GETTING THE COUNT

The basic tool required to make a successful plan when playing a

borderline contract is the ability to count, both in terms of the distribution
and the number of outstanding high-card points held by one or the other
opponent. Developing this skill takes time and practice, but it is well
worth the effort since it will enable you to take the decisions that are
guaranteed to succeed or alternatively the decisions that are more likely
to succeed (the ‘percentage line’). This is distinctly preferable to being
forced to rely on an awkward guess. Here is a basic example of this
process in operation:-

Example 1

 K74  AQJ
 AJ6 W E  K 10 8 2
 AQ7  KJ2
 K962  AQ8

After East opens with 2NT, West goes through ‘Gerber’ to confirm that
East/West hold all the Aces and Kings between them. He then pushes on
to 7NT, which while reasonable is a fraction risky. West knows that, at
worst, North/South hold a Queen and a Jack and he trusts that they are
not in the same suit.
South leads the 9. Unfortunately it is the Q that is missing and
it must be found if thirteen tricks are going to be made. Many players
would elect to take an immediate finesse at trick two, which has a 50%
chance of success. However, a far superior line is not to play on the 
suit at all until you have played out the side-suit winners. The idea
behind this strategy is that you may be able to get a partial or complete
count of the hand to allow you to make a decision based upon whether it
is North or South who is more likely to hold longer s.
The  suit should be tackled first, since if they break 3-3 the long
 can be cashed and each opponent will be forced into a discard. On
the third round, North shows out and discards the 3. The two remaining
 winners are cashed. On the third round North shows out again, but this
time he discards a . At this point you have identified nine of the
thirteen cards in the South hand (five s and 4 s). Therefore North
started with nine cards in the red suits and so the Q is more than twice
as likely to be in his hand. The attempt to get the count is not complete
yet, however, since there are still three rounds of s to be played. All
declarer needs to do is to make sure that the third round is taken in the
dummy. When both opponents follow to all three rounds of s the count
is complete. South started with 5-1-3-4 shape, while North started with
2-5-4-2 shape. Therefore North is five times more likely to hold the Q.
Accordingly the J is led and run if North does not cover. The full deal:-

 53
 Q9543
 10 9 8 4
 75

 K74 N  AQJ
 AJ6 W E  K 10 8 2
 AQ7 S  KJ2
 K962  AQ8
 10 9 8 6 2
 7
 653
 J 10 4 3

Why does declarer not simply lay down the A before playing the J,
when he knows that South has only a singleton? This would have
reduced his chances from 84% to a mere 40%. Because the 9 is also
missing, laying down the A first would only gain whenever South held
the singleton Q. If the singleton had been the 9 then playing the A
first would not have cost, but if the singleton was any one of the other
remaining three cards, declarer throws away his contract by playing the
A first. North will be able to cover the J on the second round of the
suit and there will be no entry to dummy left to finesse the 9. If,
however, North covers the J on the first round of the suit, declarer can
cross to the A and take the marked finesse for the thirteenth trick. You
probably wouldn’t sleep for a week if you made this kind of mistake!
It is not always possible to get a full count of the hand, of course,
but getting even a partial count can sometimes guide you to the right
line…

Example 2

 A 10 6 3  KQ7
 Q64 W E  K 10 9
 AJ  KQ962
 A K J 10  53
 N E S W
P 1NT P 4NT
P 6NT P P
P

Because of his good five-card  suit East is content to accept the

invitation to slam even though he is not maximum for his opening 1NT.
South leads the 8. Prospects look reasonably good when the
dummy goes down although (as usual!) declarer is a trick short. With
only eleven tricks on top (three s, one , five s and two s), 6 looks
a safer contract – particularly after the lead, which is likely to be second-
highest from a bad suit. In a 6 slam, declarer could take a ruffing
finesse in against North to dispose of a losing .
In 6NT the  suit is a serious problem. The location of the A is
crucial because if one of the  honours is captured by the A, a 
continuation would require an awkward guess. It is also possible that the
 suit will break 3-3, of course, in which case there are no problems.
This cannot be tested immediately, however, because if they don’t break,
the A cannot be forced out without running the risk of having the long
 cashed.
In circumstances like these you should run your long suit and
attempt to get a partial count of the hand. Win the opening lead with the
A, cash the A and J, cross to the K and run your remaining s,
discarding one  and two s from the dummy.

