L..T.C.

[Cascade]

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!

 

When i had a partner who was a big fan of LTC I used to say the best use of the method was that I was able to say in the post mortum after a poor bid

 

"I had to bid 3♠ I had eight losers"

[mike777]

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

 

 

again if that is true then ltc should be shown to to be not good....

 

 

I just guess that the hands were not.

 

 

Please if LTc is bad ok but so far.....most if not all of these posts are insane

 

 

 

 

It makes me want to play ltc more not less.

[rduran1216]

When i had a partner who was a big fan of LTC I used to say the best use of the method was that I was able to say in the post mortum after a poor bid

 

"I had to bid 3♠ I had eight losers"

 

This is the kind of territory where a local pro and I are having a back and forth. combining LOTT and LTC and other consideration in spots like that is something I think everyone does whether they admit or not.

 

Lets say you have

 

Kxxx

x

Q10xxx

Kxx

 

and the auction has gone

 

1H 1S 2C ?

 

You will love your hand to the point where ur content bidding 3S, and probably competing to 4S if they bid 4H. (at least I would)

 

Now take

 

Kxxx

Kxx

Q10xxx

x

 

1H 1S 2C ?

 

This time, bidding 4S over 4H looks really bad to me, and I wont be happy competing to the 3 level.

 

Part of what makes my hand so good in the first scenario is the 7 losers, but its in correlation with suspected cards in the opponents hands. Unfortunately writing the book that uses losers. LOTT, and opp card placement together might be tough, but this kind of judgement is different than "I had 7 losers I had to compete to 4S."

 

Hope that made sense.

[helene_t]

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.

Letting one partner use modified LTC and the other cover cards could be be viable approach I suppose. This would be close to what I do myself. With an unbalanced hand facing a balanced partner I count my own losers and try to estimate how many of those partner can cover. With a balanced hand facing an unbalanced partner, the other way round.

 

What I am dismissing is both partner's using modified (or worse: unmodified) LTC. This is not a close-minded position. I have been a believer in LTC, and later modified LTC, for more than two decades. What made me dismissing it was partly that my hand evaluation improved so I didn't need formal methods so much. So I think there is some truth in what others have said, that it has merits for beginners but advanced players should use there judgment instead of a formal method. But actually I have come to believe that LTC is not the best choice even for beginners. OK, if we are talking of a player who has only two alternatives namely LTC and HCP, then obviously LTC is better for some purposes and probably on average better when a fit has been found.

 

I moved to England three years ago and here LTC is very popular among club players, and the extend to which it is abused is so absurd that I think they would be better off without the tool. Han's joke is only a slight exageration - I have seen intermidediate+ players making limit raises of 1M on hands like AJxx Axxx Axx xx because it is 8 losers.

 

I think beginners should be taught to count HCPs and add a little for shortnesses without vasted honors. In terms of accuracy and simplicity this doesn't differ much from modified LTC but the immense advantaged of adjusted HCPs is that it is re-evaluation of the HCP evaluation they do before finding the fit, rather than a new evalutaion:

1NT-2♣

2♥-3♥

?

 

Here the question should not be "partner has shown X LTCs, do we have 14 or less together"?

The question should be: "I have shown Y HCPs, does my hand now, in light of the fit, evaluate to more than that?"

[losercover]

"I have seen intermidediate+ players making limit raises of 1M on hands like AJxx Axxx Axx xx because it is 8 losers".

 

Your sample hand, is worth 3 1/2 cover cards, which is a limit raise. Using Klinger's control loser count evaluation (controls * 3.33) - points = +7 or enough to consider the hand 7 losers. This is a hand that we respond 4M, enough to be in a game but lacking the 4 to 4 1/2 cover cards for a forcing raise.

 

We have found that using losers and cover cards, get us to good major suit games that would be bid using HCP points. If you start tweaking the hand evaluation for support points you can justify a more aggressive bid. Ultimately true losers and cover cards are a lot more accurate than a convuluted point system.