[pirate22]

For Majors we have the above LTC {Harrison Gray} but there are other versions..My query is as follows,
Is there a Formulae for Minors on the same line???

[nige1]

The Losing Trick Count (Courtenay and Walshe 1935) is an effective rule of thumb. It is especially useful in evaluating suit contracts, whether they be major or minor.

[barmar]

I think the sense of pirate's question may be that we have a rule of thumb that if the total losers in the two hands is 14 or less, that's enough for a game in a major, so what's the corresponding total for a minor?

Since making a game in a minor requires one more trick than a major, that means one less loser. So the answer is 13.

[kenrexford]

The Q&A in this thread seems like a giant "Duh," but that may be misleading.

The reliability of bridge tools is sometimes tied to a specific ratio of offense-to-defense tricks and other assumptions. For example, the Law of Total Tricks requires a range of HCP spread of about 17-23 for each side, and works better at the lower levels of total tricks (breaks down more frequently at the 21+ total trick count).

LTC may work best when assessing trick-taking capacity when the goal is 10 tricks for the offense and 3 tricks for the defense. It MIGHT break down somewhat as you approach a purer result of slams and minor-suit games. I mean, how many times do you have 18 tricks available after the opponents cash two? Cover cards analysis in this respect seems to work much better at the higher levels than the formula of adding losing trick counts for each hand and subtracting that sum from 24. What precise impact that has, I do not know. However, this might be an interesting theory question to explore. At what point does the pure "subtract from 24" analysis break down sufficiently to be unreliable as a rough estimate of playing strength?

[Phil]

Cherdano to the ER...

paging Cherdano

[Siegmund]

I will stick with the "giant-DUH answer:" my impression is that in general LTC is as good for slams as for games (which is to say, shaky if you use the losers+losers method, and remarkably good if counting losers-covers.) It does quite a lot less well at the partscore level, because the holdings it has trouble evaluating are the weak ones (treating Qxx opp xxx and Axx opp JTx the same) that occur frequently on 20-point deals and much less frequently on 30-point deals.

[barmar]

What I like about LTC is how neatly it tends to correspond to the useful ranges of hand strengths. A 7-loser hand is an opener or game forcing responder. 6 losers will open and then usually invite game if partner responds, 8 losers will accept invitations. 5 losers will open and then force to game if partner responds. 4 losers will often make a strong, forcing opening (e.g. 2♣).

However, you can't just go by LTC alone, it mostly works for balanced and semi-balanced hands. A "classic" weak 2 hand usually has about 7 losers, but that doesn't make it equivalent to a 1-level opener.

[pirate22]

interesting reples...without using law of total tricks.i find the LTC for majors 95% accurate... so ther must be a formulae for minors--- any other suggestions

[pirate22]

interesting reples...without using law of total tricks.i find the LTC for majors 95% accurate... so ther must be a formulae for minors--- any other suggestions

[han]

Our game and slam bidding improved greatly since my partner and I started using the losing trick count (LTC).

The other day for instance I opened 1S holding Qxxxx x Qxxx QJx, a 7-loser hand. My partner invited holding AJx Axx AJx A10xx and since I was vulnerable I decided to bid the excellent game. At the other table my counterpart passed, probably because he was using stone age evaluation methods. After my teammates preempted with 2H, the opponent holding my partner's hand bid 2NT (counting the 8-loser hand as "18 HCP", LOL!) and even then my hand did not go to game. When will they learn???

In the same match I opened 1S on AKJxxx Ax AKx Ax, a 4-loser hand. When my partner bid a GF 2C on Qxxx x QJxx Qxxxx I was able to show my strong suit and 4-loser hand by jumping to 4S. My partner showed excellent judgement by cuebidding 5H and later admitted to holding the diamond queen, which made me bid 7S. At the other table they did not even find the small slam after overbidding by opening 2C on my hand (counting HCP I am sure) and my teammates again preempted in hearts.

Adopting LTC is the best thing that ever happened to our partnership.

[rduran1216]

LTC is an excellent idea, and works wonders for competitive decisions. I can't imagine not using it, at least in terms of judgement regarding how good my hand actually is with known distributional things.

[helene_t]

LTC sucks.

If you really really want to use it, then:
- make sure you make the most obvious adjustments, at least add half a loser for each queen in a 3+ suit and subtract half a loser for each ace in a 2+ suit
- use it only when you have a 9-card trump fit or better. With only an 8-card trump fit, LTC overestimates the value of shortnesses.
- never use unadjusted LTC when playing with someone who uses more sensible evaluation. The main problem with unadjusted LTC is that it overstates the queens and understates the aces. Now if you have queens and no aces then your p is likely to have aces and no queens so at least there is a decent chance that one players under-evaluation will be balanced by the other player's over-evaluation. But if only one partner uses unadjusted LTC then it's a disaster.

But it is better and simpler just to use HCP and then add/subtract a little for shape and working/nonworking honors.

[blackshoe]

 helene_t, on 2011-January-01, 17:13, said:

LTC sucks.

