| Losing trick count? |
|
Dear Ed and Peter, Ms Vee, Reply Ed Hoogenkamp (South) Dear Ms Vee, I have to guess and my guess is you mean: Losing Trick Count. I collected some links for you where you can read all about it. Peter knows a lot about losers. I would go as far as calling him an expert on the subject of losers. Un saludo desde Barcelona Reply Peter van der Linden (North) Dear Ms Vee, As I suppose you can google Losing Trick Count as well as anyone else (meaning: better than Ed can), I will give you some more information than Ed does. The LTC offers a different view on hand evaluation in situations where a fit has been established and the contract is going to be played in the suit in question (usually a major). An extreme example to give you an idea:
1 At least five-card suit and a seven loser hand (two spades, two hearts, one diamond and two clubs) 2 Spade fit, seven loser hand (one spade, two hearts, two diamonds and three clubs; but one loser deducted for the fourth spade, since three spades would have sufficed for the spade fit) East counted 7 (or fewer) losers + 7 losers = 14 losers, the maximum number at which game is justified. Indeed 4♠ is a reasonable (but only just) contract. I am not an LTC expert, however, so I am not sure whether every LTC-follower will open this West hand — but it does meet the demands as I have found them! Clearly a success for the LTC, since classical (!) point count bidders would open neither as West nor as East (perhaps NS rescue EW by opening but even then EW are unlikely to bid game). Many modern players, however, will open the West hand with 2♠, a weak two suiter (Tartan, Muiderberg) after which EW may end up in 4♠. Something to chew on: interchange East's minor suits and 4♠ is a poor contract. Yet the bidding would be the same... Long ago I have read some articles about the LTC and it always struck me that the method is very aggressive on wildly distributed hands with a fit. The consequence is that the partnership can easily end up too high when there turns out to be no fit. Take a look at these EW-hands:
1 Easily worth an opening bid using the LTC, with only six losers (one spade, two hearts, two diamonds and a club) I don't see how East can avoid game. And any game is far from a good proposition (to say the least). Furthermore: I have some doubts about the equal value of an ace and a king in the LTC in many situations. Look back at my first example: exchange West's ♦K for the ♦A, he has ♦KQ103 now. The LTC sequence will be exactly as it was (West still has only one diamond loser), but prospects for game are non-existent now. Next give West ♦AK103: again this doesn't make any difference for the LTC sequence. This time 4♠ is almost on ice. But once more: I am not an expert on the LTC, maybe I've missed something in giving these examples. So if the subject has caught your attention: read on (for instance in Ed's links). Incidentally, you shouldn't assume the LTC is ancient history! The method is still popular and has found new champions in (for instance) Ron Klinger and Crowhurst & Kambites. Ed is not one of them, by the way: staggering numbers of losers — 14 or even more, just imagine! — are far beyond his grasp, even if his sangria intake has been less than half of those numbers... But he is right in assuming I am an expert on the subject of losers. After all, I have known all about Ed since over 25 years! En hils fra Orkanger |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
