[phoenixmj]

We have been using LTC to make a determination whether to go to game or to slam, or simply stop in a part score. This is when we have a fit. I think in general we have been relatively successful at using this tool. The last two days, we have had 3 hands where it let us down. I should note that other tables went to game on these hands. In one case, the hand actually makes a slam.

---

LTC for east is 9, and LTC for west is 6. This implies we will take 9 tricks. Now, I would argue that west needs to make an adjustment for having 3 aces. If I had incorporated that into the calculation - should I have gone to 4 after the 2 spade bid by partner. Is this correct? Obviously I did not make any adjustment when I bid 3 - and partner does not have any adjustment to make. Other people bid 4 on this hand. So I may have answered my own questions here.

---

This hand - we limped to 4 spades only because pushed by opps. North LTC is 9.5. South LTC is 6. If we make adjustments for north - ltc 10. If we make adjustments for south - ltc is 5.5. So, 15.5 implies we can make 3 at best. Yet, we made the 4. And, most people bid 4. Of course we don't know how many got pushed.

---

North ltc is 9 without adjustment. South LTC is 6 without adjustment. So, we are thinking we can take 9 tricks for making 3. With adjustments, south is ltc 5.5 and north is 9.5. So, still at 3 level. As it turns out, it makes 4 even though double dummy says 3, and other tables went to 4.

Please - any comments on the bidding are welcome and appreciated. Also - it we are not applying LTC correctly - please comment.

[Cyberyeti]

Hand 1: Most people do NOT count AJ10 as LTC of 2 for good reason, opposite xxx, this is one loser 75% of the time, once partner is known to have 3-4 trumps, unless they have the Q, it will play better than that, also 3 aces without compensating Qs you deduct at least one loser.

Hand 3: on a heart lead, game is on a finesse, NV no crime not being in it, diamond lead and stiff club or heart switch may also well beat it.

Hand 2 you have in a sense 4 combined losers, but they're a good 4 losers in that 2 of them are finesses and one may go west on a 3-3 break, the hands fit well due to ♥ KQJ, try it with N's Q being in clubs. I'd consider a red suit game try which N will probably accept.

[The_Badger]

Losing Trick Count is one of those bridge tools that doesn't take into consideration intuition. With a good (unlikely to lose more than one trick) trump suit, an extra trump, aces and kings, and/or shape, bidding 3♠ on hands 1 and 2 is unimaginative, I feel. Both hands are more suited to a trial bid by opener. Hand three is more borderline as there is no room to manoeuvre.

[nige1]

Agree with CyberYeti and theBadger. LTC and WTC are a bit crude. For example, honours are worth more when they are in a long suit or reinforce each other e.g. AJT and KQx work better when they are in the same suit.

Nevertheless, IMO, for a rule of thumb, the LTC performs well.


For comparison purposes, here are valuations according to the similar WTC
(Winning Trick Count, where A=1.5, K=1, Q=0.5, void=3, singleton=2, doubleton=1, Decrement for duplication. Increment for trump-control).

LTC for east is 9, and LTC for west is 6. This implies we will take 9 tricks. Now, I would argue that west needs to make an adjustment for having 3 aces. If I had incorporated that into the calculation - should I have gone to 4 after the 2 spade bid by partner. Is this correct? Obviously I did not make any adjustment when I bid 3 - and partner does not have any adjustment to make. Other people bid 4 on this hand. So I may have answered my own questions here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

West 7 winners (♠A=1.5, ♥A=1.5, ♥Q=0.5, ♦doubleton = 1, ♣A=1.5, ♣doubleton = 1).
East 3 winners (♠K=1, ♦K=1, ♣doubleton =1).
Trump-control 1 winner. ♣duplication (if it can be diagnosed) -1 winner.
Total 10-11 winners.

