[nemojames3]

I am a complete beginner although have been using bridge baron for a while and so have a general idea how to play. The other software I am using to teach me tells me that as soon as the dummy is shown I have to count all the sure winners and work out how many extra tricks I need. How important is this as it does seem a bit of a chore when all I want to do is get stuck in. Surely if you just aim to win as many tricks as possible then calculating them in advance is not neccesary ?

[ggwhiz]

There are plenty of Bridge column hands including the one I got in my paper today that show why this is necessary.

You have Ax opposite Kx in the suit they lead against 3nt and have to decide which side suit to attack at trick 2. The one that will produce the most tricks goes down on a bad break when the other cinches the contract.

It's painful at first but well worth it and will become more and more auto if you invest the energy.

Try Louis Watson, Play of the Hand. It's about how to play IMP Bridge instead of Matchpoints, to my mind a more interesting form of the game.

Don't limit yourself to gonzo Bridge.

[markyears]

It's definitely very important to count winners before you play trick 1! Because in a normal bridge game, the aim is to make the contract rather than "win as many tricks as possible" as you said. For example, you are playing 3nt, you have 9 sure winners, then take it! You can win 400 (non-vul) or 600 (vul). But one overtrick is only 50 points. If you risk for this overtrick by a finesse for example, but you lose it, and your opp get the lead and run their long suit to defeat the contract. Too sad!

So the only important thing is to make the contract, don't even consider overtrick if you're a beginner like me.

nemojames3, on 2011-December-10, 13:20, said:

I am a complete beginner although have been using bridge baron for a while and so have a general idea how to play. The other software I am using to teach me tells me that as soon as the dummy is shown I have to count all the sure winners and work out how many extra tricks I need. How important is this as it does seem a bit of a chore when all I want to do is get stuck in. Surely if you just aim to win as many tricks as possible then calculating them in advance is not neccesary ?

[aguahombre]

Over-simplification here. You definitely need to count winners AND potential losers at trick one, then proceed as best you can. Yes, at matchpoints you want to take as many tricks as you can, maybe at risk of failure on occasion. But, in order to do so intelligently, you need to COUNT.

[nemojames3]

OK I can see that if you have enough sure winners you should just take those winners and not worry about the overtricks. It is the bit after that where you are short of sure winners and need to make up extra tricks which seems trickier and more time consumming to me. Once it is establised I don't have enough sure winners can't I just proceed on the basis that I need to win as many tricks as possible ?

[markyears]

I know my answer might disappoint you, but it's still a "no"... If you're short of sure winners, just try to establish the enough extra winners as you need to make the contract by choosing a method with the highest possibility. For example, you have 8 sure winners for 3nt, but you have two choices of finesse. Take the most possible one you think, and suppose you win, you have 9 tricks for sure, don't take another one.

I know what you mean, it is very tricky, very complicated. That's why there are so many books discussing how to be a declarer. What we discuss-"make a plan" is a principle we should always follow. How to "make the plan" depends on the skill, both of us may not make the correct plan at most of time. But try to do it!

nemojames3, on 2011-December-11, 02:41, said:

OK I can see that if you have enough sure winners you should just take those winners and not worry about the overtricks. It is the bit after that where you are short of sure winners and need to make up extra tricks which seems trickier and more time consumming to me. Once it is establised I don't have enough sure winners can't I just proceed on the basis that I need to win as many tricks as possible ?

[gwnn]

You should try some bridge master hands, they teach you most of the basics and then most of the advanced stuff

[ggwhiz]

markyears, on 2011-December-11, 09:19, said:

just try to establish the enough extra winners as you need to make the contract by choosing a method with the highest possibility. For example, you have 8 sure winners for 3nt, but you have two choices of finesse.

As an example when you need to establish 1 more winner with a choice of
1. leading low to the AQ and finessing or
2. leading low twice towards an AJT

1. will win faster but is 50%
2. will win slower but is 75% (either honour onside)

Counting is only the first step in making your plan but it's crucial and only gets quicker and easier with practice.

[daveharty]

nemojames3, on 2011-December-11, 02:41, said:

OK I can see that if you have enough sure winners you should just take those winners and not worry about the overtricks. It is the bit after that where you are short of sure winners and need to make up extra tricks which seems trickier and more time consumming to me. Once it is establised I don't have enough sure winners can't I just proceed on the basis that I need to win as many tricks as possible ?

"As many tricks as possible" is a slippery concept. Say you are declaring 3NT and you have eight top tricks, with two alternative lines for getting more. You judge Option 1 to have a 90+% chance of success (say a finesse through someone who made a vulnerable preempt in the suit), and if it wins, you will have nine tricks. You judge Option 2 to have a 25% chance of success (say a double finesse in a side suit), and if it wins, you will have ten tricks. Ten tricks are "possible" but I would hardly say you should choose Option 2. Of course it's often hard to judge these things with any precision at the table; that's part of what makes bridge fun, in my view.

