[Kingjy1]

Just an inquiry to have an idea of how many players of any level who use
or used to count ` losing tricks count`` in bidding suit contracts.

As for my partneship I just want to mention that our bridge game improved a lot after putting this theory in practice (after we adapted it to our praferences).

The big starter was that Ron Klinger`s book.
(For those who know this book, we forget about half losing tricks and we promote cards in trumps suits)

Surely woud appreciate comments,
English is not my 1 st language

Kingjy

[ciscokid]

I as do my partner use the LTC excensively in evaluating hands. There are adjustments that can be made to make it even more effective, although like any tool, it is not perfect.

We have found it to be very effective in game evaluations, and not quite as effective in bidding slams.

Our responses to major suit raises over 1M-2N are based on LTC. For example:

1♠ - 2N (4+s game forcing)
3♣ = 7 loser hand
3♦= 6 loser hand

We have other more specific responses to show additional 5 card suits (which is more critical in slam bidding, as you need a source of tricks), shortness, more strength hands, etc. E-mail me and I can send you the various responses.

-CK

[Free]

Hi, welcome to the forum

I never read the book, but I always use some sort of Loser Trick Count to evaluate my hand. It's FAR better than hcp, and it's quite simple imo. I always count the amount of tricks I'll lose in a rather normal but positive situation, although some adjustments are made. Examples:
AQT = 1 loser: both honors are divided
AJ9 = 1 loser: a tophonour and the T are onside, the other tophonour offside (or both tophonours onside)
AQx = 1 loser: K onside
Kx = 1 loser. However if I have another Kx, I count them together as 3 losers.
Qxx = 2.5 losers
QTx = 2 losers, but again, with another Qxx or so I count them together as 5 losers
...
I haven't had much bad experience with them, and it's a very good way to know how high you can preempt, support,...

As CK said, it's good in game-bidding (and sacrifice-bidding), but not in slam bidding. Slams are too tight to base yourself on distribution alone. LTC uses both distribution and HCP, but not enough the real strength of the hand, more to the distribution, to be an accurate slam tool. However it can be a good signal to start investigating.

[paulhar]

I tend to use Rubens' adjusted LTC as a guide in close decisions.

(normal LTC, subtract 1/2 loser for an ace, add 1/2 loser for a twice guarded queen - the doubleton queen has already been counted as two losers)

Some other adjustments have to be made when given information. For example, if one partner has AQx and the other Kxx, the partnership total is three losers (3 losers for the partnership means no losers in the suit.) So, when one partner has a small singleton and the other one has KQx, the partnership has counted 2 1/2 losers (an extra half for the queen) which would imply minus 1/2 losers in that suit but clearly there is a loser. So, if partner SHOWS the singleton, I think you should count any holding that doesn't include the ace as close to three losers, so that the partnership counts four losers implying one loser in the suit. Likewise, you should count close to two losers for any suit including the ace.