---

This hand - we limped to 4 spades only because pushed by opps. North LTC is 9.5. South LTC is 6. If we make adjustments for north - ltc 10. If we make adjustments for south - ltc is 5.5. So, 15.5 implies we can make 3 at best. Yet, we made the 4. And, most people bid 4. Of course we don't know how many got pushed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

North 2.5 winners (♥Q=0.5, ♦K=1, ♣ doubleton=1).
South 6.5 winners (♠A=1.5, ♠Q=0.5, ♥K=1, ♦A=1.5, ♣ singleton=2)
Trump-control 1 winner. ♣duplication (if it can be diagnosed) -1 winner.
Total 9-10 winners.

---

.

North ltc is 9 without adjustment. South LTC is 6 without adjustment. So, we are thinking we can take 9 tricks for making 3. With adjustments, south is ltc 5.5 and north is 9.5. So, still at 3 level. As it turns out, it makes 4 even though double dummy says 3, and other tables went to 4.
Please - any comments on the bidding are welcome and appreciated. Also - it we are not applying LTC correctly - please comment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

North 2.5 winners (♠K=1, ♠Q=0.5, ♥doubleton=1).
South 6.5 winners (♥A=1.5, ♥doubleton=1, ♦singleton=2, ♦K not counted, ♣A=1.5, ♣Q=0.5).
Trump-control 1 winner, ♥duplication (if it can be diagnosed) -1 winner.
Total 9-10 winners.

---

.

[nekthen]

You should make a one trick adjustment for a ten card fit on hands one and two

[nekthen]

Hand 3 I think south should add a trick for having a suit longer than the trump suit

[phoenixmj]

 nekthen, on 2019-January-20, 02:40, said:

You should make a one trick adjustment for a ten card fit on hands one and two

How do you know you have a 10 card suit? The intervening bids did not allow space to show this - at least that is what we thought? Is there a way of showing that we have 4 card with an intervening bid?

Or are you saying with a six card suit, opener should just add a trick knowing you have at least 9?

[msjennifer]

SIR,when playing the LTC ,it is advisable to play it along with SST (short suit try) and LST(long suit try) which gives a far better accurate answer.I shall not go in details here for restriction on space.Hand 1 .A holding of AJ10xxx has to be counted as only ONE loser when fit is established.HAND 2 where RHO raises to 3C then playing SST a double by S shows a non-wasted singleton in club suit.HAND 3.THE value of a singleton DK is not at all known.And even the long club suit is not solid.Exchange the DK for CK and see what happens.Even on seeing all 26 cards one can see that a club finesse or a singleton CK drop is essential.I,personally will not.advise bidding game for these 2 reasons. Finally my POLITE and HUMBLE suggestion is 'always play LTC in combination with SST and LST " THANKS ALL.

[billyjef]

1: Much trouble would be solved if west chose to double first: 17 working points, with spades. KnR gives it 18.35. It's losing count using Garozzo modified New Losing Count (zl), ♠AJT=1zl; ♥AQT=1zl; ♦xx=2.5; ♣AT=1 for a total of 5.5zl. 5.5zl has the playing strength of 18 hcps, or a hand that expects to take 7 tricks. We can eyeball this as well, 4/5 tricks in ♠, 2 tricks in ♥ and a club trick are all good expectations if we are declaring. I'd like to see the auction go, (♦)-X-(2♦)-XX (now 10 card fit is known)- 4♠. partner is a passed hand and can push on if thinks it is wise, with ♦K in front of ♦ bidder, I'd pass 4♠.

2. South again has a 17 working point hand, KnR= 17.55. North, with the known 9 card fit, thus the one to make the first upgrade, will evaluate his zl as 9.5, 10 raw (♠=3, ♥=2.5, ♦=2, ♣=2.5, minus 1/2 for 4th trump and doubleton, 9.5. Once south knows of the fit, her 5.5 opposite maximum 10z. gives the partnership 9.5 playing tricks. One could just bid 4♠ or use one of the game tries as msjennifer suggest, or could even bid 3 of the red suits. North, knowing she has better than the minimum expected, no wastage in clubs, can find 4♠ as well.

3. Once south knows of the 9 card fit, she can subtract 1 full loser from her hand, 1/2 for the 4th trump and doubleton and 1/2 for the singleton king seems fair enough. She now has 5.5zl hand again, and should make a 3♠ invitation at minimum, or just bid 4♠ depending on pdship style. N is unlimited, but west is sitting behind strength, so slam is unlikely to be missed.

