[bixby]

Plaing matchpoint pairs, you are declarer in 3H, after you and your partner had an invitational sequence in which one of you rejected the invitation. After dummy goes down, you see that you are likely to take 10 tricks. You also see that if the defenders' cards lie unfavorably you might take as few as 8 tricks, but there is a safety play that will guarantee 9 tricks while giving up on 10. How should you decide whether to take the safety play?

[gszes]

 bixby, on 2018-April-23, 11:58, said:

Plaing matchpoint pairs, you are declarer in 3H, after you and your partner had an invitational sequence in which one of you rejected the invitation. After dummy goes down, you see that you are likely to take 10 tricks. You also see that if the defenders' cards lie unfavorably you might take as few as 8 tricks, but there is a safety play that will guarantee 9 tricks while giving up on 10. How should you decide whether to take the safety play?

The first question that comes to mind at MP is "does your contract look normal? (normal means - did the bidding seem right looking at each hand individually not how well or poorly they interact)". I am going to assume that the contract LOOKS normal to you. You are doomed to lose against any pair in game that makes so the real question then becomes just HOW unfavorable do the cards have to be for you to fail to make 3? If the safety play is to guard against a side suit breaking 50 it is probably a poor idea unless the bidding strongly indicates it is a much more likely occurrence. You are still competing against the other pairs that stopped short of game so taking drastic measures to avoid taking favorable overtricks is usually a poor strategy at MP.

[johnu]

The first thing I would try to figure out is whether you think most of the field is getting to 4♥, or if it looked like it was routine to stop in 3♥. Then, what percentage of time do you need a safety play.

You can easily (?) figure out the odds that a safety play is required, but nobody has a crystal ball in guessing what is happening at the other tables.

[Phil]

 johnu, on 2018-April-23, 12:29, said:

The first thing I would try to figure out is whether you think most of the field is getting to 4♥, or if it looked like it was routine to stop in 3♥. Then, what percentage of time do you need a safety play.

You can easily (?) figure out the odds that a safety play is required, but nobody has a crystal ball in guessing what is happening at the other tables.

No.

The pairs that are in 4H exist in a different universe. You cant do anything about their results. If 4H is making, you are doomed. If it goes down you are ahead.

You are competing against partscores.

What may be relevant is if there is a profitable sac or maybe 3H is a plus position against the part scores the other side can make. Then you might play safe.

[miamijd]

You only take the safety play if it will gain 50% or more of the time.

It doesn't matter what you do vis-a-vis those in 4H. You'll win if 4H goes down (even if you make only 8 tricks, you'll go down fewer tricks than those in game). You'll lose if it makes.

So take the proper play vs those in part-scores.

Cheers,
mike

[johnu]

 Phil, on 2018-April-23, 13:43, said:

No.

The pairs that are in 4H exist in a different universe. You cant do anything about their results. If 4H is making, you are doomed. If it goes down you are ahead.

You are competing against partscores.

What may be relevant is if there is a profitable sac or maybe 3H is a plus position against the part scores the other side can make. Then you might play safe.

My assumption was that 4♥ is not cold and could go down 1 or 2 tricks depending on defense and declarer play.

You compete against other partscores only if there are other partscores. If you look at the hand and your analysis is that you or your partner made a major mistake in not getting to game so you expect (nearly) everybody else to be in game, you might do better to do the safety play for 9 tricks. You beat anybody who goes down 1 in game, and anybody who goes down 2 tricks. If you go down in 3, you tie those down 1 in game, and only beat those who go down 2 in game.

[msjennifer]

In a match points game I shall not,but in IMP event I certainly shall consider it keeping in mind the other factors already enumerated by other colleagues.

[GrahamJson]

Forget the safety play, go out to make the maximum tricks, just as if you were in game. If you go one off then those in game will be two off, so you don’t need a safety play to beat them. If ten tricks is there you will lose to those in game, but then there’s nothing you can do about that. All that would happen if you took the safety play would be that you would lose to those others who have stayed out of game too.

The time for safety plays at MPs is when you are in a good contract that you judge few others will be in, such as a slam on a well fitting combined 25 count. In such cases your good bidding has already won you the lions share of the MPs, so you just have to be careful that your play doesn’t throw them away. (I guess another time for a safety play might be when you have sacrificed over a clearly making game. In this case you might want to make sure that your loss stays within the value of the opponent’s game contract.)

[fromageGB]

You cannot simply forget about those in 4. If you judge your bidding as "correct", then by all means play straight percentages. However, if you judge that you got it wrong somewhere either through a mistake in bidding, or that your unusual methods were not suited to the hand, then you must do something different to the norm. If you play "normally" and take 10 tricks then you have a bottom. If you finesse the wrong way, or attempt a drop of the Q with 5 cards missing, then making 9 while everyone else makes 10 will make no difference to your score. But making 9 or 10 when others make 9 will give you a top.

Safety play is an example of this "abnormal" choice. Be happy to play safe making 9 tricks, if others make 8 or 10 without that safety play.