As others have noted, the answer is partially dependent on the form of scoring. At IMPs or rubber bridge scoring, overtricks are far less important than simply making or breaking a contract (although anyone who has ever lost a match by one IMP will tell you they aren't exactly meaningless). Your goal is normally clear, whether you are declaring or defending. At matchpoints it's much trickier to identify your goal on many hands; it might be the case that you must take a big risk to get an overtrick in a cold 3NT, because you think that the field will be in a making 4H contract, so your +400 will score poorly against the +420 everyone else is likely to get. Or you might cash out on defense, giving up on defeating a contract that it might still be possible to beat, because you judge that it's more likely that trying for the set will present declarer with overtricks.

In general, aguahombre is exactly right: counting is probably the single most important skill you can develop as a bridge player. That means counting winners and losers, high card points, and the distribution of each suit. It means counting both as declarer, and as a defender. If you develop that skill to the point that it is second nature on every hand, you will eventually be an excellent bridge player.

EDIT: LOL in the time it took to type this I see others have made similar points!

[markyears]

That's a great suggestion! But sometimes, I feel the deals in master bridge are a little artificial though...

gwnn, on 2011-December-11, 09:28, said:

You should try some bridge master hands, they teach you most of the basics and then most of the advanced stuff

[EricK]

nemojames3, on 2011-December-11, 02:41, said:

OK I can see that if you have enough sure winners you should just take those winners and not worry about the overtricks. It is the bit after that where you are short of sure winners and need to make up extra tricks which seems trickier and more time consumming to me. Once it is establised I don't have enough sure winners can't I just proceed on the basis that I need to win as many tricks as possible ?

Let's say you are in 3NT. You need 9 tricks. But the other thing to consider is that the opponents need 5. If you count your immediate winners and see, for example that you only have 8, then you need, somehow, to set up another winner somewhere. To intelligently make the correct choice of which winner(s) to set up, you have to bear in mind what the opponents are trying to do. Consider this hand:

Contract 3NT by South

---

You have 8 immediate winners (6♣ and 2 Aces). You need one more trick. You have two obvious ways to get some more winners - play on ♠ to knock out the Ace, which will set up two more winners, or take the ♥ finesse which, if it works, will give you one more winner.

Suppose, firstly, that the lead is a ♦. Since the opponents have 9♦ between them, after you take your Ace they will be threatening to take at least 4 tricks in ♦. You, therefore, can't afford to play on ♠ because as soon as they take the ♠A, they will cash enough ♦ to defeat you. Your best chance for the extra trick you need is the ♥ finesse. If it works you will make your contract exactly. But if it fails you will go down.

But suppose the lead is a ♣? Now it is risky to take the ♥ finesse as if it loses, they might switch to a ♦ and set up their winners. You still only have 8 top tricks, so eventually you will have to let them on lead and they will take 5. But instead of the ♥ finesse, knocking out the ♠A guarantees your contract - indeed it guarantees an overtrick. After they take the ♠A, they will have to let you on lead, and you will be able to cash (at least) 10 tricks.

[Vampyr]

Sometimes in a suit contract you may find it quicker and easier to count losers, and, if you have too many, figure out how to eliminate them.

[daveharty]

EricK, on 2011-December-11, 09:48, said:

Contract 3NT by South

---

I'd like to see that auction!

[EricK]

daveharty, on 2011-December-11, 10:35, said:

I'd like to see that auction!

3NT* All pass
* Gambling - Sorry pard I had a ♠ mixed in with my ♣

[cherdano]

I thought with 12 cards you count losers not winners?

[EricK]

cherdano, on 2011-December-11, 11:34, said:

I thought with 12 cards you count losers not winners?

That's with 14 cards. The extra card might not make a trick.

OK. I'm never making up a hand again.

[Cthulhu D]

As a humble beginner, I'm pretty sure planning the play (and the defence!) prior to playing into trick one is the second most fundamental skill in bridge after counting trumps (and not revoking).

[nemojames3]

ok thanks everyone. I will persevere then although at the moment it seems impossible without asking everyone if they would mind going away and having a cup of tea while I plan the play in each hand. Obviosuly counting the winners is easy enough it is then going on to work out where to get the extra tricks that at the moment seems impossible.

[blackshoe]

Hint: start by looking at the longest suit(s) in your two hands.

You might take a look at Planning the Play of a Bridge Hand, by Barabara Seagram and David Bird. The Watson book recommended upthread is good — it's on my "top ten bridge books of all time" list — but a little hard to read.

I have two rules for planning the play: at NT, "Count your winners", which usually starts with me looking at two aces in dummy and saying "one, two, okay, now what?" and at suit contracts: "Count your losers. When you get to thirteen, stop".

[Cthulhu D]

nemojames3, on 2011-December-12, 01:46, said:

ok thanks everyone. I will persevere then although at the moment it seems impossible without asking everyone if they would mind going away and having a cup of tea while I plan the play in each hand. Obviosuly counting the winners is easy enough it is then going on to work out where to get the extra tricks that at the moment seems impossible.

9/10 the answer to that is 'Okay so I need to set up <longest suit> by <taking a finesse, trying to drop, whatever>, so I need to start <now/after drawing trumps>' and then you proceed. Try the express tournaments, they force you to be quick!