[diana_eva]

From a team match on BBO. Random (but starred) partner, no clues as to what his preempt style is.

Would you bid one more?

---

[kuhchung]

i wouldn't have bid 3D but it seems to have worked, sort of. i save now

[mikeh]

diana_eva, on 2014-December-09, 12:20, said:

From a team match on BBO. Random (but starred) partner, no clues as to what his preempt style is.

Would you bid one more?

---

Yes

Assuming partner has any clue, we have a double-fit. It is possible that partner has both red Aces and possible that they cash, but the odds of RHO jumping to slam without first round control of at least one of those suits seems remote.

I expect to go 1100, and if that were the only upside, I wouldn't save, but partner could well be 2=6=4=1, with xx AJxxxx Qxxx x, and now they need a diamond ruff to collect the 1100 and we could easily escape for 800.

Note that our 3♦ call, which wasn't clearly best, has done two things. One is it has paved the way for the save, which we wouldn't consider had we not known of the double fit, and the other is that it made life easy for the opps.

I would have preferred 4♥, and I don't think that is allowing the result to influence me...after all, had I bid 4♥ and they still reached slam I'd never be saving. While suggesting a save can be useful one has to balance it against giving the opps an easy cuebid...thus 4♦ (if understood) wouldn't likely have helped any either.

As it is, I am going to assume that I went 'right' in bidding 3♦. If I wasn't intending to save I shouldn't have made the bid.

[BillPatch]

Partner has not shown long ♦ only support. I pass to suggest I have one trick against slam, giving captaincy to partner.

[diana_eva]

mikeh, on 2014-December-09, 12:41, said:

Note that our 3♦ call, which wasn't clearly best, has done two things. One is it has paved the way for the save, which we wouldn't consider had we not known of the double fit, and the other is that it made life easy for the opps.

I would have preferred 4♥...

I made the 3♦ bid thinking it'll be lead directing. Didn't really intend to sac over slam originally, I just wanted a better lead than the heart ace most likely ruffed, and I didn't expect to be left alone to play hearts anywhere lower than the 5th level. So my plan there was sac up to 5th level, while giving some info to pd along the way. Didn't consider it's helpful for opps too.

[mikeh]

diana_eva, on 2014-December-09, 12:52, said:

I made the 3♦ bid thinking it'll be lead directing. Didn't really intend to sac over slam originally, I just wanted a better lead than the heart ace most likely ruffed, and I didn't expect to be left alone to play hearts anywhere lower than the 5th level. So my plan there was sac up to 5th level, while giving some info to pd along the way. Didn't consider it's helpful for opps too.

What contract did you think partner would be on lead against? Your spade stiff and partner's pre-empt make it seem to me about 99.9999999% that you will be on lead

The aforesaid percentage estimate is intended only as an approximation and ought not to be relied upon otherwise.

[diana_eva]

mikeh, on 2014-December-09, 12:58, said:

What contract did you think partner would be on lead against? Your spade stiff and partner's pre-empt make it seem to me about 99.9999999% that you will be on lead

The aforesaid percentage estimate is intended only as an approximation and ought not to be relied upon otherwise.

uhm good point yeah, i thought he was on lead LOL

[diana_eva]

Anyway, I did sac, and we went for 1100. Pd wasn't happy with my choice so I wanted to check whether is was really so bad. Other table was in 4♠+1. Tough

[billw55]

East's bidding strikes me as odd. He is satisfied with a simple overcall, but then when he gets a limit raise, he flies to slam? It is suspicious enough to me that (1) I am not so sure 6♠ is making, and (2) I am not sure it will be bid at the other table. So, I do not sac.

disclosure, I did see the result before I posted that.

[ArtK78]

Unfortunately, I did see the result before I posted this. Nevertheless, I will plow through, as I had formed an opinion before even getting to Mike's post. I was surprised to see that he was in favor of the save.

There are two things that can go wrong with a sacrifice like this one:

(1) Slam goes down.
(2) A grand makes.

On this hand, I can't rule out either possibility.

Yes, the existence of our double fit makes it likely that 7♥ will go down less than the value of slam. It may even be much less - as Mike said, it might only be 800.

But the possibility that the opps may make 11 or 13 tricks rather than 12 must enter the picture. Our double fit may mean that the opps have a lot of black suit tricks avaialble.

Of course, even if the opponents can make 13 tricks, they may not bid the grand if we save. I would guess that if they do bid the grand, it is likely to make.