 J842
 J83
 10 8 4 3
 Q4

 A 10 6 3 N  KQ7
 Q64 W E  K 10 9
 AJ S  KQ962
 A K J 10  53
 95
 A752
 75
 98762

South discarded a  on the third  and two s on the fourth and fifth
rounds. On the fifth , North had a difficult decision to take. He
obviously could not discard the Q and a  conceded a fourth trick in
the suit. He correctly elected to discard a .
Declarer now switched to the  suit, leading low to the Q. South
did best by ducking, but declarer could not be prevented from making his
contract, whether he decided to cash the K or return to hand with a  to
lay down the K. In the event, declarer actually cashed the Q and A
after winning the Q. When South discarded yet another  on the A,
declarer decided that North had started with 4-3-4-2 shape and that
therefore the Q would now drop under the K, regardless of who held
it. At this point the only other possibility was that North had started with
precisely 4-4-4-1 shape, in which case he originally held the A J. If this
was true then there would have been no reason for him not to win the first
round of s, since dummy would be out of s and his J could not be
finessed.
Whenever you find yourself in the position of having two (or more)
possibilities for a defender’s shape, always review the previous play in
your mind. You may be able to draw a crucial inference to guide you to
the right play.

Example 3

 10  -----
 J73 W E  AKQ6
 QJ9542  A K 10 7 3
 Q84  A 10 9 6

N E S W
1 1 5!
5! 7 P P
X P P P

On some rare occasions getting the count can help you pull in an
extremely improbable contract. South led the K after an extremely
competitive auction. Not surprisingly, declarer was very disappointed
when the dummy was tabled. He had a right to expect a little more for
the 5 response. West should have contented himself with 3 over
South’s 1 overcall, following the principle of telling partner what you
have got rather than what you would like to have! The partnership would
then have settled for 6, which cannot be beaten unless North can ruff an
opening  lead, since declarer can dispose of one of dummy’s losing s
on the long .
 Prospects for making 7 were not good. There were only two
chances, in fact. Either North must hold the singleton K or South must
hold the singleton J. In either case the other defender would hold five
s and a finesse position would exist. If either defender did hold five s
then he was likely to be short in s, since the auction marked them both
with long s. After drawing trumps declarer cashed four rounds of s,
discarding a  from dummy on the last round. Declarer hoped that this
would help him decide how to play the s.

 AJ96432
 10 9 8 4 2
 -----
 K

 10 N  -----
 J73 W E  AKQ6
 QJ9542 S  A K 10 7 3
 Q84  A 10 9 6
 KQ875
 5
 86
 J7532

North discarded two s on the A K. On the second round of s

South showed out, also discarding s on the remaining s. Therefore
North started with five s. The only remaining chance was that he
started with precisely 7-5-0-1 shape and that when the A was played
this would fell the singleton K. Eureka!
This play might be considered incredibly lucky and, of course, it
was. However there are times when you are reduced to taking the only
chance that is left and sometimes miracles do happen. The skill is in
being able to work out what the only remaining chance is and then
playing for it. And on those occasions when the Gods do not smile on
you, at least you will have the compensation of knowing that you have
played the hand to its full potential.
South’s 1 overcall belonged to the ‘get your daft bids in early’
school and naturally prompted his partner to double the final contract.
This double did not cost, in fact, since no one else would have even
considered going for a grand slam on this hand.
Playing to get the count can provide enormous dividends on far
more complex hands. The following deal was played in a Teams event
some years ago. One declarer played to get a full count of the hand and
succeeded in making the contract. In the other room the corresponding
player failed to get a full count and went crashing to a disaster.

Example 4

 AJ6  Q973
 J6 W E  AKQ94
 J93  Q4
 Q 10 8 7 2  A5

In both rooms a  was led against the final contract of 4. On the third
round of s both declarers discarded the losing  from hand and
proceeded to draw trumps in four rounds. On the third and fourth trumps,
South discarded two small s. Two small s were also discarded from
the dummy. Now both declarers played up to the J, which lost to the
K, and trumped the  return, pitching yet another  from the table.
At this point declarer had a partial count of the hand, in the s and
s. North started with four s and five s (since South showed out on
the fourth round). One declarer cashed the A and returned to the Q.
The other, knowing that North had started with only four cards in the
black suits, decided it was worthwhile to cash the A before playing on
s again. This might have dropped a singleton K from North, after all,
in which case he would be able to discard his losing  on the Q. There
is no reason not to take out this insurance, since the contract cannot be
more than one down anyway. The full deal:-

 K 10 8 5
 10 8 7 5
 A K 10 8 6
 -----
 AJ6 N  Q973
 J6 W E  AKQ94
 J97 S  Q4
 Q 10 8 7 2  A5
 42
 32
 532
 KJ9643

North showed out in s! Now declarer has a complete count of the hand,
knowing that North started with four s, four s and five s. South had
only one  left and if it was not the 10 then declarer would go up with
the A and take the marked finesse on the way back. The first player
attempted to drop the 10 and failed, thus going one down – a result that
was enough to swing a very close match.
The auction itself frequently provides a clear indication of the
relative distribution of the opposing hands, so long as you pay attention!
The following deal came up at a recent duplicate.

