S2000magic

No that's standard, but why limit them to a game try? Maybe I misunderstand their use. To me, this asks partner only about his club holding (in this case, whether he has the ♣Q) . . . . Will partner know that it asks for the ♣Q? I could see him obviously being enthusiastic with the ♣A or ♣K, but not nearly so much with the ♣Q.

Matchpoints, both vulnerable, LHO deals, Std. Am. partnership: (P) - 1♦ - (P) - 1♠ (P) - 2♠ - (P) - ? You hold: ♠ Q J 10 7 6 2 ♥ 10 ♦ K 9 ♣ A K 6 5 So, what do you think? Slam? No slam? Maybe slam? Where do you go from here?

You're a physic: 6 spades to the KQJ and the ♥J: 7 HCP.

Matchpoints, both vulnerable, LHO deals: (2♥) - P* - (P) - ? You hold: ♠ --- ♥ K Q 8 ♦ A Q J 10 9 3 ♣ K J 10 3 * Noticeable pause, duly brought to your attention by RHO before you bid So, what's your bid? (And would it be different without the pause?)

I, too. (Well, I don't specify the suit when dummy is following fuit, but name the card in full otherwise.)

Although people commonly refer to the convention as 4th suit forcing, a more descriptive name is 4th suit forcing and artificial; the key here is that, using this convention, 2♦ might not show a biddable diamond suit; it could be, say, a weak doubleton, and responder simply wants opener to describe his hand better. (In particular, opener should bid notrump only if he has a secure stopper in diamonds; he shouldn't rely on responder to have a stopper.) Treating 2♦ as forcing here is standard, not conventional; the convention is that 2♦ might not show a true (biddable) diamond suit; i.e., that 2♦ might be artificial. Another case of 4th suit forcing and artificial: here 2♠ might not show a biddable spade suit. (Note that there's no reason to introduce a 4-card spade suit here; if opener had had 4 spades, he would have rebid 1♠, not 2♣, so if spades shows a real suit it should be a 5-carder.)

I consult with Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, where half of the employees are Japanese. I teach two courses in an International Finance program at UCI where I have had students from China, France, Japan, Turkey, South Korea, Germany, Brazil, Italy, Viet Nam, Saudi Arabia, Guatamala, Russia, Morocco, El Salvadore, India, England, Tunisia, Spain, Armenia, and Taiwan. I teach review courses for the CFA exams in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, where I have had students from Latvia, France, Switzerland, Kuwait, Netherlands, Spain, Russia, Italy, Poland, Germany, and Bulgaria. I find learning new languages to be immensely enjoyable (though I freely admit that I'm not remotely fluent in anything other than English), and I find talking in English to non-native English speakers to be equally enjoyable. A perfect example of the latter occurred Wednesday when one of my Brazilian students was trying to think of the word "rooster" and it escaped her; she asked what we call the husband of a chicken. Priceless! (I'm sure that my feeble attempts at French and German are at least as amusing to native speakers of those languages.)

At your peril... Yes, you can, but I strongly suggest you don't. Here's the problem: "I was always going to bid 4♠, I was just messing with the opponents." You have a good 17ish, bad 18-ish hand - and partner tanks over your game try before rejecting it. This is going to get you a TD call at best, and a rollback to 3M+1 at worst, and properly so. As a result of this issue, going to game after partner rejects a game try should show a help-suit *slam* try, so that after the TD call, you can prove to anybody and everybody that you in fact *were* always going to game. Obviously it comes up less often with 1♠-2♠; but with 1♣-1♠; 2♠, responder can very easily have a HSST. I think you misunderstood my idea. I wasn't suggesting that you do this with a good 17ish, bad 18ish hand. I was suggesting that you could do it with a hand that is clearly worth game opposite even a minimum raise. In other words, I was suggesting that you could use help suit slam tries. If I'd been aware of the term, I'd have used it. I agree with your analysis for the 17+, 18- hands.

I propose that we call them WHLTYP (pronounced "wall-type": Weak-Help-Long-Take-Your-Pick) game tries. ;)

Good link.

