[han]

Although some good players think that loser count is the ultimate evaluation method, we know better . However, I think it can be useful when bidding some highly unbalanced hands, for instance hands like x AKxxxx x KQJxx (4 losers I believe). My 1st simple question is: do you ever count losers in practice, and if you do, for which hands?

Here are some particular distributions I was thinking about:

1) 5-5 or better.
2) very long suits, e.g. 7-3-2-1 shape.
3) 3-suiters, e.g. 4-4-5-0.
4) balanced hands????

2nd question:

Playing with your regular partners, can you ever show your exact number of losers with some hand patterns? If you can, partner may be able to determine the final contract in matter of seconds. For example, If you show at least 5-5 in the majors with exactly 3 losers, partner could just bid 6S with KJx Kxx xxxx xxx, foolproof. (I'm not claiming that 6S will always be the best contract, but if I could bid all my slams with this much confidence...)

[inquiry]

Loser count is a crutch..... But, I use it. Obviously, MisIry is geared towards it. But loser count is often inaccurate... Who really thinks AKxxx is only one loser when partner is short in this suit. Even if he has xxx of this suit, you could lose three tricks in this suit instead of one if it was trumps and you ran into 5-0 trump split.

AKxxx goes back to one loser if your partner and you have a fit in another suit. So loser count is a rough approximation when you have A) Fit in the suit(s) in question, or Fits in another suit....

So some random,

Kxx
Qxxx
AKx
Qxx

Is 7 losers. I know, a lot of people will use Loser count to figure out where to go (count losers in both hand, subtract from 24, determines level). But if you play that, you best have a FIT before you apply that metric.

Turns out, you hit the nail on the head. Loser coutn is nice wtih big two suiters (and pressumed fit theory), and with three suiters (again presummed fit). So that your little cards are good due to the fit, or they are good due to ruffing in partners hand. Balanced hands, loser count is not useful (unless your partner is explaining his unbalanced losers to you where you can can your covers).

Ben

[ochinko]

There are two occasions when I count losers. The first one is when partner opens 1M (5 cards), my hand is not flat, and I see a fit. At this point LTC determine immediately what is the minimum safe level for us. If it's spades, I can bid slowly. If not, I could jump faster to hide a possible spade fit in opps, or make them sacrifice for a number. Preferably I have 4 card support, or 3 cards with 2 honors, otherwise I add a loser to my hand.

The other case is when I open 1m/M with 4 or 5 cards, and hear partner bid a major in which I have 4 cards. Then I jump immediately to the level suggested by my losers, and make partner the captain:

1m - 1M
?

2M - 7 LTC
3M - 6
4M - 5

Last one assumes I have no suit to splinter in. That I would prefer to the direct jump.

Petko

[whereagles]

I sometimes use LTC as a guide when the decision is borderline.

[cherdano]

I often find myself counting losers when I have unbalanced hands and we have found a fit, for example when deciding about a game try after 1♠-2♠. I think it is very useful to give an optimistic upper bound for the playing strength, when you assume that all of partner's hcp will consist of useful cover cards. Then I start to think about how likely he will have wastage -- a balanced hand is better than an unbalanced hand if they have the same loser count, as it means all of partner's cards should be working. (To put it differently, if you have more hcp but the same number of losers, partner has a higher percentage of the outstanding hcps on the same bidding, and he will thus cover a higher percentage of your losers.)

Arend

[Double !]

Just a technicality question. When you all refer to LTC, are you referring to LTC according to Rubens?. If so, are you referring to Losing Trick Count, or Adjusted Losing Trick Count a la Rubens?
In addition, how much credibility do you people give to visualization, to trying to visualize how the hands fit based on the bidding?

[hrothgar]

Playing MOSCITO, I often count losers when I'm deciding how to raise partner's major suit openings.

For example, assume that partner has just opened 1♥, promising an unbalanced hand with 4+ Spades. I need to chose between bidding 2NT as a game invitational raise and 3♠ as a "value" raise. Normally, I'd bid 2NT with 7 losers and bid 3♠ with 8+ losers.

[pclayton]

A lot of my thinking goes back to the work in the Rosencranz books that uses losers opposite cover cards instead of 'x' losers across from 'y' losers a la Klinger.

A hand with 3 cover cards, which is roughly a lite limit raise isn't the same as an 8 loser hand, although frequently the hands do equate with each other.

[Free]

I usually use LTC (my own version, a little more agressive than standard) when preempting Vulnerable. Otherwise I hardly use it unless in some partnerships where I know my partner uses it.

[Fluffy]

I use LTC whenever partner has raised my major, and I have to decide between part/invite/game.

