Hi Bobby,

Are there some extra chances form an elimination at pairs? Cash the SA and get the bad news at T2, then lead a heart. East returns a heart so ruff out the clubs and play a small spade to the 9. East might do something silly with D10x or Qx although he can just go semi-passive with a ruff and discard while even a trump exit could work.

Regards,

Iain

How aggressive should you be at making safety plays in a team game? Last week I was in 4S (9 trump) missing only two top hearts and the SK. The opponents took their two top hearts and I ruffed the third heart. While I knew it was plausible that my LHO could have the SK and my RHO could have a void in a minor, it seemed so remote that I didn’t think it was worth the chance at the overtrick. Was this an error in judgment?

Hi Iain,

As one with enough natural bridge talent may learn, on the way up the staircase to success, there become other considerations learned.

When one bursts through different, but significant barriers, he or she also learns that, while declaring against worthwhile competition, and relatively early in the hand, on the average of say tricks 3 or 4 the defense can almost pinpoint declarer’s exact distribution, leaving only an occasional card or two, not totally known.

The detective work done is simply overcome by:

1. The bidding. (bids made and not made)

2. The specific opening lead to who they know was made by one of the good (cooperative) guys.

3. The play up to then and, sometimes just as important, the tempo of the declarer while considering what to do. Obviously the tempo of a partner, while on defense, is a form of unauthorized information, but one, in practicality, takes hard work to ignore, but yes in the cauldron of playing for high stakes (whether money or trophies) one soon learns who the super ethical players are (among the best) and who, instead, are merely interlopers.

In the other cases (my guess 99.99%) you are as right as can be, especially from both a special player like yourself, and your considerable practical experience with, (if you will excuse the expression) dealing with bridge players.

BTW, that experience of competing against the best (both talent wise and though sometimes ethically challenged, passing the test), is an out of body remarkable exercise of being privileged beyond belief.

I truly miss it!

Hi Slar,

Yes, of course, any loss of a possible trick won could be classified as an error in judgment.

From what I glean of the facts (your description) LHO could have given his partner a ruff (assuming there might have been one available) at trick three instead of continuing with a third heart.

Safety plays are simply that, but even at IMPs, matches have been known to be won by only one paltry IMP, and if the odds against that, especially the hand you describe, are infinitesimally small, I would not think kindly to a declarer who goes just too far (IMO) in not taking that very remote chance of that impending ruff.

However, even if it happens only once in a lifetime, allow it to, but kindly do not mention it to me.

Finally, let the other declarer claim he recognized that safety play and it came close to happening, but didn’t, while you won that very close match by not. I prefer your result.

Hi Slar,

Hugh Kelsey addressed the point you make about garnering a few extra IMPs. While he noted that the strictly arithmetic argument could work in some cases (not all – clearly guarding a vulnerable game against a 28% 4-1 break at IMPs is money well spent), the 3 or 5 other teammates are most unlikely to see the funny side when you lose the 10 or more IMPs after decking a game. It needs an awful lot of 1 to 2 IMP gains before you get forgiven.

As one wag put it “When I’m right, nobody remembers; when I’m wrong, nobody forgets.” Within reason, I’d take the safety play although remember S J Simon’s comment about a known pessimistic (but good) player – he played the hand to cope with a 4-0 trump break; it would have worked nicely if trumps had been 4-0 but sadly they were 2-2 and he went off.

Iain

Hi Iain,

That wonderful Skippy Simon character was likely, Futile Willie (but it could, of course, may have been the forever nameless, Unlucky Expert).

No doubt in today’s bridge life, these fictional characters are real, though, of course not so severely stereotyped. However there is another name for someone who goes down with good trump breaks, while catering to bad ones. To just say, sort of an ugly moniker, would be understating it.

Recently, as a matter of fact today, I wrote about truly missing something. Add to that list, bridge authors who poked great fun about otherwise very interesting players who as Clint Eastwood would have surely said, “You made my day”.

How many Easts will rise with the AH if declarer:

– KC
– AS
– AD
– 3H …?

Hi Jim2,

Many would, since the defensive strategies have progressed to such a significant level.

East will know his heart ace is the third defensive trick, assuming that South will not be able to play his diamonds without loss and the actual distribution of length in diamonds with South may be necessary for the defense to secure the setting trick. True, if declarer has three hearts to the king and only 3 diamonds, one diamond will be able to be discarded from dummy (on the then good heart king in hand) but still declarer will be likely to be left with one diamond loser. I guess declarer could have three clubs and only the king of hearts, with the KQx in diamonds, but then I would worry about eventually being end played in trumps.

In any event, my head is also starting to hurt at the possibilities, but at least to me, I think rising with the heart ace is a natural play, not likely to hurt, but I do not dispute you being able to state a layout where rising is fatal.

Hi slar/Iain/Bobby
I appreciate your reasoning about safety plays in a team game. About this hand:
– the chance of SQ fourth in East is 5%
– of those 5%, the chance of DQ singleton/second/third in East (you win anyway) is about 36%; the remaining is about 3,3%
– so the safety play wins about 10 IMP x 3,3 every 100 hands = 33 IMPs
– banging down spades AK wins 1 IMP with spades 2-2 or singleton Q, about 52%, so 52 IMPs every 100 hands. Also, if you don’t lose any atout, you don’t need to play safe in diamonds, so gaining some other IMP..

I understand the psychological aspect of the big loss, but we have to realize that the difference is not so small: more than 20 IMPs over 100 hands, I think

Hi Angelo,

Your learned mathematical comments resonate while discussing safety plays. It may even be possible that some players take safety plays only to enhance their reputations as knowledgeable.

Realistically, there is definitely a necessary reason for anyone with the aspirations to become a “great” player to know how to execute them, but like so many things in bridge as well as life, the proof of performance is what we all admire.

And, as you suggest by your percentages, moderation in choice, is the recommendation.