[Lovera]

The interest to use this type of declaration arises when a couple declares a contract that is usually able to achieve at game level and whose acceptance involves a negative result around the - 4 imps. Therefore it continues to declare by the other couple that has identified its their own phytosis loss of fit or a safe loss (if it had not intervened) in gaining the minor penalty for the abatement referred to the vulnerability and in application of the rule of 2 and 3 and related corrective . Since this is a profitable and important aspect of the problem, also interesting at the table because it represents well the competition as well as the declarative vivacity, I do not explain why this is not often discussed with examples of declarations. Certainly it is nice to show how to make a contract with some play of the hand or some not simple technique and this may perhaps be the reason rather than to represent that the other couple has messed up the cards because he has well defended but you could also think that broadens the possibilities to talk about it considering the discussion for both parties. Perhaps the only author who has dealt with this aspect has been Peter Hall with the book "Competitive bidding at pairs" which deals with Matchpoints but his indications can well apply to IMPs. Moreover there are a whole series of rules and cautions that must be followed and applied and that sometimes make it all non-trivial as always happens in the game of bridge. Sometimes the gain is such that you get a top if you can even achieve the contract usually doubled (but not always) or if you can push the other couple in what is called "phantom sacrifice". So, again, why is this not being more publicized? Your thoughts will be welcomed if possible accompanied by examples (the four hands) or indications for other books that have dealt with it, thank you.

This post has been edited by Lovera: 2018-July-10, 10:18

[pescetom]

Terence Reese concentrates a noteable dose of wisdom about Sacrificing Bidding into 2 pages (starting page 158) of his "The Complete Book of Bridge" (1973).
The last sentence: "For example, when a non-vulnerable opponent jumps to game, having discovered a fit, it is generally safe to give him one more push."

[Lovera]

Bridge is a game, fortunately for everyone, based on mathematics and therefore should not be surprising if you can find a way that can lead you to achieve the result more precisely. This fact can be found when we talk, for example, about the evaluation of the hand (by various methods). Of course it is very useful to have more than one gadget of this type. Even the rather detailed defense bidding gains from a greater precision and becomes more effective. The sacrifice bidding,especially in competition, finds different aspects of study (among declarations, vulnerabilities, conventions, research of the fit) that do not end shortly. This is not the context in which to address an argument also rests on different points of view and it has to consider the system used by partnership at the table. Therefore there are many ways to approach the topic and i renew the request simply to know why it is not seen or studied (even to open a future speech for exchange of views) with examples of hands (the most profitable vulnerability should be white vs red) and i have also a 7♦ sac vs 6♠ where is necessary to find a line to gain a trick. For how the topic is treated in the meantime I can report two YouTube videos by BridgeHands: 1) The defense never rest: https://youtu.be/X5PoqHM1TmI
2) Bridge defense & bidding part 2: https://youtu.be/GPQZdc0r4eQ

[hrothgar]

Lovera, on 2018-March-21, 03:30, said:

The interest to use this type of declaration arises when a couple declares a contract that is usually able to achieve at game level and whose acceptance involves a negative result around the - 4 imps. Therefore continuing to declare by the other couple that has identified their own phytosis loss a safe loss (if it had not intervened) in the gain of the minor penalty for the taken down referred to the vulnerability and in application of the rule of 2 and 3 and related corrective . Since this is a profitable and important aspect of the problem, also interesting at the table because it represents well the competition as well as the declarative vivacity, I do not explain why this is not often discussed with examples of declarations. Certainly it is nice to show how to make a contract with some play of the hand or some not simple technique and this may perhaps be the reason rather than to represent that the other couple has messed up the cards because he has well defended but you could also think that broadens the possibilities to talk about it considering the discussion for both parties. Perhaps the only author who has dealt with this aspect has been Peter Hall with the book "Competitive bidding at pairs" which deals with Matchpoints but his indications can well apply to IMPs. Moreover there are a whole series of rules and cautions that must be followed and applied and that sometimes make it all non-trivial as always happens in the game of bridge. Sometimes the gain is such that you get a top if you can even achieve the contract usually doubled (but not always) or if you can push the other couple in what is called "phantom sacrifice". So, again, why is this not being more publicized? Your thoughts will be welcomed if possible accompanied by examples (the four hands) or indications for other books that have dealt with it, thank you.

For the life of me, I have no idea what this post is supposed to mean...

[Lovera]

So for the hand of 7♦ i've this one by Richard Pavliceck (you must click directly on Problem 3): http://www.rpbridge.net/7x32.htm
The point is that these hands in sacrifice are seen published around very few but instead should be considered the opposite case or that should be more both at the level of game and as partial and doing so would greatly benefit the knowledge and study of bidding situations and / or about force and / or about shape.

[Lovera]

---

Here is a hand reported by Pierre Jais of a high-level duplicate: in W sits Tintner, in N Svarc, in E Stetten and in S Boulenger. "Take advantage of Svarc's very aggressive cue-bidding and Stetten's very clever pass that he avoided to double, but the defense at 7 ♣ would still be cheap."

[DozyDom]

Lovera, on 2018-June-11, 06:23, said:

---

Here is a hand reported by Pierre Jais of a high-level duplicate: in W sits Tintner, in N Svarc, in E Stetten and in S Boulenger. "Take advantage of Svarc's very aggressive cue-bidding and Stetten's very clever pass that he avoided to double, but the defense at 7 ♣ would still be cheap."

