[Knurdler]

Many players at our bridge club use the losing trick count with A, K, Q all = 1 (LTC).
I have been using the New Losing Trick Count (NLTC) by Johannes Koelman as a check on my bidding and I find it helpful.
Now I have just read Ron Klinger’s book on the Modern Losing Trick Count (MLTC).

I enjoyed Klingers book but it raises more questions. Klinger confirms that his MLTC should only be used after a fit is found but then assesses the MLTC for opening hands – which must be before a fit is found. Later in the book, he says a 9 card fit is good and to add a loser for an 8 card fit. Conveniently most of his examples had a 9 card fit. It seemed to me that Klinger did not add this extra loser in most of his other examples. Did I misunderstand?

Where can I find a more than just a couple of pages discussion of the NLTC?

Out of curiosity, I applied the NLTC to every one of Klinger’s examples and usually came to the same loser count and never more than 0.5 loser difference. If MLTC deducts from 24 and the NLTC deducts from 25, the NLTC is predicting 1 more trick. How can this be?

Any thoughts on which losing trick count method I should use?

Our best club player states “only losers count losers”. Is this maybe misdirection? Do top players use some sort of losing trick count?

Thanks again

[jillybean]

Where is MikeH?

[eagles123]

The losing trick count is a rough guide for beginner level players. I really wouldn't bother worrying about it too much beyond that level. If "Many players of your club" are using such a method then they're probably not very good players.

[jillybean]

eagles123, on 2025-June-27, 14:29, said:

The losing trick count is a rough guide for beginner level players. I really wouldn't bother worrying about it too much beyond that level. If "Many players of your club" are using such a method then they're probably not very good players.

It's a terrible guide for beginners, perpetuating the notion that this game can be played by following rules and counting "points".
IME there is no fast path to learning hand evaluation and bidding judgement.

[thepossum]

It's a guide sometimes and IMHO doesn't matter which you use
Works alright for me sometimes
A few adjustments occasionally etc
If everyone in a club uses the same method game theory possibly suggests mixing things up a bit
Recent example I managed a top by somehow being one of only two people to preempt 3 rather than 4

[DavidKok]

I'm quite fond of the losing trick count, as long as it's considered with the right perspective. If you're interested, I've spilled a ton of digital ink on the topics of hand evaluation in general and MLTC in particular on these fora.

I agree with Kathryn's last sentence - there is no shortcut to hand evaluation. To me that doesn't mean 'abandon all point methods' though, but rather 'do not be a zealot'. Having different tools at your disposal is useful and can assist you in learning hand evaluation.

[mike777]

I really like Klinger's book and approach, a lot.

I call Klinger's approach
Adjusted losing trick count.
Yes add a loser for 8 card fits.
Other adjustments in book
With practice it takes 2seconds.

Other authors have different versions.


Many if not most here disagree with LTC in general...

[jillybean]

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh however the number of times I've heard players say, with much conviction "I only had xx LTC" when they were cold for a game or "well I had xx LTC" when they bid a hopeless game or slam, I don't understand the attraction.

[DavidKok]

Losing Trick Count is a very divisive topic, and to be honest I don't really see the need for polarization. Some people love it, and then (in my opinion) go too far and rely on it too much, e.g. for deciding opening criteria, or as their only mode evaluation. Other people hate it, and dismiss the whole method as something for beginners. What's more, there are a lot of different flavours, and some have identical or very similar names (I think there's like three Modified LTCs, two Modern LTCs, a couple of New LTCs, and even debate on what the original LTC is). That's not helpful.

There are a lot of aspects of hand evaluation that a crude point count method like LTC doesn't capture, not even with adjustments. Factors such as "is my king doubleton protected" or "I have an unguarded queen in this suit - who bid it? My partner, my RHO or my LHO?". As the auction develops more and more information becomes available, which helps you evaluate your hand.
However, these factors being excluded is true for all simple point count methods. Whether you like HCP, Working Points, Cover Cards, Quick Tricks, Relay Points, Length-adjusted HCP, Kaplan-Rubens (yuck), ZZ Points, Zar Points, Banzai Points, Bergen Points, one of a dozen Losing Trick Counts or something else, they're all just crude formulae to give a coarse estimate of the strength of their hand. Some work better in some situations than others, some don't work at all, but if you pick your favourite one and replace all hand evaluation with it you will unsurprisingly look like a fool. Sadly most fools pick LTC, but from my perspective that's not a flaw inherent to the method.

