Going Against the Grain


8 5 3
10 9 7 3
10 8 7 5
4 2
K Q 6 2 A 9 4
J 6 5 A K 8 2
------ J 3
K 9 8 7 6 5 A Q J 10
J 10 7
Q 4
A K Q 9 6 4 2 Vulnerability: N-S
3

WestNorth East South
3 Pass 5 5
Pass Pass Dbl All pass

Let's look just a moment at what you're up against sacrificing vulnerable against a non-vul game bid. You've got to evaluate the potential of both directions and while attributing to those guys the potential to make their contract, presuming that your side will be just one trick shy in your sacrifice. That's awfully close calling the potential of each side while you look at 13 cards and weight the potential of the other three hands from a few bids.
Too close, I would say. Naturally if you take such chances often enough, you're bound to be right some of the time. But I'd suggest that the times you're right, that they can make their contract and you can go down only one trick, will not make up for the times such an attempt fizzles and you get a poor score. For that reason, I have a one-word piece of advice on this matter: Don't.
And if you think you're too clever to imbibe that advice, I'd say, just watch. Make all the "reverse" vul sacs you want, but note whether you're coming out ahead or not.
The above pair came out with a 2.94 score (on the basis of 100), so they must've had a little company, or perhaps one or two pairs did worse. But that's cold comfort, I would think.
Well, gosh, couldn't those guys make slam? Indeed, they could. In fact because of a lucky break in hearts, they could actually make grand slam! But an awfully grand slam aside, there are two problems with saying they can make (little) slam. One is that they didn't bid it when the bid was open to them; and the second is that this declarer went down 4 tricks, for minus 1100, which is more than a little slam would bring in.
This 5 diamond bidder has 7 apparent winners opposite a passing partner. Oh, his partner might offer a trick, but then again, might not, as here he would not. So declarer wound up with those 7 running diamonds and lost the other 6 tricks for down four. Expensive.
Some years ago, I voiced my opinion that red-vs.-white sacrifices aren't worth exploring to a woman and was surprised by her response, which was: "Do you know who's good at that?" And she proceeded to name a woman who was no particular friend.
The reason I was surprised was not that this particular woman was alleged to be "good at that", but that anyone would merit that description. "Good at that" implies repeated success with such bids -- surely upwards of 3 successes (with oh maybe one failure) in a month's time, and maybe repeated the next month when I don't come across them them but once in six months!
Oh, I don't doubt that there are cases I've missed, opportunities that weren't attempted but would've worked and slid past me. After all, it only involves a game bid by a non-vul pair where the vul opponents could make a higher bid down only 1. And particularly if there are others who share my skepticism on making such a venture. Nevertheless, if there are situations where it'd work, I just don't see 'em, and even at that, if there are a few successful sacs under those circumstances, I wouldn't be very impressed unless I knew someone's overall payments.
I do have a vague remembrance of hand which I tried to adjust to make the vul sac work against non-vul opps. I tried to tweak the hand so that the vul sac would work, but every time I made the vul side strong enough for down one, it turned out they could beat the non-vul game by the opps, and if I tweaked it so that the non-vul people could make their bid, the vul people would've been down two. It was about then that I decided a vul sacs of game bids aren't worth chancing.