[phoenixmj]

 billyjef, on 2019-January-20, 11:31, said:

1: Much trouble would be solved if west chose to double first: 17 working points, with spades. KnR gives it 18.35. It's losing count using Garozzo modified New Losing Count (zl), ♠AJT=1zl; ♥AQT=1zl; ♦xx=2.5; ♣AT=1 for a total of 5.5zl. 5.5zl has the playing strength of 18 hcps, or a hand that expects to take 7 tricks. We can eyeball this as well, 4/5 tricks in ♠, 2 tricks in ♥ and a club trick are all good expectations if we are declaring. I'd like to see the auction go, (♦)-X-(2♦)-XX (now 10 card fit is known)- 4♠. partner is a passed hand and can push on if thinks it is wise, with ♦K in front of ♦ bidder, I'd pass 4♠.

2. South again has a 17 working point hand, KnR= 17.55. North, with the known 9 card fit, thus the one to make the first upgrade, will evaluate his zl as 9.5, 10 raw (♠=3, ♥=2.5, ♦=2, ♣=2.5, minus 1/2 for 4th trump and doubleton, 9.5. Once south knows of the fit, her 5.5 opposite maximum 10z. gives the partnership 9.5 playing tricks. One could just bid 4♠ or use one of the game tries as msjennifer suggest, or could even bid 3 of the red suits. North, knowing she has better than the minimum expected, no wastage in clubs, can find 4♠ as well.

3. Once south knows of the 9 card fit, she can subtract 1 full loser from her hand, 1/2 for the 4th trump and doubleton and 1/2 for the singleton king seems fair enough. She now has 5.5zl hand again, and should make a 3♠ invitation at minimum, or just bid 4♠ depending on pdship style. N is unlimited, but west is sitting behind strength, so slam is unlikely to be missed.

Regarding number 1 - we play that you need 16 plus (usually 17 + if only a 5 card suit) to double and then bid a suit. I was under the impression that this was standard, and that you do not count length points when making this bid. Is counting length standard practice?

Confused about your mention of number 3 slam - we are missing 2 aces so slam is not possible with good defense. My concern was missing a game when it is there.

I want to thank you for bringing up the KnR evaluation method as I was not familiar with it and I am going to do some reading and see if that will help.

[billyjef]

 phoenixmj, on 2019-January-20, 12:10, said:

Regarding number 1 - we play that you need 16 plus (usually 17 + if only a 5 card suit) to double and then bid a suit. I was under the impression that this was standard, and that you do not count length points when making this bid. Is counting length standard practice?

Confused about your mention of number 3 slam - we are missing 2 aces so slam is not possible with good defense. My concern was missing a game when it is there.

I want to thank you for bringing up the KnR evaluation method as I was not familiar with it and I am going to do some reading and see if that will help.

I count anything that contributes to the trick taking potential of the hand. Regular TOX often has no length, but for the big TOX, where I have a good suit and the trick taking expectation of 17+ points, I count length because I expect to be declaring it in my suit. You are right, I count length.
Certainly slam isn't there double dummy, but in the auction where an unpassed responder bids a new suit, and thus is unlimited, slam can't be counted out with the strength we have.

KnR is pratically too complicated to use at the table, even for it's inventors. You can use the evaluator here: http://www.jeff-gold...cgi-bin/knr.cgi , which also refers to Kleinman as well. Or you can download a program with various metrics including KnR and Kleinman here, http://tedmuller.us/...idEvaluator.htm .

[billyjef]

 billyjef, on 2019-January-20, 12:36, said:

I count anything that contributes to the trick taking potential of the hand. Regular TOX often has no length, but for the big TOX, where I have a good suit and the trick taking expectation of 17+ points, I count length because I expect to be declaring it in my suit. You are right, I count length.
Certainly slam isn't there double dummy, but in the auction where an unpassed responder bids a new suit, and thus is unlimited, slam can't be counted out with the strength we have.

