Ever since I wrote the Losing Trick Count booklet last year I have been receiving reports from friends and readers that using LTC has improved their bidding and made their decisions easier. Give it a try if you haven't already--your success will make you a believer!
The main thing to remember is: don't use it until you have found a fit with partner in the bidding.
I have always found it especially valuable to use when I have a decision to make in the bidding, such as whether to invite game (or slam) or whether to accept a game invitation. LTC provides a quick and accurate answer.
Occasionally I hear about a hand where LTC doesn't work. It's good to remember that LTC measures the number of tricks the partnership can expect to take most of the time. It doesn't measure certain winners, but only the potential of the hand--the number of tricks the partnership can be expected to take. It's not a panacea for all bidding problems, but is more accurate than other methods.
I used LTC while bidding this hand a couple of days ago in a pair game:
♠109xx
♥10xxx
♦ A
♣xxxx
At favorable vulnerability, partner dealt and opened 1♣. RHO bid 1♦ and it was my call. As I liked my club fit and distribution, I made a negative double. LHO passed and partner jumped to 2♠. It went pass, pass and LHO balanced with 3♦, passed back to me.
While I didn't have much of a hand, I now counted my losers as we had a known spade fit (and probably a club fit as well). I added my 9 losers to the 6 losers partner showed with his jump to 2♠ and decided that we could probably make 3♠, so I bid it. All passed.
♠109xx
♥10xxx
♦ A
♣xxxx
♠KJxx
♥Q
♦Qxx
♣AKQxx
Partner had no trouble making the contract and actually made 4. Plus 170 was a good score. If I had only counted points I would have undoubtedly passed, but LTC helped me make the right decision.
See you at the table!
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Jennbridge: What contract?
I opened this 14-16 NT hand the other night in a local team game and partner bid 2♥, a transfer to spades.
♠8xx
♥KQJx
♦ xxx
♣AKJ
After I bid 2♠, he then bid 3♦, a forcing bid showing spades and diamonds. What is my call?
*****************
Although it is usually right to play in your 8-card fit (spades), in this case I had plenty of reasons to rethink conventional wisdom:
♠8xx
♥KQJx
♦ xxx
♣AKJ
After I bid 2♠, he then bid 3♦, a forcing bid showing spades and diamonds. What is my call?
*****************
Although it is usually right to play in your 8-card fit (spades), in this case I had plenty of reasons to rethink conventional wisdom:
- My hand was perfectly balanced with no ruffing values
- All of my values were in the unbid suits--hearts and clubs
- Partner's values were in spades and diamonds--so all suits should be well-stopped.
With all this in mind I bid 3NT and received a club lead.
♠KQ9xx
♥x
♦ AQJxx
♣109
♠8xx
♥KQJx
♦ xxx
♣AKJ
I won in my hand and took the diamond finesse which lost. A club was returned and I played another diamond (all following) to check on the suit break before leading a heart to my king, losing to the ace on my left. LHO gave it best defense by putting me back on the board with a diamond (rather than conceding the contract by putting me back in my hand to cash winners).
After I played the diamonds I exited with the spade king, won the queen, and when I exited with the last spade they had to put me in my hand for the 9th trick. I wasn't particularly worried about a 4-1 spade break because there would have been various endplay opportunities.
All in all, it was a fairly routine hand, but as we were sorting our hands for the next board, we all realized that in a spade contract there were 4 losers: 2 spades, 1 diamond and the ace of hearts. If our opponents played in 4 spades we would have a substantial gain.
Sure enough, when we compared scores we won 12 IMPs as we were plus 600 and our teammates were plus 100 against 4 spades.
See you at the table!
♥x
♦ AQJxx
♣109
♠8xx
♥KQJx
♦ xxx
♣AKJ
I won in my hand and took the diamond finesse which lost. A club was returned and I played another diamond (all following) to check on the suit break before leading a heart to my king, losing to the ace on my left. LHO gave it best defense by putting me back on the board with a diamond (rather than conceding the contract by putting me back in my hand to cash winners).