But which of them should make the sacrifice? Surely not E, given his defence and balanced shape. And surely not West, whose partner did nothing after his open, and didn't interfere even after the opponents started bidding. For all West knows, 7C goes off 6 vulnerable for -1700. It certainly isn't hard to construct hands for W where this occurs, and it would be a terrible score.

[JanisW]

East first pass was very disciplined, facing my Partners vulnerable first seat preempts 3[NT] or 5♣ would be a good bet.
The second pass is clearly wrong. He is never going to sit for 4M so he should bid 5♣ (better 4♦, if available).
How the bidding goes from there can only be guessed, but if he is able to bid 4♦ West can clearly see, that 7♣ will be cheap if 6M makes.

regards
JW

[Lovera]

In the other room the bidding after 3 ♣ of W and pass of N was 3NT of E doubled by S and realized for a failure to signal the situation of Hearts suit that would have allowed to visualize K10x in E. The comment of Giovanni Ferrando about Stetten he avoided very cleverly to double ... he continued with "Not all the donuts ...". Indeed the suit of diamond helps a lot while the K ♥ was probably to be considered onside.

[Vampyr]

hrothgar, on 2018-April-07, 05:40, said:

For the life of me, I have no idea what this post is supposed to mean...

Are you seriously not familiar with the “phytosis loss“?

[Lovera]

I believe that Tintner's hand can be easily read: considering also the vulnerability should have in the Club suit a 7th with KJ or a 8th with some honor protected aside. The pass after 4 ♣ perhaps urged the partner to intervene when Boulenger went to slam in Heart showing protection in the other suits. At that point Stetten should have made the decision to bid considering that the partner could have the Queen of Diamond and the void in Hearts and having him the Ace of Spades and a second suit fitting. About the play a Spade was leaded, Boulenger took the second turn to dummy with the King then playing the Queen of Hearts.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2018-June-12, 07:13, said:

Are you seriously not familiar with the “phytosis loss“?

Si propr' du iun', as Lovera would say if he was not such a gentleman

[Lovera]

It would therefore be desirable to have more than one official source of information (= books) that can provide a useful guide for a correct use of this type of bidding rather than collecting even objective indications in a "horizon" that would leave this topic at the level of sporadicity.

[dokoko]

Lovera, on 2018-April-07, 04:29, said:

Bridge is a game, fortunately for everyone, based on mathematics (...)

Being quite familiar with mathematics I object:

- Above all, bridge is about people and their minds (that involves psychology).
- Then it's about logic and technique.
- Math (in the sense of numbers and calculations) is only a minor aspect.

[pescetom]

dokoko, on 2018-July-03, 22:30, said:

Being quite familiar with mathematics I object:

- Above all, bridge is about people and their minds (that involves psychology).
- Then it's about logic and technique.
- Math (in the sense of numbers and calculations) is only a minor aspect.

Even the classic book about probability in bridge by Kelsey and Glauert warns about the need to give priority to psychology at times, for instance by taking a safety play to protect yourself against a possible void even though this means giving up the chance of an overtrick (a precaution that is mathematically unjustified but avoids the risk of a furious partner).

[Lovera]

"Bridge is a game, fortunately for everyone, based on mathematics and therefore should not be surprising if you can find a way that can lead you to achieve the result more precisely". This that i said has to be read in the meaning that can be (or almost much probably just there are) "things" not yet seen or discovered on hands/cards that can help you and drive in a more right bidding (i think i.e. at LoTT by Vernes or other ones). This one can be a "key" point to be considered.

[nullve]

Vampyr, on 2018-June-12, 07:13, said:

Are you seriously not familiar with the “phytosis loss“?

Lovera, on 2018-March-21, 03:30, said:

Therefore continuing to declare by the other couple that has identified their own phytosis loss a safe loss (if it had not intervened) in the gain of the minor penalty for the taken down referred to the vulnerability and in application of the rule of 2 and 3 and related corrective .

Google-translating to Italian:

Quote

Pertanto continua a dichiarare dall'altra coppia che ha identificato la propria perdita di fitosi una perdita sicura (se non fosse intervenuta) nel guadagno della penalità minore per l'abbattuta riferita alla vulnerabilità e in applicazione della regola 2 e 3 e relativo correttivo.

Guessing that 'fitosi' is a typo of 'fit o si' and translating back to English:

Quote

Therefore it continues to declare from the other couple that has identified its loss of fit or a safe loss (if it had not intervened) in gaining the minor penalty for the abatement referred to the vulnerability and in application of the rule 2 and 3 and related corrective .

[Lovera]

nullve, on 2018-July-06, 06:22, said:

Google-translating to Italian:

Guessing that 'fitosi' is a typo of 'fit o si' and translating back to English:

(..)"Pertanto continuando a dichiarare da parte dell'altra coppia che ha individuato un proprio fit tramuta un perdita sicura (se non fosse intervenuta) nel guadagno della minore penalità per le prese down riferite alla vulnerabilità ed in applicazione della regola del 2 e del 3 e relativi correttivi."(..) Google is always Google, the terms are "thecnics" and owns of the Bridge (game), than..

[pescetom]

Lovera, on 2018-July-06, 07:57, said:

Google is always Google, the terms are "thecnics" and owns of the Bridge (game), than..

Thecnics and owns.. than indeed.

Lovera, please stay away from Google, machine translation can never rival the quidditas of your epiphanies

[Lovera]

About the "Sacrifice bidding" and for what to do in any different situations i suggest to read this one: http://robinsbridge....-sacrifice.html