Loser Count

[Chamaco]

The first time I saw anything about LTC the statement was included that you would do so-and-so with xyz losers and the requisite high card strength .

 

That is why AKxxxxx, x, xx, xxx is not considered by most a 1-spade opening, but AKJxxx, Kx, xxx, xx would be so.

 

Winston

A serious definition involving LTC should explicitly state that:

 

a. LTC works only if we do find a fit

so, if we did not find a fit yet, better use it only for hands that are almost sure to have a self sufficient suit like 7+ cards suit or very good chances to find a fit, such as 55 or 65;

 

b. LTC estimates only the tricks we take in offense, not in defense

 

c. therefore, when we estimate a hand, and decide how to bid it, we should consider BOTH its offensive power AND its defensive power.

It is commonly agreed that an opener usually guarantees 2-2.5 defensive tricks or better (although I know many pairs are lowering the requirements).

 

The reason why AKxxxxx and a bust is not an opener is that we are not sure we can provide 2 defensive tricks; but in terms of offense, it equals the power of a minimum opener, with it's 7-loser count.

[Chamaco]

1) 5-5 or better.

 

I think losers count is a VERY good method to estimate the power of 2 suiters.

With 55+ you often can find an 8+ card fit in one of the suits (yeah I know, we all remember those badly misfitting hands, but nonetheless everyone is still playing 2-suited overcalls :rolleyes: ).

 

Of course, it is important for responder to know the second suit, in order to know which values will be working as "cover cards" (or, to put it in another way, which honors should be considered as "losers").

 

 

2) very long suits, e.g. 7-3-2-1 shape.

 

I usually do when the long suit is in the major, and it works fine.

When the long suit is in the minor, the chance of ending up in 3NT short of real hcp is too high

 

 

 

3) 3-suiters, e.g. 4-4-5-0.

 

3 suiters are very vulnerable to trump leads, cutting down the ruffing power and diminishing the number of tricks.

So, when our trump fit is 54, it is ok to count losers, since usually the opps cannot draw too many rounds of trumps.

With 44 fit, it is less clear. In that case i prefer to use traditional methods of hand evaluation.

 

 

4) balanced hands????

 

For balanced hands, it's even worse than for 3 suiters.

In this case, I usually bid normally, and sometimes use LTC only in really borderline decisions.

In any case, usually for balanced hands, the LTC and hcp requirements tend to converge.

E.g.

Pard opens 1S and you hold

Kxx-KQx-KTxxx-xx

 

Using classical guidelines, you have a borderline hand between inviting and bidding game with this hand (10 good working hcp + a doubleton)

 

Using LTC, an 8-losers hand should invite, and the hand has

2.5 spades losers, 1+ hearts losers, 2+ diamonds losers, 2 club losers = about 7.5-8 losers, that is, a borderline hand.

[ochinko]

Normally, you know when both you and your partner have an opening hand, you have a game. Counting losers, though, you can reach a game even with a hand below opening strength. I just got dealt:

 

QJT6

JT86

-

AT984

 

Not even counting Zar points is this hand an opener for me, so I passed. LHO passed too. Partner opened 1♠, 2♠ from RHO, 4♠ from me, comfortably made from my partner, a GIB bot.

 

Petko

[Chamaco]

Normally, you know when both you and your partner have an opening hand, you have a game. Counting losers, though, you can reach a game even with a hand below opening strength. I just got dealt:

 

QJT6

JT86

-

AT984

 

Not even counting Zar points is this hand an opener for me, so I passed. LHO passed too. Partner opened 1♠, 2♠ from RHO, 4♠ from me, comfortably made from my partner, a GIB bot.

 

Petko

I think even using Zar points and some commonsense one can without any problems reevaluate by at least 3/4 Zar points the hand due to the supported tens and nines.

That makes it a full Zar opening

[bridge2k]

Loser count is very helpful to adjust how far I can go, to bid and not to bid.

