Talk:Losing-Trick Count

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Contract bridgeWikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridgeTemplate:WikiProject Contract bridgeContract bridge articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Far-fetched proviso[edit]

The example hand in the NLTC section:

♠	AQ432	W E	♠	K8765
♥	KQ		♥	32
♦	KQ52		♦	43
♣	32		♣	KQ54

has received an edit that says: "[the above layout] will yield only 10 tricks if defenders cash their three aces (note: if defenders do not cash their aces, declarer may make 11 or 12 tricks)" Isn't this a bit far-fetched? How do you perceive NS to defend such that EW take 11 or even 12 tricks? JocK 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to perceive a defender leading the ace of clubs or diamonds (from a doubleton) followed by a small one (hoping for a ruff); after drawing trumps, this would result in two discards (the hearts) being available and 11 tricks made. It's somewhat less likely that 12 tricks will be made but it is possible if inexperienced defenders duck too many times - unlikely I agree. Abtract 23:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even then: following a minor suit lead with the ace, how would declarer be able to make two discards? JocK (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indeed but DA and low heart from the ace would produce 11 tricks Abtract (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah rite... and you will make grand slam if they hold up their three aces... JocK (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up several years later on the foregoing discussion, I believe we should always assume 'best (expert) defence' when presenting the play of a hand. It is not instructive to assume defenders will play poorly because doing so undermines the reality of probabilities and the demonstration of good technique. Nevertheless, it may on occasion be worthy of mention that a particular play opens an opportunity for defenders to make a mistake. Newwhist (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half-losers[edit]

"Half-losers"? What an annoyingly stupid concept. Why on earth would anyone say "I have 15 half-losers" rather than "I have 7.5 losers". Only makes it much more complex to think with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.181.56.119 (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tabulation Suggestion[edit]

The lists of examples in the NLTC section are difficult to read; they are on the long side and the information might be better organized into groups in a table for ease of comprehension. I will do a draft and see if it can indeed work better. Stay tuned - am busy right now but will get around to it in a few days (I hope). Newwhist (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done for NLTC. Will undertake to do likewise for other listings if there are no valid contrary opinions. Newwhist (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Round Bids[edit]

I'm not sure how necessary this section is, if it remains, are examples something that would improve it? --2A02:C7F:A406:4700:9509:3953:4C62:7916 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example error[edit]

In the section where two yarboroughs with 4-3-3-3 shape it is stated that "we possess an 8-card spade fit, and assuming the outstanding spades (trumps) split 3-2, the defenders can't prevent the (hypothetical) declarer from scoring one trump trick with these otherwise worthless hands."

That is flat out incorrect. It is possible to score 9 winners outside of trumps and then score 4 separate trump winners despite trumps being distributed 3-2. 94.191.153.108 (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]