So, what to do? I think in the long run it is best to pass and hope that the opponents are wrong to be in exactly 6♠.

Last second thought - the JTx of clubs may be important on defense. Partner could have a singleton or doubleton Q.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on 2014-December-09, 15:25, said:

Unfortunately, I did see the result before I posted this. Nevertheless, I will plow through, as I had formed an opinion before even getting to Mike's post. I was surprised to see that he was in favor of the save.

There are two things that can go wrong with a sacrifice like this one:

(1) Slam goes down.
(2) A grand makes.

On this hand, I can't rule out either possibility.

Yes, the existence of our double fit makes it likely that 7♥ will go down less than the value of slam. It may even be much less - as Mike said, it might only be 800.

But the possibility that the opps may make 11 or 13 tricks rather than 12 must enter the picture. Our double fit may mean that the opps have a lot of black suit tricks avaialble.

Of course, even if the opponents can make 13 tricks, they may not bid the grand if we save. I would guess that if they do bid the grand, it is likely to make.

So, what to do? I think in the long run it is best to pass and hope that the opponents are wrong to be in exactly 6♠.

Last second thought - the JTx of clubs may be important on defense. Partner could have a singleton or doubleton Q.

I don't argue strongly with the last two posts.

However, the jump to slam doesn't surprise me IF overcaller holds something like AQxxxx x Axx KQx and has inferred the stiff diamond over there, which in turn would imply long(ish) clubs, not that he needs more that KJxxx xx x Axxxx

Also, I don't think they are likely to bid the grand after the leap to small slam...there are two suits they need to have first round control of and I doubt that they can ever be sufficiently confident as to take the chance

Finally, it would be anti-percentage to play N to hold the club Q, when his most likely holding is a stiff AND the opps have bid slam on what is likely, even with the club Q, to be a combined 24 count.

I am actually surprised to learn that slam went down.

[rmnka447]

I'd bid 4 ♥ at the first opportunity to speak.

But on the actual auction, I'm not so sure that I'd take the sac. -1100 is worth about an 8 IMP gain IF our teammates are voluntarily bidding to a makeable slam. If the slam is bid at both tables and doesn't make, -1100 loses us 15 IMPs. If our teammates aren't bidding to slam and it makes, we're saving about 3 IMPs by taking a -1100 instead of -1430. If slam goes down and our teammates are only in game at the other table, -1100 gives away 28 IMPs.

[MrAce]

I just saw the result and I am still saving.

[neilkaz]

rmnka447, on 2014-December-09, 16:10, said:

I'd bid 4 ♥ at the first opportunity to speak.

But on the actual auction, I'm not so sure that I'd take the sac. -1100 is worth about an 8 IMP gain IF our teammates are voluntarily bidding to a makeable slam. If the slam is bid at both tables and doesn't make, -1100 loses us 15 IMPs. If our teammates aren't bidding to slam and it makes, we're saving about 3 IMPs by taking a -1100 instead of -1430. If slam goes down and our teammates are only in game at the other table, -1100 gives away 28 IMPs.

We agree on 4♥ and I hate the 3♦ bid, however I think sac'ing here is horrid and, as you've shown the IMP odds don't come any where near justifying it.

[kuhchung]

What 2 tricks did we get? Two bullets? HA and a deep club? A trump!?

[kuhchung]

How come your topic is so much more popular than mine Diana

[diana_eva]

kuhchung, on 2014-December-09, 17:09, said:

How come your topic is so much more popular than mine Diana

Yours made the news~!

[diana_eva]

kuhchung, on 2014-December-09, 17:08, said:

What 2 tricks did we get? Two bullets? HA and a deep club? A trump!?

Turns out partner was the one painting the table, after all. And I just noticed it was -5, not -4 Not that it mattered much at that point.

---

[the hog]

I saw the result as well, so my answer is biased. I would definitely not save. I find Art's arguments convincing and agree with them. By the way, opening 2H vulnerable on this hand? Please! I also think the 6S bid was not the best with xxx in clubs.

[mcphee]

I rarely take equal color saves and see no reason to start now. Although saving may be "right" my hand is not so great even if we do happen to have this big 2 suited fit. It would not hve been my choice to ever introduce diamonds. This auction does not tell me the enemy have a cold slam, why should I believe it? Sure my LHO bid it to make, has he never been wrong? When we bid 3D should partner take the view that I don't have it? He could have 3D for all I know, so I am going to pass and hope I got it right.