August 2018 - 26

Losing Trick Count, updated
- part 4
BY JENNIFER JONES

Bidding distributional hands
Last month, we talked about competitive bidding, including bidding
6-5 hands. Let's continue the theme of
bidding distributional hands, as losing
trick count is particularly effective in
evaluating such hands. Uncertainty
arises when evaluating hands using
only high-card points to determine
strength.
I couldn't believe my eyes when I
was dealt this hand last fall in a local
sectional team game:
♠9 8 7 5 4 3 ♥A K 10 9 7 6 4 ♦- ♣- .
Right-hand opponent dealt and
passed as I gazed with wonder on
this collection. (Have you ever seen a
7-6 hand?!) How best to handle this
four-loser hand? I rejected the idea of
opening 4♥, as I considered that such
a bid could prevent us from reaching
a slam in one of the majors if we had
one. An argument could be made for
opening 1♥ and bidding spades later,
but I finally elected to pass and come in
later. One thing seemed certain: This
highly distributional hand was unlikely
to be passed out!
LHO opened 1♦, partner passed and
RHO bid 2♦. Now I had a good bid:
3♦. This would presumably show a
distributional hand with both majors.
Partner bid 3♥, and I raised to 4♥.
Without any encouragement from
partner, I settled for bidding game,
although I was a bit disappointed that
we had to give up on slam ambitions
... until LHO doubled. Then I felt we

26 Bridge Bulletin August 2018

jennbridge.blogspot.com

Jennife574@aol.com

would be headed for a good score. The
opening lead was the ♦A, and this is
what partner saw:
♠987543
♥ A K 10 9 7 6 4
♦-
♣-
♠Q6
♥J32
♦ Q J 10 9
♣Q964
As expected, partner's hand was not
strong, but the ♥Q was singleton, so
we lost only two spades. Partner made
11 tricks.
When we compared scores, we found
that our teammates pushed the opponents to 5♥ before they doubled. As
we were vulnerable, our score was plus
990 versus our teammates' minus 850,
so we won 4 IMPs. It is interesting to
note that both teams bid this 15-point
game and, actually, 5 of the points in
the South hand were unnecessary, so
you could say that it was a 10-point
game. That is the immense power of
distribution.
Here is a 6-5 hand I held in a pairs
game:
♠Q 10 8 7 6 ♥8 ♦J 9 8 6 4 3 ♣A.
Partner dealt and opened 1♦. I
responded 1♠, and fourth hand overcalled 2♥. Partner now jumped to 3♠,
showing a strong hand. I noted that my
7-point hand had only six losers, so I

elected to make a move toward slam
with a cuebid of 4♣. I liked my hand
with the double fit, five-card spade
suit, singleton in the opponents' suit
and first-round control in clubs! Partner should have a six-loser hand for
his jump rebid, so we had the correct
loser count for slam. (6 + 6 = 12, which,
subtracted from 24 is 12.)
Partner now cuebid 4♦, and I cuebid
4♥. Partner next bid Roman key card
Blackwood, and I responded 5♣, showing one key card. He followed up with
5♦, asking about the trump queen and,
as I possessed it, I jumped to 6♠. A
heart was led.
♠AK53
♥943
♦AK752
♣7
♠ Q 10 8 7 6
♥8
♦J98643
♣A
Spades behaved (they broke 2-2),
and the only trick lost was a heart.
Scoring plus 980 for this 21-point slam
was a top.
Using LTC when holding distributional hands enables you to accurately
gauge their strength and bid to the
appropriate level. You can "come alive"
even with a minimum of high-card
points!
◾
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of August 2018
