[Winstonm]

LTC is much like an automobile - the effectiveness is greatly dependent on who is behind the wheel.

I use LTC at times as a double check, a little more information into the mix if you will. Obviously it is not perfect - AKQx opposite a void is zero loser in both hands so fit is still crucial - LTC I have found is most accurate when a 9-card fit is found or a 4-4 fit is found - or it can be used as a definition of preemptive hand stregnth, but then it is not much different from winner count. For me, it's easier to say so an so is a 4-loser hand instead of saying it's a 9 winner hand as the number is smaller and I don't have to count so high - when the numbers are over 5 I tend to drop my cards on the floor.


Winston

[Al_U_Card]

Ditto Winston's remarks. When I am in the final aspects of my analysis for continuing the bidding (or choosing a response to a question in the bidding) on trump suit fit auctions I use the LTC as a countercheck to see if I have a reasonable expectation of ending up in a "sensible" final contract.

The only other time is in trump suit fit game tries when I use the LTC to accept with 0-1, cooperate with 2 and sign off with 3.

[ArcLight]

>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".


What hand did he have?
(When you say 7 count, do you mean 7 HCP, or are you also counting distributional points?)

♠ A K T 9 8 x
♥
♦ x x x x
♣ x x x

Thats a 7 loser hand. Also an opening bid by ZAR points. It has preemptive value over the opponents heart fit. Game is possible, though slam is very unlikely. If pard opens this kind of hand, he needs to keep a firm reain on the auction.



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

Was this in the majors?
(When you say count, do you men HCP, or distributional points?)

If you opened 1 ♠, and he had:
♠ T x x x
♥ A K x x
♦ A x x x
♣ x

then thats a nice hand, too good for a jump (Limit) raise.
Take away the Diamond Ace then its about a limit raise.

In fact a 6 loser hand would look more like:
♠ T x x x
♥ A K Q J
♦ x x x x
♣ x

And even this has 7 losers, he needs another Ace or a void to be a 6 loser hand.


The typical opening bid is 7 losers, so 7 + 6 losers = 13 losers. 24 - 13 = 11, enough for game.

It might not always work out, even if its the winning bid over a large series of hands.

Judgement is also needed.

PLEASE POST THE HANDS so we can look at them.

[Al_U_Card]

I only use it for trump fit auctions and a typical opener is 7-8 losers.

The requirement for 2 or 2 and 1/2 defensive quick tricks and a rebid still apply when determining what or whether to open....

[Winstonm]

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

[Chamaco]

Winstonm, on Sep 7 2005, 04:14 PM, said:

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]

Quote

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 ).

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").

Quote

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

ochinko, on Sep 28 2005, 12:25 AM, said:

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]

Hannie, on Oct 22 2005, 01:19 AM, said:

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]

ochinko, on Oct 21 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

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]

mike777, on Oct 22 2005, 01:27 AM, said:

ochinko, on Oct 21 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

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]

Jlall, on Sep 3 2005, 09:51 PM, said:

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]

Winstonm, on Oct 21 2005, 07:32 PM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 3 2005, 09:51 PM, said:

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]

ochinko, on Oct 21 2005, 10:43 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 22 2005, 01:27 AM, said:

ochinko, on Oct 21 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

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]

Chamaco, on Oct 22 2005, 04:17 AM, said:

ochinko, on Oct 21 2005, 10:43 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 22 2005, 01:27 AM, said:

ochinko, on Oct 21 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

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]

Quote

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.

Quote

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 :-)