I'll end with a little example hand from last night: ♠AJxx, ♥Axx, ♦Axxxx, ♣x. Vulnerable against not, I was dealer. We had the uncontested auction 1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♠; ? (do you approve of my bidding? ). My turn to decide. I quickly checked the Modified Losing Trick Count I'm fond of, just as a reference point. 1.5 losers in spades (K=1, Q=0.5), possibly a little less because of the jack. 1.5 losers in hearts (ditto) and diamonds (ditto). 1.5 losers in clubs (A = 1.5). That's 6 losers. In theory, that means if partner has 25 - 6 (my losers) - 10 (the tricks in a game contract) = 9 losers we're odds on for game, and 2♠ nominally shows 6-9 HCP or about 9 losers. What's more, I might be worth a slight upgrade because of the jack of spades which isn't counted but is valuable with the known fit, and my heart support is worth an upgrade as partner has hearts - my hand would be weaker if I were to swap the rounded suits. Add it all up and the MLTC screams to either blast game or invite.
Yet I believe that pass is correct. It's difficult to find a hand in the 6-9 range opposite that makes game good, especially since the opponents haven't come in with clubs. I tried picturing a few hands, and thought my best chances were if partner had short diamonds and I can ruff a bunch. Even then I needed a perfect maximum to have a chance at game. The moral is that point count methods are nice for getting a baseline, but they can not be the stopping point of hand evaluation if you want to actually make correct decisions at the table. Nevetheless I find value in the benchmark, even if it's crude.
My deal ended on a sad note: I passed, LHO overcalled 3♣, partner competed with 3♠, RHO raised 4♣, I doubled and set the contract by 2. During the play it came to light that partner had an 11-count 4=5=3=1 and misbid, thinking that 2♠-then-3♠ showed this range. 4♠ would have made on a winning finesse.

[thepossum]

I am passing - it is just an average opener - there are average opening hands then weak opening hands and strong ones.
TBH it's better than average but likely only make 3, but if I bid 3 partner may bid 4 etc
So on average in an average club how would it go. Pass

[pescetom]

I liked Davidkok's thoughtful contribution, even though I thought he was a tad generous towards this particular family of counting compared to the others.
Milton-Works HCP is both a little more useful IMO and also a necessary precaution for evaluation of legal compliance and disclosure issues.
But ultimately, distrust any partner who puts much emphasis on any form of bean counting.

[thepossum]

"legal compliance" could be a problem for me

if anyone takes the sense of judgment and fun and a bit of risk out of Bridge I am leaving

excuse me for being ignorant of all the laws but are points and losers and numbers of cards in suits set down in law

[jillybean]

David, I think it’s misleading to group LTC and HCP both as simple ,point count methods.
I may be wrong but my understanding is that LTC followers use simple HCP to determine if a hand meets the criteria to open and once a fit is found, LTC determines how high.
My objection to LTC is it ignores many aspects of hand evaluation that cannot be performed by a mathematical equation. I think we agree on this point.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2025-June-28, 21:49, said:

David, I think it’s misleading to group LTC and HCP both as simple ,point count methods.
I may be wrong but my understanding is that LTC followers use simple HCP to determine if a hand meets the criteria to open and once a fit is found, LTC determines how high.
My objection to LTC is it ignores many aspects of hand evaluation that cannot be performed by a mathematical equation. I think we agree on this point.

Personally I use my hand evaluation for both the decision whether or not to open, and the decision how high to bid. I lean more on HCP for the opening decision and I lean more on LTC for the level of bidding after we've found a fit, but neither is decisive (as you saw above). I keep track of a few other metrics as well, because they're moderately useful.
HCP is really good for notrump contracts and a reasonable estimate of defensive strength, which makes it more useful for opening decisions. If we fail to find a fit then our combined HCP gives a decent estimate of the level we belong at, while if the opponents enter the auction partner will have some idea of what to expect from us on defence. The hope is that if we have a fit partner will be able to confirm it, and we can change our mode of evaluation at that time.

