[blackshoe]

In Chapter 1 of his two volume opus on modern bidding, Max Hardy spends a lot of time talking about how HCP aren't the be-all and end-all of hand evaluation. "Fits, not points, take tricks," he says repeatedly. He extols the virtue of the splinter bid in allowing evaluation of degree of fit. Yet, in the second book, he says "Some experts use an additional evaluation method called the Losing Trick Count. That method is not recommended here."

WhyinHell not? I can see saying "I don't have time (or room, whatever) to get into it here" and maybe referring the reader to another source (Ron Klinger's The Modern Losing Trick Count is pretty good), but "not recommended" sounds like "this methods sucks", and if he's gonna say that I wish he'd said why he thinks that. Am I reading more into it than is there? Either way, the bottom line is "what's wrong with the LTC?"

[han]

This method sucks.

Added: ok, I guess I should write more than that. Just like HCP, losing trick count is just a simplistic method that has nothing to do with how well the hands fit. Moreover, the basic version of the method counts the same number of losers for a holding like AJ10x and Qxxx, while any bridge player knows that the first holding is much much better.

Of course people have tried to fix this by working with half losers and so on. But instead of trying to fix loser-count one is better off learning to evaluate hands without using a simple algoritm like that. True evaluation takes honor location, spot cards, exact shape and all the information available from the bidding into account. No method that aviods one of those factors can be good enough to use.

[awm]

Well I like LTC... to a degree. Let me point out a few problems though:

(1) LTC doesn't really work for notrump contracts. Here you're looking for a source of tricks and not just a lack of losers. For example, a 4441 shape and a 6322 shape both have ten losers before counting the honor cards. But a 6322 is a much better hand for notrump, especially if you can run the six card suit. Since a fairly high percentage of hands will end in 3NT, it seems silly to consider LTC much before a fit has been found.

(2) LTC doesn't really modify for having points in suits. For example consider these two hands:

xxxxxx
AKQ
xx
Ax

AKQxxx
Axx
xx
xx

Both hands have the same number of losers, yet the second hand is much better than the first.

(3) LTC needs obvious modification because aces are better than queens. Of course, there are ways to make these modifications. On the other hand, jacks and tens are also better than small cards, and this modification is more tricky to make.

(4) What's really important is thinking about how the hands fit together. While LTC is good as a vague guideline, usually you can get better information especially for slam decisions. For example, both of these hands have the same number of losers but one is MUCH better after you open 1♠ and hear a 4♣ splinter:

KJxxx
KQxx
x
Axx

KJxxx
Axx
x
KQxx

[skjaeran]

Hand evalutation is a complex area.
LTC is in fact a useful toy. But of course you use a huge variety of tools. Including hcp, fit, honour placement, controls, interiors, etc. Most of the time this is sub-conscious; I just count my hcp and can see if it's a good or bad 13-count, and later up- or downgrade as the bidding develop.

[ArtK78]

I have been using LTC for years when evaluating hands FOR SUIT PLAY. High card points are a very good tool when evaluating the trick taking potential of a balanced hand opposite a balanced hand for no trump play. LTC is a very good tool for evaluating trick taking potential of unbalanced hands with a fit.

More precisely, I use modified LTC as set forth in the Romex series by George Rosenkranz. Rather than determining the losers in each hand and subtracting from some number (is it 14?), Rosenkranz set forth a modified LTC method as follows:

Opener determines the number of losers in his hand. There is one loser in each suit for the number of cards in the suit held, up to a maximum of 3, less one for each Ace, King and Queen held. A singleton Queen or King is a loser, and a doubleton Queen is two losers. In other words, a Queen does not eliminate a loser unless 3 (or more) cards are held in a suit, and a King does not eliminate a loser unless 2 (or more) cards are held in a suit.

A normal minimum opening bid will have 7 losers. A good opening bid will have 6 losers. A very good opening bid will have 5 losers. A maximum opening one-bid (the type one will force to game with opposite a one-over-one response) will have 4 losers. A strong forcing-to-game opening bid will have 3 losers.

Responder counts potential cover cards - cards that can take care of opener's losers. Any top honor in a suit opener is known to hold 3 or more cards is a sure cover card. Any top honor in any other suit is a potential cover card. When a fit is known to exist, short suits in responder's hand are potential cover cards - a doubleton is one potential cover card, a singleton is two potential cover cards, and a void is 3 potential cover cards (if there are adequate trump in responder's hand).