After I played the diamonds I exited with the spade king, won the queen, and when I exited with the last spade they had to put me in my hand for the 9th trick. I wasn't particularly worried about a 4-1 spade break because there would have been various endplay opportunities.
All in all, it was a fairly routine hand, but as we were sorting our hands for the next board, we all realized that in a spade contract there were 4 losers: 2 spades, 1 diamond and the ace of hearts. If our opponents played in 4 spades we would have a substantial gain.
Sure enough, when we compared scores we won 12 IMPs as we were plus 600 and our teammates were plus 100 against 4 spades.
See you at the table!
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Jennbridge: Play this hand with Wayne
I always enjoy a well-played bridge hand, even, as in this case, it is against me!
`
| South Deals N-S Vul |
♠ K 4 ♥ Q 5 2 ♦ A 10 5 ♣ 10 7 5 4 3 |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| ♠ 8 2 ♥ A J 3 ♦ 7 ♣ K Q J 9 8 6 2 |
|||||||||||
| West | North | East | South |
| Jenn | Wayne | ||
| 1 ♣ | |||
| 1 ♠ | 2 ♣ | 3 ♣ | 5 ♣ |
| Pass | Pass | Dbl | All pass |
| 5 ♣ x by South |
I overcalled 1♠ in the
auction and partner cuebid 3♣, showing a
spade raise. Against 5 ♣ x I led the ace of ♠ and shifted to a
heart, declarer winning the jack. Declarer was Wayne Gordon of Sonoma.
How should he play this hand?
Wayne rose to the
occasion by crossing to the ♦ ace, ruffing a
diamond, then crossing to the ♠ king and ruffing the
last diamond. Now the stage was set.
He merely exited with a
club and when partner won his singleton ace he was endplayed. A heart
return could be ducked to the queen for no heart losers and the return of
another suit would provide declarer with a ruff/sluff. Either way he would make his contract.
| South Deals N-S Vul |
♠ K 4 ♥ Q 5 2 ♦ A 10 5 ♣ 10 7 5 4 3 |
||||||||||
♠ A Q 9 7 6 3
♥ 10 8 6 ♦ Q 8 3 2 ♣ — |
|
♠ J 10 5
♥ K 9 7 4 ♦ K J 9 6 4 ♣ A |
|||||||||
| ♠ 8 2 ♥ A J 3 ♦ 7 ♣ K Q J 9 8 6 2 |
|||||||||||
Either a heart opening lead or a spade continuation after the spade lead would have disrupted declarer's timing and prevented him from successfully eliminating the diamonds which was necessary for the endplay.
Minus 550 cost us 4 IMPs.
See you at the table!
Monday, January 16, 2012
Jennbridge: Q & A on LTC
I have been receiving some thoughtful questions about the use of Losing Trick Count and will start addressing them here.
Q. I enjoyed segment #2 of Losing Trick Count and want to review segment #1. Can you please tell me which issue of Bridge Bulletin it's in ?
A. The first article is in the Dec. 2011 issue. This article is important as it explains how to count losers. There is also a complete explanation of how to count losers in my LTC booklet.
Q. Can you use LTC after you open 1 notrump?
Q. Does this apply to an opening bid of 1 NT, followed by a jacoby transfer?
A. Don't use it until you find a fit. When you find a fit you can use it. I will be addressing this in a future article--stay tuned.
Q. I am wondering how the number 24 was arrived at as the number you subtract your losers from!
A. Since the maximum number of losers you can have in your hand is 12 (maximum of 3 losers per suit), then the maximum number of losers between your hand and your partner's hand is 24. LTC operates by deducting the actual number of losers from the maximum number possible to arrive at the number of tricks you can expect to win. (Your 7-loser hand plus your partner's 7-loser hand equals 14 losers. Subtract 14 from 24 to arrive at 10--the number of tricks you expect to win.)
