L..T.C.

[lexlogan]

his was obviously a joke post.

 

And an unfunny one at that.

 

OK, he got me, hook, line and sinker :)

[mike777]

fwiw prefer to use adjusted ltc per book.....I grant even adjusted ltc can be made to look like a fool.

 

 

1) adjusted ltc worse than what you have

2) you have better than adjusted ltc.

[rduran1216]

i view LTC in higher esteem than the law, but with similar ideology.

 

In the semi-common, 1S 2H 2S 3H type auction where I as responder hold a working K and A with 3 hearts I am doubling every time. Do my opp pick up 530 every now and then, yes. But not enough to offset the 300's which are always a top in MP's.

 

When I hold AKxxxx AQ10x x xx as I did earlier today and it goes 1S 2S, I am blasting 4S with confidence. And would bid 3S over a forcing NT with AK10xxx K10x A9x x

 

It is a nice tool for hand re-evaluation.

[JLOGIC]

his was obviously a joke post.

 

And an unfunny one at that.

 

Hahaha I mean, I literally had tears streaming down my eyes after reading his post. Then a few people just didn't comment on it and I was like wtf. Then I saw your post and was like wow no one has a sense of humor, better vote up hans post... looks like I wasn't the first! I still don't like the rep system since I think less people commented on how funny it was since they just upvoted it :P Whatever, ♥♥♥Han, best post on BBF ever. I might even have to change my MikeH quote from my signature since yours is even funnier... :(

[JLOGIC]

Unfortunately I cannot comment on whether LTC sucks or not since I never learned it and no good player I have ever discussed bridge with IRL has referenced it. But from what I have read on the forums/heard the numerous bad players IRL say to justify their bids...it does seem to suck!

[matmat]

I think less people commented on how funny it was since they just upvoted it

Guilty.

[Fluffy]

I never understood the losers versus losers theory, but the losers versus expeced covers is something I constantly use after I found a fit.

[kenrexford]

A friend of mine recently published a book on the topic, fwiw.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Winners-Losers-Cover-Cards-Eichenbaum/dp/1554947510

[gnasher]

There's also this fine work:

 

Practise Your Losing Trick Count with Tom Townsend

 

which tells us something about how hard life can be for a young bridge pro.

[nige1]

Unfortunately I cannot comment on whether LTC sucks or not since I never learned it and no good player I have ever discussed bridge with IRL has referenced it. But from what I have read on the forums/heard the numerous bad players IRL say to justify their bids...it does seem to suck!

• For Han, Helene_t, gnasher, JLOGIC, matmat, Phil, and players of that calibre, the LTC may be a hilarious joke :)
• But, IMO, it's an effective tool for ordinary players. My father taught me a variant that compensates for some of my judgement lapses :(

[zasanya]

• For Han, Helene_t, gnasher, JLOGIC, matmat, Phil, and players of that calibre, the LTC may be a hilarious joke :)
• But, IMO, it's an effective tool for ordinary players. My father taught me a variant that compensates for some of my judgement lapses :(

Well said sir.I like this post.An honest fair opinion with a touch of good humor which everyone can appreciate.

[nige1]

Our game and slam bidding improved greatly since my partner and I started using the losing trick count (LTC).

The other day for instance I opened 1S holding Qxxxx x Qxxx QJx, a 7-loser hand. My partner invited holding AJx Axx AJx A10xx and since I was vulnerable I decided to bid the excellent game. At the other table my counterpart passed, probably because he was using stone age evaluation methods. After my teammates preempted with 2H, the opponent holding my partner's hand bid 2NT (counting the 8-loser hand as "18 HCP", LOL!) and even then my hand did not go to game. When will they learn???

In the same match I opened 1S on AKJxxx Ax AKx Ax, a 4-loser hand. When my partner bid a GF 2C on Qxxx x QJxx Qxxxx I was able to show my strong suit and 4-loser hand by jumping to 4S. My partner showed excellent judgement by cuebidding 5H and later admitted to holding the diamond queen, which made me bid 7S. At the other table they did not even find the small slam after overbidding by opening 2C on my hand (counting HCP I am sure) and my teammates again preempted in hearts.

Adopting LTC is the best thing that ever happened to our partnership.

Counting winners rather than losers, that makes for a 1.5-1.0-0.5 count, equivalent to the well-known Four Aces 3-2-1 count. LTC is a good way to get started thinking about tricks rather than points, a way to begin to visualize. But the number of adjustments needed to apply LTC sensibly makes it just as complex and no more accurate than standard point count methods.

My father, Charles Guthrie, taught the Wining Trick Count to me, an arithmetically challenged kid. He based his simplificatons on the scheme to which LexLogan refers.