Sure. That's why Ron Klinger wrote a book about it, and why the first chapter of at least two of George Rosenkranz' books talks about it.

Hand evaluation is not a science, it's an art. No mechanical method is perfect. They all require judgment.

[helene_t]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-01, 18:11, said:

Hand evaluation is not a science, it's an art. No mechanical method is perfect. They all require judgment.

Look, I am not an idiot. I know that.

But some methods are less accurate than others. LTC, as it it used by most club players at least in my circles, values a queen in a 3-card suit the same as an ace. That is just ridiculous.

[straube]

 helene_t, on 2011-January-01, 18:28, said:

Look, I am not an idiot. I know that.

But some methods are less accurate than others. LTC, as it it used by most club players at least in my circles, values a queen in a 3-card suit the same as an ace. That is just ridiculous.

I like the Modern LTC method as written about by Ron Klinger. There are many adjustments but the basic idea is to count an ace as -.5 loser and a queen as +.5 loser and a king as 0 loser.

[the hog]

 helene_t, on 2011-January-01, 18:28, said:

Look, I am not an idiot. I know that.

But some methods are less accurate than others. LTC, as it it used by most club players at least in my circles, values a queen in a 3-card suit the same as an ace. That is just ridiculous.

Ah, but then Helene they are not using the LTC correctly, are they? I find LTC a usefult tool, and like anything, Zar points, MW points, Kaplan points etc etc, they all are just tools which as Blackshoe says, all require judgement.

[blackshoe]

Indeed. I know you're not an idiot, Helene but, well, lots of people read this forum.

[lexlogan]

 helene_t, on 2011-January-01, 17:13, said:

LTC sucks.

If you really really want to use it, then:
- make sure you make the most obvious adjustments, at least add half a loser for each queen in a 3+ suit and subtract half a loser for each ace in a 2+ suit
- use it only when you have a 9-card trump fit or better. With only an 8-card trump fit, LTC overestimates the value of shortnesses.
- never use unadjusted LTC when playing with someone who uses more sensible evaluation. The main problem with unadjusted LTC is that it overstates the queens and understates the aces. Now if you have queens and no aces then your p is likely to have aces and no queens so at least there is a decent chance that one players under-evaluation will be balanced by the other player's over-evaluation. But if only one partner uses unadjusted LTC then it's a disaster.

But it is better and simpler just to use HCP and then add/subtract a little for shape and working/nonworking honors.

Agree completely. You could apply LTC using a point count method as follows: Count each Ace, King and Queen as worth 3 points, except singleton Kings and doubleton Queens count zero. Count each card over three in any suit as 3 points. Bid game in a major with 30 points, in a minor with 33 points, bid slam with 36 points (3 points per trick.)

Oh, wait, Aces are worth more than Kings, and Queens are worth less. Let's make it 4 for an Ace, 2 for a Queen. And the fourth card in a suit isn't always a trick, count it as only 1 point. Your hand gets better with a fit, and Jacks are worth something...any of this sound familiar? LTC is a crude tool; the only advantage is that it gets you thinking in terms of tricks. I certainly use the idea of losers/cover cards, which I picked up from George Rosenkranz; I use my knowledge of partner's hcp to estimate how many of my losers he can cover.

[lexlogan]

 han, on 2011-January-01, 16:16, said:

Our game and slam bidding improved greatly since my partner and I started using the losing trick count (LTC).

The other day for instance I opened 1S holding Qxxxx x Qxxx QJx, a 7-loser hand. My partner invited holding AJx Axx AJx A10xx and since I was vulnerable I decided to bid the excellent game. At the other table my counterpart passed, probably because he was using stone age evaluation methods. After my teammates preempted with 2H, the opponent holding my partner's hand bid 2NT (counting the 8-loser hand as "18 HCP", LOL!) and even then my hand did not go to game. When will they learn???

Your partner "invited" with that hand? I'd be inviting or more likely bidding slam, which would be a heavy favorite opposite an opening bid. I assume you alerted your opponents to your extremely light opening bid style.

Any rational application of LTC would rate your hand as at least 8 losers, and partner's hand as 5+ cover cards. The preempt happened to catch the two hands with some borderline decisions; such is bridge. You will suffer far more in competition opening hands with no defensive strength, unless perhaps you illegally conceal your methods from your opponents and gain from their confusion.

[rduran1216]

 lexlogan, on 2011-January-01, 22:26, said:

Your partner "invited" with that hand? I'd be inviting or more likely bidding slam, which would be a heavy favorite opposite an opening bid. I assume you alerted your opponents to your extremely light opening bid style.

Any rational application of LTC would rate your hand as at least 8 losers, and partner's hand as 5+ cover cards. The preempt happened to catch the two hands with some borderline decisions; such is bridge. You will suffer far more in competition opening hands with no defensive strength, unless perhaps you illegally conceal your methods from your opponents and gain from their confusion.

his was obviously a joke post.

And an unfunny one at that.