[WrecksVee]

It has been a while since I have read the book. LTC is an evaluation method. Klinger does a good job explaining it. In doing so he uses bidding methods that he prefers. I suggest you find some of Klinger's other books to see what he suggests playing. I do not have it at hand but I think Klinger's "Guide to Better Duplicate Bridge" has a lot of what you are looking for.

In that book Klinger proposes 11-14 1NT with 15-18 as NT rebid. This last is done so that a 2NT rebid can be 19-20 and game forcing. This does away with the need for Flint or Wolf signoff. The book also has a summary of Keri, Klinger's non Stayman response system over 1NT openers. I am currently using both the forcing 2NT rebid and Keri in one partnership. We are happy with the results. But as with all things it is a matter of taste and experience.

I suggest you drop Ron Klinger an E-mail if you have questions. He has responded to my questions and was friendly and helpful. I do not have the address at hand but it is ususally in the introductions of his books.

[EarlPurple]

LTC was one of my early articles and can be read here;

http://www.frogwump....Bridge/ltc.html

One feature that LTC lacks is side-suit fitting. Thus

Axxx x KQxxx Jxx

is a 7-loser support for partner's spade suit, regardless of how well he "fits" with your diamonds. Partner's "perfect" fit would be:

KQxxx Axxx Axx x

that's 6 losers opposite but excellent chance of slam. Swap the diamonds and the clubs to make it

KQxxx Axxx x Axx

and you'll struggle to make more than 10 tricks, and possibly even that.

Yet both these hands have the same number of losers.

[mikestar]

EarlPurple, on Jul 26 2004, 10:07 PM, said:

LTC was one of my early articles and can be read here;

http://www.frogwump....Bridge/ltc.html

One feature that LTC lacks is side-suit fitting. Thus

Axxx x KQxxx Jxx

is a 7-loser support for partner's spade suit, regardless of how well he "fits" with your diamonds. Partner's "perfect" fit would be:

KQxxx Axxx Axx x

that's 6 losers opposite but excellent chance of slam. Swap the diamonds and the clubs to make it

KQxxx Axxx x Axx

and you'll struggle to make more than 10 tricks, and possibly even that.

Yet both these hands have the same number of losers.

There are some easy adjustments for fit that Klinger doesn't treat but can increase the accuracy of LTC:

1. When assesing losers in trumps, always assume you have 3 cards. So in a 6-2 fit if your trumps are Ax count 2 losers, not 1.

2. In partner's side suit (IF the bidding context makes it probable that he has length and strength in the suit), count losers if signleton or void as if you had a doubleton: x or void is 2 losers, A stiff is 1 loser, K stiff is 1 loser (your lose the mythical x but the King is no longer a singleton and isn't a loser.)

3. Count a double fit as if you had a longer trump fit. In the example hand we have 9 spades and 8 diamonds, count as if we had 10 spades, for which Klinger suggests deducting a loser.

These adjustments cover side suit fit nicely but aren't over complicated.

[ArcLight]

Earl, I like your article.


> One feature that LTC lacks is side-suit fitting. Thus

> Axxx x KQxxx Jxx

> is a 7-loser support for partner's spade suit, regardless of how well he "fits" with your diamonds.

MLTC wont always work out (no system will), but it may work the majority of the time.

You might try a splinter 4♥ (though you only have 10 HCP as responder, rather than say 12 HCP).
You have a 5-4 trump fit headed by the Ace, so that may be worth a bit extra.
You have 7 losers, pards opener is usually no worse than 7 losers, so 24-14=10, you probably have at least enough for game. You wont always make it, but you will the majority of the time.
If partner has a great hand, say 5 losers, slam is still possible, though a Blackwood response by him may end up in a 5♠ contract when he finds out you have a single Ace/Key Card.




>There are some easy adjustments for fit that Klinger doesn't treat but can increase the accuracy of LTC:

>1. When assesing losers in trumps, always assume you have 3 cards. So in a 6-2 fit if your trumps are Ax count 2 losers, not 1.

He suggests penalizing for a 5-3 trump fit, unless the 3 card partner has a top honor. In this case, with a 6-2 fit, you might not be at as big a disadvantage vs. a 4-1 distrubution since you can ruff from thelong hand without losing control, though the short hand can't ruff much.


>2. In partner's side suit (IF the bidding context makes it probable that he has length and strength in the suit), count losers if signleton or void as if you had a doubleton: x or void is 2 losers, A stiff is 1 loser, K stiff is 1 loser (your lose the mythical x but the King is no longer a singleton and isn't a loser.)

I don't think Klinger addresses this, though thats covered under Splinter bids in some sources (such as Mike Lawrences CD Rom - Conventions). I'd use the bidding conventions as a guide in drawing inferences, rather than LTC.


> 3. Count a double fit as if you had a longer trump fit. In the example hand we have 9 spades and 8 diamonds, count as if we had 10 spades, for which Klinger suggests deducting a loser.

Klinger does mention "Cover Cards" as an alternative/supplementary method.
He also mentions Trial Bids (in this case a Long Suit Trial Bid), where if the bidding is : 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♦ partner is asking for help in Diamonds, you raise to game if you have 0-1 loser in the side suit asked.

Since Trial bids don't seem to be widely used this may not be helpful.



What I'm trying to use MLTC for is help me with borderline cases. Say I have some cover cards, maybe I should raise pard an extra notch, or not. I'm not using MLTC to replace my bidding system.