Q. I had trouble with this hand the other day after partner opened 1 spade and next hand bid 2 spades, a Michaels cuebid: Jxx/ AKx/Jxx/AKxx. I counted it as 8 losers and we missed game. Where did I go wrong?
A. First of all, you have 16 points so you definitely want to be in game. I like to think about LTC this way: I use it primarily when I have a decision to make. With a 16-point hand there is no decision, just take steps to get to game. Remember that LTC doesn't replace point count--it is used in conjunction with it.
Secondly, don't forget the adjustments to LTC I wrote about recently in this blog. If you deduct 1/2 loser for each ace, you really have a 7-loser hand.
Finally, you and your partner should adopt some methods to deal with this type of interference. The simplest way is to agree that a bid of 3 hearts (their known suit) shows a limit raise or better in your suit--spades. You would then start with a 3 heart bid and eventually get to a spade game.
Q. Do you still use game tries in your bidding with LTC?
A. Yes--although LTC can be used effectively with various types of game tries, I especially like to use it with help-suit game tries. Many of the hands in my LTC booklet (for sale on this blog) from actual play involve the use of help-suit game tries.
See you at the table!
Q. I enjoyed segment #2 of Losing Trick Count and want to review segment #1. Can you please tell me which issue of Bridge Bulletin it's in ?
A. The first article is in the Dec. 2011 issue. This article is important as it explains how to count losers. There is also a complete explanation of how to count losers in my LTC booklet.
Q. Can you use LTC after you open 1 notrump?
Q. Does this apply to an opening bid of 1 NT, followed by a jacoby transfer?
A. Don't use it until you find a fit. When you find a fit you can use it. I will be addressing this in a future article--stay tuned.
Q. I am wondering how the number 24 was arrived at as the number you subtract your losers from!
A. Since the maximum number of losers you can have in your hand is 12 (maximum of 3 losers per suit), then the maximum number of losers between your hand and your partner's hand is 24. LTC operates by deducting the actual number of losers from the maximum number possible to arrive at the number of tricks you can expect to win. (Your 7-loser hand plus your partner's 7-loser hand equals 14 losers. Subtract 14 from 24 to arrive at 10--the number of tricks you expect to win.)
Q. I had trouble with this hand the other day after partner opened 1 spade and next hand bid 2 spades, a Michaels cuebid: Jxx/ AKx/Jxx/AKxx. I counted it as 8 losers and we missed game. Where did I go wrong?
A. First of all, you have 16 points so you definitely want to be in game. I like to think about LTC this way: I use it primarily when I have a decision to make. With a 16-point hand there is no decision, just take steps to get to game. Remember that LTC doesn't replace point count--it is used in conjunction with it.
Secondly, don't forget the adjustments to LTC I wrote about recently in this blog. If you deduct 1/2 loser for each ace, you really have a 7-loser hand.
Finally, you and your partner should adopt some methods to deal with this type of interference. The simplest way is to agree that a bid of 3 hearts (their known suit) shows a limit raise or better in your suit--spades. You would then start with a 3 heart bid and eventually get to a spade game.
Q. Do you still use game tries in your bidding with LTC?
A. Yes--although LTC can be used effectively with various types of game tries, I especially like to use it with help-suit game tries. Many of the hands in my LTC booklet (for sale on this blog) from actual play involve the use of help-suit game tries.
See you at the table!
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Jennbridge: Adjustments to LTC
Now that my second article about Losing Trick Count has appeared in the Bridge Bulletin, I am getting feedback and questions from readers. Thanks for the enthusiastic feedback! I'll try to address some of the questions in this forum.
It is important to realize that each article is a small snapshot of a larger subject--snapshots which will be spread out over the course of several months. In the articles I purposely present examples in which using LTC enables the optimum contract to be reached while traditional point count methods fail. Therefore some of the bidding may seem a bit surprising, but it is an effective way to explain and illustrate the LTC principles.