You bring up some good points, and one, at least, that can be exploited, perhaps. You say that if the auction goes: 1♠ - 2♠ 3♦ - 4♠ the defenders know that the partnership is on minimum game values, and that diamonds is their weak suit. However, given that 3♦ in this auction is forcing (responder cannot let opener play in diamonds when a spade fit has been uncovered), opener could bid this way, intending to get to 4♠ anyway, and to mess with the opponents along the way. This isn't good tactics for a beginner - and I'm not advocating it for beginners - but experienced players can exploit it. Just a thought.

The literature (e.g., The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, published by the ACBL) tends to use the terms "help suit game try" and "weak suit game try" interchangeably, but you're correct: "weak suit" is a better description. I'll make the edit. I view it as five points for two (or three) tricks: one in high cards and one or two for ruffing losers (possibly depending on the quality of dummy's trumps). As I said above, feel free to add your own examples: they'll help the beginners immensely.

I should have mentioned that this is in the context of, say, SAYC. Nevertheless, 2NT in that sequence in Acol is a game try, just with a slightly different hand-type.

Fair enough. That's why there are horse races. Feel free to fix my examples as you see fit, or to provide additional examples of your own. I do not remotely consider myself the final authority on bridge.

A comment in the thread on Fundamental Conventions prompted this: Do you and your partner understand the meaning of sequences such as these: 1♠ - 2♠ 3♦ 1♥ - 2 ♥ 2♠ 1♠ - 2♠ 2NT These are game tries. I've met many beginning bridge players who read books and sit in classes and fill in splinters and Bergen raises and Jacoby transfers on their convention cards and who, when I've sat down to partner them for the first time and ask them,"What sort of game tries do you use over 1♥ - 2♥ or 1♠ - 2♠?", stare at me as if I'm speaking Greek. (Although I took a year of koine Greek in university, I've never been remotely fluent in it.) A game try is just what its name implies: a bid that suggests that your partnership is on the brink of game, and solicits partner's cooperation in deciding whether or not to bid it. You make a game try when you can see that you and your partner hold, say, 24 - 26 points between you; if your partner has a maximum for his bidding, you should be in game, but if he has a minimum, you should stop short. A common situation is that partner opens 1NT (15 - 17) and you have a flat hand of 9 HCP: if partner has a maximum you should be in 3NT; if he has a minimum you shouldn't be. The natural way to convey this to partner is to respond with 2NT: he should pass with 15, bid 3NT with 17, and use his judgment with 16. This one's pretty simple, and most beginners have no problem with it (unless they use 2NT for some other purpose, such as a transfer; let's assume not). A more complicated situation occurs when the bidding starts 1♥ - 2♥, or 1♠ - 2♠. Assuming that responder's raise shows, say, 6 - 9 points, opener should pass with about 16 or less (the total is 25 at most) and bid game (or force to game) with about 19 or more (the total is 25 at least); with 17 or 18, opener should make a game try, asking partner to bid game with 9, stop short of game with 6, and use his judgment with 7 or 8. The key to game tries is to help partner with his judgment. The most common game tries (and, arguably, the easiest) are known as help-suit weak-suit game tries: opener bids another suit in which he can use some help from partner, with a holding like x x x, or x x x x. In borderline cases, partner looks at his holding in that suit and bids game if he has help (such as A x x, or K Q, or a singleton). Here are a few examples: Opener ♠ A K 8 7 2 ♥ J 4 2 ♦ 9 ♣ A Q J 8 Responder ♠ Q 6 5 ♥ 8 7 3 ♦ A 7 5 3 ♣ 10 4 2 1♠ - 2♠ 3♥ - 3♠ With a minimum, responder stops short of game. Opener ♠ A K 8 7 2 ♥ J 4 2 ♦ 9 ♣ A Q J 8 Responder ♠ Q 6 5 ♥ 8 7 3 ♦ A 7 5 3 ♣ K 10 4 1♠ - 2♠ 3♥ - 4♠ With a maximum, responder bids game. Opener ♠ A K 8 7 2 ♥ J 4 2 ♦ 9 ♣ A Q J 8 Responder ♠ Q 6 5 ♥ 8 ♦ 10 7 6 5 3 ♣ K 10 4 3 1♠ - 2♠ 3♥ - 4♠ With a middling raise, responder looks at his heart holding; here his singleton fits well opposite opener's weakness, so he bids game. Opener ♠ A K 8 7 2 ♥ J 4 2 ♦ 9 ♣ A Q J 8 Responder ♠ Q 6 5 ♥ 8 6 2 ♦ K 10 7 ♣ K 10 4 3 1♠ - 2♠ 3♥ - 3♠ With a middling raise, responder looks at his heart holding; here his three small hearts fit poorly opposite opener's weakness, so he stops short of game. If opener doesn't have a particularly weak suit, he can use 2NT or 3 of his major as a game try; these encourage partner to look at his overall strength and not concentrate on a particular suit. For example: Opener ♠ A K 8 7 2 ♥ K 4 2 ♦ Q J 9 ♣ A 8 Responder ♠ Q 6 5 ♥ 8 6 2 ♦ K 10 7 ♣ K 10 4 3 1♠ - 2♠ 2NT - 3NT (Note that some players would open with 1NT, while others never open 1NT with a 5-card major.) Opener ♠ A K 8 7 3 2 ♥ K Q 2 ♦ Q J 9 ♣ 8 Responder ♠ Q 6 5 ♥ 8 6 2 ♦ K 10 7 ♣ K 10 4 3 1♠ - 2♠ 3♠ - 4♠ Here responder has a middling raise, but 75% of his high-card points are kings, so he calls it a maximum and bids game. If he'd had ♣ Q J 6 4, he would have passed 3♠. (Note that some players use the bid of 3♠ here as a sort of preempt, not a game try; this is commonly called 1-2-3-Stop. Make sure you know how your partner uses it.) There are more complicated game tries than these, but these should get you started, and should improve your bidding: now both partners get to use their judgment.