[ochinko]

I can't get enough of this loser count. Vuln vs. NV at IMPs just got dealt:

 

1097

KJ1064

-

AKJ43

 

Opened 1H in 2nd position, partner raised to 2H. With 6 losers a game is not certain, but it's worth to try at this vulnerability and being IMPs, clubs look like a nice source of tricks, so with my puny opening points I bid 4H.

 

Partner's hand was

 

Q84

Q972

Q1032

96

 

7.2 IMPs with 18 HCP. I'm glad for all the players that don't count their losers.

 

Petko

[han]

Yeah right.

 

Are you suggesting that players who do not count losers cannot see that this hand is better than 12 pts?

 

Zar gives 31 points even before adjustments, suggesting that this hand plays a full level better than your minimal opener.

 

BUMRAP+531 gives 17.5 pts, a monster!

 

I think that no good player will pass 2H with this hand.

[ochinko]

Yeah right.

 

Are you suggesting that players who do not count losers cannot see that this hand is better than 12 pts?

 

Zar gives 31 points even before adjustments, suggesting that this hand plays a full level better than your minimal opener.

 

BUMRAP+531 gives 17.5 pts, a monster!

 

I think that no good player will pass 2H with this hand.

You're absolutely right. I'm not saying that you can't reach the same conclusion with many other methods of evaluation. LTC are the fastest to count though, in any other position except on opening. There they could mislead you.

 

I am somewhere around intermediate level, that's why it amazes me that so many others missed that game.

 

Petko

[mike777]

I can't get enough of this loser count. Vuln vs. NV at IMPs just got dealt:

 

1097

KJ1064

-

AKJ43

 

Opened 1H in 2nd position, partner raised to 2H. With 6 losers a game is not certain, but it's worth to try at this vulnerability and being IMPs, clubs look like a nice source of tricks, so with my puny opening points I bid 4H.

 

Partner's hand was

 

Q84

Q972

Q1032

96

 

7.2 IMPs with 18 HCP. I'm glad for all the players that don't count their losers.

 

Petko

Nice game but your bidding has nothing to do with LTC. You had 6 loser hand? How many trumps did you expect for 2h and how many losers? You seem to assume 8 loser hand for partner's 2h bid? 24-6-8=10 tricks. Again nice bid but your bidding on this one has nothing to do with LTC.

[ochinko]

I can't get enough of this loser count. Vuln vs. NV at IMPs just got dealt:

 

1097

KJ1064

-

AKJ43

 

Opened 1H in 2nd position, partner raised to 2H. With 6 losers a game is not certain, but it's worth to try at this vulnerability and being IMPs, clubs look like a nice source of tricks, so with my puny opening points I bid 4H.

 

Partner's hand was

 

Q84

Q972

Q1032

96

 

7.2 IMPs with 18 HCP. I'm glad for all the players that don't count their losers.

 

Petko

Nice game but your bidding has nothing to do with LTC. You had 6 loser hand? How many trumps did you expect for 2h and how many losers? You seem to assume 8 loser hand for partner's 2h bid? 24-6-8=10 tricks. Again nice bid but your bidding on this one has nothing to do with LTC.

Well, I have to expect 3 trumps, and 9 losers which is enough only for 3H. But as I said, it was the vulnerability and the IMPs that pushed me further. Many good things can happen. We could have a second fit in clubs, opps could misdefend, etc. I saw that LTC guarantee the 3rd level, that's why I mentioned them. Just because Zar or TSP and whatnot would suggest the same doesn't mean LTC are not relevant. For me they were.

 

Petko

[Winstonm]

I don't even know LTC.

How do you tell if it's LTC (Last Train Convention) or LTC (Losing Trick Count)?

 

I propose that all conventions use lower "c". LTc verses LTC.

[mike777]

I don't even know LTC.

How do you tell if it's LTC (Last Train Convention) or LTC (Losing Trick Count)?

 

I propose that all conventions use lower "c". LTc verses LTC.

LTTC= last train to clarksville, LTC=Losing trick count.

Buy the song and album and you will understand all :).

