[ArtK78]

helene_t, on 2013-May-30, 07:40, said:

Maybe I have it wrong but when someone says that a 2♣ opening shows a maximum of N losers I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.

In that case, I should clarify what I mean by 3 losers. I mean three losers by modified losing trick count, which is a maximum of 3 losers in each suit, limited by the number of cards held in the suit, reduced by one for each of the top three honors held in the suit (top two honors in a doubleton, and K singleton is a loser).

So, for example, this hand is a 2♣ opening:

AKQxxx
AQJx
Kx
A

Two losers by modified losing trick count (one in hearts, one in diamonds).

But this hand is not a 2♣ opening:

AQJTxx
AKJT
AQ
K

Four losers by modified losing trick count (one in each suit).

Ideally, responder will be evaluating his hand by cover cards - provisionally, every A, K and Q in the hand, adjusted during the bidding as opener's distribution becomes known. Short suits can also count as cover cards with adequate trump holdings and knowledge that the shortness is working. So, opposite a 2♣ opening known to have no more than 3 losers, 2 working cover cards puts you in the slam range.

In Rosenkranz's original presentation of Romex, all opening bids and responses were based primarily on modified losing trick count and cover cards, with HCP as a secondary consideration. I don't know how that has been revised over the years, as the most recent Romex book that I have is about 30 years old and I haven't played Romex in about that long.

[Siegmund]

Quote

I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.

You may reasonably define (basic) LTC as expecting to lose at least N tricks opposite a balanced yarb. The posted 26-count WILL lose at least five tricks opposite xxxx xxx xxx xxx, if the opps always push back the same suit you exit in. You might lose six if you had to make the opening lead yourself or you get a bad diamond break. It's a 3 1/2 loser hand opposite a balanced yarb with three entries.... but balanced yarbs don't have very many entries.

[Zelandakh]

Siegmund, on 2013-May-29, 19:27, said:

but never even heard of requiring 2 1/2 unless we are going all the way back to Culbertson.

Even Culbertson did not require 2.5 defensive tricks. The standard for an opening bid was 2.5 Honour Tricks (similar but not the same thing) but distributional hands had that reduced to 2+ HTs.

[rhm]

helene_t, on 2013-May-30, 07:40, said:

Maybe I have it wrong but when someone says that a 2♣ opening shows a maximum of N losers I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.

The term losers is of course not well defined.
I consider loser count as a hand evaluation method, which has evolved over the last 80 years.
But many are still in the stone age.
It tends to show the potential of a hand if a suitable fit for a suit contract can be found and if there are entries to dummy.

In that sense loser count is not derived by taking your likely playing tricks and subtracting that from 13.
Also the notion of a balanced yarb is dubious. Yarbs are very rare even when you yourself hold a very strong hand.
And if you are in such a pessimistic mood, why balanced yarb, why not a misfitting yarb instead?

Assuming no entry in dummy treats KJx, QJx, Qxx, xxx all alike, that is as 3 losers.
Well for my money I want to make a distinction between holding KJx and xxx. It does affect my decision whether to open 2♣.

Rainer Herrmnn

[li xiao p]

mikl_plkcc, on 2013-May-28, 07:08, said:

In the original natural bidding system, all opening bids, except preemptive bids, require some sort of defensive strength. But today's players seem to open whenever the point count and the shape are correct, and disregard the defensive requirements. Personally, I think that some of the rules, e.g. a 2NT opening requires all suits stopped, are useful. However, I sometimes see players opening 1NT with two unstopped suits, opening 2NT with a singleton K, opening 1-level bids with quacky 12 HCPs, opening 2-level preemptive bids at the 1st seat with 6 small cards and a void, etc.

Do you still make bids according to the strict traditional criteria?

yes i still use the Goren kiss now.