As the bidding progresses, opener finds out how many known and potential cover cards are in responder's hand, and responder finds out how many losers are in opener's hand. Depending on how the bidding unfolds, one of the partners is the captain, and the other is the servant. Instead of using high-card points, responder's bids are geared to showning cover cards. A single raise of opener's 1 of a major suit opening is typically 1 1/2 to 2 cover cards. A limit raise is 2 1/2 to 3 cover cards. A game forcing raise is 3 1/2 or more cover cards.

The bidding may allow responder to determine which of his potential cover cards are working, and which are not. If responder determines, for example, that he has 4 working cover cards opposite opener's 5 loser hand, the partnership is in the slam range.

Thinking in terms of losers and cover cards rather than other more typical forms of hand evaluation takes some getting used to, but it is very accurate.

[pclayton]

LTC is a reasonable way to evaluate hands. With a 9 card or longer fit, its very good for bid game / sign off decisions.

Klinger's Modern Losing Trick Count is a good book for a player that wants to make better bidding decisions. Klinger says you can use it for slam bidding, but I haven't found that to be true, but sometimes I'll check after the hand if in fact

With an 8 card fit is it less reliable. For NT its pretty worthless.

By the way, I disagree with a lot of what Hardy says. Many of his methods have been ignored out by modern partnerships.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Skaeran - although if one is going to call LTC a toy, one should in all fairness also call the Work point count a toy.

I'd call them tools. I'd say both have their place, and as long as you keep the downside to either in mind, I see no harm in using either one, or both of them. If you don't keep the downsides in mind, both of them will lead you astray.

[kenrexford]

It seems to me that HCP and LTC are both tools for defining definitional bids. Fit analysis looks at cards as they fit into the defined parameters of the HCP/LTC descriptions.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on Sep 15 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

In Chapter 1 of his two volume opus on modern bidding, Max Hardy spends a lot of time talking about how HCP aren't the be-all and end-all of hand evaluation. "Fits, not points, take tricks," he says repeatedly. He extols the virtue of the splinter bid in allowing evaluation of degree of fit. Yet, in the second book, he says "Some experts use an additional evaluation method called the Losing Trick Count. That method is not recommended here."

WhyinHell not? I can see saying "I don't have time (or room, whatever) to get into it here" and maybe referring the reader to another source (Ron Klinger's The Modern Losing Trick Count is pretty good), but "not recommended" sounds like "this methods sucks", and if he's gonna say that I wish he'd said why he thinks that. Am I reading more into it than is there? Either way, the bottom line is "what's wrong with the LTC?"

Forum members and some bridge writers seem to hate any formula or algorithm for hand evaluation. They prefer experience and judgement which of course is just another word for them having some kind of formula but unable to express in words exactly what it is.
By definition any bridge formula is going to have to be imperfect, but I think the real test is it better(winning) more than whatever you are currently using(read judgement and experience).
If not then try and put down into words what judgement and experience you are using that is producing better results and post it here please.

[cherdano]

Personally I hate losing trick count. Many of the worst posts on hand evaluation I see on this forum (just in my opinion of course...) are justified by counting losers. HCP with automatic up-and-downgrading as skaeran describes seems to work much better (if you remember to upgrade enough when you have a shapely hand with a big fit).

When you have a big fit, LTc may work well, but then it is also very easy, and much better, to just imagine typical hands by partner and see how many tricks you will lose. ("Hmm, he promised 8-10 hcp, odds are half of them are opposite my void and the other half opposite my xxx suit, so I am going to lose 1-2 tricks, 2 more often than 1.")

[mikeh]

mike777, on Sep 15 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 15 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

In Chapter 1 of his two volume opus on modern bidding, Max Hardy spends a lot of time talking about how HCP aren't the be-all and end-all of hand evaluation. "Fits, not points, take tricks," he says repeatedly. He extols the virtue of the splinter bid in allowing evaluation of degree of fit. Yet, in the second book, he says "Some experts use an additional evaluation method called the Losing Trick Count. That method is not recommended here."

WhyinHell not? I can see saying "I don't have time (or room, whatever) to get into it here" and maybe referring the reader to another source (Ron Klinger's The Modern Losing Trick Count is pretty good), but "not recommended" sounds like "this methods sucks", and if he's gonna say that I wish he'd said why he thinks that. Am I reading more into it than is there? Either way, the bottom line is "what's wrong with the LTC?"

