[Liversidge]

When is it better to count losers than playing tricks?

With distributional hands that I have looked at, usually (by my counting, which may be incorrect) the number of losing tricks = 13 - the number of playing tricks. The relationship only seems to break down with more balanced hands.

When deciding the level at which I preempt, one source will say I need to be within x tricks of my contract depending on vulnerability, but when deciding about overcalls the usual guideline is to evaluate your hand by counting losers.

[helene_t]

isn't it so that it doesn't matter because pt =13 - lt?

maybe a suit like 65432 is zero pt but only three lt. in that case pt is better especially with weak hands. otoh with two suits like akxxx you can assume that p has a fit for one of them so counting two tricks in each suit is too pessimistic

[Liversidge]

[quote name='helene_t' timestamp='1486211895' post='912843']
isn't it so that it doesn't matter because pt =13 - lt?

That's what I assumed. When brushing up my preemptive bids, my reference says you should be within 2-3-4 PTs of your bid contract Red-Amber-Green. But when overcalling (jump, Landy, Michaels etc) another reference says you require an 'x' loser hand. And when deciding on a strong opener I am guided to count PTs.

I constructed several hands with your 65432 suit, and the LTs were always 13-the PTs. Counting losers tends to be easier. Are there any types of bidding situation where I should use one method over the other, or are they interchangeable?

(I appreciate that there are other factors such as SQT, honours in partner's suit etc, xxx x vs. xx xx in side suits etc. )

[1eyedjack]

Perhaps you should try to develop a habit of applying multiple types of hand evaluation to each hand, and then when they contradict you can try to work out the areas of likely discrepancy, which is often distilled into the likelihood of partner being able to fill in gaps in your hand.

All that takes time and mental anguish. Perhaps not for a beginner, but if you are starting to ask these questions that may be the time to make the step up.

Eventually you will probably ditch them all in favour of instinct

[helene_t]

normally people count losers with flexible hands that have a fit with partner and tricks with strong onesuiters. With preemts it doesn't matter in principle but if you have the agreement that your preemts shows seven losers then partner can raise to game if he expects to cover four of them. Maybe he finds that a helpful rule.

[beschuit]

count losers in a trumpcontract, and count winners in a NT contract

[Liversidge]

helene_t, on 2017-February-04, 14:28, said:

normally people count losers with flexible hands that have a fit with partner and tricks with strong onesuiters. With preemts it doesn't matter in principle but if you have the agreement that your preemts shows seven losers then partner can raise to game if he expects to cover four of them. Maybe he finds that a helpful rule.

I am starting to use a method like that with my partner, but using playing tricks and the rule of 2-3-4. Partner knows (or should) how many PTs I have and estimate how many he can add with quick tricks and ruff.

1eyedjack, on 2017-February-04, 12:20, said:

Eventually you will probably ditch them all in favour of instinct

In a lot of areas I am using 'scaffolds' like this to help my judgment. In time I hope to be able to shed them all. I still occasionally read bridge articles where the author says "now after partner's bid your hand has become huge" and I have to use my 'scaffold' on my so-so hand to see why.

[fromageGB]

From what I see, I think it is a common beginner* mistake to count losers when deciding to open or overcall a hand. This style of counting is ONLY suitable when you have prime support for partner, and only then when you cannot decide by other methods of determination.

* "beginner" includes people who have been playing for 30 years

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps it depends on how you count your PTs. Take a hand like ♠AKQxxx ♥Kxx ♦KQJx ♣-. This has a LTC of 3 or a MLTC of 3.5. On the PT side it is 9 or 9.5 depending on the rules you use. So, ok, there is a way of making these numbers add up to 13 but by no means automatic. Let us look at the heart suit in isolation for a moment. Under both LTC and MLTC, Kxx is 2 losers. But this is always 1/2 a PT in any of the formulae I know. So these do not match.

So let us start with some definitions here. I am going to give you a hand: ♠AKQxxxx ♥- ♦Kxx ♣Kxx. How many PTs do you evaluate this to be? How many losers? I get 8 PTs and 4 losers under all of the methods. Indeed I have chosen this hand specifically because it evaluates identically for LTC/MLTC and all forms of PT evaluation. Presumably your evaluation is different and that might help us to place the discussion into the correct context.

[Kaitlyn S]

beschuit, on 2017-February-05, 00:52, said:

count losers in a trumpcontract, and count winners in a NT contract

Good advice for declarer play, however I believe the question was about counting losers when bidding (evaluating one's hand.)

[stoppiello]

it seems that when you have the strong hand, where you're going to be taking most of the tricks yourself, counting winners is usually easier. When you're pre-empting, you're not expecting to make the contract, so you count losers to make sure that the punishment you take is comparable to the result you're trying to stop. (i.e. going down -500 against their vulnerable game)

[msjennifer]

In a confirmed 8 plus fit suit contract the LTC gives almost correct answer.Playing in NT contract one has to count tha playing tricks and not the LTC.One additional reason is that it is only in a suit contract that SST and LST come into play and these tries are based upon LTC.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-05, 04:55, said:

Perhaps it depends on how you count your PTs. Take a hand like ♠AKQxxx ♥Kxx ♦KQJx ♣-. This has a LTC of 3 or a MLTC of 3.5. On the PT side it is 9 or 9.5 depending on the rules you use.

You could use the EBU's rule and come up with five.

I held almost that hand yesterday; ♠AKQ1093 ♥K82 ♦AK74 ♣ -. I think that when it is marginal whether to open 2♣ (assuming that is your strong opening), counting losers can be helpful. This hand doesn't really look like a 2♣ opening, but then when you notice that it is a 3-loser hand, you will probably choose to open 2♣. Also there are hands which partner will pass (2 red queens?) with which game is pretty much a lock.

