[ArtK78]

An intelligent bridge player can evaluate the various hand evaluation methods on his or her own. It makes sense to attempt to evaluate hands using more than one method if possible and see whether the various methods point to the same conclusion.

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.

[mtvesuvius]

Double post, disregard, sorry.

[mtvesuvius]

This past weekend, someone came up to me and asked me what I thought of LTC, and if it is a good base for a system, I'll try to recreate my reply as best as I can:

"It is very helpful for hand evaluation purposes, however like all things in bridge, it is a guideline not a rule. Obviously AKQxxxx KTxx xx - is a very different "12 count" than QJx QJx QJx QJxx. It's also clear that most people when using LTC will overuse it, and fall back on it as a crutch to justify overbidding or underbidding. Generally speaking, it is a helpful evaluation tool, and demonstrates the power of distribution very nicely. Obviously like Han's hands, it has plenty of flaws. It underevaluates balanced hands and overevaluates on unbalanced hands. Once a fit is found, it is much more practical, but two seven-loser hands facing each other should not always be in game unless they have a fit, and even then it requires good honour location. I do consider LTC when evaluating, more as an unconscious evaluation tool. I don't only use LTC however, simple HCP and other habitual evaluations mixed with LTC would be an accurate way for me to describe my evaluation.

As for basing a system off it, I highly dislike having set-in-stone rules for opening bids, and much prefer to use judgement. In general a system based off LTC will lose out a lot on misfits (which IMO is more likely) and misfitting honours, while gaining when the partnership's hands fit well. Since the former is more likely it will lose more often than it will win.

Obviously with adjustments, you can make LTC practical, but personally I prefer to be able to evaluate my hand other ways."

As an aside, I don't think saying LTC is awful and sucks is very fair. It's incredibly hard to design a catchall hand evaluation technique. Any method you use will under (or over) evaluate many hands. The best solution is a combination of many methods, and is something that comes only from experience and practice IMO.

Han's post really did make me LOL as well, and I'm horrified that some people find it unfunny.

[mike777]

To be fair LTC has its faults but lets judge it fairly:

1) We are told to not not use it in evaluating opening bids
2) We are told to use adjusted Loser Count in Klinger's book.
3) We are told to not use it for nt hands or misfit hands.
4) The goal is to use it AFTER A TRUMP FIT IS KNOWN AND GIVE YOU A MORE ACCURATE(NOT PERFECT) GUIDE.

In other words if using it improves your bidding use it, if you have better methods, use them.

Please keep in mind this book is 25 years old. Theory improves over time. If you and your partner find a better method that works for you, use it. In the mean time LTC is a decent first step.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2011-January-12, 15:55, said:

An intelligent bridge player can evaluate the various hand evaluation methods on his or her own.
...
The dismissive attitude that some Forum members have to LTC is indicative of a closed mind.

How do you know that they haven't evaluated LTC intelligently and with an open mind, then dismissed it?

[manudude03]

I do agree that LTC when used properly can be a very useful tool, but the main problem is that beginners generally abuse it and then when they become sufficiently advanced to use it properly, they've developed real judgement and don't need to consciously use it.

I've seen too many auctions go say 1H-2H-4H where opener has "5" losers and responder "9" losers with them then asking why it's gone -2 or -3 doubled. It's experiences like that which seem to tarnish the principle.

[mike777]

manudude03, on 2011-January-12, 16:24, said:

I do agree that LTC when used properly can be a very useful tool, but the main problem is that beginners generally abuse it and then when they become sufficiently advanced to use it properly, they've developed real judgement and don't need to consciously use it.

I've seen too many auctions go say 1H-2H-4H where opener has "5" losers and responder "9" losers with them then asking why it's gone -2 or -3 doubled. It's experiences like that which seem to tarnish the principle.

You should not be seeing alot of 5 loser across from 9 loser hands going down 2 or 3 doubled.
If you do then it SHOULD tarnish the theory of LTC.

Two big claims of LTC is that it is more accurate and simpler to use compared to other methods.

[losercover]

Loser count only applies when there is a fit. If my partner shows a two suited hand, I either look at my cover cards in support of their two suits or outside aces. If I think the contract should be in my suit, I bid based on lack of support from my partner and the likely cover cards they can supply. On a misfit, 4 losers opposite 4 losers may not make game.

[manudude03]

mike777, on 2011-January-12, 16:32, said:

You should not be seeing alot of 5 loser across from 9 loser hands going down 2 or 3 doubled.
If you do then it SHOULD tarnish the theory of LTC.

Two big claims of LTC is that it is more accurate and simpler to use compared to other methods.

Indeed it is simpler, but I tend to find LTC in general when used is a little too optimistic ("never" has 2 losers when AQx vs xxx etc) and that's when contracts start getting doubled . I would certainly have a better view about it if most of the people I've played against who use it would say to themselves "I have 5 losers so should CONSIDER bidding 4H" rather than "I have 5 losers so MUST bid 4H".

Give me 4 decent trumps, an outside ace and some KJ over opener and I'll happily double at MPs . That might just be as a result of being from a trigger-happy town lol (in a local congress, I once had a +1070, a +870, +750 (nv) and a -930 in about 50 boards).

[pirate22]

manudude03, on 2011-January-12, 16:24, said:

I do agree that LTC when used properly can be a very useful tool, but the main problem is that beginners generally abuse it and then when they become sufficiently advanced to use it properly, they've developed real judgement and don't need to consciously use it.

I've seen too many auctions go say 1H-2H-4H where opener has "5" losers and responder "9" losers with them then asking why it's gone -2 or -3 doubled. It's experiences like that which seem to tarnish the principle.

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

[Cascade]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 01:44, said:

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]

pirate22, on 2011-January-15, 01:18, said:

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]

Cascade, on 2011-January-15, 01:25, said:

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]

ArtK78, on 2011-January-12, 15:55, said:

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.