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???
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.
lexlogan, on 2011-January-01, 22:33, said:
Counting winners rather than losers, that makes for a 1.5-1.0-0.5 count, equivalent to the well-known Four Aces 3-2-1 count. LTC is a good way to get started thinking about tricks rather than points, a way to begin to visualize. But the number of adjustments needed to apply LTC sensibly makes it just as complex and no more accurate than standard point count methods.
My father, Charles Guthrie, taught the
Wining Trick Count to me, an arithmetically challenged kid. He based his simplificatons on the scheme to which LexLogan refers.
The LTC and the WTC produce the same results but the latter uses addition instead of subtraction:
- High Cards: Ace = 1.5 trick. King = 1 trick. Queen = 0.5 trick.
- Shape: Void = 3 tricks. Singleton = 2 tricks. Doubleton = 1 trick.
- Adustment: Discount singleton kings and doubleton queens.
- Refinement: Honours work best in long suits and in combination (re-enforcing each other). Also adjust slightly for suit-texture (tens and spot-cards).
- Re-assessment: Initial evaluation is optimistic. In the light of the auction, down-grade for duplication. For instance king opposite splinter. Or mirror-distribution. Also downgrade for bad position. For example honours in suits bid on your left.
- Trump control = 1 trick. Add a trick if your combined trump holding is likely to be sufficient to draw trumps and ruff losers. This normally requires at least an eight-card fit.
- Trick expectancy: Add your tricks to the tricks partner has shown. Count trump-control once, at most.
Han's first example:
- ♠ Qxxxx ♥ x ♦ Qxxx ♣ QJx: High cards = 1.5. Shape = 2. Total = 3.5
- ♠ AJx ♥ Axx ♦ AJx ♣ A10xx: High cards = 6. Total = 6.
- Add 1 trick for trump control. Trick expectation = 3.5 + 6 + 1 = 10.5.
- (Not bad)
Han's second example:
- ♠ AKJxxx ♥ Ax ♦ AKx ♣ Ax: High cards = 8. Shape = 2. Total = 10
- ♠ Qxxx ♥ x ♦ QJxx ♣ Qxxxx: High cards = 1.5. Shape = 2. Total = 3.5
- Add 1 trick for trump control. Trick expectation = 10 + 3.5 +1 = 14.5.
- (WTC over-estimates here, since, in fact, we have nothing to spare).
The usual cacophony of LOLs is expected
Especially since I've taken Han's examples seriously
Nevertheless, the LTC withstands the test of time. (from 1935 to date).
Whereas other seminal ideas go in an out of fashion over long periods. Thus,
Total Tricks (a closely related idea) is currently unpopular but, in the past, had its moments
- 1966 Bridge moderne de la défense: Jean-rené Vernes.
- 1981 TNT and Competitive Bidding: Joe Amsbury & Dick Payne.
- 1992 To Bid Or Not to Bid: The Law of Total Tricks: Larry Cohen.
Help
Whatever, 