Going Bonkers in Competition


A J 9
6 5 3 2
9 8 7 5 4
5
Q 7 K 5 2
A Q 10 9 7 4
A K 10 6 2 3
A Q J 7 4 K 10 6 3
10 8 6 4 3
K J 8
Q J Vul: E-W
9 8 2 Opening lead: A of diamonds

SouthWestNorthEast
Pass 1 Pass 1
Pass 3 Pass 3 NT
Pass 4 Pass 5
Pass 6 Pass Pass
6 Dbl All pass

Down 7 for minus 1700 and a zero matchpoint score. Now, that would be scanned awhile. You've got 7 hcp's, just enough for a modest one-over-one bid or on a fit a raise to two opposite an opening bid. So by what logic do you have enough for a six bid opposite a passing partner? Oh, it's a sac bid. Yes, how foolish of me to have overlooked that. And at favorable vulnerability too! Yes, so I noticed. A sac bid at favorable vulnerability, huh. Does that justify any bid? When you get zero matchpoints? C'mon. You've gotta be kidding. Even sac bids must have a modicum of trick-taking power, ya know. So while we're at it, why don't we give a few seconds to just how much punch the N-S pair should have on that bid.
The opponents are going for a minor-suit slam. Which means you can't afford minus 1400, not to say minus 1700. So minus 11 hundred . . let's get out the fingers . . . means down five, which in a six bid means making 7 tricks, no? So let's ask you this question: do you have enough to make the majority of the tricks when you have 7 hcp's, your partner hasn't promised anything, and the opponents are evidently loaded for bear? That takes us beyond who's vulnerable and whatever adjective you wanna apply to the bid. Remember, on most of your daring bids at the one and two level, maybe the three level, even if you get set, it will turn out that the opponents could have made something their way. But here, what you can afford has already been discounted. You need seven tricks or you've got a bad board. Period.
And there are a couple of other factors to consider. If your partner does offer enough stuff to give you 7 winners opposite that mess of pottage you call your hand, is it not very possible that he'll have enough to beat 6 clubs (along with your heart holding)? It certainly has been known to happen. And then there's that last possibility: that declarer misplays the hand. That has been known to happen not too rarerly also, and indeed did happen with one declarer here.

About 15 years ago, the ACBL changed the scoring for the first time in over 50 years. Vulnerable and doubled undertricks remained unchanged: 200 for the first and 300 for every subsequent one, which is to say 300 times the number minus 100. But non-vul doubled undertricks were changed, from 100 for the first and 200 for every subsequent one, or 200 times the number minus 100. It was then easy simply to multiply and subtract 100: down seven? Well, 1400 minus a hundred. Presto. This was changed to a 100 for the first, 200 for the next two and 300 for every undertrick after that.
And what was the reason for the change? Well, it was exactly for a hand of this sort. You see here that under the old system, 6 spades would have a been a good sac, down 1300 when the other guys had 1370 on a minor suit slam, yah, yah, yah. Six spades on garbage, evidently bid in part because it was the only suit those other guys didn't bid. Now, how's a pair with a powerful hand and that vulnerability supposed to get in a slam bid that sticks, anyway? Give a the opps a half-way decent 6-card suit, or any kind of an 8- or 9-card fit indicated or presumed, and they're off to the sac bid. Declarers with the strong hands were then gypped out of a chance to flex their skills on these plum hands.
But the message hasn't altogether gotten out that favorable-vul sacs can be very expensive, can be too expensive, can be way too expensive, aren't a simple gimme because the vul is favorable. Nor is this the only hand where that has been exemplified. Not by a long shot. And how to you suppose this sac bidder ranks himself? Well, I had to take a look, as I'm inclined to do on the most egregious misbids and plays and find that this player tells us he's "adv+++" I dunno.

Here's how a declarer, sitting with the West hand went down: Opening lead a club, declarer wins, cashes one more round, A of diamonds, A of clubs, K of diamonds, 10 of diamonds, deuce of diamonds ruffed in dummy (! ! !), and now he knocks out the A of spades. You can see what happened, can you not? His LHO simply cashed a diamond. Actually, declarer was destined to lose a diamond anyway, even if he'd kept a stopper in in the suit. He gets one favorable break in diamonds (Q J tight) and one unfavorable break (5-2) split, but it shouldn't surprise him that he must ruff two diamonds in dummy to cool the suit. (The hand would also play well from dummy by ruffing two hearts, but that would definitely be a lucky break that the K lies in the short hand.)
Declarer should cash one round of diamonds and ruff a round. He notes that the 10 is now established and that he must ruff just one more diamond. So return with the A of hearts, ruff a diamond high (declarer has every trump down to the 10), draw trump and claim, conceding the A of spades. But at least he did better his direction than the above declarer. This declarer got 2%.