Forum members and some bridge writers seem to hate any formula or algorithm for hand evaluation. They prefer experience and judgement which of course is just another word for them having some kind of formula but unable to express in words exactly what it is.
By definition any bridge formula is going to have to be imperfect, but I think the real test is it better(winning) more than whatever you are currently using(read judgement and experience).
If not then try and put down into words what judgement and experience you are using that is producing better results and post it here please.

Hardy was the worst writer of any of the popular writers, in my view, and one of the least accomplished players as well: which may not be a coincidence

As for not liking any formula or algorithm for hand evaluation: I think the truth is that most accomplished bridge players dislike the notion that any one simplistic formula or algorithm can do an adequate job.

I think almost all good players can, and in this forum do, set out the various factors they weigh in valuing hands. But not one of them uses a single formula.

Speaking for myself, I use a host of factors, and on any given hand, I can quite readily explain which factors carry what weight. Not all of the factors play into every hand, and the weight given to any of them will vary not merely when I first pick up my hand but during every call taken by every other player.

I have several times written about factors I weigh in deciding whether and what to open... and for aggressive/conservative moves in later rounds... as have a number of others in this forum. But to expect anyone to actually post a treatise on hand evaluation is silly... and reflects a vey limited understanding of the topic. No one post... no one series of posts would be adequate... it's a book-length topic, all by itself.

LTC works for me: as one, and one relatively minor, factor in deciding whether to open a distributional hand and sometimes later in the auction: most typically when deciding how high to raise partner's major suit response to my 1-level opening.

Using simple rules is like using keycard on all slam auctions. It may strike the user as effective, but it limits one's potential.

[blackshoe]

I think you mean "using simple rules" alone, do you not?

[jdonn]

Is this the same Mike who blasted all the "experts" who claim not to use the rule of 11?

[mike777]

Bridge it a timed event, we must use a simple to use formula(read experience and judgement if you wish).

Of course just because a formula is simple to use and works(read winning) does not mean the person or persons who devised it are simplistic.

I have no idea what a simplistic or simple formula is but if it is a winning one I really do not care. If it is not a winning one I would just call it a worthless formula. To repeat it must be a simple to use formula, bridge is a timed event. Also just because one formula is winning does not mean we should not be open to improved versions.

If using LTC leads to more winning than whatever you use, great, just keep an open mind for a better formula. If using LTC or any formula retards or hinders you from improving, do not use it. Just do not think you are not using any formula, your only other choice it to make random bids. If you are making some sort of a structured bid you are using some formula even one you may not be able to fully express in words.

Keep in mind LTC is a book, in fact several books and LTC is just one tiny part of hand evaluation. We do not have time to go through a book of decisions for each bid, we need to use an easy to use formula.

btw if I recall Klinger says in his book to not use LTC in deciding to open a hand or not. It is to be used only once a fit is found. I do see many refer to LTC or losing trick count on deciding to open or not.

[ArcLight]

>btw if I recall Klinger says in his book to not use LTC in deciding to open a hand or not. It is to be used only once a fit is found. I do see many refer to LTC or losing trick count on deciding to open or not.

Mike is correct. Klinger warns against counting losers BEFORE finding a fit. And he suggests that a 9 card fit makes this method more accurate, probably because you can ruff losers and or avoid nasty breaks.

[blackshoe]

George Rosenkranz, in the Romex system, specifies loser count with some opening bids - in conjunction with HCP. The error Klinger points out is in using LTC alone to define opening bids.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on Sep 15 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

George Rosenkranz, in the Romex system, specifies loser count with some opening bids - in conjunction with HCP. The error Klinger points out is in using LTC alone to define opening bids.

Precisely. LTC is an adjunct to other metrics, useful (in my view) for making decisions on hands that are borderline, using other metrics.

[the hog]

LTC is fine once a fit is found; to dismiss it out of hand as some posters have done is naive. Like all evaluation methods it has its good and bad points - look at Adam's post.

[blackshoe]

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2007, 03:07 AM, said:

LTC is fine once a fit is found; to dismiss it out of hand as some posters have done is naive. Like all evaluation methods it has its good and bad points - look at Adam's post.

"Dismiss it out of hand" is precisely what Max Hardy did - which is what gave rise to my question here.