[broze]

---

I declared this contract in a recent ACBL speedball. At favourable vulnerability and rather than allow the opponents room to manoeuvre my leapt straight to 5♥ which after being doubled, ended the auction.

When dummy came down, I saw it was a very marginal sacrifice, and whether it would score well depended on how the ♣ and ♥ suits broke. The opponents took the ♠ Ace and I trumped the ♠ continuation. At this point, as far as I recall, I drew trump (which split 2-2), played a top ♣ honour and the queen dropped on my right.

Now I had a think. Ordinarily the percentage play, by restricted choice, would be to finesse the other opponent for the other honour. However, I reasoned thusly: If there was indeed a 3-1 break in either ♣ or ♥ then the opponents' ♠ game would have made meaning our sacrifice was a good one, trading at worst -300 for -620. However, if both suits broke 2-2 then the opps had no major game since we would have 4 top tricks. If this was the case then I had to make my contract to be in with the hope of a good score.

I therefore cashed the AK♣. As it happened ♣ and ♥ did break 2-2, with a QJ doubleton in ♣ and my decision was vindicated on this deal. Was it sound logic? And if so does this scoring coup have a name? I've never read about it nor heard anyone discuss it on the Vugraph, which makes me think I may have missed something.

[Flameous]

I don't know, am I missing something or do you have a mistake in the diagram. If you make the correct choice in clubs, you are making 5♥ and it's not a sacrifice at all. If it's IMPs your expected score is easily highest with taking percentage play in clubs and finessing.
At MP, if you are making the wrong choice, you are losing to all who get to play 4♥ and to those who take other line in 5♥.
I don't see here how it makes a difference whether 4♠ makes or not, your only chance to break even with those in 4♥ is to take the best chance in clubs meaning finessing.
If we adjusted the hand so that your spades were 2-2 and clubs 3-6 for example, ie. your 5♥ is always -1, then I can see reason to take a finesse you wouldn't otherwise take because you need opps suit to be 3-1. You wouldn't try for the situation where 4♠ and 5♥ are both down.
I don't think the situation could be such you would refuse finesse indicated by restricted choice, on the contrary there may be an additional reason for the finesse.

[ArtK78]

Your logic is sound. I don't believe that the play has a name, as it is not a "coup" in any sense. It is just logical to make the play that rates to score well under any circumstances.

Clearly, if clubs were 3-1, you should score well in 5♥x for down 1 by playing for a 2-2 break even though you could have made the contract. Because you are playing in a pair event (even if it is scored at IMPs) your play makes sense. Obviously, it is better to make 5♥x than to go down one. But, under the circumstances, down 1 should score well, as 4♠ rates to be a common contract.

[jmcw]

Is everyone bidding 2♥ here!

[JLOGIC]

Very very nice.

[JLOGIC]

jmcw, on 2011-December-22, 13:47, said:

Is everyone bidding 2♥ here!

No, that is the point of his play, he assumed he would be one of the only people in 5H because of his atypical overcall. FWIW I think overcalling w/r at MP is all day even though it is very abnormal, and I would always do so. In a field of all jlalls, it would be correct to try and maximize against people in 5H X since that is a standard contract in that field

[Yu18772]

This is a very nice hand, thanks for posting. I think I saw some similar play problems in Kelsey's "Matchpoint bridge", but dont think there is a name for that.

[broze]

ArtK78, on 2011-December-22, 10:38, said:

Your logic is sound. I don't believe that the play has a name, as it is not a "coup" in any sense. It is just logical to make the play that rates to score well under any circumstances.

Yes I suppose it's merely an example of rejecting what would normally be a superior line of play for a guarantee of an ok decent score. The strange implication is that it is always correct to bid a sacrifice in situations such as these (though admittedly they don't come up very often) since every now and then your "sac" will be a making contract! Shows that in bridge, aggression can often win out over passivity.

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-22, 21:54, said:

In a field of all jlalls

Haha, can you imagine!?

[benlessard]

Match-Point Bridge (1976) by Hugh Kelsey has some similar hands, but its still tough to spot them IRL.

[gwnn]

Remember not to apply it in cases where you miss a slam. Don't try to "assume the slam fails - otherwise I get a bad score"*

*unless you have a specific tournament situation in which you're absolutely out of contention with one bad score.