[Chamaco]

I can't get enough of this loser count. Vuln vs. NV at IMPs just got dealt:

 

1097

KJ1064

-

AKJ43

 

Opened 1H in 2nd position, partner raised to 2H. With 6 losers a game is not certain, but it's worth to try at this vulnerability and being IMPs, clubs look like a nice source of tricks, so with my puny opening points I bid 4H.

 

Partner's hand was

 

Q84

Q972

Q1032

96

 

7.2 IMPs with 18 HCP. I'm glad for all the players that don't count their losers.

 

Petko

Nice game but your bidding has nothing to do with LTC. You had 6 loser hand? How many trumps did you expect for 2h and how many losers? You seem to assume 8 loser hand for partner's 2h bid? 24-6-8=10 tricks. Again nice bid but your bidding on this one has nothing to do with LTC.

Well, I have to expect 3 trumps, and 9 losers which is enough only for 3H. But as I said, it was the vulnerability and the IMPs that pushed me further. Many good things can happen. We could have a second fit in clubs, opps could misdefend, etc. I saw that LTC guarantee the 3rd level, that's why I mentioned them. Just because Zar or TSP and whatnot would suggest the same doesn't mean LTC are not relevant. For me they were.

 

Petko

I am not a blind believer of LTC, however I think that your example is a misapplication of the LTC.

 

If you do believe (or want to verify) that LTC works, then your hand is 5.5 losers, and pard has 9+ losers (with 8-8.5 losers he'd start an invitatonal sequence).

 

Now, as your hand has 5.5 losers and pard is 9-9.5 +, your expected number of tricks is 24-14.5/15= at most 9.5.

 

Now, knowing the limitations of LTC, I would understand a game try, to check whether the honors are fitting, but a leap to game is distinct overbid to me, regardless of whether using LTC or not.

 

As in most bidding sequience, the problem is not the algorithm, but the evaluation of the hand by one of the 2 players.

 

=====

 

BTW it is worth observing that the game here depends on honors fitting (e.g. if opener's void covers worthless cards of dummy, then game is laydown).

A game try should be enough to check this.

[ochinko]

I can't get enough of this loser count. Vuln vs. NV at IMPs just got dealt:

 

1097

KJ1064

-

AKJ43

 

Opened 1H in 2nd position, partner raised to 2H. With 6 losers a game is not certain, but it's worth to try at this vulnerability and being IMPs, clubs look like a nice source of tricks, so with my puny opening points I bid 4H.

 

Partner's hand was

 

Q84

Q972

Q1032

96

 

7.2 IMPs with 18 HCP. I'm glad for all the players that don't count their losers.

 

Petko

Nice game but your bidding has nothing to do with LTC. You had 6 loser hand? How many trumps did you expect for 2h and how many losers? You seem to assume 8 loser hand for partner's 2h bid? 24-6-8=10 tricks. Again nice bid but your bidding on this one has nothing to do with LTC.

Well, I have to expect 3 trumps, and 9 losers which is enough only for 3H. But as I said, it was the vulnerability and the IMPs that pushed me further. Many good things can happen. We could have a second fit in clubs, opps could misdefend, etc. I saw that LTC guarantee the 3rd level, that's why I mentioned them. Just because Zar or TSP and whatnot would suggest the same doesn't mean LTC are not relevant. For me they were.

 

Petko

I am not a blind believer of LTC, however I think that your example is a misapplication of the LTC.

 

If you do believe (or want to verify) that LTC works, then your hand is 5.5 losers, and pard has 9+ losers (with 8-8.5 losers he'd start an invitatonal sequence).

 

Now, as your hand has 5.5 losers and pard is 9-9.5 +, your expected number of tricks is 24-14.5/15= at most 9.5.

 

Now, knowing the limitations of LTC, I would understand a game try, to check whether the honors are fitting, but a leap to game is distinct overbid to me, regardless of whether using LTC or not.

 

As in most bidding sequience, the problem is not the algorithm, but the evaluation of the hand by one of the 2 players.