Thanks. On reflection, that sounds like the best solution for the given hand. Now I just have to convince my partner, who dislikes any of the 4-card major possibilities in K-S. As for your example hand, all I can say is that you're mean. ;) Probably 1♣, then 2♣.

These hands look troublesome to me; I'd appreciate any advice from K-S experts: Opener: ♠ 7 ♥ A K 5 2 ♦ A Q 8 2 ♣ 10 5 4 2 Responder: ♠ 9 8 6 5 ♥ Q J ♦ J 10 6 ♣ A K J 8 The first round's easy: 1♦ - 1♠ Then what? Opener's 2♣ rebid is forcing (strong, like a reverse) and promises a rebid, which seems a bit extravagent; is 2♦ the systemic rebid? If opener rebids 2♦, does responder bid 3♣, 2NT, something else? Thanks in advance.

Another 3NT here; fingers crossed.

That's what my LHO said last night. (For the record, although last night my partner and I played a 15-17 NT, I prefer a 12-14 NT.)

In the regular Monday night duplicate game in Charlotte yesterday I failed at one table to announce our notrump range when my partner opened 1NT. At a later table I opened 1NT, LHO waited a bit, then asked my partner for the range. A lively discussion (amicable) ensued about announcing notrump ranges. On the next hand my partner overcalled 1NT and my RHO waited a bit before mentioning that I failed to announce the range. I did so (15-18 HCP), then pointed out that on the ACBL convention card it doesn't require announcing the range of a notrump overcall (it's not in blue), although it does require announcing the range of a notrump opening bid. Although I understand that the circumstances of the two are different, I do find the inconsistency a bit . . . I'll be nice here . . . peculiar.

Does opener's 2♥ rebid show 4 hearts, or a heart stopper for notrump? If the former, you have a double fit; if the latter, maybe not so much.

I'm also curious about the ♦K opening lead. to my (admittedly non-expert) eye, the ♣K appears to be a much better lead.

I'd pass. If you bid with cheese like this, partner will never believe that you have a hand truly worthy of a response.

Cascade covered it quite well. To simplify it a bit: when you're doing the calculation with combinations for the given suit, you're ignoring the remaining cards in the opponents' hands - treating all possible divisions as if they are equally likely. Jeff's calculations consider the remaining cards in the opponents' hands, so they explicitly include the fact that a (given) 4-2 division of six cards is more likely than a (given) 3-3 division of those same six cards.

If your opponents' 7 HCP include an ace and a king, your small slam is 50% at best; less if they're in the same suit. Gerber's usefulness is the same as Blackwood's: to keep you out of a slam that's likely fail, not to get you into a slam that's likely to succeed. Before using either you need to determine whether you have enough strength to take 12 or 13 tricks; only then might you employ either to try to avoid a slam that's down off the top.