[han]

Double !, on Sep 3 2005, 12:20 PM, said:

Just a technicality question. When you all refer to LTC, are you referring to LTC according to Rubens?. If so, are you referring to Losing Trick Count, or Adjusted Losing Trick Count a la Rubens?
In addition, how much credibility do you people give to visualization, to trying to visualize how the hands fit based on the bidding?

I wasn't referring to any particular losers, but people who do can specify.

I think your second question is very interesting, and I would like to see other people answer this. I'm afraid that your question didn't attract the attention it deserves, so if nobody answers perhaps we should start a new thread on this. As for myself, I rarely visualize partner's hand in the early auction. In the later auction, and especially at slam bidding, I do try to visualize partner's hand.

[Double !]

Hannie, on Sep 3 2005, 11:37 PM, said:

Double !, on Sep 3 2005, 12:20 PM, said:

Just a technicality question.  When you all refer to LTC, are you referring to LTC according to Rubens?.  If so, are you referring to Losing Trick Count, or Adjusted Losing Trick Count a la Rubens?
In addition, how much credibility do you people give to visualization, to trying to visualize how the hands fit based on the bidding?

I wasn't referring to any particular losers, but people who do can specify.

I think your second question is very interesting, and I would like to see other people answer this. I'm afraid that your question didn't attract the attention it deserves, so if nobody answers perhaps we should start a new thread on this. As for myself, I rarely visualize partner's hand in the early auction. In the later auction, and especially at slam bidding, I do try to visualize partner's hand.

IMO, one of the weaknesses playing vanilla 2/1 is the lack of ability to make a temporizing bid followed by a jump raise to invite to game based on how well opener's hand fits with with a hand consistent with your bidding so far (provided that the opps don't pre-empt or butt their noses into your bidding). Rubens referred to this as "in and out evaluation". Of course one can play fit-Jump-shifts or something that shows an invitational hand with 4+ trumps and leaves anough room to show where outside values would be most helpful.

[Cascade]

I always count my losers in one particular situation.

That is playing with a partner who counts losers and after I have made a bad bid ...

"I had to bid this way I had eight losers"

[Chamaco]

Hannie, on Sep 2 2005, 07:37 PM, said:

Although some good players think that loser count is the ultimate evaluation method, we know better   . However, I think it can be useful when bidding some highly unbalanced hands, for instance hands like x AKxxxx x KQJxx (4 losers I believe). My 1st simple question is: do you ever count losers in practice, and if you do, for which hands?

Here are some particular distributions I was thinking about:

1) 5-5 or better.
2) very long suits, e.g. 7-3-2-1 shape.
3) 3-suiters, e.g. 4-4-5-0.
4) balanced hands????

2nd question:

Playing with your regular partners, can you ever show your exact number of losers with some hand patterns? If you can, partner may be able to determine the final contract in matter of seconds. For example, If you show at least 5-5 in the majors with exactly 3 losers, partner could just bid 6S with KJx Kxx xxxx xxx, foolproof. (I'm not claiming that 6S will always be the best contract, but if I could bid all my slams with this much confidence...)

LTC work decently when we do have a fit, so there are sme typcal situations:

a. we do not have a fit (yet)
I tend to evaluate the hand according to LTC if I can reasonably think we'll have a fit (or I have selfsuficent long trumps).
So, 55, 65 and all GOOD 1suiters are evaluated with the LTC.
Good 64 hands are also evaluated with LTC.
Balanced and semibalanced are not evaluated using LTC

b. we DO have a fit
In this case, I use the LTC to estimate wheter we are in the game or slam zone.

c. IMPORTANT! Minors based hands
When our fit is in the minor, we are less likely to play in a suit, and more likely to end up in NT.
So, when we have the minors, I am somewhat more conservative and, in constructive bidding, I tend to bid on "real" hcp than distribution only (LTC does not work well for 3NT)

d. "Raw LTC count" vs "adjusted LTC"
I use the LTC tables shown in the italian books by Chiaradia, Belladonna and Garozzo.
E.g.
AQx is NOT 1 loser, but 1 loser and a half.
AQJ is half a loser.
AQT is more or less 1 loser.
Qxx is about 2.5 losers
QTx about 2 losers
and so forth...
Basically you incorporate into the loser count the % of success of the needed finesses/double finesses, etc.

[mr1303]

Parnter opens a 7 count, 2nd seat vulnerable. I have an 18 count and a fit, and get to the 5 level down 1 when I make a slam try.

Partner says "I had to open I had 7 losers".


Partner gives me a jump raise holding 4441 shape and an 11 count, saying "I only had 6 losers".