 

The LTC and the WTC produce the same results but the latter uses addition instead of subtraction:

 

1. High Cards: Ace = 1.5 trick. King = 1 trick. Queen = 0.5 trick.
2. Shape: Void = 3 tricks. Singleton = 2 tricks. Doubleton = 1 trick.
3. Adustment: Discount singleton kings and doubleton queens.
4. Refinement: Honours work best in long suits and in combination (re-enforcing each other). Also adjust slightly for suit-texture (tens and spot-cards).
5. Re-assessment: Initial evaluation is optimistic. In the light of the auction, down-grade for duplication. For instance king opposite splinter. Or mirror-distribution. Also downgrade for bad position. For example honours in suits bid on your left.
6. Trump control = 1 trick. Add a trick if your combined trump holding is likely to be sufficient to draw trumps and ruff losers. This normally requires at least an eight-card fit.
7. Trick expectancy: Add your tricks to the tricks partner has shown. Count trump-control once, at most.

Han's first example:

• ♠ Qxxxx ♥ x ♦ Qxxx ♣ QJx: High cards = 1.5. Shape = 2. Total = 3.5
• ♠ AJx ♥ Axx ♦ AJx ♣ A10xx: High cards = 6. Total = 6.
• Add 1 trick for trump control. Trick expectation = 3.5 + 6 + 1 = 10.5.
• (Not bad)

Han's second example:

• ♠ AKJxxx ♥ Ax ♦ AKx ♣ Ax: High cards = 8. Shape = 2. Total = 10
• ♠ Qxxx ♥ x ♦ QJxx ♣ Qxxxx: High cards = 1.5. Shape = 2. Total = 3.5
• Add 1 trick for trump control. Trick expectation = 10 + 3.5 +1 = 14.5.
• (WTC over-estimates here, since, in fact, we have nothing to spare).

The usual cacophony of LOLs is expected :)

Especially since I've taken Han's examples seriously :) :) :)

 

Nevertheless, the LTC withstands the test of time. (from 1935 to date).

Whereas other seminal ideas go in an out of fashion over long periods. Thus,

Total Tricks (a closely related idea) is currently unpopular but, in the past, had its moments

• 1966 Bridge moderne de la défense: Jean-rené Vernes.
• 1981 TNT and Competitive Bidding: Joe Amsbury & Dick Payne.
• 1992 To Bid Or Not to Bid: The Law of Total Tricks: Larry Cohen.

[helene_t]

You are such a blasphemist, Nigel! LOTT is till going strong!

[nige1]

You are such a blasphemist, Nigel! LOTT is till going strong!

Prefer "Eclectic and Ecumenical" :) which may mean you annoy everybody :(

I like LOTT too :)

Both LTC and TNT are crude yardsticks but improve the "judgement" of players like me.

 

My point was that LOTT was à la mode in the 60s and 80s and again came into fashion in the 90s but has lately been criticised e.g.

2005 I Fought the Law of Total Tricks: Mike Lawrence & Anders Wirgren

[losercover]

I started playing losers and cover cards when the Romex book was published. Some of Rosenkrantz's definitions of cover cards were BS, i.e. a king is a cover card when you know your partner has the ace. His next book said kings were a cover card. Fast forward 22 years later (including a 11 year bridge break). My partner and I frequently disagreed on cover card evaluation. I got Klinger's book and he added some reasonableness to evaluating loser count. Rosenkrantz said qxx was 2 losers and Klinger said 2 1/2 losers. We started to use either cover cards or loser count to evaluate a responding hand or a rebid by opener. We adopted Klinger's 6 loser count for a jump raise by opener instead of Rosenkrantz's 5 losers. This made are auctions more precise. I recently bought some of the new Rosenkrantz books and he has put his loser count evaluation more in line with Klinger's. He has also refined his cover card evaluation based on the length of trump support. I also looked at Lawrence's book on hand evaluation and the overall texture of a hand and where the honors are placed are also important.

 

I wouldn't be happy going back to points based bidding, but no matter the approach there is a lot of hand evaluation required.

[ArtK78]

An intelligent bridge player can evaluate the various hand evaluation methods on his or her own. It makes sense to attempt to evaluate hands using more than one method if possible and see whether the various methods point to the same conclusion.

 

I use Modified LTC as set forth by Rosenkranz in his early Romex books when I believe it is appropriate. However, I have never understood the logic in both opener and responder counting losers.

 

The dismissive attitude that some Forum members have to LTC is indicative of a closed mind.

[mtvesuvius]

Double post, disregard, sorry.

[gnasher]

An intelligent bridge player can evaluate the various hand evaluation methods on his or her own.

...

The dismissive attitude that some Forum members have to LTC is indicative of a closed mind.

 

How do you know that they haven't evaluated LTC intelligently and with an open mind, then dismissed it?

