Round of 16 Part 2 - To Save or Not to Save: That is the Question

Sitting south and facing favorable vulnerability, you hold ♠ Q9653 ♥ – ♦ Q642 ♣ Q943. 

It feels like you’re in candyland when the auction proceeds:

LHO	Partner	RHO	You
1♥	4♠	5♠	?

Let’s say you choose to bid 6♥. Now the auction unfolds like this:

LHO	Partner	RHO	You
1♥	4♠	5♠	6♥
P	6♠	P	P
6NT	P	P	?

What’s your choice now? Do you push to 7♠, taking a potentially cheap sacrifice over a making slam or let the opponents play in 6NT, hoping to set them with careful timing? 

Similarly, imagine holding the same hand:

♠ Q9653 ♥ – ♦ Q642 ♣ Q943

… but this happens at your table:

LHO	Partner	RHO	You
1♥	4♠	5♠	6♠
P	P	7♥	?

Now it’s about whether to sacrifice over your opponents’ grand slam contract. Do you steal the spotlight by pushing to 7♠, or do you pray that your defense can salvage a trick somewhere and secure a positive score? 

Let’s see what the experts did. Here is the full layout of the hand:

The first auction occurred in the Zimmermann vs Dyson match:

West	North	East	South
Klukowski	Townsend	Kalita	Handley-P
1♥	4♠	5♠	6♥
P	6♠	P	P
6NT	P	P	7♠
X	AP

After Michal Klukowski’s bold 6NT try, Ben Handley-Pritchard chose the “safe” 7♠ save, hoping that 6NT would make. While this decision may have seemed attractive at the table, it proved unsuccessful on the actual layout of the cards. With only one spade stopper, as expected, declarer could not bring home 12 tricks without giving the tempo to the defense. 

Michal Klukowski

Minus 500 for North-South costed team Dyson 5 IMPs (other table played in 6SX-2), but it didn’t affect the match outcome. They dominated the final set 36-11, outscoring their opponents 27-1 over the last 10 boards, and secured an overall margin of 5 IMPs against the two-time defending champions Zimmermann.

Meanwhile, at the HOBAA vs Overdeck table, the auction unfolded like this:

West	North	East	South
Chiu	Palma	Sze	Manno
1♥	4♠	5♠	6♠
P	P	7♥	7♠
P	P	X	AP

Shun Sum Alan Sze

Similar in spirit to Handley-Pritchard’s earlier decision, but with far greater stakes, Andrea Manno elected to sacrifice over Alan Sze’s 7♥, preferring to play rather than defend. 7♥, however, was down one off the top as declarer had a top diamond loser.

Photo credits: European Bridge League (Facebook)

Could Any of this be Avoided?

From Manno’s point of view, 7♥ might well have been making, and trusting partner to balance accurately over it was no simple matter. Passing and awaiting Palma’s decision may have been an alternative, but the situation was murky at best.

Below are the auctions from the two tables where 7♥ was allowed to play.

De Botton vs Bridgescanner:

West	North	East	South
Olanski	Malinowski	Vainikonis	Erichsen
1♥	4♠	6♥	6♠
X	P	7♥	AP

Ashe vs Eler:

West	North	East	South
Sofu	O. Rimstedt	Avcioglu	M. Rimstedt
1♥	4♠	4NT	6♠
P	P	7♥	AP

Both Mikael Rimstedt (Ashe) and Espen Erichsen (De Botton) showed restraint by not continuing on by declining to compete further in direct seat. On this deal, that discipline proved to be the winning choice. 

On the other hand, could Townsend have done more to suggest that 6NT was unlikely to make? 

At the other table in the Ashe vs Eler match, the auction took a different turn:

West	North	East	South
Ashe	Serdar	Schaltz	Suzer
1♥	3♠	5♠	6♠
P	P	X	P
6NT	X	AP

Steven Ashe likewise probed for a cold slam over the opponents’ sacrifice. However, Ekrem Serdar sent a clear signal that 6NT was unlikely to make, further discouraging his partner from attempting a phantom sacrifice.

Had Townsend doubled 6NT, Handley-Pritchard might have been more aware of the situation and could have opted to pass instead.