[ArcLight]

I'm reading Ron Klingers MODERN LOSING TRICK COUNT and its quite interesting. Some of it can be used with many bidding systems, but some of the responses are unique to it alone.

Does anyone use Modern Losing Trick Count when bidding?
What about the conventions (like Long Suit Trial Bid o 2NT to switch to Short Suit Trial bid?).

Or has this system beed tested and found wanting?

I'm relatively new to Bridge and am interested in learning a good bidding system (and would like to avoid wsting a few years going down a dead end with an inferior system).

It seems to me the advantage of LTC is it may give away a little less information to the opponents than some other systems.

[EarlPurple]

LTC is a means of hand-evaluation and not a bidding system.

[Fluffy]

Some of my junior team-amtes play a losing-trick based system, I think it only counts HCP with balanced hands, and losers on the rest.

[Free]

I'm used to base my bidding on LTC. Together with my partner, we usually reach the correct level, and won't go for a number after preemptive bidding. We use LTC to open (13+HCP or -7LTC with less HCP at 1-level) and HCP for balanced hands, LTC for preempts as well, and also for overcalling. This helps partner to support to whatever level he thinks we can make, or to a level to defend in when Doubled.

[ArcLight]

EarlPurple, on Jul 20 2004, 07:51 AM, said:

LTC is a means of hand-evaluation and not a bidding system.

The book Modern Losing Trick Count actually has it's own bidding system, with specific responses, so its not just an evaluative function. There are specific responses to request/pass information from/to partner.


I wonder how the method in the book performs over a large number of boards.

[Flame]

EarlPurple, on Jul 20 2004, 07:51 AM, said:

LTC is a means of hand-evaluation and not a bidding system.

This is not the all truth.
LTC has more power when both players base their bids on it.
Ill give very simple non exact example just to explain my point.
One suit
Axx
vs
Q10x

If both play LTC the Axx count 2 losers and by doing that underevaluation his hand, while his partner also counting 2 losers in this suit and overevalution his hand, this turn out to give them an accurate evaluation of 1 loser in this suit.
If only one of them was using LTC , if that was the play with the A , the partnership would have undervalued the hand, and if it was the player with the Q the partnership would have overvalued the hand.

[whereagles]

The LTC doesn't always work well, even with all the recommended adjustments. But, for hands with a good fit, it's definitely better than any other method I know. It has a different approach than point-count based methods, which is much more logical and more in line with the spirit of trump contracts.

[Cascade]

I remember reading an analysis of various methods of hand evaluation where Losing Trick Count (LTC) was judged to be very poor.

This suited me because LTC by itself is not one of my favoured methods of judgement. I once had a partner who was very fond of LTC I used to say that the best use of LTC was after I had made a bad bid then I could say to my partner "I had to bid that way I had 8 losers".

Having said this the concept of losers is a very good one. And much judgement in the bidding (especially at high levels) is based on estimating how many cover cards partner is likely to have.

A cover card is a card that will cover one of your losers.

[Free]

It's also useful in defense! If partner opened (low or high level, whatever), you know how many losers he has. After some tricks, you'll know a lot of his distribution and HCP, so you can count his losers and place other honours as well.

When we have a sacrifice bid, we can also use this method. We use LOTT and LTC count to determine weither or not to sacrifice. We know how many trick we will make, so we'll know what they'll make, and we can penalty Dbl quite often in MP-events for -1 instead of sacrificing.

[ArcLight]

Cascade, on Jul 21 2004, 04:43 AM, said:

I remember reading an analysis of various methods of hand evaluation where Losing Trick Count (LTC) was judged to be very poor.

I would like to clarify something. I'm referring to the book Modern Losing Trick Count and the method presented there. Not just "count your losers". The book has some interesting methods (Long Suit Trials) to try and measure the fit.

All the same, I' would be very interested in seeing the analysis of hand evaluation that says MLTC is poor. I wonder how it compares to ZAR points?

I'm interested in learning judgement to help evaluate hand shape. MLTC and ZAR points at least have helped me think about unbalanced hands.

Another Ron Klinger book on the subject is THE POWER OF SHAPE. While it has some good ideas, overall I didn't care for it as much. It did teach me about Puppet Stayman, and I wonder if thats worth using.

[MickyB]

Yes, LTC is a very poor method of evaluation. It overemphasises shape compared to high cards, if you compare it to counting points, with 3 points per trick (40/13 being just over 3) then you can see it equates to a 9-6-3 shortage count. I think this means it assumes that you have the ability to ruff all partner's losers in the suit (when you are the short trump hand), and that he doesn't have any wasted honours there. Also it is hideously inaccurate if you count Axx = Qxx, or xxxx as only 3 losers. Some of Klinger's adjustments are poor, sometimes adding a jack to the hand means you should treat it as having 0.5 more losers. Finally, if you use it for opening bids then you will overbid wildly when you have no fit.

