[mike777]

I find using FTL and LTC is great at the table, assuming I remember to use them.

In the heat of battle I sometimes forget to apply the basic versions of LTC and FTL in the heat of battle. Klinger/Lawrence/// Result is poor score on tough hands.

We can all debate what hands they do NOT work on but at least use them on most of them.

[42]

Hi Mike,
I have some trouble with working out what all the abbreviations are: LTC (I think-> loser trick count), FTL=?? (we have also LOTT, LTTC etc. ect.), and I think other beginners / intermediates might have, too.
Could you please write one time the whole word(s)? It saves some time and guesswork for the reader. Thank you!
Caren
PS: did you have a question or is it a statement or do you want to collect opinions and arguments? Perhaps I stand on the wire this morning

[Free]

Dunno what FTL is, so can't argue...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I dont know either what FTL stands for, but
it gets explained in Mike Lawrence book
"I fought the law".

As far as I understand the comments made
here, it is another evaluation method, meant to
replace the law of total tricks, or to refine it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 21 2005, 12:29 PM, said:

I dont know either what FTL stands for, but
it gets explained in Mike Lawrence book
"I fought the law".

As far as I understand the comments made
here, it is another evaluation method, meant to
replace the law of total tricks, or to refine it.

According to other comments, it has nothing to do with the law of total tricks, can usually be applied only after seeing both hands, and is very similar to LTC.

Arend

[Gerben42]

FTL = Faster Than Light

[Chamaco]

LTC = Losing Trick Count.

It's a system of evaluating hands based on "losers".
This system postulates that, playing in a suit contract, you cannot have more than 3 losers in any given suit because you would ruff it.

Accordingly, when you have a distributional hand, say a 6 or 7 card suit, your trick-tacking potential is accounted by LTC by the fact that you will have fewer losers in the side suits.

In theory, the system does not have a supersolid foundation (indeed, it is possible to have 4+ losers in a given suit), and when the hands are misfitting, it can lead to gross overbidding.

However, in practice, its use with a grain of salt (and using FRACTIONAL loser count - counting for half losers etc etc - e.g. that's where you get to reevaluate the hand, besides accounting for evident misfits) yields reasonable results.

I'd like to point out one VERY important point, IMO: the use of LTC, especially when deciding whether opening or not a 7 losers hand, MUST ABSOLUTELY include a criterion to promise to pard a minimum number of defensive tricks.

Two example:

Example 1
Axxxx-x-Axxxx-xx
I do not mind opening 1 spade this hand, because it does not have only 7 losers, it also yields the VERY important requirement of 2 defensive tricks.

Example 2
KQxxx-x-KJTxx-xx

This hand might be opened as a 2 suited preempt, if you have one available in the system, but NEVER at the 1 level.
Opening at the 1 level should promise a minimum amount of defense, so that responder can safely double for penalty when opps stick in, counting opener for about 2 defensive tricks.

So, to repeat: if you want to use LTC, always combine it with a criterion in terms of defensive tricks.

[Echognome]

The defensive trick requirement is one of partnership agreement. I'm not against the idea, just saying that in my partnership we do NOT have such an agreement and survive just fine. It makes it tougher for partner to double them when they compete, but also easier for us to reach certain thin games. Caveat emptor.

As per using the losing trick count and presumably short-suit tricks and working points, that is fine if you want to do all of your evaluation as a machine. I personally think just getting players to evaluate their hands using something other than high card points is just fine. But rather see them thinking along the lines of "how good is my hand given the bidding thus far?" If I have already expressed my values and it sounds as though we have a misfit or the values are sitting on my left or I have a small doubleton or tripleton in their suit, then bid conservatively. If I have bid conservatively thus far or partner has shown a good fit or I have a void or extra length in their suit (making it more likely partner has a void) or we have a double fit or I'm sitting with values over the bidder on my right, then I adjust upwards and bid more aggressively.

The main point is that your evaluation of your hand should be changing all the time as new information is learned. Also, applying the small box principle is important. The small box principle is namely that each time we make a call (bidding a suit, doubling, or passing) we are limiting our hand. We are effectively putting our hand in a box. The more calls we make, the smaller that box is. We should be evaluating how good our hand is relative to that box.

[badderzboy]

As a recent BILlie , Losing Trick Count is useful to help you learn hand evaluation but should also be used alongside HCPs etc to inform your decision.

Its value is to teach the power of shape in bidding and to sway one or the other with the 2 and a half raise of a major say ie a good 9 or poor 10 count but not as a replacement to your system!

I have heard the phrase but I had 8 losers partner after a disaster too often

I play some players who rely totally on it but forget that Qxx is not the same as Axx and likewise AKx xxx is far more powerful than Axx Kxx and so on but LTC is the same which is where judgement comes into it!

