[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. No fun to be the only pair in the room making 12 tricks on a 3-level suit contract.

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.

[1eyedjack]

khursun, on Nov 2 2005, 09:25 PM, said:

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]

khursun, on Nov 2 2005, 08:25 PM, said:

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 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]

khursun, on Nov 2 2005, 03:25 PM, said:

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.      No fun to be the only pair in the room making 12 tricks on a 3-level suit contract.   

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]

mike777, on Nov 2 2005, 10:22 PM, said:

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]

mike777, on Nov 2 2005, 10:18 PM, said:

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]

mike777, on Nov 2 2005, 04:22 PM, said:

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. 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.

[mike777]

Again all good reasons to read a book on LTC and use the full theory and not just incomplete parts of it. To repeat adjustments and some point counting method are a must part of the process as well. Yes, that means if your using Zar or Binky or whatever, use it! Again repeating, within the limited claims LTC makes I recommend it. Also try using FTL. Btw I use the Klinger's version of LTC.

Please keep in mind one of the major claims of FTL and LTC is that it is easy to use at the table. If you got another process that is an improvement, great, just let us know .

At the table I seem to miss more games not using it and relaying on my level of judgement.

[han]

mike777, on Nov 3 2005, 05:12 PM, said:

and relaying on my level of judgement.

you've been reading to much bridge Mike!

[Robert]

Hello everyone

Many good comments. I guessed that the 4H bid was something like rolling the dice. At IMPs Vul. you only need to make 38% of your games to break even.
Those are very good odds to gamble just bashing into game.

I would have made a short suit game try. At the Vul conditions, I would also have accepted with two fitting Queens plus a doubleton.

Bashing has a place in bridge, however, if the dummy was all diamonds or even mostly diamonds, 4H would go down. Bashing might avoid a double, however, few players double a 3H partscore at IMPSs.

I noted one book that stated that the LTC should be adjusted by the number of controls and also somewhat by raw HCP. AKxxx AKxxx xx x is a five loser hand

His five loser example hand is certainly not as strong as my five loser example.
Opposite two fitting queens a doubleton club is not needed.

Pure five loser hands should normally blast away after a single raise. The example hand posted might want to make a trial bid. A lot of bidding is just a matter of style. I am not normally a basher.

Regards,
Robert

[Chamaco]

khursun, on Nov 3 2005, 09:03 PM, said:

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.

Yet again, another judgment issue.

Since 4333 hands have less ruffing power, there is a downgrade to apply: however, this should be applied to 95% of the hand evaluation methods (except ZAR, perhaps).

In my opinion, using examples biased by evident factors (duplication of values/shape, total misfit, 4333, etc etc) is not a fair way to dismiss a method: it does say that it needs adjustment to take care of "warning signals" and/or to reevaluate hands with extra power.

But these disclaimers apply to all evaluation methods, and I'd say that this is the beauty of bridge: the evaluation of an expert works better than a mechanical hand evaluation rating system.

But, on many hands, using those systems with a grain of salt, and not blindly, might help in close decisions. (and, sure enough, sometimes they'll go wrong just like all the times we went down biddig game with a 28 hcp combined ).

So, before saying thet LTC works badly, let's try to apply it under the correct conditions and using adjustments to handle the reevlauation downgrade of the hand as the bidding progresses.
We'll often find out that this improves the performance and effectiveness of the LTC application.