Playing a match vs Justin Hackett. Team-mates miss a 16 point game on 25 HCP and a 9 card fit, saying "the losing trick count said it wasn't there".

I decide that the LTC is a waste of time and the biggest loser of IMPs since Benjaminised Acol

[1eyedjack]

ochinko, on Sep 2 2005, 09:21 PM, said:

1m - 1M
?

2M - 7 LTC
3M - 6
4M - 5

Last one assumes I have no suit to splinter in. That I would prefer to the direct jump.

I don't doubt that the above ("Method A") is classical "by the book", but I wonder if it is better than or worse than the following suggestion:

"Method B"
2M - more than 5 LTC
3M - 5 LTC
Higher - fewer than 5 LTC

My analysis follows:

The 2M raise leaves room to enquire further and therefore has room for a range of LTC of up to 2. Even if you ignore the multiple alternative routes to 3M thereafter and only ever raised 2M to 3M as a game try (indicating 8 LTC), that bid could require partner to bid game with 6 LTC otherwise pass (in Method B). In method A the use of the game try after 2M raise appears somewhat redundant as the 2M bid is very narrowly defined.

On the face of it, if we were to assume (falsely) that LTC were 100% accurate, the occasions when these too methods give rise to a swing are:

Situation 1: when opener has more than 7 losers and responder has 8 losers.
Situation 2: when responder has more than 9 losers and opener has 6 losers.

In situation 1, using Method A you stop in 2M when Method B gets you overboard in 3M.

In situation 2, using Method B you stop in 2M when the Method A gets you overboard in 3M.

Which is more likely? A minimum balanced 1/1 change of suit can easily contain 10 losers. A "weak 1N" opener that has to open 1m because you are playing a strong 1N can easily be 8 losers. Jury is out on that one as far as I am concerned. However by preference I play a weak 1N opener, so 1m opener is much less likely to have more than 7 losers. However the frequency of a 10 loser 1-level response is not affected by the choice of 1N opener, so its relative frequency compared with an 8 loser opener is rather higher in my methods, in which case I reckon that situation 2 is clearly more likely in that system, suggesting that Method B (in that case) is superior.

Perhaps it is also worthwhile considering which method gains when you are in the slam zone. Method B seems to preserve more bidding space.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

[chicken]

inquiry, on Sep 2 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

Loser count is a crutch.....

So some random,

Kxx
Qxxx
AKx
Qxx

Is 7 losers.
Ben

as far as i know this is 8 losers because u count half a loser for every queen more than aces, and half a loser for no doubleton. somewhere there is a book called: modern losing trick count, but i dont know who wrote it.
(probably it is not as modern as stated :-))

[inquiry]

chicken, on Sep 6 2005, 09:46 AM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 2 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

Loser count is a crutch.....

So some random,

Kxx
Qxxx
AKx
Qxx

Is 7 losers.
Ben

as far as i know this is 8 losers because u count half a loser for every queen more than aces, and half a loser for no doubleton. somewhere there is a book called: modern losing trick count, but i dont know who wrote it.
(probably it is not as modern as stated :-))

You do realize that I was making fun of that being considered even 7 losers? That is, this is more than 7 losers, and I don't even worry about "losers" until I found a fit. If partner shows up with a ♠+♦ twp suiter, I pretty much ignore those queens and am not too excited. If he shows up with ♣+♥ two suiter, this hand is lookng pretty darn good, despite its horrible values and distribution. But this is where I was going.. saying htis is a "7 loser" hand is just plain silly at the beginning of the auction.

[Chamaco]

chicken, on Sep 6 2005, 01:46 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 2 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

Loser count is a crutch.....

So some random,

Kxx
Qxxx
AKx
Qxx

Is 7 losers.
Ben

as far as i know this is 8 losers because u count half a loser for every queen more than aces, and half a loser for no doubleton. somewhere there is a book called: modern losing trick count, but i dont know who wrote it.
(probably it is not as moderen as stated :-))

Ditto.

Kxx = 2.5 losers
Qxxx = little more than 2.5 losers (nee 2 finesses to work)
AKx= 1 loser
Qxx = little more than 2.5 losers (nee 2 finesses to work)

Moreover, the 4333 shape accounts for more deevaluation (no ruffing power, so the hand MIGHT not be evaluated as with an established fit)

================================

EDITED BY MAURO AFTER READING BEN'S POST
I dunno about chicken's post (sounds funny! LOL) :-), but I think it's not so bad to pinpoint the fact that Qxx(x) or Kx(x) is NOT only 2 losers but more, unless we know something from the bidding.