Maybe a more general and controversial point: to me the added value of point count methods, i.e. imperfect strength metrics, is that they're simple. I find all the adjustments to be counterproductive - I'm not going to listen to my point count method anyway, it's just to get a ballpark estimate and then I let my own hand evaluation take over. Therefore if the point count is difficult to compute and has a lot of exceptions it is less useful to me than a simple one, even if it is theoretically more accurate. I much prefer to say "I have a 15 HCP hand but the following factors should help me decide to go high/low" than "After adjustments my hand is worth 16.4 HCP". I feel the same way about LTC - better a crude version that's quick and easy than a very sophisticated one that's more accurate.

I realise I haven't answered the original question - which version of LTC to use. I use a method called 'Modified Losing Trick Count' described by Jan Kelder and Bob van de Velde in their (Dutch) book "Winnende kaartwaardering". It uses A = 1.5, K = 1, Q = 0.5 and then has a whole chapter in the book dedicated to deciding when the queen should be treated as 0 or 1 instead, plus some nuanced adjustments for honour combinations, extra trump length and values in partner's suit. As per the above I don't really do those adjustments, I prefer to go "This is a 6 loser hand but we have to consider the following", though I find it helpful to know that for LTC it is most valuable to look at your queens (or lack thereof). Simple, reasonably effective, and a good jumping off point for doing actual hand evaluation.

[Knurdler]

Thanks for the replies - they really help me to decide if my thinking is on the right track.
Very few of our club players, including my partner, want to discuss anything in depth.

100% agree that judgement is more than rules.
I have read Marty Bergens adjust 3 method - I do not explicitly use it but I do try to recognise the factors he lists and modify my bidding if they seem relevant.
Winnende kaartwaardering sounds good but I would need an English version.

For now, I will stick with the NLTC A1.5, K1, Q0.5 as a check on how high to bid.

[jillybean]

Best of luck with your Bridge, whatever method you use, it's a fabulous game.
Come back and post some interesting hand evaluation wins or losses.

[pescetom]

 thepossum, on 2025-June-28, 19:04, said:

"legal compliance" could be a problem for me

....

excuse me for being ignorant of all the laws but are points and losers and numbers of cards in suits set down in law

The numbers of cards in suits is set down in Law 1

The Laws don't mention points and losers as I recall, but they do mention strength and HCP is the (reluctantly) accepted objective measure of that. More to the point, the Regulating Authority will use HCP and/or suit length (only very occasionally LTC) to regulate allowed systemic agreements.

[PrecisionL]

David, so the example hand is 6-losers, I agree. Yes, passing the raise to 2♠ seems correct.

However, did partner have a Limit Raise hand (I wish you had shown his hand) for his 11 hcp? If the 11 hcp has 2 Qeens then it probably is not a Limit Raise. Cover cards is my favorite evaluation tool to decide about bidding game. I have found that I have to teach many of my partners what a Limit Raise is (3 cover cards or distributional equivalent).

[P_Marlowe]

eagles123, on 2025-June-27, 14:29, said:

The losing trick count is a rough guide for beginner level players.
<snip>

I disagree.

But I also dont treat it as a absolute truth evaluation tool.

[mike777]

PrecisionL, on 2025-June-29, 10:41, said:

David, so the example hand is 6-losers, I agree. Yes, passing the raise to 2♠ seems correct.

However, did partner have a Limit Raise hand (I wish you had shown his hand) for his 11 hcp? If the 11 hcp has 2 Qeens then it probably is not a Limit Raise. Cover cards is my favorite evaluation tool to decide about bidding game. I have found that I have to teach many of my partners what a Limit Raise is (3 cover cards or distributional equivalent).

,

If you have the time, I hope you go into a fuller discussion of what cover cards are and how you use them in your hand evaluation methods.

Issues to beware of?