Losing-Trick Count - Basic Counting Method

Basic Counting Method

The estimated number of losing tricks (losers) in one's hand is determined by examining each suit and assuming that an ace will never be a loser, nor will a king in a 2+ card suit, nor a queen in a 3+ card suit; accordingly

  • a void = 0 losing tricks.
  • a singleton other than an A = 1 losing trick.
  • a doubleton AK = 0; Ax or Kx = 1; xx = 2 losing tricks.
  • a three card suit AKQ = 0; AKx, AQx or KQx = 1 losing trick.
  • a three card suit Axx, Kxx or Qxx = 2; xxx = 3 losing tricks.

(Some authorities treat Qxx as 3 losers unless the Q is "balanced" by an A in another suit.) LTC also assumes that no suit can have more than 3 losing tricks and so suits longer than three cards are judged according to their three highest cards. It follows that hands without an A, K or Q have a maximum of 12 losers but may have fewer depending on shape, e.g. ♠ J x x x ♥ J x x  J x x ♣ J x x has 12 losers (3 in each suit), whereas ♠ x x x x x ♥ —  x x x x ♣ x x x x has only 9 losers (3 in all suits except the void which counts no losers).

Until further information is derived from the bidding, assume that a typical opening hand by partner contains 7 losers, e.g. ♠ A K x x x ♥ A x x x  Q x ♣ x x, has 7 losers (1 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 7).

Read more about this topic:  Losing-Trick Count

Famous quotes containing the words basic, counting and/or method:

    The gay world that flourished in the half-century between 1890 and the beginning of the Second World War, a highly visible, remarkably complex, and continually changing gay male world, took shape in New York City.... It is not supposed to have existed.
    George Chauncey, U.S. educator, author. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, p. 1, Basic Books (1994)

    But counting up to two
    Is harder to do....
    Philip Larkin (1922–1986)

    Traditional scientific method has always been at the very best 20-20 hindsight. It’s good for seeing where you’ve been. It’s good for testing the truth of what you think you know, but it can’t tell you where you ought to go.
    Robert M. Pirsig (b. 1928)