It should be noted that over the years different bridge writers have proposed various adjustments to the basic LTC system. Currently the most widely accepted adjustment pertains to the valuation of aces and queens. It is often recommended to add 1/2 loser for an "unsupported" queen and deduct 1/2 loser for each ace. A queen is "supported" when it it has a jack or 10 with it. The adjustment for aces is consistent with the fact that aces are considered to be undervalued in the point count system.
Using these adjustments would change the loser count of one of the hands in my January LTC--part 2 article. This hand: ♠Qx/♥AK1097/♦AK7/♣J84 was presented as a 7-loser hand, but if one loser is deducted for the two aces, then it is a 6-loser hand.
My advice is to try out LTC for yourself. Success will dispel any doubts. I love using LTC and have written up a lot of success stories in my Losing Trick Count booklet--hands my partners and I played at all levels. Bob, one of my regular partners who is a Diamond Life Master and NABC champion, started using LTC about 3 years ago at my behest, and is now a True Believer. "It has improved my bidding as well as made bidding easier!" he is fond of saying.
Feel free to leave comments or email questions.
Off to the Monterey Regional. See you at the table!
It is important to realize that each article is a small snapshot of a larger subject--snapshots which will be spread out over the course of several months. In the articles I purposely present examples in which using LTC enables the optimum contract to be reached while traditional point count methods fail. Therefore some of the bidding may seem a bit surprising, but it is an effective way to explain and illustrate the LTC principles.
It should be noted that over the years different bridge writers have proposed various adjustments to the basic LTC system. Currently the most widely accepted adjustment pertains to the valuation of aces and queens. It is often recommended to add 1/2 loser for an "unsupported" queen and deduct 1/2 loser for each ace. A queen is "supported" when it it has a jack or 10 with it. The adjustment for aces is consistent with the fact that aces are considered to be undervalued in the point count system.
Using these adjustments would change the loser count of one of the hands in my January LTC--part 2 article. This hand: ♠Qx/♥AK1097/♦AK7/♣J84 was presented as a 7-loser hand, but if one loser is deducted for the two aces, then it is a 6-loser hand.
My advice is to try out LTC for yourself. Success will dispel any doubts. I love using LTC and have written up a lot of success stories in my Losing Trick Count booklet--hands my partners and I played at all levels. Bob, one of my regular partners who is a Diamond Life Master and NABC champion, started using LTC about 3 years ago at my behest, and is now a True Believer. "It has improved my bidding as well as made bidding easier!" he is fond of saying.
Feel free to leave comments or email questions.
Off to the Monterey Regional. See you at the table!
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Jennbridge: Best of 2011
The big news of 2011 was the publication of my Losing Trick Count booklet and the Bridge Bulletin articles on the subject. There were also many interesting hands played throughout the year and I am happy to present some of my favorite blog posts.
1. Oh wait, here is more big news. I had an interesting squeeze hand published in The Bridge World:
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2011/07/jennbridge-bridge-world-letter.html
2. An amusing hand from the Toronto nationals:
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2011/08/jennbridge-thats-one-way-to-put-it.html
3. An outrageous hand playing with a student:
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2011/11/jennbridge-adventures-with-abbe.html
4. A couple of fun hands from a regional pair game:
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2011/06/jennbridge-pitfalls-abound.html
Happy New Year!
Best,
Jennifer
1. Oh wait, here is more big news. I had an interesting squeeze hand published in The Bridge World:
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2011/07/jennbridge-bridge-world-letter.html
2. An amusing hand from the Toronto nationals:
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2011/08/jennbridge-thats-one-way-to-put-it.html
3. An outrageous hand playing with a student:
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2011/11/jennbridge-adventures-with-abbe.html
4. A couple of fun hands from a regional pair game:
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2011/06/jennbridge-pitfalls-abound.html
Happy New Year!
Best,
Jennifer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