KnR is pratically too complicated to use at the table, even for it's inventors. You can use the evaluator here: http://www.jeff-gold...cgi-bin/knr.cgi , which also refers to Kleinman as well. Or you can download a program with various metrics including KnR and Kleinman here, http://tedmuller.us/...idEvaluator.htm .

BTW, I regularly make a thorough study of such hands using different metrics; KnR, Richard Palvicek Freakness (to determine whether the hand is better evaluated, at the table, with some sort of LTC or Kleinman) where, I, personally, not suggested in anyway by Richard, hands with less than 4 freakiness, I deem balanced and use Kleinman and with 4 or more I use ZL, Garozzo Modified New LTC, even for opening with the caveat that it has at least two quick tricks; I've correlated potential playing tricks for balanced and distributional hands with HCP playing strength, ZL and Kleinman.

And then, most importantly, in my opinion, and for my self, to try and improve my bridge judgement, I eyeball tricks I can reasonable expect a hand can take...just to keep everything real and compare that to the expectations of the different measuring tools.

I do spend too much time trying to suss out hands situational trick expectation because it is declaring where I am most weak at and where I need to spend more time .

[nekthen]

 phoenixmj, on 2019-January-20, 10:50, said:

How do you know you have a 10 card suit? The intervening bids did not allow space to show this - at least that is what we thought? Is there a way of showing that we have 4 card with an intervening bid?

Or are you saying with a six card suit, opener should just add a trick knowing you have at least 9?

If you had 3 card support, you should double instead of 2♠ on hand 1.
Hand 2 is more a law hand. 3♠ indicates a six carder and the indicated 10 card fit means North should bid 4♠

[ahydra]

Hand 1 E should accept the invite with a max for 2S that includes a fourth trump.

Hand 2 bidding is fine

Hand 3 S might try a semi-aggressive 3S rebid knowing of the 9-card fit and with a trick source in clubs, though DK is worthless. North's acceptance of that may well depend on system, namely whether S has shown real clubs or not.

ahydra

[phoenixmj]

 billyjef, on 2019-January-20, 12:49, said:

BTW, I regularly make a thorough study of such hands using different metrics; KnR, Richard Palvicek Freakness (to determine whether the hand is better evaluated, at the table, with some sort of LTC or Kleinman) where, I, personally, not suggested in anyway by Richard, hands with less than 4 freakiness, I deem balanced and use Kleinman and with 4 or more I use ZL, Garozzo Modified New LTC, even for opening with the caveat that it has at least two quick tricks; I've correlated potential playing tricks for balanced and distributional hands with HCP playing strength, ZL and Kleinman.

And then, most importantly, in my opinion, and for my self, to try and improve my bridge judgement, I eyeball tricks I can reasonable expect a hand can take...just to keep everything real and compare that to the expectations of the different measuring tools.

I do spend too much time trying to suss out hands situational trick expectation because it is declaring where I am most weak at and where I need to spend more time .

Well- if I cannot apply the method at the table I think I will pass on reading up on it. But, it is interesting none the less.

[phoenixmj]

 nekthen, on 2019-January-20, 14:36, said:

If you had 3 card support, you should double instead of 2♠ on hand 1.
Hand 2 is more a law hand. 3♠ indicates a six carder and the indicated 10 card fit means North should bid 4♠

I will look into this but we do NOT play this particular double. A support double (which this sounds like) would be it responder had bid a major and opener wants to show that he/she has 3 card support, but not 4. I have not seen it used when an overcaller bids a major and now it is time for partner to show support or not for the overcaller. I would take a double to mean something different.

Anyone else play it this way?