 

=====

 

BTW it is worth observing that the game here depends on honors fitting (e.g. if opener's void covers worthless cards of dummy, then game is laydown).

A game try should be enough to check this.

Yoda: There is no try :)

 

Seriously, what are you going to ask partner? He limited his hand already. If you go the scientific way (short suit spade trial), you'd stop at 3H, and that is all you could make double dummy, since SpJ is offside, Ace and King divided. But you can't know that, and there's no way to find out.

 

The only chance of making 4H is to jump in the dark leaving your opponents in the dark as well.

 

The lead was a club, RHO put his Queen, you take it with the Ace, and lead 2 rounds of trumps. After taking his Ace on the second round LHO should play two rounds of spades (having Axx there) in order to set the contract. He played a second club instead, because he was given the chance to err. He could've played a diamond with the same result. You could have had SpJxx with fewer clubs, and then defenders should not touch the spades.

 

Looking only at the two hands the game is 50% which is not bad at all, even if there is one line of defending that brings the contract down.

 

Petko

[Chamaco]

Seriously, what are you going to ask partner? He limited his hand already.

 

yes, he limited his hand but you ignore whether his values are fitting or misfiting with yours.

 

If one believes in the LTC approach, the borderline decisions (such as this one) should be based on such honors fit.

 

I would show my shortness with a short suit game try, for one only reason: we have little hcp, pard is not very strong, if we do bash into game the likelihood of being doubled are higher than if I had a hand with more hcp and same playing strength in offense.

 

If you go the scientific way (short suit spade trial), you'd stop at 3H, and that is all you could make double dummy, since SpJ is offside, Ace and King divided. But you can't know that, and there's no way to find out.

 

The only chance of making 4H is to jump in the dark leaving your opponents in the dark as well.

 

Alright, I am not saying that bashing into game is impractical.

Indeed, I think taking a chance often pays off.

I just say that, *if you do bash to game in this sequence, you are not using LTC*, but a practical approach.

 

Sometimes this approach works, sometimes not, but in any case it is NOT the application of losing trick count, so in this case LTC is not to blame for overbidding :-)

[Mr. Dodgy]

prolly outta my depth here in advancedland, but here goes anyway.

 

I use LTC quite often - I evaluate my hand using 'standard' Work, Zar and LTC. hands which are borderline using Work may be up/downgraded on the basis of the other methods.

 

I find LTC to ne most useful when considering preemptive openings, even though (or perhaps becuse) I'm quite undisciplined with these. Similarly, I'll try to count losers when I'm considering a sacrifice.

 

Most other times I don't use LTC - mainly because it's not something I've studied in particular detail, and I have no aggreements with my partners about LTCs implementation.

 

There is one notable exception to this: my 2♣ (artificial strong) opener is often based very much on LTC - I even alert it as "artificial strong <5 losers". Yeah Yeah I know this is not great technique but it's fun.

 

Less useful with balanced hands than distributional ones.

[mike777]

It has been said before but is worth repeating. LTC is used after a fit is found and not to determine opening hands or strong 2 club openers or preemptive openers. If you want to count losers that is fine but that is not Losing trick Count (LTC), it is counting your losers which is not the same theory of bidding.

 

BTW on this hand I respond 3H not 2H showing 0-7hcp and 4 hearts.

[khursun]

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:

[1eyedjack]

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.

 

Just out of curiosity, as one who knows nothing about Zar evaluation, how would Zar evaluate the combined trick-taking potential of these hands? And before making any adjustments for misfits (as I am sure that LTC would make similar adjustments as the misfits come to light, so the comparison is only fair if you ignore the knowledge of partner's two voids in the Zar evaluation, just as you appear to be doing in the LTC evaluation).

[Chamaco]

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.   B)

I think that bringing up this example is not a good way to verify the effectiveness of LTC count.

 

Obviously the rule of 24 should be applied only when finding a fit.

 

When one does have a 2-suited hand, he/she will assume, for starters, that - on percentage- there should be a fit in one of the 2 suits.

