[oberiko]

Hello,

When playing Acol, should the Losing Trick Count be used in competitive auctions? I'll layout a couple of scenarios (in all auctions, assume that I open 1♥) and my assumptions.

I open 1♥, partner raises, RHO intervenes
I assume that in this case, I am not concerned with any kind of pre-emptive raise; any subsequent bid I make (raise ♥'s or trial bid) is the same as if intervention hadn't happened (ie based on LTC).

I open 1♥, LHO intervenes, partner raises
So, in this case, a direct raise (♥'s) would show a pre-emptive raise based on the Law of Total Tricks (0-9 HCP). A sound raise would be shown by either Truscott 2NT or an Unassuming Cue Bid.

In this case, what should sound represent? 10+ HCP or 8- losers?

I open 1m, partner changes suits to a major I can support, RHO intervenes
When partner changes suits, I assume 9 losers. Once again, I assume that I have no need to pre-empt, since partnership has at least 18+ HCP, and thus I can simply ignore the intervention and bid as I would normally.

Thoughts?

[Stephen Tu]

oberiko, on 2013-April-30, 16:49, said:

When playing Acol, should the Losing Trick Count be used in competitive auctions?

LTC is just an evaluation method, an alternative to point count. There is a very rough mapping of point ranges to loser count, it's just an alternative scale. So whether you utilize it is up to you.

I would argue that LTC is just not very accurate, and that adjusted point count is better. Any system that starts out with an initial premise that a suit of qxxx is counted as the same number of losers as AJxx is obviously highly flawed. Now, one can make a ton of adjustments to LTC to reflect the reality that aces > Ks > Qs, and that Js/Ts are worth something, etc., but by the time you do all the adjustments to make it reasonably accurate, IMO you might as well have just started with HCP, and make adjustments for good/bad distribution, placement of honor cards and type of honors in partner's suit/opp's suit, and so forth.

Quote

I open 1♥, LHO intervenes, partner raises
So, in this case, a direct raise (♥'s) would show a pre-emptive raise based on the Law of Total Tricks (0-9 HCP). A sound raise would be shown by either Truscott 2NT or an Unassuming Cue Bid.

In this case, what should sound represent? 10+ HCP or 8- losers?

A "sound" raise is usually considered roughly a 8-bad 10 points or so. AKA a constructive raise in absence of competition. A good 10+ raise is called invitational+ and is stronger than merely "sound". 10+ is also known as "limit raise or better".

If LHO *overcalls*, without a jump, these days, most commonly, a single raise to the 2 level remains about 6-9 HCP, a cue bid (*not* called an "unassuming cue bid" in this instance, since it absolutely promises support, unlike a cue bid in response to partner's overcall) shows a limit raise or better. A jump in the overcalled suit is a splinter raise, showing shortness in the suit, 4 cd support, and values for game. Jump raises are weak. Some players use 2nt as a 4 cd 10+ raise so that the cue is only a 3 cd raise, this can be useful in an Acol context. Jumps in other suits may or may not show support depending on whether "fit-jumps" in competition are agreed.

If LHO *jump overcalls", removing one's ability to raise to the 2 level, one has less room to work with, and bid meanings change. A single raise to the 3 level is normally played as the "sound raise", a jump to game is done with 10+-12 (sometimes technically overboard, but usually fine since partner should be accepting most invitational raises anyway), and a cue bid shows a hand that would make a GF raise absent the competition (but not promising a control in the suit).

If LHO *doubles*, 2nt usually shows 4 cd limit+, jump raises weak, single raise remains the std 6-9. Some players play some artificial bids after a double in order to be able to raise on weaker hands, e.g. transfers, so that a direct raise over the double is maybe 4-7 or so and mostly preemptive, and one-under the suit is the sound raise. (Lower bids starting with 1nt being used as transfers).

Quote

I open 1m, partner changes suits to a major I can support, RHO intervenes
When partner changes suits, I assume 9 losers. Once again, I assume that I have no need to pre-empt, since partnership has at least 18+ HCP, and thus I can simply ignore the intervention and bid as I would normally.

It depends a lot on how high RHO has bid. RHO's intervention has given you additional options of pass and double (which can be used conventionally), but can take away a lot of options. If it goes 1d-1h-(2S), you can't raise hearts to the 2 level anymore, you can't rebid 2d/3c, etc. Advanced players often play gadgets in this kind of situation, often involving an artificial 2nt, to be able to bid on distributional hands while still being able to distinguish the weaker ones from the stronger ones.

[helene_t]

if you like LTC there is no reason for not using it in contested auctions as well.

But adjust a little for you holding in opps' suit. A king in LHO's suit is almost certainly lost.