[mtvesuvius]

This past weekend, someone came up to me and asked me what I thought of LTC, and if it is a good base for a system, I'll try to recreate my reply as best as I can:

 

"It is very helpful for hand evaluation purposes, however like all things in bridge, it is a guideline not a rule. Obviously AKQxxxx KTxx xx - is a very different "12 count" than QJx QJx QJx QJxx. It's also clear that most people when using LTC will overuse it, and fall back on it as a crutch to justify overbidding or underbidding. Generally speaking, it is a helpful evaluation tool, and demonstrates the power of distribution very nicely. Obviously like Han's hands, it has plenty of flaws. It underevaluates balanced hands and overevaluates on unbalanced hands. Once a fit is found, it is much more practical, but two seven-loser hands facing each other should not always be in game unless they have a fit, and even then it requires good honour location. I do consider LTC when evaluating, more as an unconscious evaluation tool. I don't only use LTC however, simple HCP and other habitual evaluations mixed with LTC would be an accurate way for me to describe my evaluation.

 

As for basing a system off it, I highly dislike having set-in-stone rules for opening bids, and much prefer to use judgement. In general a system based off LTC will lose out a lot on misfits (which IMO is more likely) and misfitting honours, while gaining when the partnership's hands fit well. Since the former is more likely it will lose more often than it will win.

 

Obviously with adjustments, you can make LTC practical, but personally I prefer to be able to evaluate my hand other ways."

 

As an aside, I don't think saying LTC is awful and sucks is very fair. It's incredibly hard to design a catchall hand evaluation technique. Any method you use will under (or over) evaluate many hands. The best solution is a combination of many methods, and is something that comes only from experience and practice IMO.

 

Han's post really did make me LOL as well, and I'm horrified that some people find it unfunny.

[mike777]

To be fair LTC has its faults but lets judge it fairly:

 

1) We are told to not not use it in evaluating opening bids

2) We are told to use adjusted Loser Count in Klinger's book.

3) We are told to not use it for nt hands or misfit hands.

4) The goal is to use it AFTER A TRUMP FIT IS KNOWN AND GIVE YOU A MORE ACCURATE(NOT PERFECT) GUIDE.

 

In other words if using it improves your bidding use it, if you have better methods, use them.

 

Please keep in mind this book is 25 years old. Theory improves over time. If you and your partner find a better method that works for you, use it. In the mean time LTC is a decent first step.

[manudude03]

I do agree that LTC when used properly can be a very useful tool, but the main problem is that beginners generally abuse it and then when they become sufficiently advanced to use it properly, they've developed real judgement and don't need to consciously use it.

 

I've seen too many auctions go say 1H-2H-4H where opener has "5" losers and responder "9" losers with them then asking why it's gone -2 or -3 doubled. It's experiences like that which seem to tarnish the principle.

[mike777]

I do agree that LTC when used properly can be a very useful tool, but the main problem is that beginners generally abuse it and then when they become sufficiently advanced to use it properly, they've developed real judgement and don't need to consciously use it.

 

I've seen too many auctions go say 1H-2H-4H where opener has "5" losers and responder "9" losers with them then asking why it's gone -2 or -3 doubled. It's experiences like that which seem to tarnish the principle.

 

 

You should not be seeing alot of 5 loser across from 9 loser hands going down 2 or 3 doubled.

If you do then it SHOULD tarnish the theory of LTC.

 

Two big claims of LTC is that it is more accurate and simpler to use compared to other methods.

[losercover]

Loser count only applies when there is a fit. If my partner shows a two suited hand, I either look at my cover cards in support of their two suits or outside aces. If I think the contract should be in my suit, I bid based on lack of support from my partner and the likely cover cards they can supply. On a misfit, 4 losers opposite 4 losers may not make game.

[manudude03]

You should not be seeing alot of 5 loser across from 9 loser hands going down 2 or 3 doubled.

If you do then it SHOULD tarnish the theory of LTC.

 

Two big claims of LTC is that it is more accurate and simpler to use compared to other methods.

 

Indeed it is simpler, but I tend to find LTC in general when used is a little too optimistic ("never" has 2 losers when AQx vs xxx etc) and that's when contracts start getting doubled :). I would certainly have a better view about it if most of the people I've played against who use it would say to themselves "I have 5 losers so should CONSIDER bidding 4H" rather than "I have 5 losers so MUST bid 4H".

 

Give me 4 decent trumps, an outside ace and some KJ over opener and I'll happily double at MPs :). That might just be as a result of being from a trigger-happy town lol (in a local congress, I once had a +1070, a +870, +750 (nv) and a -930 in about 50 boards).

[pirate22]

I do agree that LTC when used properly can be a very useful tool, but the main problem is that beginners generally abuse it and then when they become sufficiently advanced to use it properly, they've developed real judgement and don't need to consciously use it.

 

I've seen too many auctions go say 1H-2H-4H where opener has "5" losers and responder "9" losers with them then asking why it's gone -2 or -3 doubled. It's experiences like that which seem to tarnish the principle.

Yes with..............5 losers opp 9 losers bidding should have gone 1h-2h-3hts---pass.the fact that 4 hts went down,is in the hands of the gods