 

Sometimes this does not happen, such as in the completeley misfitting hands, but an intelligent application of LTC should mean to dowwngrade hands when it's clear there is a misfit.

 

One should note that such competely misfitting hand will be a problem for most point count evaluation systems (Milton Work Count being one of them).

 

LTC is sure a simplified rule, but trying to demonstrates it does not work by means of some bbrainless application is not a fair way to proceed, IMO.

[mike777]

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.   :ph34r:   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.   ;)

I see this all the time and as I have posted above this is not LTC theory! You need a fit to use LTC theory. Counting losers is not the "Losing Trick Count Theory" (LTC).

 

LTC is not perfect but let's at least discuss the theory properly before trashing it. Rule one is you need a fit.

 

I repeat if you have expert judgement you do not need LTC but if you are an improving player it can help your results. So can Fight the Law (FTL).

 

I only wonder why such a brilliant bridge writer such as Roth uses this example as LTC with no fit?

[1eyedjack]

I only wonder why such a brilliant bridge writer such as Roth uses this example as LTC with no fit?

It is my understanding that the reason (and the only reason) why a fit is "required" in order to apply LTC is that any positive LTC value ascribed to a suit by reason of shortage can only be justified if (1) that suit is not the trump suit and (2) there is sufficient trump control to ruff any continuation of the suit following the exaustion of the suit.

 

In the example hand stated, assuming that you end up playing in one of your 7-0 fits, I think it would be pessimistic (if perhaps as the cards lie justified by hindsight) to assume a lack of trump control. You can normally afford to accept a force in your 7 card trump suit a few times before control of trumps is seriously threatened.

 

There are two principal reasons why LTC initially overstates the trick-taking potential of this hand: One is that a void in trumps is worth 3 losers, not zero. The other is that a void in a side suit is worth 3 losers, not zero, if the same hand is void in trumps (even if partner has 9 trumps and hence a fit in his own hand). Quite reasonably, neither partner at the outset is likely to anticipate that one of his voids will be trumps, although one partner is destined to be in error in that assumption and thereby understate his own LTC by about 6. That error is likely to be corrected before bidding reaches the 6 level, hence the flaw in the analysis of the original post, just as any other hand evaluation method on the planet will bring this to light after one or two rounds of bidding (given a free reign).

[mike777]

My understanding is the following are the main claims of LTC and FTL.

 

A method that is highly efficient and easy to calculate that will gauge the playing strength strength of your own hand and estimate the trick taking potential of partner's. Together you can tell how many tricks the partnership will win most of the time.

 

 

LTC can be used after a trump fit has been established. It is not designed for no-trump hands and is quite unsuitable for misfit hands. It does not replace your point count methods, Zar or Binky or otherwise. LTC answer is the estimated number of tricks you can expect to win if your suits break normally and half of your finesses work.

 

Of course alot of caveats in the above and certainly room for improved methods

 

It just seems many times when people say LTC is not working and they are missing games people are not using it properly. They do not use adjustments. Of course sometimes it just does not work and one should look for patterns in the hands that it does not work on. Try using FTL along with LTC.

[Chamaco]

It just seems many times when people say LTC is not working and they are missing games people are not using it properly. They do not use adjustments.  Of course sometimes it just does not work and one should look for patterns in the hands that it does not work on. Try using FTL along with LTC.

Ditto.

 

It boils down to using common sense in applying any hand evaluation system: if we do not reevaluate/downgrade the hand throughout the bidding, any evaluation system (call it Zar, LTC, FTL, LOTT, etc etc) is bound to produce goofy results under many circumstances.

[khursun]

I see this all the time and as I have posted above this is not LTC theory! You need a fit to use LTC theory. Counting losers is not the "Losing Trick Count Theory" (LTC).

 

LTC is not perfect but let's at least discuss the theory properly before trashing it. Rule one is you need a fit.

 

I repeat if you have expert judgement you do not need LTC but if you are an improving player it can help your results. So can Fight the Law (FTL).

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.