[rhm]

Stephen Tu, on 2013-April-30, 22:18, said:

LTC is just an evaluation method, an alternative to point count. There is a very rough mapping of point ranges to loser count, it's just an alternative scale. So whether you utilize it is up to you.

I would argue that LTC is just not very accurate, and that adjusted point count is better. Any system that starts out with an initial premise that a suit of qxxx is counted as the same number of losers as AJxx is obviously highly flawed. Now, one can make a ton of adjustments to LTC to reflect the reality that aces > Ks > Qs, and that Js/Ts are worth something, etc., but by the time you do all the adjustments to make it reasonably accurate, IMO you might as well have just started with HCP, and make adjustments for good/bad distribution, placement of honor cards and type of honors in partner's suit/opp's suit, and so forth.

Agreed.
I think simple loser count is hopeless and leads to absurd results. A queen can not be worth the same as an ace nor can you completely ignore lower honors. Most critics of LTC never bother to look beyond that.
Adjustments are necessary and naturally the ones I use have become second nature to me at the table. I usually use it to check my intuitive impression of the offensive potential of a hand if a fit can be uncovered.
When a fit has been found, and the degree of fit is important, I consider a properly modified LTC (mine of course ) a more accurate single hand evaluation method than HCP enriched with distributional points, assuming you do not switch to a completely different scale like 321 points.
Standard HCP is fine for low level notrump contracts, but the scale is simply inaccurate for high level trump contracts.
So with these caveats I think a minimum of 8 losers or less for a sound (limit, invitational) raise is a more accurate description than 10 HCP, baring in mind that what some consider 8 loser hands would not be 8 losers in my methods and vice versa.
Of course when most of your assets are in extra trumps and distribution and accordingly you hold few HCP, a preemptive raise to game may be more appropriate than an unassuming cuebid.
You still have to play Bridge.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

As Stephen says, LTC is simply an eveluation tool, and a highly inaccurate one at that. Once you get into the adjustments, such as the popular MLTC, you are functionally equivalent to a hcp method based on A = 4.5; K = 3; Q = 1.5. I have written several posts on BBF to show how to convert from one to the other and to suggest why, in general, the hcp method should be preferred.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-02, 05:39, said:

As Stephen says, LTC is simply an eveluation tool, and a highly inaccurate one at that. Once you get into the adjustments, such as the popular MLTC, you are functionally equivalent to a hcp method based on A = 4.5; K = 3; Q = 1.5. I have written several posts on BBF to show how to convert from one to the other and to suggest why, in general, the hcp method should be preferred.

I know you believe even the MLTC overvalues distribution (as a single hand evaluation method), but my experience suggests otherwise.
Modern bidding strategies support my view by the way.
It is one thing how many tricks you can take, another what you should bid when you have a good fit and good distribution.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2013-May-02, 07:16, said:

I know you believe even the MLTC overvalues distribution (as a single hand evaluation method), but my experience suggests otherwise.
Modern bidding strategies support my view by the way.
It is one thing how many tricks you can take, another what you should bid when you have a good fit and good distribution.

So count 9 points for a void in a hcp system. It is the same thing. But if you happen to think that this is slightly too high albeit still better than the traditional 5 points, treat it as 8 points instead. The hcp method just gives you the same functionality with finer tuning.

[fromageGB]

Adjusted losing trick count is better than just counting straight hcp, as it takes into regard shortages. Having said that, I use hcp with aces worth more and queens less, as Zelandakh above shows how, and make a "judgement" adjustment upwards to a higher band if there is a potentially useful shortage. I have no experience of adding "points" for singletons or voids.

What you do with your point coint depends to a degree on whether you are playing 4 card majors or 5. 5 card majors help tremendously in the "law of total tricks" evaluation. If partner opens a 5 card major, overcalled with a minor, I will bid 3M with a 4 card suit and less than 8 points. To show 9+ I would cue bid (showing 4 card support). With 3 card support I will not bid 3M at all, but 2NT with 11+. (Note this is the other way round to the common method given by Stephen Tu above. I think this is better, but agree which with your partner.) But if partner may have opened a 4 card major it can be risky to jump to 3M with 4 cards. I am not sure whether I would - it is so many centuries ago that I played that way, I have forgotten.

If 4th seat bids over partner's raise to 2M, you may have lost the ability to make your normal trial bid, so for me X acts as a game invitation.

Finally, if I open a minor and partner bids a major, overcalled by 4th seat, I would NOT assume he has a 9 loser hand. It could easily be 10. Either way, I would rebid as normal, passing if my bid would have been lower than that, with X acting as 3 card support of unspecified strength ("support double").