[0deary]

Don't use a Safety Play

In a field of 16 pairs, and as its MPs they were erring for game, so I’m putting down 12 pairs in game, and we and three others in 3H

If 10 tricks are the norm then the gamers get 63% and we just 10%

If 8 tricks are the limit then the gamers get 37%, the other 3 risky ones get 87% and you alone get the worthy safety play 100%. Your real reward is avoiding game, not you safety play- that only get you an extra 13% over the other 3

And if 9 tricks are the norm then the 3 riskers get 87%, and you only 80% for missing out on a trick. And the gamers get 37%. Again your real reward is avoiding game, moreover it only costs 7% (over the risky 3) by your safety play

So the final factor is: how likely will the cards offer exactly 9 and not 8? I’m guessing that as the field are mostly in game then only a really rotten split are going to hold us to 8 tricks: much more likely 9. So I’m guessing that of the missed games the Safety “cost” of 7% will occur several times more often than the Safety “gain” of 13%. To which you’d also lose the 10% if you uniquely took only the Safe 9 when everyone else got 10

Hence I’d avoid the Safety Play (don’t get me going about what a safety play really means….)

[smerriman]

Wow. So much conflicting advice.

I'm with those who say that you should take the safety play only if it gains > 50%.

 johnu, on 2018-April-24, 02:23, said:

If you look at the hand and your analysis is that you or your partner made a major mistake in not getting to game so you expect (nearly) everybody else to be in game, you might do better to do the safety play for 9 tricks. You beat anybody who goes down 1 in game, and anybody who goes down 2 tricks. If you go down in 3, you tie those down 1 in game, and only beat those who go down 2 in game.

This doesn't make sense. Nobody in 4♥ is going to take a safety play to make 9 tricks when "you are likely to make 10 tricks" as stated. Therefore you'll never tie anyone in game - whether or not you take the safety play will never affect your scores against those in 4♥.

 fromageGB, on 2018-April-24, 11:42, said:

Safety play is an example of this "abnormal" choice. Be happy to play safe making 9 tricks, if others make 8 or 10 without that safety play.

This also doesn't make any sense. You should make an "abnormal" choice when it turns a bad result into a good result (compared with the normal contract). In this case, the safety play keeps a bad result a bad result, and a good result a good result. You should take the safety play if it is the "normal" choice - otherwise all it does is make your score worse compared with the others in 3♥.

[GrahamJson]

As several have pointed out, there is no point in a safety play if you are in 3H and most will be in four. This may not be the case if you are in a different denomination. Suppose, example, you miss the heart fit altogether and end up in 2NT. Now it may make sense to ensure you +120 in the hope that 4H goes off. What you don’t want is to go off in 2NT when others are going off in 4H.

[FelicityR]

A plus score is always better than a minus score. Feeling deflated that you may have missed game should be secondary to making the contract, even at match points.

That's the problem with match points: some players start playing unnaturally analysing potential results, looking for overtricks. Gazing into a crystal ball trying to work out how other players have bid and played on a single board, or that matter any board - and the same can be said for teams - is hypothetical.

[marklaf]

If you believe your contract is normal then you should take the percentage line. That is the easy short answer---and if you believe the field will be split---you should still take the percentage line for the most tricks. You only adjust your line when you are in a brilliant contract--that only needs to make or you are in a contract that needs everyone else to be wrong.

[johnu]

 smerriman, on 2018-April-24, 15:31, said:

This doesn't make sense. Nobody in 4♥ is going to take a safety play to make 9 tricks when "you are likely to make 10 tricks" as stated. Therefore you'll never tie anyone in game - whether or not you take the safety play will never affect your scores against those in 4♥.

Fixing your quote:

Therefore you'll never tie anyone in game that makes - whether or not you take the safety play will never affect your scores against those in 4♥ that makes .

[GrahamJson]

 johnu, on 2018-April-25, 03:37, said:

Fixing your quote:

Therefore you'll never tie anyone in game that makes - whether or not you take the safety play will never affect your scores against those in 4♥ that makes .

I’m afraid your fix is clearly wrong and the original quote was correct. If the game makes you will always lose to those that have bid it. If the game goes off you will always beat those that bid it; if they are one off you will be making, if they are two off you will be one off. hence you will never ties with anyone bidding game.

[Cyberyeti]

 GrahamJson, on 2018-April-25, 05:28, said:

I’m afraid your fix is clearly wrong and the original quote was correct. If the game makes you will always lose to those that have bid it. If the game goes off you will always beat those that bid it; if they are one off you will be making, if they are two off you will be one off. hence you will never ties with anyone bidding game.

Not entirely. Maybe the lead you got was not automatic which might change the situation. It would be galling to go one off and tie a load of people in 4-1 because they got a different lead.

[barmar]

Here's another wrinkle: Does this calculation change if you're playing in a small club game with a wide range of skills, making it hard to judge what "the field" will do? E.g. there's a couple of players who could easily go down in a cold game, or who don't play all out for overtricks even though it's MP?

[GrahamJson]

That’s true Cyber. It’s a reminder that the words never should never be used in Bridge. Of course if the play or defence is not straightforward, and perhaps there are many options, then several contracts could be going one or more down. However as the initial question talked about safety plays then I, and I guess others, assumed that the play was straightforward with no other factors to be taken into account.