Traveller's Tale (April)

This month's traveller is typical of deals at matchpoint pairs with a single side vulnerable who have a small majority of high-cards. That invariably leads to a variety of levels. The vulnerable side would be happy with a plus from their making contract but the other side will pay 50 or a 100 for a better matchpoint score.

The non-vulnerable side pushes and dares the vulnerable side to go higher. If pushed too far someone will – or should – get the doubling card out but often combined values are hard to assess in a competitive auction. Add into the mix some extra distribution and the lure of game by either side and miscalculation is not far away.

EW Vul.
Dealer North
  • 9764
  • A10752
  • K9
  • A10
  • QJ2
  • KJ84
  • 75
  • Q765
N
W
E
S
  • K105
  • 9
  • AQ3
  • KJ9832
  • A83
  • Q63
  • J108642
  • 4
West
North
East
South
—
1
2
2
2NT
3
3NT
4
X
All Pass

A vulnerable overcall in a minor should be a serious venture, hence West's two-notrump advance. South thought East-West could make three no-trump – and he was right! Or was he?

Freq.ContractEW+EW-EW%

2 x

4X-3 (N)

+500

97%

1 x

3-3 (N)

+150

89%

5 x (2)

4= (E)

+130

63%

3 x

3+1 (E)

+130

63%

1 x

2+2 (E)

+130

63%

1 x (1)

3= (E)

+110

37%

1 x (1)

3-2 (N)

+100

32%

1 x

5-1 (N)

+50

21%

2 x (1)

3-1 (N)

+50

21%

1 x

5-1 (E)

-100

8%

1 x

4-1 (E)

-100

8%

1 x

2+1 (N)

-140

0%

This comes from a club evening split into two sections, one a five-table final, the other a 15-table 'Open'. I've merged the results, the final frequencies are in parentheses. The auction above comes from my table in the open, against last year's winners (it's not your year, every year).

Sacrificing at matchpoints isn't as simple as comparing your loss at the table to the score the opponents would have got. Had this been IMPs, North-South could comfort themselves that bringing back -500 to teammates was better than calling out, "-600". They might even hope for a small gain had teammates been allowed to play game (+3 IMPs) but in any case they would ameliorate losses against, say +130.

That is a simplification because it ignores the risks taken. But the traveller shows that "even when you win, you lose"; there is scant difference in matchpoints between the sacrifice and conceding game. Note that even had four hearts doubled escaped down two (-300) that would not affect the matchpoint score. And lastly, East-West should be doubling three hearts.

Not only must the contract against which the sacrifice is aimed be making, it must be common. Sacrifices need protection from the field. This happens most often when opponents bid a good slam; if they make it, you get a bad score, unless sacrifice is cheaper than game. Against opposing contracts that appear to be rare, slams and three no-trump in competition, let them play and hope to defeat them.

Published Saturday 13.Apr.2019