[msjennifer]

Sirs,pardon me but in my experience going just by playing the modified HCP as suggested does not give good results,,LET me give two examples taken from actual play.How does one estimate, playing the HCP, a hand x-AKxxxx-KJx-KJx .One opens 1H AND LHO overcalls 2D .Partner bids 2H,and RHO passes.Partners 2H when White against Red can be just 6 HCP with four card support.Does one PASS OR BID 3H OR ANYTHING ELSE? .HAND-2 Playing 15/17 NT partner opens 1NT,RHO overcalls 2C (LANDY FOR MAJORS) You hold KJ10XXX-109XX-QJx-x.What now? .If one decides to bid 2S is it passable?I.One may suggest a PASS or anything else ? I shall reveal what happened at the tables .YOU playing SAYC and opponents Standard with LTC.At your closed room table both pairs playing SAYC.the results may or may not surprise you.At your table opponents made 6C (doubled) and the contract was cold.In the closed room your opponents holding your hands made 4S.One need not remind the artificially constructed hand in which the side holding THIRTY FIVE HCP could not score even a single trick.Distribution plays a very big role and that is exactly why the LTC,SST,LST in conjunction with a standard system based upon HCP works far better than just the HCP method.

[danhputnam]

LTC has its flaws. In both 1 and 2, you would have the same points and loser-count if your sixth trump were a heart. Yet the sixth trump is a guaranteed trick. Also a nine card trump suit will draw trump more efficiently than an 8-card suit. The value is about 1/2 trick, not counting the likelihood of ruffs etc. In all three cases you are bidding as if you have the 8-card fit. I'm not talking about LOTT logic. I'm talking about how many tricks you are likely to take.

[Tramticket]

Some Thoughts on Hand Valuations

I remember first discovering the Losing Trick Count (LTC). I found it greatly helped my bidding. But I quickly learned that it is even better if combined with other hand evaluation methods. A golfer doesn't try to play every shot with the Pitching Wedge or every shot with the Driver. They select the club that best fits the shot that they are making. Furthermore, even having selected the right club, they will adjust the grip and stance depending on the lie of the ball. A similar approach should be used at bridge - always carry a full bag of clubs!

So what clubs might you want to use? There are hand valuation techniques that result in quantifiable metrics such as counting high card points, counting length points, counting shortage points, LTC, WTC (see Nige1's response above), quick tricks, playing tricks, defensive tricks, ZAR points, K&R Points, number of Total Trumps (as an estimate of Total Tricks - using LTT), number of aces, number of key-cards ... plus many more! There are also hand valuation techniques that inform your judgment about a hand, but don't necessarily result in a metric: are your honours in your long suits? are your honours supporting each other? Are your honours supporting partner's suits? Do you have intermediaries and are they supporting your honour cards? Again the list could go on and on. These non-quantifiable judgments can be just as important as the quantifiable metrics, but in the end there is only one metric that counts: how many tricks will we take?

It is also important to understand that you need to be constantly reevaluating your hand based on the auction so far. The more complex the auction, the greater the need to reevaluate. Contested auction tend to be more complicated auctions. Whilst you could adjust the metric at every turn, the reevaluations tend to be of the type: "that bid weakened my hand", "that bid improved my hand", "that bid significantly improved my hand" or maybe "that bid reduced the playing strength of my hand, but increased the defensive potential".

All of this is leading up to me suggesting that using the LTC is probably not the best tool on any of the auctions given. They are all contested auctions, where a fixed and unchanging metric, such as the LTC, is unlikely to be most effective.

Take auction 1 as an example: The LTT would value an east holding of ♠K965 ♥J974 ♦53 ♣KJ3 as having the same as east's actual hand. But if you listen to the bidding ♦K53 is likely to be a poor holding one once south shows an opening hand with diamonds and North raises. Partner is unlikely to have any help in diamonds and is quite likely to have shortage (suggesting wastage). South is likely to have the ♦A sitting over you holding. Moving this king to the club suit is likely to improve the hand. West will apply similar judgments and find that his hand has improved - I would judge that the west hand is worth a game invitation at the least.

[The_Badger]

 billyjef, on 2019-January-20, 12:36, said:

KnR is pratically too complicated to use at the table, even for it's inventors.

In a pure mathematical form probably 'yes'. Number crunching at the table is difficult at the best of times.

http://www.rpbridge.net/8j19.htm (courtesy and copyright of Richard Pavlicek)

But in a visual sense 'no'. We can all feel if a hand looks a lot better or worse than it is.