Help
I really like LTC -- it tells me the very optimistic view of distributional hands, assuming that none of partner's cover cards is wasted. (And of course I don't count Axx and Qxx as two losers, this is and has always been ridiculous.) And you have to be sure that you have enough trumps+hcp firepower to not loose control before establishing long suits. Taking all this into account, I find it really useful as an upper bound of the playing strength of distributional hands.
Arend
BPO-004C
#41
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2005-July-13, 17:42
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#42
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2005-July-13, 18:07
3S seems ideal. I have a pure 6-loser hand and need to let partner know not to worry too much about the 1N bid as my spades are pretty darn good. To me, 3C sound like a hand concerned about the spade quality, not a game try.
WinstonM
WinstonM
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#43
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2005-July-14, 03:31
MickyB, on Jul 13 2005, 06:40 PM, said:
OK, one of my bugbears...
Losing Trick Count. It is a very inaccurate method of hand evaluation - basically, it gives no values to tens or jacks, is frequently applied in a way that doesn't give proportional values to the top honours, and overvalues shape in comparison to high cards by assuming that there will be no wastage opposite. 4.5-3.0-1.5-0.75-0.25 honours count and 5-3-1 shortage count is a much better way of evaluating your hand (although obviously it requires further adjustments for supporting honours/bare honours, honours in short suits/long suits, etc). Compare this to LTC, which is basically a 4.5-3.0-1.5 honours count with a 9-6-3 shortage count.
You can read Neil Cohen's critique of the LTC here.
Losing Trick Count. It is a very inaccurate method of hand evaluation - basically, it gives no values to tens or jacks, is frequently applied in a way that doesn't give proportional values to the top honours, and overvalues shape in comparison to high cards by assuming that there will be no wastage opposite. 4.5-3.0-1.5-0.75-0.25 honours count and 5-3-1 shortage count is a much better way of evaluating your hand (although obviously it requires further adjustments for supporting honours/bare honours, honours in short suits/long suits, etc). Compare this to LTC, which is basically a 4.5-3.0-1.5 honours count with a 9-6-3 shortage count.
You can read Neil Cohen's critique of the LTC here.
On the other hand, the LTC is the only evaluation method known to mankind that correctly deals with extra lenght in suits...
#44
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,290
- Joined: 2004-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, England
Posted 2005-July-14, 03:45
Lol Whereagles, right you are 
Noone else knows that when you have a four card suit, it will always split 3-3-3 around the table 
Fair enough Arend, but so many people use LTC as their only method of hand evaluation once a fit has been found.
Noone else knows that when you have a four card suit, it will always split 3-3-3 around the table Fair enough Arend, but so many people use LTC as their only method of hand evaluation once a fit has been found.
#45
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,606
- Joined: 2003-June-06
Posted 2005-July-14, 04:19
I am never a fan of LTC. My opinion is that Lawrence's Hand evaluation is much more helpful.
Talking about LTC isolatedly is meaningless. It must be viewed in context.
Talking about LTC isolatedly is meaningless. It must be viewed in context.
#46
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,437
- Joined: 2004-August-29
- Gender:Female
- Location:Switzerland
Posted 2005-July-15, 07:06
Contestant's answers:
3♣ 14
3♠ 6
2♠ 6
4♠ 3
3♣ 14
3♠ 6
2♠ 6
4♠ 3
My addiction to Mario Bros #3 has come back!