Monday, February 15, 2010

Follow-up to post-preempt decision

Well, at the virtual table I passed here without much thought. As Alex mentions in the comments, I am in general a devoted non-sacrificer. But let’s revisit this. What is partner doing? Based on his failure to bid anything the first time, or to bid 4S the second or third time, we can be confident he does not have a diamond-suit-plus-spade-fit kind of hand. No, he has a bucketload of diamonds. In context, I think we have a nice fit; when I preempt, he must expect about 1 card in his very long suit on average. Two and a ruffing value (if they don’t pull my trumps) is a nice bonus. It was a bold action to save over 3nt, and he must have a very long semi-solid suit. Can we raise the sacrifice a level? In retrospect, I think we can. Of course, I have come under the influence of seeing the hand record, here.

As you can see, 5D gets out for 300 (4S goes for 500.) As a curiosity, check out the par on this hand. NS score highest in notrump, making 5 for 660. So is 5NT par? No, because we get out for 500 in six diamonds! A par sacrifice against 5NT must be a rare bird, and one I only recommend hunting with handy access to the hand records.


Memphis MOJO said...

I must admit bidding 5D didn't occur to me, but makes sense I guess.

One thing to be said for passing is that you've done well to get them out of 3NT. Unless South bid it on Q-x of spades, I don't see much defense against that contract.

We do have some hope against 4H (although not on this layout, obviously).

Anonymous said...

Hi Jon,

If HQ and one of the diamonds were reversed, Drew's 3NT and Josh's 4D would still be correct on double, and, probably, single dummy basis.
Now 4H can be defeated, and 5D is more expensive.

Besides they can compete to 5H over your 5D. As such your at the table decision looks very sensible.

Looking forward to more interesting hands.

Kind Regards,

Jonathan Weinstein said...

Hi guys,

Yes, it certainly isn't crystal clear to bid 5D. I do find it instructive to see that it's a close decision when one could easily let it go by without even thinking of it as a decision (I did.) Alex, yes partner *could* bid 4D on x Qxx KQJ9xxx xx, although it is certainly a gamble, 800 being in the picture if I don't have the SA or trumps misbehave. It would be a tough decision for him.

Anonymous said...

oops, I just realized that "more interesting" in a recent post sounded ambiguous. I did not mean this hand is not interesting and we want better material. I meant that this hand is interesting and we want more hands!

And, yes, I also observed hands which seem no-brainers at the table, but, in fact, the obvious decision is wrong. Great stuff for postmortems.


Jonathan Weinstein said...


Not to worry, I knew perfectly what you meant.