Example 5

 J42  AK9853
 6542 W E  Q
 98  A5
 A Q 10 8  7654

N E S W
1 2 P P
3 3 4 4
P P P

North/South were vulnerable, while East/West were not. East’s

2overcall showed 11-15 HCP and at least a six-card suit. His 3 rebid
was competitive, to say the least.
South led a  and North won and continued with the A. Declarer
ruffed and played off the A K, hoping to drop the Q. When South
showed out on the second round, declarer took a few moments to reflect
and then decided that he must be favourite to make the contract! Can you
see why?
At trick five he played a small  from hand and inserted the 8
when South played low! Sure enough, North showed out, discarding a
small . Declarer reasoned that North must hold 5-5 in s and s, since
it would have been extremely dangerous for him to bid 3 on a four-card
suit after his partner had already passed his opening bid. Since he had
already shown up with three s, he was virtually certain to be void in s.
Therefore making the contract was simply a question of finessing s
until North grew bored and ruffed.
It is from these negative inferences that so-called ‘impossible’
contracts are brought home. The score for making this contract was
enormous, since 5 by North/South cannot be beaten (provided that the
A is cashed before the  finesse is taken) and all of the other East/West
pairs who had been allowed to play in 4 had been defeated. The full
deal:-
  Q76
 AKJ97
 K Q 10 7 4
 -----

 J42 N  AK9853
 6542 W E  Q
 98 S  A5
 A Q 10 8  7654
 10
 10 8 3
 J642
 KJ932

Perhaps South should have been prepared to risk 5 on this auction.

Even though he had very little high-card strength, he knew that his
partner had a strong distributional hand in his weak suits (s and s).
Therefore a 5 contract must have had play and was most unlikely to be
more than one down. North’s pass of 4 was even more suspect, since
his partner was certain to be short in s after West showed belated
support. Afterwards he explained that he passed because he believed that
there must be a good chance of defeating 4, with no guarantee that the
5 contract would be anything other than a poor sacrifice.
There is a second form of counting that also pays dividends. This
is to count the high-card points of each opponent as they appear and to
use this information to select the right line of play. A basic example of
this technique in operation:-

Example 6

 K96  Q J 10 4
 Q73 W E  AJ5
 843  A96
 K 10 7 2  AJ4

N E S W
1 1NT P 2NT
P 3NT All Pass
South led a small  to North’s J, which declarer ducked. North
continued with the K and Q and declarer breathed a sigh of relief
when South followed to all three rounds. Declarer crossed to the 9.
When this held the trick, he played a small  to the J, which also won.
Declarer then exited with the K. North took the A, cashed his
winning  (on which declarer and South pitched s, while dummy
discarded a ) and exited with a  to the Q. Could declarer make his
contract?
South followed to three rounds of s and three rounds of s.
North had shown up with four s and three s and, since he opened 1,
he was marked as holding a balanced hand. To locate the Q all declarer
needed to know was whether North/South were playing a weak no-trump
(12-14 HCP) or a strong no-trump (15-17 HCP). If they were playing a
weak no-trump, he would finesse North for the Q. On the other hand, if
they were playing a strong no-trump, he would finesse South, since North
had already shown a balanced hand with K Q J, the A and the marked
K (i.e. 13 HCP). If he held the Q as well, he would have opened with
1NT and not 1.
Here is another example of the same principle at work, even
though North/South took no part in the auction.

Example 7

 KJ6  A54
 84 W E  J73
 632  AKQ4
 AJ976  Q 10 4

N E S W
1 P 2
P 2NT P 3NT
P P P

West’s bidding was slightly suspect. He should have responded with 1NT
over his partner’s opening 1, rather than 2. The raise to 3NT was a
little bit frisky, since his partner was marked with a maximum of 16 HCP,
but it is often on the basis of a borderline decision such as this that fluky
“tops” are made.
South proceeded to cash A K Q 10. Fortunately North followed
to all four rounds, so declarer was not quite dead and buried. He
discarded two s from dummy and a  from his hand on the long s.
South now switched to the J, won by declarer with the A. What next?
Before playing to the next trick, declarer paused to assess the
prospects. They were not good, particularly since South had passed the
chance to make a simple overcall, despite the strength of his  holding.
He could not possibly hold both the K and the Q, since otherwise he
would have overcalled 1NT over 1. Since he had already shown up
with 10 HCP he was less likely to hold the K, because he had not made
any competitive move in the auction.
Having made this assumption, declarer took the only line that had
any chance of success. He played small to the A and dropped North’s
singleton K. You may think that this was an incredibly lucky play and
you would be right. Nevertheless the declarer made the only play that
had a hope, given the information he had garnered during the play. The
hand is a classic example of what you can achieve if you use your brain,
rather than simply playing out cards and hoping for the best. The full
deal:-
 Q 10 7 3
 9652
 10 9 8 7
 K

