[lamford]

---

Matchpoints.

North appears to have a good hand on this deal from Pula. Do you save at these colours?

[nige1]

lamford, on 2017-September-11, 07:34, said:

Matchpoints.
North appears to have a good hand on this deal from Pula. Do you save at these colours?

---

It depends on your assessment of North.

• If North is conservative, reliable, and an expert, then a sacrifice is attractive -- although it is likely to be quite expensive.
• If North is aggressive, a gambler, or a poor player, then you should probably pass or double.
• With no clue, pass, hoping for the best.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2017-September-11, 08:23, said:

It depends on your assessment of North.

• If North is conservative, reliable, and an expert, then a sacrifice is attractive -- although it is likely to be quite expensive.
• If North is aggressive, a gambler, or a poor player, then you should probably pass or double.
• With no clue, pass, hoping for the best.

North was Vampyr, a fine player.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2017-September-11, 08:27, said:

North was Vampyr, a fine player.

Over 6♥, with a good hand, Vampyr would pass (forcing) with 1st round ♥ control but lacking a ♠ void. So I reckon she has 4 1st round controls. Hence, unless she seems in a frisky mood, you might risk the ♥ sacrifice. Even if you're are right, the profit is likely to be small, as, the other table may not reach a slam let alone a grand.

[The_Badger]

Surprised West didn't bid 3NT instead of 4♥ to throw a spanner in the works. Or even 4NT...

As for saving, anyone's guess. My rule is that you tried to save once, but never twice. But....North might have bid 7♣ without your intervention. I'm going to trust that North has her bid and a massive minor suiter with 7-6 or 6-6-1 with the ♥A as distribution. So, yes, 7♥ it for me. At matchpoints it's only one board.

[nige1]

The_Badger, on 2017-September-11, 08:48, said:

So, yes, 7♥ it for me. At matchpoints it's only one board.

The decision seems much closer at match-points. If 7♣ is making, then you are likely to get a poor score, whether you sacrifice or not. On grounds of frequency, pass becomes more attractive.

[Tramticket]

Pass for me. North had to make a seven-level judgement. Under pressure, North (even Vampyr ) may have over-stretched. I would hate to make a (very costly) phantom sacrifice.

[steve2005]

lamford, on 2017-September-11, 07:34, said:

Matchpoints.

North appears to have a good hand on this deal from Pula. Do you save at these colours?

At Matchpoints the odds favour pass.
People say you should bid as its only matchpoints so if wrong is only a board.
But passing at matchoints can just be as easily a top.

The problem taking a sac at MP is even when your right and it is a profitable sac at the 7-level, you lose to everyone who was allowed to sac at 6-level. 7♣ may not be the field bid.

People's other logic on bidding 7 is reasonable and it could be right, but at MP the odds don't say you should sac.

[Vampyr]

7♣ got 66% (edit: oops 61.76) of the matchpoints. There were various doubles and redoubles at other tables. 7♥ is down only five.

People who redoubled, in my opinion, are barking. It is begging the opponents to sacrifice. Or... are they attempting to get you to sacrifice when they have a loser? I wonder.

I held:

none
none
AKQJxxx
AKQxxx (spots nothing special)

I had been looking forward to opening 5NT, our agreement being void in both majors with a maximum of one loser. But it was not to be.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-11, 18:50, said:

I had been looking forward to opening 5NT, our agreement being void in both majors with a maximum of one loser. But it was not to be.

It's a real shame when you have such a perfect hand for this agreement and the opponents go and mess things up by bidding in front of you. At least you remembered the bid so you'll be prepared when it comes up next time.

[steve2005]

sfi, on 2017-September-11, 19:17, said:

It's a real shame when you have such a perfect hand for this agreement and the opponents go and mess things up by bidding in front of you. At least you remembered the bid so you'll be prepared when it comes up next time.

Should have bid out of turn maybe they accept?! LOL

[Vampyr]

steve2005, on 2017-September-11, 19:59, said:

Should have bid out of turn maybe they accept?! LOL

Could work well -- with partner silenced they may think I am taking a shot in the dark and will double me in 7♦!

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-11, 21:44, said:

Could work well -- with partner silenced they may think I am taking a shot in the dark and will double me in 7♦!

There's some quality out-of-the-box thinking to advance the game.

[lamford]

sfi, on 2017-September-11, 22:36, said:

There's some quality out-of-the-box thinking to advance the game.

Will probably fall foul of a "could have been aware" ruling, especially with some quality directors around here in Pula!

A link for those who want to gawp at the -2660 from a former winner of the Brighton Swiss Pairs:

http://jtz.club/wp-c...itional018.html

[sfi]

lamford, on 2017-September-12, 03:22, said:

Will probably fall foul of a "could have been aware" ruling, especially with some quality directors around here in Pula!

That and law 72B1, but the laws are mere ephemera when it comes to a hand like this.

On a side note, I'm very jealous of people who keep picking up hands with only two suits. My wife has picked up 3 of them and she's only played half as long as I have. This year I finally got one, but it was only in bidding practice so I don't think it really counts.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2017-September-12, 05:53, said:

That and law 72B1, but the laws are mere ephemera when it comes to a hand like this.

On a side note, I'm very jealous of people who keep picking up hands with only two suits. My wife has picked up 3 of them and she's only played half as long as I have. This year I finally got one, but it was only in bidding practice so I don't think it really counts.

I think I last had one over 25 years ago. Be patient!

[cherdano]

I think bidding 7♥ is right. Down 5 is what we'd expect opposite a typical preempt, and that's a good save against their small slam. So the whole logic of "Even if 7♣ makes, you are booked for a bad score anyway" doesn't convince me.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-13, 08:17, said:

I think I last had one over 25 years ago. Be patient!

I'm playing next Thursday, so I think I can wait a week.

[gszes]

I would do one of two things bid 7h OR x hoping p makes the obvious spade lead. I say this because I would have bid 3s over 3h to try and get a spade lead. A 3s bid would have helped me significantly with this decision. At MP the sac is nowhere near as costly as it might be at imps if it is phantom since it is only 1 board so I would lean toward bidding 7h since the bidding appears to be normal enough.

[lamford]

gszes, on 2017-September-13, 18:05, said:

I would do one of two things bid 7h OR x hoping p makes the obvious spade lead. I say this because I would have bid 3s over 3h to try and get a spade lead. A 3s bid would have helped me significantly with this decision. At MP the sac is nowhere near as costly as it might be at imps if it is phantom since it is only 1 board so I would lean toward bidding 7h since the bidding appears to be normal enough.

One of the problems with double is that partner might well lead a spade out of turn, but then declarer should prevent you from leading a spade.