October 2018 - 35

Losing Trick Count, updated
- part 6
BY JENNIFER JONES

jennbridge.blogspot.com

Jennife574@aol.com

It is not uncommon for the value
of bridge hands to change during the
auction as players begin to bid and
describe their hands. Loser count can
also change during the auction, and it
is important to be alert to this possibility and re-evaluate accordingly.
Here is a hand from the final of the
recent U.S. Bridge Championship:

♠AK63
♥K9864
♦-
♣ J 10 8 6

rewarded with 11 IMPs.
Here is another hand played in a pair
game by good players who use LTC:

♠Q87542
♥A53
♦52
♣AQ

♠Q 8 7 5 4 2 ♥A 5 3 ♦5 2 ♣A Q.

At the other table, the overcaller
signed off in 4♠. This deal swung 13
IMPs in a highly significant match that
was decided on the last board!
A partner of mine recently held:

At unfavorable vulnerability, this
hand dealt and passed, and LHO
opened 2♦, weak. Partner overcalled
2♠, and RHO got in the action with
4♣! What is your call?
It looks like your choices are to raise
spades or cuebid. You're a passed hand,
so partner cannot expect too much
from you, but your hand has the loser
count of a good opening bid! (Only 2
losers in spades due to the massive
trump fit, 2 losers in hearts and 2 ½ in
diamonds: 6 ½ losers total.)
With the 11-card or longer fit opposite partner, who came into the auction
vulnerable, the intrepid player holding
this hand decided that he had too much
slam potential to bid only 4♠. After
considering various options, he finally
decided that the best choice was to bid
5♣ to show a big spade fit and a club
control with interest in a possible slam.
Given the 4♣ bid and original pass,
he hoped that partner would interpret
this as showing a void.

Right-hand opponent dealt and
opened 1♦. This hand overcalled 1♠.
The next hand passed and advancer
bid 4♦, showing at least four-card
spade support and a diamond singleton or void. The 4♦ bid was doubled.
The overcaller then re-evaluated his
hand. Although it initially contained
7 ½ losers, the splinter reduced the
loser count. The losers in spades have
been reduced, due to the fit of at least
10 cards. The losers in diamonds have
also been reduced to no more than one,
due to the splinter. The ♣Q is probably
not a loser, as RHO, the opening bidder, rates to have the king (if partner
doesn't hold it), so now the hand has 5
or 6 losers. The advancer, who splintered, should have no more than 7
losers, probably less, to force to game,
so the partnership is definitely in slam
territory: Twelve combined losers
subtracted from 24 is 12, the number of
tricks required to make a small slam.
At one table, the player holding these
cards made a 4♥ cuebid. This was
followed by advancer's 5♦ cuebid,
confirming no diamond losers, and the
spade slam was duly reached and easily
made:

♠10 8 7 6 4 2 ♥8 ♦Q 10 ♣A 9 5 3.
I opened 1♥, and he responded 1♠. I
then bid 4♣, a splinter bid in clubs.
Although responder started with an
8-loser hand, once he learned of the
massive spade fit, he deducted a loser
in spades. He also was able to deduct
two losers in clubs due to my announced club shortness. The updated
assessment showed that his hand had
only 5 losers and so was slam-worthy
opposite my strong bidding. The deal:
♠AQ93
♥ A 10 9 7 6 4
♦A8
♣6
♠ 10 8 7 6 4 2
♥8
♦ Q 10
♣A953
My jump to the game level via the
splinter showed 5 losers. So, even
though he had only 6 HCP, we bid and
made a decent 20-point slam and were

♠10 9 7 6 4 3 ♥A 9 8 6 ♦Q 5 2 ♣-

♠ 10 9 7 6 4 3
♥A986
♦Q52
♣-
♠AKJ82
♥K7
♦AJ9
♣764
Nobody else bid the 22-point slam,
so the pair got a cold top.
◾
October 2018 Bridge Bulletin

35
http://jennbridge.blogspot.com
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2018
