Only 3 out of 16 pairs made a sacrifice

[dalmov]

Not vulnerable against vulnerable, and as dealer South, you held six ♠ led by the A. The bidding had gone as shown, and you sensed that the opponents were having a slam somewhere. Just to make a sounding to see whether partner could have any strength in ♠ or not, and to give some lead directive in the case of a ♦ slam, you made some noise by bidding 1♠. With partner's response of 2♠, you can count "optimistically" 6 tricks, and therefore, you decided to sacrifice by bidding 6♠ over opponents' seemingly "cold" 6♥. The whole board is as shown below.[hv=pc=n&s=sa98543hjd643ct75&w=sqt6hk976dak752c2&n=skj72ht52d98ck964&e=shaq843dqjtcaqj83&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1dp1h1s2h2s3d4sdp5cp5dp6h6sdppp]399|300[/hv]

[smerriman]

Are you sure you have the vulnerability right? Otherwise this doesn't make any sense..

[ahydra]

As smerriman points out, the vulnerability in the bidding diagram is back-to-front.

 

I must admit, NV against V I would raise to 3S with North. That of course makes finding the sac even easier.

 

ahydra

[Tramticket]

I open 2♠ (or Multi 2♦) with South hand.

[Lovera]

Finally seems to be considered what i said in my topic "About the Sacrifice bidding" and obviuosly with the right vul (NS white vs red).

[Cyberyeti]

Well since EW are making the grand, might not be a good idea to sac.

[Lovera]

Well since EW are making the grand, might not be a good idea to sac.

It maybe (here there is a club impasse). Anyhow can be usefull to watch the traveller for tables resulting.

[gordontd]

The bidding had gone as shown, and you sensed that the opponents were having a slam somewhere.

I don't see what possible basis you can have had for "sensing" that. Nor do I understand why you wouldn't have already opened 2S.

[Cyberyeti]

It maybe (here there is a club impasse). Anyhow can be usefull to watch the traveller for tables resulting.

 

Nope, 7♥ simply demands 2 club ruffs and the rest go on the diamonds, if anybody has 5 clubs is likely to be following after the ruffs. 7♦ is trickier but also makes with them 3-2.

[ggwhiz]

Assuming the vul is reversed the auction starts 2♠ - whatever - 4♠ at 90% (conservatively) of the tables in any game I've played in.

 

If whatever is 2♦ instead of double enough will get to ♦ instead of hearts and/or miss slam altogether to be within shouting distance of avg. Nothing wrong with an occasional 40% matchpoint score but plenty wrong with a phantom sac when you have no way of knowing that their slam actually makes.

[rmnka447]

Sorry, but 4 ♠ by South is already a sacrifice bid. So South has said his/her piece. Further sacrificing should only be the prerogative of North. By bidding 6 ♠ on his/her own, South is making unwarranted assumptions about North's holdings.

 

Any sacrifice by the weak side is based on being able to offset the strong side's high cards by ruffing losers. For a successful sacrifice, that requires complementary shortness in North's hand to cover some of South's losers. And that is something only North knows.

 

The only time when South might consider a further sacrifice is when the South hand has some extreme distribution, say 6-5-1-1 or such, that insures fewer losers.

 

BTW, there's no way for South to know if that North holds 4+ trump or the ♠ K, so it could have been even worse.

 

As for 2 ♠ by South initially, that's a matter of style, I wouldn't.

 

In the aftermath of the hand, I think South should take full responsibility for taking a "shot" on intuition and having it backfire. We all do it from time to time.

[Lovera]

Nope, 7♥ simply demands 2 club ruffs and the rest go on the diamonds, if anybody has 5 clubs is likely to be following after the ruffs. 7♦ is trickier but also makes with them 3-2.

"It maybe .." is to read in general way and anytime can not be the case to sac in higher level also for avoiding others not good bidding by opps or because the contract is complex to realize. Quickly i have seen a dummy reversal that i.e. requires a impasse with K♣ inside but is more right and easy your play.

[Lovera]

Sorry, but 4 ♠ by South is already a sacrifice bid. So South has said his/her piece. Further sacrificing should only be the prerogative of North. By bidding 6 ♠ on his/her own, South is making unwarranted assumptions about North's holdings.

 

Any sacrifice by the weak side is based on being able to offset the strong side's high cards by ruffing losers. For a successful sacrifice, that requires complementary shortness in North's hand to cover some of South's losers. And that is something only North knows.

 

The only time when South might consider a further sacrifice is when the South hand has some extreme distribution, say 6-5-1-1 or such, that insures fewer losers.

 

BTW, there's no way for South to know if that North holds 4+ trump or the ♠ K, so it could have been even worse.

 

As for 2 ♠ by South initially, that's a matter of style, I wouldn't.

 

In the aftermath of the hand, I think South should take full responsibility for taking a "shot" on intuition and having it backfire. We all do it from time to time.

Generally i can agree with you. Perhaps is more easy for N to bid 6♠ with two Kings plus diamond shortness and instead S acts (because is much light ?). The two hands develope seven tricks.