[1eyedjack]

You are playing against a pair of known volatile temperament, in the early stages of a teams match.

You hear the opponents bid uncontested 1S-1N-2N-P

Dummy hits with a reasonable but borderline 2N bid.

You can see a defence to take it 2 off.

Would you consider just taking it 1 off?

[twoshy]

1eyedjack, on 2012-October-28, 04:33, said:

You are playing against a pair of known volatile temperament, in the early stages of a teams match.

You hear the opponents bid uncontested 1S-1N-2N-P

Dummy hits with a reasonable but borderline 2N bid.

You can see a defence to take it 2 off.

Would you consider just taking it 1 off?

In my experience, these players tend to steam regardless of whether they go one or two off. Just set them for the maximum and you might well hear, "See, look how crap your 2NT bid was, I had a normal hand and we went two off!"

[aguahombre]

In my experience, you rate to beat any team which would have that auction ---regardless of strategy.

[P_Marlowe]

The question is, do I have a sure way of getting -1 vs. a likely way of getting -2?

I will take the sure -1.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[CSGibson]

take it for the max.

[nigel_k]

If they are that volatile, maybe we should let it make an overtrick Seriously, I would try to take as many tricks as possible.

[ggwhiz]

Against a player of similar temperament, a group of us would often exchange stories in the bar afterwards with the highest of fives going to the one who made him squeel the loudest.

Known locally as "he who must be drilled".

[JLOGIC]

an undertrick is too valuable, i assume it was white (since red it would be an lol question), that is 2 imps and their "disaster" would be going -50 instead of +90, it's not going to tilt them that much. I posted a similar question once but it was only an overtrick (1 imp) to make them think they missed a cold slam that was normal to bid rather than make them think they burned you by not bidding slam when it was great and goes down, which is a much bigger emotional swing than a random partial.

[32519]

I think the question is silly. You play to win, not to appease your opponent’s volatile temperament. If that IMP you want to give up turns out to be the difference between winning and losing, you’re going to be livid with yourself later on. One of the tennis greats once said, “Show me a good loser and I will show you a consistent loser.” I favour the exact opposite approach; get your opponents really mad with each other as early as possible. Inevitably it affects their level of play and they start making more mistakes. Call it a distorted twist to Grosvenor’s Gambit if you wish. The bottom line: Go for the jugular and take no prisoners!

[the hog]

32519, on 2012-October-28, 23:06, said:

I think the question is silly. You play to win, not to appease your opponent's volatile temperament. If that IMP you want to give up turns out to be the difference between winning and losing, you're going to be livid with yourself later on. One of the tennis greats once said, "Show me a good loser and I will show you a consistent loser." I favour the exact opposite approach; get your opponents really mad with each other as early as possible. Inevitably it affects their level of play and they start making more mistakes. Call it a distorted twist to Grosvenor's Gambit if you wish. The bottom line: Go for the jugular and take no prisoners!

You have misunderstood the post. The op means, you have a way of taking it off 2 but it might make, or there is a definite 1 off. Which do you choose? I choose a definite 1 off.

[aguahombre]

the hog, on 2012-October-28, 23:36, said:

You have misunderstood the post. The op means, you have a way of taking it off 2 but it might make, or there is a definite 1 off. Which do you choose? I choose a definite 1 off.

That is not what the OP said. The implication I read was that you could dog it and only beat the contract one, for strategic reasons (which I don't understand). OP did not mention a risk of their making.

In any case, if the strategy is to keep the guy cool, it is dumb. If the strategy is to irritate or tease him by less than perfect play, I still think it is a bad idea. Take the IMPS you can get, just in case you might need them.

[Antrax]

I didn't think it was that confusing. If you take it two off, then both 1NT and 2NT were "wrong". If you take it one off, then the 1NT bidder can get upset at the 2NT bidder, because 1NT was a making spot. So, should you sacrifice an undertrick for a chance to disrupt their partnership harmony?

[Vampyr]

Not long ago we had two 32-board matches, separated by a week or two, that ended in a draw, and required extra boards. Be very leery about squandering IMPs.

[the hog]

Antrax, on 2012-October-29, 01:10, said:

I didn't think it was that confusing. If you take it two off, then both 1NT and 2NT were "wrong". If you take it one off, then the 1NT bidder can get upset at the 2NT bidder, because 1NT was a making spot. So, should you sacrifice an undertrick for a chance to disrupt their partnership harmony?

Yes, on reflection I think you are right.

[gwnn]

1eyedjack, on 2012-October-28, 04:33, said:

You are playing against a pair of known volatile temperament, in the early stages of a teams match.

You hear the opponents bid uncontested 1S-1N-2N-P

Dummy hits with a reasonable but borderline 2N bid.

You can see a defence to take it 2 off.

Would you consider just taking it 1 off?

It depends on how volatile they are. Usually even the most volatile players are calm about partscore swings. They are usually triggered by (perceived) cardplay errors from their partners or missed games/slams (hence letting them make 5m+1 instead of 5m). So in practice I would never give them that trick. YMMV.

[EricK]

If the bid was reasonable (albeit borderline), I don't imagine many pairs, however volatile, would be adversely affected. And if something this minor does set them off, then I can't imagine needing to manufacture such a scenario as a genuine example is bound to arise soon enough.