[Free]

If you treat Qxx as 2 losers, you're the loser imo. This is at least 2.5 losers! If you count 1 loser for each missing top honour, it's indeed a very poor method. However, if you adjust a little here and there, you get to an accurate evaluation method to find out if game is possible or not. I've been playing this for several years now, and I haven't had much problems with it, which proves imo that it's not a poor evaluation method the way I play it.

I haven't read that book, and I'm not planning to anyway. Seems like the standard "modern losing trick count" is poor, but adjust it and you get a whole other picture...

[MickyB]

Yes, Qxx is 2.5 losers, and Axx is probably 1.5. Without this 'adjustment' it is almost useless. However, as I've said, this is only the start of LTCs problems.

I've had someone else tell me that they have had 'no problems' with it, so it proves its a good method.

Have you ever reached a bad game using this method?

If so, how do you know there aren't better methods?

[Free]

Ofcourse we reached some poor games, but we reached a lot more sharp games which not many others found. A good method is a method which gains more than it loses, so this is a good method. I don't say there aren't any better ways, but this one works quite well, and is quite easy imo. Don't have to remember 1000 rules and adjustments...

[ArcLight]

Klinger addresses your concern (Qxx = Axx, and Qxx = just 2 losers). He gives rough ranges of losers for a bid/response, and explains that if partner raises you, then its likely taht you have the bulk of the HCP and that while Qxx by itself isnt that valuable, its is if its opposite AKxx.

I specifically would like to hear from people WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK and can relate their experiences USING THE METHODS PRESENTED IN THE BOOK.

Im particularly interested in his long/short suit trial bid response.

Also, keep in mind, that the MLTC is an alternative method and you are not forced to obey it. But it might be interesting to see how it does on some hands that you mis bid.


> Finally, if you use it for opening bids then you will overbid wildly when you have no fit.

Meaning you will open 1 of asuit when you should other wise pass? That doesn't seem to terrible. If you open light and pard raises you to 2, you will pass. Maybe it causes some unlikely contracts to be bid? On the other hand maybe some of those set contracts pre-empt the opponents makeable 4 of a major contract and are worth while.


>Also it is hideously inaccurate if you count Axx = Qxx, or xxxx as only 3 losers.

For xxxx to = 4 losers means the suit must be lead 4 times. If declarer has xxxx opposite xxx or xxxx he's not likely to be leading that suit. So the opps need to have xxxx and lead it 4 times, with it never being ruffed. That can happen, but in general I dont think xxxx will usually result in more than 3 losers.

I dont think Modern LTC is 100% accurate, there will always be unusual hands. Might it help non-experts become a bit more aggressive in their bidding?

[whereagles]

I have dificulties finding a pard to play the full system. However, I often use it unilateraly, deciding whether or not I should invite game/slam or pass an invitation. It turns out ok more often than now.

As for playing long/short suit trials, I don't think that has much to do with the LTC. It's more of a method to see how well hands fit.

[ArcLight]

> As for playing long/short suit trials, I don't think that has much to do with the LTC. It's more of a method to see how well hands fit.

I think it does, because a Long/Short Suit Trial bid is an artificial bid that asks pard if he/she can help you with your long/short suit. You would not use this convention otherwise.
Thus you can't fully use MLTC without pards cooperation.

[whereagles]

What I mean is you can use it with any other evaluation method. It doesn't require LTC to be useful.

Actually, I found that chapter of the book a mere advertisement for dual suit trials

[Cascade]

ArcLight, on Jul 22 2004, 05:16 AM, said:

I specifically would like to hear from people WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK and can relate their experiences USING THE METHODS PRESENTED IN THE BOOK.

Im particularly interested in his long/short suit trial bid response.

I have used this method directly out of the book but not for a number of years.

It is a good method in that you can describe in a systematic way a variety of different hand types. However it is also a bit of a gadget and there are better methods available I believe.

I agree with Bergen that after 1Maj 2Maj that game tries are the wrong way around in that the wide range hand is telling - it is much better if the narrow range (2Maj raise) hand could tell what he has.

With this in mind we are currently changing our invitational structure so that most game invites will go through one bid. Bergen uses 2NT but we are going to use the next free bid:

1♥ 2♥
2♠ I am interested in game - tell me what you have got.

1♠ 2♠
2NT I am interested in game - tell me what you have got.

Bergen by default shows doubletons at the three-level and a second suit at the four-level in response to his 2NT game try. I am still experimenting with what we will show. We have some different problems to Bergen since we open with four-card majors and raise fairly freely with three-card support. This means that we need to keep 3NT in the picture more often.

[whereagles]

That looks like a more sensible approach to me. I'll give it a thought.