Well worth learning with a little consideration

Steve

[Chamaco]

Quote

Qxx is not the same as Axx

Qxx = needs 2 fineses to work, so it's closer to 3 losers than 2 losers. I'd evaluate it as 2.75 losers, or 3- losers.
Make it QTx and it's about 2 losers.

Axx = 2 losers

Quote

likewise AKx xxx is far more powerful than Axx Kxx

Kxx = needs one finesse to work so about 2.5 losers

Quote

and so on but LTC is the same which is where judgement comes into it!

This is because the RAW LTC is oversimplified.

In order to account losers properly, we need to account for the number of finesses that will be needed.
In many italian books by Chiaradia, Belladonna, Garozzo, etc, the first page is a table of honors combinations and how many losers are associated to it for the loser's count.

Accounting an equal number of losers for Axx = Kxx or for Qxx = Kxx, or Qxx = QJT is easy, but silly.

You need to account for fracional losers or some other ways that discriminates properly these holdings, where simple commonsense suggests they are far different.

[FrancesHinden]

cherdano, on Nov 21 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 21 2005, 12:29 PM, said:

I dont know either what FTL stands for, but
it gets explained in Mike Lawrence book
"I fought the law".

As far as I understand the comments made
here, it is another evaluation method, meant to
replace the law of total tricks, or to refine it.

According to other comments, it has nothing to do with the law of total tricks, can usually be applied only after seeing both hands, and is very similar to LTC.

Arend

Shall I write a book about an evaluation method that can only be applied after seeing both hands? I promise it will get excellent results...

[mike777]

42, on Nov 21 2005, 05:09 AM, said:

Hi Mike,
I have some trouble with working out what all the abbreviations are: LTC (I think-> loser trick count), FTL=?? (we have also LOTT, LTTC etc. ect.), and I think other beginners / intermediates might have, too.
Could you please write one time the whole word(s)? It saves some time and guesswork for the reader. Thank you!
Caren
PS: did you have a question or is it a statement or do you want to collect opinions and arguments? Perhaps I stand on the wire this morning

Sorry, was very late night post
LTC=losing trick count , Klinger
FTL=Fought the Law, Lawrence

[mike777]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 21 2005, 10:04 AM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 21 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 21 2005, 12:29 PM, said:

I dont know either what FTL stands for, but
it gets explained in Mike Lawrence book
"I fought the law".

As far as I understand the comments made
here, it is another evaluation method, meant to
replace the law of total tricks, or to refine it.

According to other comments, it has nothing to do with the law of total tricks, can usually be applied only after seeing both hands, and is very similar to LTC.

Arend

Shall I write a book about an evaluation method that can only be applied after seeing both hands? I promise it will get excellent results...

Yes, but need to start somewhere .

In fact my expert opp and partners do seem to know all the hands at the table. In fact they often seem to know my hand better than I do .

[cherdano]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 21 2005, 05:04 PM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 21 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 21 2005, 12:29 PM, said:

I dont know either what FTL stands for, but
it gets explained in Mike Lawrence book
"I fought the law".

As far as I understand the comments made
here, it is another evaluation method, meant to
replace the law of total tricks, or to refine it.

According to other comments, it has nothing to do with the law of total tricks, can usually be applied only after seeing both hands, and is very similar to LTC.

Arend

Shall I write a book about an evaluation method that can only be applied after seeing both hands? I promise it will get excellent results...

It won't be as good as the method in my book though. Yes, you may need to look at 52 cards to apply it (or 39 once you have read the 2nd volume), but I promise it will be WAY better than FTL or FTC (Frances' Trick Count).

Arend

[ArcLight]

>According to other comments, it has nothing to do with the law of total tricks, can usually be applied only after seeing both hands, and is very similar to LTC.

Why not read the book for yourself? Frequently people don't describe something correctly or fully and important dealtails are left out and incorrect assumptions drawn.


>Shall I write a book about an evaluation method that can only be applied after se
Seeing both hands? I promise it will get excellent results...

Perhaps if you were to read the book you would find the proposed idea simple and effective.
Do you really think Mike Lawrence would write something thats pure nonsense?
Its a well thought out book. Certainly worth reading.

[cherdano]

ArcLight, on Nov 22 2005, 03:46 AM, said:

>According to other comments, it has nothing to do with the law of total tricks, can usually be applied only after seeing both hands, and is very similar to LTC.

Why not read the book for yourself?  Frequently people don't describe something correctly or fully and important dealtails are left out and incorrect assumptions drawn.

Well, my comment wasn't so serious, of course. Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that FTL has nothing to do with the law -- FTL tries to tell you how many tricks you can take, the law tries to tell you the par in a highly contested auction. Entirely different things!

Also, I read the introduction that was posted on the web, and while it had some interesting arguments, the examples seemed pretty biased (lots of mirror distribution, where we all know that many rules of thumb don't work). So what I read matches some of the comments made here.

Arend