In a major bridge publication, regarding steps to planning the play at a suit contract, I was dismayed to read:
“Step 1: What will I lose? This is the exact opposite of Step 1 in notrump planning. There, we counted tricks we would win.That is not a good way to plan the play with a trump suit. …”
I nearly fell out of my chair with the last sentence. I contend that counting winners is not only a good way but a better way to plan the play at any contract. Counting losers, cards in one hand that are not winners or facing winners, is often a convenient shortcut but is inherently flawed. Perhaps a hundred years ago this ‘shortcut’ was observed and popularized by writers of the time, and since has been perpetuated by bridge teachers, if only to go with the flow. Experts are well aware of its flaws, so it’s about time — translation: long overdue — to switch to the better way.
In most cases counting losers is simply counting winners in reverse, typically returning a smaller number, which may seem friendlier to work with. Consider the following six North-South hands, which I drew from the article. In each case South is declarer in 4 .
By either method, after a club lead the urgency is to attack hearts — whether to eliminate that loser first, or establish two heart tricks — before the opponents can establish and cash a club trick. Of course you will win the K first to retain dummy’s entry.
By either method, the urgency is to lead a diamond to prepare for ruffs while dummy has adequate trumps. The trump lead, and continuation when you give up a diamond, will hold you to 11 tricks. With any other lead you’d have 12 easy tricks barring an unlikely club or heart ruff.
By either method, the essence is to draw only two rounds of trumps before taking a heart finesse, so dummy will remain with a trump entry for a second heart finesse. In real life, of course, you’ll be wasting your effort, as West produces the K.
By either method, the crux after the trump lead is to play ace and another diamond immediately. If a second trump were drawn, an opponent with three trumps could lead a third round to wipe out dummy’s ruffing ability. If the opening lead were a heart, it would be smart to lead clubs first, as this could bring 11 tricks (clubs 3-3, no diamond shift) with no risk.
By either method, the urgency is to attack hearts. If you led a trump first, an opponent could win and shift to clubs, leaving you a tempo behind to establish a heart trick before the opponents establish a club trick. Note that an original club lead would usually set you.
By either method, the issue is the order of finessing (or not finessing). At matchpoints* you should win the club lead in dummy and take the trump finesse. If it wins, great; but if it loses, your A-Q is safe from attack, and dummy will have trump entries to finesse hearts next. Even if West has both major-suit kings, you will usually win 11 tricks.
*Play at IMPs is less clear. You have a 100-percent line by winning the club in hand and leading ace and another trump. The danger in the matchpoint line is a singleton club with East, then a losing trump finesse and club ruff leaves you needing the heart finesse (alternately you could take the diamond finesse when East shifts to that suit, but you can’t cater to both). Nonetheless, this scenario is so unlikely that I think the odds favor the same play at IMPs.
In the examples so far, the issue of counting losers versus winners was moot. Either way resulted in the same plan, so it might be just a matter of preference. Not really. It is my contention that counting winners, and ways to increase them, will always provide a viable analysis; while counting losers, and ways to eliminate them, will sometimes lead you astray. For example, consider this layout:
Note that whether counting losers or winners it is usually best to assume a normal trump break (here 3-2) to develop a plan that will usually work. If trumps break badly, you may have to change plans, or as is often the case, you were dead on arrival.
Most players here would plan to ruff the fourth heart in dummy (unless hearts are 3-3). Best timing would be to win the trump lead and duck a heart immediately. Then whatever the return, win a second top trump and continue hearts, not caring if an opponent ruffs with the high trump. A reasonable plan. But clearly wrong!
Before explaining the proper play, it is important to understand the universal law of ruffing:
A trick is gained by ruffing only if the hand that ruffs is left with fewer trumps than the opposite hand.
For example, suppose your trumps are K-J-10-9 opposite Q-8-7-6. You start with three sure winners, and a ruff in either hand gains a trick (that hand becomes shorter). A second ruff in the same hand gains another trick. Be sure to see that one ruff in each hand gains only one trick, because the second ruff did not make the hand shorter; however, left with K-J-10 opposite Q-8-7, a ruff in either hand now gains another trick.
Applying this law to the trump suit of A-7-2 opposite K-6-5-4-3 shows that ruffing with the three does not gain a trick; nor does a subsequent ruff with the four. But left with A-7-2 opposite K-6-5, a ruff now in either hand gains a trick. In other words, to gain one trick requires either one ruff in the shorter hand or three ruffs in the longer hand. Sometimes the three ruffs are easier to obtain than the one ruff.
The correct play of this contract is to ruff three diamonds in hand, as it is virtually foolproof. Win the K and give up a diamond. You now have three dummy entries ( A, K-Q) to ruff the remaining diamonds, ensuring the contract with any 3-2 trump split. As a bonus, you will also succeed when West has four trumps if his shape is 4=2=4=3.
Observe that the popular plan of ducking a heart early could go terribly awry if West has a singleton heart: East wins, heart ruff, diamond to East, heart ruff — down one.
I have read many bridge articles on the play of suit contracts, where the writer admonishes the reader with words to the effect, “Well, on this deal you should have counted winners.” Duh. So why is this deal any different?
For further insight into my method of counting winners, see Suit Play Technique.
© 2026 Richard Pavlicek
by Richard Pavlicek by Richard Pavlicek