[SteveMoe]

ArtK78, on 2012-September-25, 13:04, said:

I am a proponent of the use of MLTC (as presented by Rosenkranz in his early books on Romex) but I have never heard of the argument that every two aces held more than queens reduces your loser count by 1. Yes, aces are better than queens, and counting them the same for loser count purposes will lead to a misevaluation of the trick taking potential of the hand. But MLTC is only one tool used in hand evaluation. It is not the be all and end all. And, given that partner is to evaluate his hand by counting cover cards, it is illogical to reduce the loser count in this manner.

This is aside from the fact that no one would use MLTC in evaluating a balanced hand for NT purposes. MLTC is used exclusively in hand evaluation for play in a suit contract.

Check out the adjustments published in Klinger's book. The context is that Axx Axx Axx Axxx is an apparent 8 loser hand, one more than the minimum "requirement" for a 1 level opening bid, and that is certainly not right.

Yes - MLTC is for suit play, not NT. I assumed folks wouldn't question that.

Yes, trick taking potential is really about BOTH hands with a good trump suit (5-3 neutral; 6-2 negative; 6-3/5-4 positive. 7-card trump suits in a 9+ card fit reduce loser count by 1. etc....). We can agree suit contracts are frequently played after a 1N or 1m opening.

The simpler point is 4 Aces and spaces is quite valuable opposite as little as KQxxxxx and out.

I agree with prvious posters that downgrading these hands likely traes to weaker players who do not plan their declarer play.

M. Bergen referenced a A=4.5 / K=3 / Q=2.5 / J=0.75 / 10=0.25 scale (also discuees in Bridge World). That upvalues the hand to 18 and not down to 14. Add in 4 10's and we're at the equivalent of 19 HCP...

[Zelandakh]

MLTC usually refers to the adjustment that A = -0.5 losers and Q = +0.5 losers over the unadjusted LTC. I assume this is what you mean. When you talk about an adjustment to the MLTC it sounds like you want to make an additional adjustment beyond this. Notice that the MLTC is funtionally identical to a point count method where A = 3, K = 2, Q = 1 with shortage points of 6/4/2, or equally A = 4.5, K = 3, Q = 1.5 and shortages 9/6/3. It should be obvious from this that it overvalues shortages considerably and you can easily just make adjustments to your normal point counting evaluations to obtain exactly the same effect but with finer tuning. You can probably guess from this that I am not a huge fan of any of the LTC methods...

[SteveMoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-26, 01:59, said:

MLTC usually refers to the adjustment that A = -0.5 losers and Q = +0.5 losers over the unadjusted LTC. I assume this is what you mean. When you talk about an adjustment to the MLTC it sounds like you want to make an additional adjustment beyond this. Notice that the MLTC is funtionally identical to a point count method where A = 3, K = 2, Q = 1 with shortage points of 6/4/2, or equally A = 4.5, K = 3, Q = 1.5 and shortages 9/6/3. It should be obvious from this that it overvalues shortages considerably and you can easily just make adjustments to your normal point counting evaluations to obtain exactly the same effect but with finer tuning. You can probably guess from this that I am not a huge fan of any of the LTC methods...

Zel, Useful insight. Thanks! Yes - the 1/2 trick adjustment is just that.
MLTC is my third back up. I indulge when too tired to use SST a la Wirgren and Lawrence. Really like Working Points valuation. Couldn't find a path in these approaches to explain why Aces and Spaces is erroneous (imho). Agree w/above posters that players without planning and creativity probably perpetuate this concern.