hand evaluation must do so as an equivalent to or substitute for some point count method

All I can say is that you are wrong. This may be a shock to you (but I suspect it won’t be because you’ll reject the notion) but you don’t know anything remotely as much about how others think as you think you do.

In short: you’re about as wrong as it’s possible to be, but I doubt you have the capacity to see how true that is.

I’m done trying to discussing bridge with you.

Also, since my views have been good enough that, as an amateur playing with amateurs, I’ve played (admittedly poorly) in three WC’s, including two Bermuda Bowls, and been on the last surviving amateur team in the only Spingold I’ve played in recent years, I don’t think I’m going to take lessons about hand evaluation methods from you, lol.