Another way of deciding whether to open (at the 1 level) marginal hands is the rule of 20. If the HCP plus the lengths of the two longest suits adds up to 20, then if you are in doubt, open. Some players use the rule of 19. This is not to say that a rule of 20 hand is always an opening bid, just that the rule can help when the decision is close.

[msjennifer]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-06, 02:15, said:

You could use the EBU's rule and come up with five.

I held almost that hand yesterday; ♠AKQ1093 ♥K82 ♦AK74 ♣ -. I think that when it is marginal whether to open 2♣ (assuming that is your strong opening), counting losers can be helpful. This hand doesn't really look like a 2♣ opening, but then when you notice that it is a 3-loser hand, you will probably choose to open 2♣. Also there are hands which partner will pass (2 red queens?) with which game is pretty much a lock.

Another way of deciding whether to open (at the 1 level) marginal hands is the rule of 20. If the HCP plus the lengths of the two longest suits adds up to 20, then if you are in doubt, open. Some players use the rule of 19. This is not to say that a rule of 20 hand is always an opening bid, just that the rule can help when the decision is close.

Rule of 20 is a very unsatisfactory way of thinking. An hypothetical hand is QJxx-QJx-QJ-QJxx 12 plus 8= 20 and very good for opening either one club or one spade (playing 4card majors.)I wonder how many who play the rule of 20,,will open this hand as the dealer.

[Vampyr]

msjennifer, on 2017-February-06, 10:52, said:

Rule of 20 is a very unsatisfactory way of thinking. An hypothetical hand is QJxx-QJx-QJ-QJxx 12 plus 8= 20 and very good for opening either one club or one spade (playing 4card majors.)I wonder how many who play the rule of 20,,will open this hand as the dealer.

You obviously didn't read my post. I said that the Rule of 20 was useful for helping to decide whether to open marginal hands. Marginal is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Your hand above is an opener for you, but for me it is not even marginal. Opening a weak NT if non-vulnerable is a bit more tempting than your options, but still not enough for mr.

[Kaitlyn S]

msjennifer, on 2017-February-06, 10:52, said:

Rule of 20 is a very unsatisfactory way of thinking. An hypothetical hand is QJxx-QJx-QJ-QJxx 12 plus 8= 20 and very good for opening either one club or one spade (playing 4card majors.)I wonder how many who play the rule of 20,,will open this hand as the dealer.

Many are teaching the Rule of 20+2 requiring 20 HCP + length in the longest two suits and two quick tricks. The intent was to avoid the debacles like opening:
S-K H-Qx D-Qxxxx C-Kxxxx using the Rule of 20; but the Rule of 20 plus 2 says to pass your hand also.

[Vampyr]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-06, 22:04, said:

Many are teaching the Rule of 20+2 requiring 20 HCP + length in the longest two suits and two quick tricks. The intent was to avoid the debacles like opening:
S-K H-Qx D-Qxxxx C-Kxxxx using the Rule of 20; but the Rule of 20 plus 2 says to pass your hand also.

This rule of 20+2 seems fairly reasonable; it is harder to abuse but not impossible. The problem, of course, is people being so close to opening hands like your example hand that they would need a tiebreaker like a rule of whatever.

[mycroft]

Queens and Jacks are highly overrated. I open "all" 11s playing NA standard, but would seriously think about passing that one. I would, like Vampyr, open it a weak NT though (but the weak NT is at least 40% a preempt). Having said that, many weak NTs aren't Ro20.

Yeah, Rule of X is designed to be a coinflip decider, not the only evaluation method. I also remember the person I agreed to play Precision with 10-12 NTs who didn't open a flat 11 because "I don't open 10-loser hands". If that's the case, why did you agree to play 10-12?

[Liversidge]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-05, 04:55, said:

Perhaps it depends on how you count your PTs. Take a hand like ♠AKQxxx ♥Kxx ♦KQJx ♣-. This has a LTC of 3 or a MLTC of 3.5. On the PT side it is 9 or 9.5 depending on the rules you use. So, ok, there is a way of making these numbers add up to 13 but by no means automatic. Let us look at the heart suit in isolation for a moment. Under both LTC and MLTC, Kxx is 2 losers. But this is always 1/2 a PT in any of the formulae I know. So these do not match.

So let us start with some definitions here. I am going to give you a hand: ♠AKQxxxx ♥- ♦Kxx ♣Kxx. How many PTs do you evaluate this to be? How many losers? I get 8 PTs and 4 losers under all of the methods. Indeed I have chosen this hand specifically because it evaluates identically for LTC/MLTC and all forms of PT evaluation. Presumably your evaluation is different and that might help us to place the discussion into the correct context.

Your first example shows how PTs and LTs don't match, but in a way it is an example of my query. Playing Benji, and counting PTs the way I do, that would be 9 PTs, so I would open 2♣ rather than 2♦, as to open 2♦ shows that you have game in your own hand opposite a bust. But some players would say I should have opened 2♦ as I only had 3 losers.

Your second example raises a related query. Why do Kxx Kxx count as just 1 PT but 4 LTs?

[Liversidge]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-06, 11:24, said:

You obviously didn't read my post. I said that the Rule of 20 was useful for helping to decide whether to open marginal hands. Marginal is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Your hand above is an opener for you, but for me it is not even marginal. Opening a weak NT if non-vulnerable is a bit more tempting than your options, but still not enough for mr.

I have been encouraged to use the Rule of 22 rather than the Rule of 20, and the example hand seems to illustrate why it is a better rule (at least for me).