 KJ6 N  A54
 84 W E  J73
 632 S  AKQ4
 AJ976  Q 10 4
 982
 A K Q 10
 J5
 8532

South’s defence was very poor. He should have realised that his 
holding was only going to provide four tricks and that it was important to
find the setting trick before giving away critical information. At trick two
he should have switched to a  (or even a ) because it should have been
obvious that West had overbid the hand a fraction and that there was
probably at least one trick in his partner’s hand. An immediate attack on
dummy’s entries was called for, since there was plenty of time to cash the
 winners.
His play of the J was even worse, since this limited declarer’s
chances to go wrong to such an extent that he was virtually forced into
making the winning play. It is understandable that he should switch to
dummy’s weak suit at this point, but a little thought on his part would
have made it seem likely that declarer must be too strong in s to make
this switch worthwhile, particularly if his partner held four to the Q or
something similar. If declarer had held A K 10 X or A Q 10 X then
the play of the J is a disaster for North.
Many players seem blissfully unaware of the quality of the
information that they are giving their opponents when they open with a
pre-emptive bid. At a recent duplicate this auction occurred.

Example 8

 A43  952
 A 10 W E  K9864
 A954  Q 10
 K 10 5 2  AJ4

N E S W
P P 2 P
P 3 P 4
P P P

The K was led and, on inquiry, North revealed that the 2 opening
showed 6-9 HCP, with at least a six-card  suit.
Since North’s pass marked West with values, East decided that he
just had enough to risk a protective 3 overcall. You may think that West
should bid 3NT over 3, but she explained afterwards that she knew that
either East or North was short in s and that therefore partner had good
chances to ruff losing s. As it turned out this was a fortunate, if
specious, line of reasoning.
Declarer thought for some time, noting regretfully that 3NT had
good play if North held the K (duck two rounds of s, win the third 
and play a small  up towards the Q, thereby winning one , two s,
two s and four s if the Q could be found.) But what about 4?
Clearly declarer must win the lead in dummy, since North had, at
most, a singleton . If North followed with anything other than an
honour, declarer had identified 6 of the maximum 9 high-card points in
the South hand. The chances of North holding the K would improve
significantly. In any case, to make the contract North must hold the K,
since South could cash two rounds of  if he got in and there remained at
least one losing trump trick.
But surely North needed to hold the Q as well? Perhaps not, if
the A could be set up for a  discard before the trumps were played,
provided that the s broke 3-3. If South had either 6-2-3-2 distribution
or 6-3-3-1 distribution without the K, then the contract was laydown.
 Assuming that North returned a  when in with the K…finesse
the Q;  to the Q;  to the A; A (discarding a  from hand);  to
the K and exit with a . If South started with Q X X , he would now
be able to cash his winning  before conceding the remaining tricks. On
the other hand, if North started with Q J X X he could cash his second
and concede the rest. This was a good plan which paid handsome
dividends. Note that declarer’s plan of campaign gave a very good
chance of locating the Q.

 8
 Q72
 KJ62
 98763

 A43 N  952
 A 10 W E  K9864
 A954 S  Q 10
 K 10 5 2  AJ4
 K Q J 10 7 6
 J53
 873
 Q

The play proceeded as follows:-

 Won the  lead with the A.

 Played a small  from table, won by North with the K.
 North continued with the J (!?) presumably an attempt to set
up his partner with a later entry. Declarer won with the Q.
 He crossed to the A.
 Cashed the A, discarding a  from hand and breathing a sigh
of relief when both defenders followed suit.
 Crossed to the King of hearts…
 …and exited with a  to North’s Q. (Understandably North
had failed to make the master play of dropping his Q under
the A, thus setting up an entry to his partner’s hand to cash the
winning .)
 North belatedly switched to a  and declarer claimed the
remaining tricks.
East/West scored an outright “top” on the board, since virtually all the
field were in 3NT, either making nine tricks exactly, or going off
(presumably by ducking two rounds of s and playing for divided 
honours). Without the information garnered from the weak 2 bid,
making 4 is difficult and making an overtrick is a downright miracle!

Frank Groome
(October 2009)