not saving

[straube]

Looking for reactions to the Granovetter's article from the recent ACBL bulletin where they discussed how taking saves can be habit forming. They say that the USA juniors team has been encouraged not to take saves. I also read recently that Bergen was down on saving in 5m and said that this was very different from saving in 4S. Thoughts anyone? Obviously, higher level saves can pay off, but what about the thrust of the Granovetter article? I'm starting to think that taking a 300 save against 620 makes a lot of sense (talking imps now), but I would wonder about the wisdom of being down two tricks doubled at other vulnerabilities. Also, it's very difficult to know when it's right to save because one partner may want to and the other partner not.

[gnasher]

I think you should rarely make a bid whose sole purpose is to sacrifice. For such a sacrifice to gain, you need all of these to happen

- Their game makes.

- The sacrifice costs less than the value of their game (or they misjudge by bidding on and going down).

- They don't bid one more and make it anyway.

- The game is bid in the other room/the rest of the field.

 

There are other categories of call that sometimes turn into a sacrifice:

- Bidding one more as a two-way effort, when we're unsure who can make what.

- Jumping to game preemptively before they've decided on the correct strain and level, aware that you're going down if they double, and hoping that if they do it will be cheap, but with the extra upside that you're taking away their bidding space.

 

Both of these have two ways to win, so they have a much better chance of success.

[aguahombre]

- Jumping to game preemptively before they've decided on the correct strain and level, aware that you're going down if they double, and hoping that if they do it will be cheap, but with the extra upside that you're taking away their bidding space.

 

....these have two ways to win, so they have a much better chance of success.

This particular one (getting there first) seems to be the most profitable.

[whereagles]

What do I think? It's not the first time I see the Granovetters taking neocon views on bridge. LOL.

 

In this particular subject I don't quite agree because in my experience bridge is an attacking game. You can often get away with murder when you overbid. Quite different from chess and other sports where a defensive stand is more profitable. Which is also why I like it so much. I prefer to have a chance to create my own destiny than to thrive on other people's mistakes.

[cherdano]

I think intermediate players make pure sacrifice bids too often.

[Finch]

If you are frequently playing against the same people (as happens in England where the expert community isn't that large) then they get to know you and your style. In that case it's a bad idea only to save when it is very cheap, because then oppo know what to do against you. You need to make dodgy saves sometimes, because the huge upside from a 500/800 save is when they bid on and go off.

[Phil]

I think intermediate players make pure sacrifice bids too often.

 

Agree, but they also bid over the sacrifice way too often.

[dake50]

I really like bouncing opponents into a save,

stretch a trick+ when they beg to play their long suit.

[Zelandakh]

You can often get away with murder when you overbid. Quite different from chess and other sports where a defensive stand is more profitable.

 

Sorry, but as someone who plays chess this is really completely wrong. When Kasparov uses openings such as the Najdorf or Dragon, do you think he is playing defensively? and that is as black. At lower levels of the game almost all players are (much) better attackers than defenders.

 

What I learned is that aggressive chess is winning chess. Even unsound sacrifices often pay off against club level players when they are made with stretegic merits.

 

That said, I agree with you that aggression pays in bridge, providing you do it with strategic justification. Giving the opponents the last guess, as high as you can reasonably do so, is a tactic that works. Even great players cannot get every 5 level decision right. What is often not good is bidding 5m as a sacrifice over their 4M once they already found it. Now you are giving them "fielder's choice" to use an Americanism.

 

So it depends what the Gs mean. I have not read the interview so am not sure. As gnasher alludes to the term sacrifice has different meanings. If they are really saying that bidding our sacrifice preemptively, before the opps can find their fit and level, is bad, then I would respectfully have to disagree with it.

[whereagles]

Well, I don't know how chess is going these days, but when I used to play it (~20 years ago), Kasparov was the only attacking player around lol. I won a couple of games with broken sacrifices when my opponent misplayed, but at higher levels all those sacrifices ended up in a lost game, oooops.

[Vampyr]

For such a sacrifice to gain, you need all of these to happen

 

- They don't bid one more and make it anyway.

 

If they do bid one more and make it, it is true that the sacrifice doesn't gain, but it doesn't lose either.

[Onedown]

When I teach, one of the 1st things I try and do when they can count to 13 and take tricks, is learn how to score. It is surprising how many players do not understand scoring, especially imps when it is a very big part of the game and decision making.

 

5 level usually belongs to the opps, and if you need to decide whether to take the 5 level sack, be sure a) you could see no way of beating 4 of a major and b) make sure that you are not going for any more doubled than what their game is worth and c) best to have the sack option white vs red. This is the only time the numbers really make any sense and a large differential if the sack was right or you pushed them to 5 level where you will often score a plus for muchos imps.

 

Good sacks are a real art form and so satisfying when you are right!!

[daveharty]

Agree, but they also bid over the sacrifice way too often.

Truth. It seems like this is one of the hardest forms of discipline to learn.

[han]

I think you should rarely make a bid whose sole purpose is to sacrifice. For such a sacrifice to gain, you need all of these to happen

- Their game makes.

- The sacrifice costs less than the value of their game (or they misjudge by bidding on and going down).

- They don't bid one more and make it anyway.

- The game is bid in the other room/the rest of the field.

 

I think this is a bit too one-sided. If they bid one more, you are in a plus position. If they make it, nothing is lost. If they go down, it is a small win if they were already down, and a big win if they go down 1.

 

You also don't need the other room to be in game as well. If your teammates are +170 at the other table, it's still better to be -300 (lose 4) than -620 (lose 10). Given that the OP mentioned the US junior team, I think that this discussion is mostly about IMPs. Someone as good as you shouldn't use arguments that are clearly false.

 

I agree with the OP that looking for sacrifices at favorable vulnerability is quite different from other vulnerabilities. Last week we missed a red against white save for -200 vs -420. It is still a 6 IMP loss, but if you know you aren't making it, it is usually considerably against the odds to make such a sacrifice.

 

I also agree that sacrificing in 4S over 4H is very different from sacrificing in 5m.

 

I also agree that bidding a sacrifice quickly (as a jump, or before they have bid game, or when they might like to make a slam try) has much more to gain.

 

But I do not believe in bidding by set rules, especially if those rules say nothing about vulnerability, form of scoring or the type of hands. Bidding by axiom is an insult to this game.

[gnasher]

Someone as good as you shouldn't use arguments that are clearly false.

 

It seems to have taken you two months to notice this, so maybe it's not as obvious as you suggest?

[han]

Ah, you wrote it in May. That changes everything. :unsure: