khursun

2S. Lots of reasons. The hand has 31 ZAR points, one trick above a full opening hand (26 ZP to open, 5 ZP per level). Expect at worse to be down 1 (in which case 2H would have made). Also, hope opponents will go to 3H. Since LHO is long in hearts, would expect to happily finess RHO for spades. Also the 2S bid tells pard what to lead against 3HX. :D And I would want to gripe at pard for passing with that incredibly gorgeous hand. It doesn't get much sweeter. Pard had 27 ZAR points (a full opening hand), a singleton in opponent's preempt suit, and very adequate support for any suit pard chooses. West North East South 2♥ X pass 4♠ A 3S response to the T/O double would show a circa 10 HCP hand, an inadequate response which risks missing a certain game. Of course, 4S also seems an inadequate response since ZAR strength predicts 11 tricks. South has lots to consider in how to bid slam. Without the preempt, these two hands have a biddable 6♠ slam, prospects of only one club loser. The preempt helps tremendously in the play of the hand since it warns of bad break in trumps and warns of East heart ruff risk.

Which authors describe the Theory version of LTC? Klinger? For the folks who think LTC is about counting losers, let me ask what can they call the version of LTC described in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge and other authors? Maybe your version could be called TLC. B) If it's Klinger's Modern LTC, perhaps call it MLTC. I used unadjusted LTC for years, collected lots of examples where rule-of-24 was fatal, either overestimated or underestimated. The pattern was not discernible. It's like LOTT -- lots of counterexamples. One needs to be an expert to discern the patterns and use them effectively in competition. LTC and LOTT are both somewhat helpful to an improving player. IMO one has to get to the point where they are not the main axis. The Roth example is simply a marvelous teaching aid. It illustrates why one needs to account for misfits. Most hands will have some degree of misfit. The degree to which the formula is useless depends on several factors, all difficult to assess during bidding. You do not know your pard's exact LTC, the degree of misfit, the degree of redundant values, the opponent's distributions, etc. If you believe fit is critical, consider it's possible to construct hands with a 5-5 trump fit, both hands LTC 6, unadjusted LTC rule-of-24 predicts slam, and the opponents have cold 7NT. Example: North ♠ xxxxx ♥ -- ♦ xxxxxxxx ♣ -- South ♠ xxxxx ♥ -- ♦ -- ♣ xxxxxxxx To answer the original question in this thread, I sometimes find raw LTC useful in the final stage of bidding, to help make game/slam decisions. For example, recently I had a 12 HCP 4-3-3-3 hand and pard opened 1♣ with his 12 HCP 4-3-3-3 hand (under ZAR, a sure pass). We found our 4-4 ♠ fit. Having a fit did not settle the issue. I estimated we were very close to game but did not have 10 tricks, opted for NT. We made 9 tricks in NT, while most pairs made 9 tricks in spades. Some authors (Jacoby at al) advise precisely this tactic. It's ironic that when I had perfect fit in all suits, the optimum contract was NT.

To summarize what I want to say, in most situations, ZAR supercedes LTC. Like several other folks above, for years I used LTC primarily for preempts. Non-openning hand does 2-level with LTC 7, 3-level with LTC 6, while LTC 5 usually does 1-level or 2C (8+ tricks). The idea was that pard had strong basis to captain the auction since a preempt means pard expected to contribute 2 tricks. On many happy occasions this tactic found games that few other pairs found, while avoiding the prattfalls and occasional happy outcome of undisciplined preempts. Then I discovered ZAR. Many LTC 7 hands are ZAR opens, so now I rarely have opportunity to preempt using LTC guidance. What is best preempt strategy for ZAR followers? I have tentatively given up preempts. Note that adjusted LTC, counting A as 1 1/2, K as 1, Q as 1/2, is comparable to the ZAR A=6 K=4 Q=2 ratio. LTC and ZAR both say do not count Qx or K or Jxx towards trick value. LTC and ZAR both struggle with misfits. LTC seems OBE. I agree strongly with the comments of mr1303 above. When playing with pards who use LTC, miss many games: "The losing trick count said it wasn't there". Recently in one 12 hand session my pair missed over 6 games. B) No fun to be the only pair in the room making 12 tricks on a 3-level suit contract. :blink: The book "Focus on Bidding" by Danny Roth (p12) has a great comment on LTC. North ♠ JT9876 ♥ JT98765 ♦ -- ♣ -- South ♠ -- ♥ -- ♦ JT98765 ♣ JT9876 Roth notes North/South both have LTC 6, and by LTC rule of 24, they have 12 tricks, a slam. There is a cold slam here ... the opponents make 6NT !! This simple example illustrates the absurdity of the LTC rule of 24. If you cannot use LTC until you have a fit, you cannot guarantee LTC 7 for a 1 level open. Either player has to guess pard's LTC before using the rule of 24. Bogus inputs for bogus formula produces bogus estimates--- lots of false negatives and false positives. My good experiences with LTC have mostly been in the preempt arena where there is a presumption of fit and pard is informed of exact LTC. Pard can then use own winner count to estimate combined trick potential, avoiding use of rule of 24. Color me ZAR. :huh: