Sacrifice (bridge)

Last updated

In duplicate bridge, a sacrifice (a save in common usage) is a deliberate bid of a contract that is unlikely to make in the hope that the penalty points will be less than the points likely to be gained by the opponents in making their contract. In rubber bridge, a sacrifice is an attempt to prevent the opponents scoring a game or rubber on the expectation that positive scores on subsequent deals will offset the negative score.

Contents

Owing to the difference in the methods of scoring between duplicate and rubber bridge, a sacrifice bid in rubber bridge is much less likely to be advantageous [1] and so strategies differ between the games. Comparable strategy differences exist between Matchpoints scoring and IMPs scoring games.

Scoring context

Sacrificing against game contracts

Sacrificing Against a Game Contract
Opponents'
probable game points
Our probable penalty
points in a doubled contract
Their
vulnerability
PointsTricks down when
we are vulnerable
Tricks down when
we are not vulnerable
1231234
Vulnerable600 or 620200500800100300500800
Not vulnerable400 or 420200500800100300500800

In duplicate bridge scoring, if the opponents bid and make a game contract, it yields them 600 or 620 points when they are vulnerable and 400 or 420 points when they are not vulnerable, depending upon the strain and assuming no overtricks. Accordingly, a sacrifice will be advantageous if the resultant loss in points is less than these amounts.

Determination of the most number of tricks that can be lost to satisfy this condition is dependent upon the relative vulnerability of each partnership, i.e. whether one, the other, both or neither are vulnerable. The determination is also based upon the assumption that the opposition will double the sacrifice bid thereby increasing the penalty points. The table at the left summarises the various scenarios and outcomes.

In summary, when the opponents are likely to make a game contract, a sacrifice bid which is doubled is viable (i.e. one will still receive a positive relative duplicate score) if one can go down no more than:

Similar reasoning can be drawn for sacrifices against potential slam and partscore contracts and cases where one assumes that the contract will not be doubled.

Sacrificing against small slam contracts

Sacrificing Against Small Slam Contracts
Opponents'
expected game points
Sacrificer's expected maximum
penalty points and undertricks
VulnerabilityContractPointsNot vulnerableVulnerable
PointsUndertricksPointsUndertricks
Not vulnerable6NT99080048003
6 or 6980
6 or 6920
Vulnerable6NT14401400614005
6 or 61430
6 or 613701100511004

When the opponents are likely to make a small slam contract, a sacrifice bid which is doubled is viable if one can go down no more than

Sacrificing against grand slam contracts

Sacrificing Against Grand Slam Contracts
Opponents'
expected game points
Sacrificer's expected maximum
penalty points and undertricks
VulnerabilityContractPointsNot vulnerableVulnerable
PointsUndertricksPointsUndertricks
Not vulnerable7NT15201400614005
7 or 71510
7 or 71440
Vulnerable7NT22202000820007
7 or 72210
7 or 72140

When the opponents are likely to make a grand slam contract, a sacrifice bid which is doubled is viable if one can go down no more than

Strategy

A sacrifice most often occurs when both sides have found a fit during bidding (eight cards or more in a suit), but the bidding indicates that the opponents can make a game or slam contract. Also, it is possible to perform an advance sacrifice, when it is more or less clear that the opponents have a fit somewhere and greater strength. For example, after the partner opens 1 and RHO doubles, the following hand is suitable for a bid of 5, outbidding opponents' major suit game in advance:

8 3 4Q 10 8 5 4 2 Q J 6 4

As seen in the table above, vulnerability significantly affects the sacrifice: success is most likely if the opponents are vulnerable but the sacrificing side is not. At equal vulnerabilities, sacrifices are less frequent, and vulnerable sacrifices against non-vulnerable opponents are very rare and often not bid deliberately. Also, the specific duplicate scoring method affects the tactics of sacrifice at matchpoint scoring, −500 or −800 (down three or four) against −620 is a 50/50 probability for a top or bottom score, but at international match points (IMPs) it can gain 3 IMPs (120 difference) but lose 5 (180 difference), making it less attractive.

However, if it turns out that the sacrificing side misjudged, and that the opponents' contract was unmakeable (or unlikely to make), the sacrifice is referred to as a false or phantom one. A false sacrifice can cost heavily, as the sacrificing side has in effect turned a small plus into a (potentially large) minus score.

The Law of total tricks can be a guideline as to whether the sacrifice can be profitable or not.

Sacrifices are practically always made in a suit contract; sacrifices in notrump are extremely rare, but can occur, as in the following deal:

A 6
K 8 7 4
J 9 7 4
Q J 5
Q 10 8 5 3

N

W               E

S

K J 9 7 2
A Q J 6 310
5 2
K 8 410 9 6 3 2
4
9 5 2
A K Q 10 8 6 3
A 7

The bidding starts:

WestNorthEastSouth
1
212NT4?

1 Michaels cuebid, indicating both majors.

South can see that East-West have a huge spade fit and that it's quite possible that they can make 4. However, the best sacrifice seems to be 4NT rather than 5; it requires a trick less and there is no indication that 5 would provide more tricks than 4NT. Indeed, 4NT is down one and 5 down two.

Other considerations in sacrifices

The scoring matters a lot in sacrifices. Matchpoints scoring vs. IMP scoring makes a very significant difference in sacrifice decisions.

Kit Woolsey suggests that the following three conditions should all be met for a sacrifice to make sense in Matchpoint scoring:

  • The field is going to bid the game the opponents reached.
  • The said game is very likely to make.
  • Your doubled sacrifice is likely to not go down too much (i.e. maximum 1 down in unfavorable vul, max 2 in equal, and max 3 in favorable. Slam values are much higher) [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

Contract bridge Card game

Contract bridge, or simply bridge, is a trick-taking card game using a standard 52-card deck. In its basic format, it is played by four players in two competing partnerships, with partners sitting opposite each other around a table. Millions of people play bridge worldwide in clubs, tournaments, online and with friends at home, making it one of the world's most popular card games, particularly among seniors. The World Bridge Federation (WBF) is the governing body for international competitive bridge, with numerous other bodies governing bridge at the regional level.

Auction bridge

The card game auction bridge was the third step in the evolution of the general game of bridge. It was developed from bridge whist in 1904, possibly by 1900. Auction bridge was the precursor to contract bridge. Its predecessors were whist and bridge whist.

Safety play in contract bridge is a generic name for plays in which declarer maximizes the chances for fulfilling the contract by ignoring a chance for a higher score. Declarer uses safety plays to cope with potentially unfavorable layouts of the opponent's cards. In so doing, declarer attempts to ensure the contract even in worst-case scenarios, by giving up the possibility of overtricks.

In contract bridge, the Law of total tricks is a guideline used to help determine how high to bid in a competitive auction. It is not really a law but a method of hand evaluation which describes a relationship that seems to exist somewhat regularly. Written by Jean-René Vernes for French players in the 1950s as a rule of thumb, it was first described in English in 1966 International Bridge Academy Annals. It received more notice from appearing in The Bridge World in June 1969. In 1981 Dick Payne and Joe Amsbury, using their abbreviation TNT, wrote at length about it for British readers. Later, in the US, Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen popularized the approach, using their preferred abbreviation: 'the LAW'.

Rubber bridge is a form of contract bridge played by two competing pairs using a particular method of scoring. A rubber is completed when one pair becomes first to win two games, each game presenting a score of 100 or more contract points; a new game ensues until one pair has won two games to conclude the rubber. Owing to the availability of various additional bonus and penalty points in the scoring, it is possible, though less common, to win the rubber by amassing more total points despite losing two games out of three. Rubber bridge involves a high degree of skill but there is also a fair amount of luck involved in who gets the best cards.

Duplicate bridge variant of contract bridge card game

Duplicate bridge is the most widely used variation of contract bridge in club and tournament play. It is called duplicate because the same bridge deal is played at each table and scoring is based on relative performance. In this way, every hand, whether strong or weak, is played in competition with others playing identical cards, and the element of skill is heightened while that of chance is reduced. Duplicate bridge stands in contrast to rubber bridge where each hand is freshly dealt and where scores may be more affected by chance in the short run.

In the card game of bridge, the unusual notrump is a conventional overcall showing a two-suited hand. It was originally devised by Al Roth in 1948 with Tobias Stone, to show the minor suits after the opponents opened in a major.

Chicago, also known as Four-deal Bridge and Short Bridge, is a form of contract bridge and a variation of rubber bridge in which one or more sets of four deals are played and scored.

Zar Points (ZP) is a statistically derived method for evaluating contract bridge hands developed by Zar Petkov. The statistical research Petkov conducted in the areas of hand evaluation and bidding is useful to bridge players, regardless of their bidding or hand evaluation system. The research showed that the Milton Work point count method, even when adjusted for distribution, is not sufficiently accurate in evaluating all hands. As a result, players often make incorrect or sub-optimal bids. Zar Points are designed to take many additional factors into consideration by assigning points to each factor based on statistical weight. While most of these factors are already implicitly taken into account by experienced players, Zar Points provides a quantitative method that allows them to be incorporated into bidding.

Preempt is a bid in contract bridge whose primary objectives are (1) to thwart opponents' ability to bid to their best contract, with some safety, and (2) to fully describe one's hand to one's partner in a single bid. A preemptive bid is usually made by jumping, i.e. skipping one or more bidding levels. Since it deprives the opponents of the bidding space, it is expected that they will either find a wrong contract of their own, or fail to find any. A preemptive bid often has the aim of a save, where a partnership bids a contract knowing it cannot be made, but assumes that, the penalty will still be smaller than the value of opponents' bid and made contract.

These terms are used in contract bridge, using duplicate or rubber scoring. Some of them are also used in whist, bid whist, the obsolete game auction bridge, and other trick-taking games. This glossary supplements the Glossary of card game terms.

There are two main categories of scoring in contract bridge: duplicate and rubber scoring. While based upon the same basic elements of scoring, they differ in how the elements are applied to individual deals and in how these are then totaled. Chicago, being a variant of rubber bridge, uses an adaptation of rubber bridge scoring. Duplicate bridge has many variations for scoring, comparing and ranking the relative performance of partnerships and teams playing the same deals as their competitors.

In the card game contract bridge, a takeout double is a low-level conventional call of "Double" over an opponent's bid as a request for partner to bid his best of the unbid suits. The most common takeout double is after an opponent's opening bid of one of a suit where the double shows a hand with opening values, support for all three unbid suits and shortness in the suit doubled. Normally, the partner of the doubler must bid his best suit but may pass if (a) his right hand opponent intervenes or (b) on the more rare occasions when his hand is such that he wishes to convert the takeout double to a penalty double.

Beer card

In trick-taking card games such as bridge, the beer card is a name informally given to the seven of diamonds. Players may agree that if a player wins the last trick of a hand with the 7♦, their partner must buy them a beer. This is not considered as part of the rules of these games, but is an optional and informal side-bet between players. This practice likely originates from Danish Tarok or Skat in the middle of the 20th century.

In contract bridge, various bidding systems have been devised to enable partners to describe their hands to each other so that they may reach the optimum contract. Key to this process is that players evaluate and re-evaluate the trick-taking potential of their hands as the auction proceeds and additional information about partner's hand and the opponent's hands becomes available.

Slam-seeking conventions are codified artificial bids used in the card game contract bridge. Bidding and making a small slam or grand slam yields high bonuses ranging from 500 to 1500 points. However, the risk is also high as failure to fulfill the slam contract also means failure to score the bonus points for a game (300-500). Conventions have been devised to maximise the opportunity for success whilst minimising the risk of failure.

In the card game contract bridge, a suit combination is a specific subset of the cards of one suit held respectively in declarer's and dummy's hands at the onset of play. While the ranks of the remaining cards held by the defenders can be deduced precisely, their location is unknown. Optimum suit combination play allows for all possible lies of the cards held by the defenders.

Inverted minors refers to a treatment introduced by the Kaplan–Sheinwold (K–S) bidding system for the popular card game bridge. The original structure of Precision, another bidding system, also employed inverted minors over a 1 opening. However, the treatment is no longer restricted to users of these bidding systems. although partnerships that use a Short club system tend also to use the convention only after a 1 opener.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge is the official rule book of duplicate bridge promulgated by the World Bridge Federation (WBF). The first Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge were published in 1928. They were revised in 1933, 1935, 1943, 1949, 1963, 1975, 1987, 1997, 2007 and 2017. The Laws are effective worldwide for all duplicate bridge tournaments sponsored by WBF, zonal, national and subordinate organizations.

Rex Bridge is a version of contract bridge developed in Sweden in 1959 by Sten Lundberg. It gained some followers in Scandinavia but few elsewhere.

References

  1. Francis, Henry G.; Truscott, Alan F.; Francis, eds. (2001). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. p. 402. ISBN   0-943855-44-6. OCLC   49606900.
  2. Woolsey, Kit (2015). Matchpoints (2nd ed.). Bridge Winners Press. p. 289. ISBN   978-0-9905229-5-9.