A Common Problem

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=n&s=skq10852hakdkjc832]133|100|You pick up this hand in a long K.O. match and are wondering how to describe it when the opponents' preempt your socks off, but partner surprises you with a 1D opening in first seat - a further shock occurs when RHO and LHO pass and you get to have an uncontested auction. You begin with 1S and partner raises to 2S. You would like to make a slam try at this point but how? Every bid you have worked on from here on out is some kind of game try.[/hv]

 

My contention is that bidding changes depending upon the target for which you are aiming. In other words, if you make a game try, partner is within his rights to jump to that game and eat up all that lovely investigational room. Suppose on the hand in question you have deemed a 3D continuation a help suit game try - so you bid 3D and partner with Axxx, x, AQxxx, QJx jumps to 4S. Not much help for slam. Some may solve this by having the jumper cue bid on the way, but this gives away valuable information to the opponents when game only is being investigated.

 

The thought has occurred to me that there is a simple way to separate these hand types without much if any loss: a forcing self raise.

 

1D-1S

2S-3S* Game force, slam try.

 

In this sequence, partner will evaluate his hand in light of slam aspirations rather than game aspirations and the answers do not always come out the same. The give up is little as no one seems to have a really good use of the self raise in this sequence anyway.

 

I know I evaluate my hand in a different light depending on whether partner is trying to get to a vulnerable imp game or trying for slam. This simple fix should allow an easy separation of ambitions and make slam bidding easier I would think.

[Double !]

maybe I am missing something here but

why would 3♦ be a help-suit game try after partner opened with 1♦?

 

je ne sais pas

 

DHL

 

BTW, does 2S by opener promise 4-card support so that the partnership is, in most cases, committed to spades? Makes life easier.

[pclayton]

[hv=d=n&s=skq10852hakdkjc832]133|100|You pick up this hand in a long K.O. match and are wondering how to describe it when the opponents' preempt your socks off, but partner surprises you with a 1D opening in first seat - a further shock occurs when RHO and LHO pass and you get to have an uncontested auction. You begin with 1S and partner raises to 2S. You would like to make a slam try at this point but how? Every bid you have worked on from here on out is some kind of game try.[/hv]

 

My contention is that bidding changes depending upon the target for which you are aiming. In other words, if you make a game try, partner is within his rights to jump to that game and eat up all that lovely investigational room. Suppose on the hand in question you have deemed a 3D continuation a help suit game try - so you bid 3D and partner with Axxx, x, AQxxx, QJx jumps to 4S. Not much help for slam. Some may solve this by having the jumper cue bid on the way, but this gives away valuable information to the opponents when game only is being investigated.

 

The thought has occurred to me that there is a simple way to separate these hand types without much if any loss: a forcing self raise.

 

1D-1S

2S-3S* Game force, slam try.

 

In this sequence, partner will evaluate his hand in light of slam aspirations rather than game aspirations and the answers do not always come out the same. The give up is little as no one seems to have a really good use of the self raise in this sequence anyway.

 

I know I evaluate my hand in a different light depending on whether partner is trying to get to a vulnerable imp game or trying for slam. This simple fix should allow an easy separation of ambitions and make slam bidding easier I would think.

I've changed my viewpoint on some of these hands too. A 3♠ preemptive reraise just never seems to come up and theres always a chance that you can buy it at 2, so why preempt yourself? 3♠ makes a lot more sense as a general slam try with no shortage (else a splinter) and nothing really to focus on.

 

By the way, I think that partner should cooperate whenever you make a game try in an auction like this and cue something along the way to game.

[cherdano]

FWIW, I remember Meckwell playing 3S here as COG between 3N from partner's side and 4S, something you can't do in standard.

[Winstonm]

maybe I am missing something here but

why would 3♦ be a help-suit game try after partner opened with 1♦?

 

je ne sais pas

 

DHL

 

BTW, does 2S by opener promise 4-card support so that the partnership is, in most cases, committed to spades?  Makes life easier.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. Let's just say it is an agreement you and partner have that 3D is game try. The point I was trying to make is that most partnerships have lots of game try gadgets in this sequence but no slam try gadgets, and your bidding should change depending on whether partner is trying for game or slam.

 

And yes, for me it does show 4. Again, my partner and I have spent hours and hours constructing a cohesive system - we know there are flaws but chose to live with them in order to make the whole work better.

 

 

Winston

[keylime]

I treat 1m-1M-2M-2NT as forcing to game, asking opener to describe their hand. Slam might be on here.

 

I also treat 1m-1M-2M-3M as COG too.

[1eyedjack]

Why should a game try not possibly conceal a slam try? As long as the bid itself is forcing, that is.

 

Partner's interest opposite a game try is not exactly useless information opposite a slam try.

 

If partner accepts a game try that could conceal a slam try then if disciplined he might cue on the way to game. Certainly any cue that you make, regardless of whether the GT is accepted or declined, would confirm that the original GT was in fact ST.

 

Robson did a series of articles in The Times (UK) a year or so ago, in which he advocated that the first cue bid should be of the "trial bid" variety, with subsequent cues being controls. I think that makes a lot of sense. Indeed the examples that he used were trial bids that already committed to game (and therefore promised ST), but even then he used the first "cue" as asking for help or showing length, rather than showing a top control.

[Impact]

Funny hand- old-fashioned jumpshift to 2S: partner's raise to 3S would then show the missing top Honour...and he knows your minimums strength....

 

Assuming that you have allocated a different meaning to the jump-shift and the auction has commenced as you predicated to 2S,

 

2NT is either A) some forcing enquiry (eg how many S raise and max/min...distributions/cue at 4 level with 4 card support and max....) OR ;) depending on agreement the start of a long/ short suit trial

 

3lower ranking= A) help wanted if A) above selected, or

B) the obverse of B) above.

 

I tend to prefer selection A) so that I am now in a position to find out the extent and quality of his minimum raise....

one option of rexsponses which is most favourable when the minor is D and the Major is S is as follows

3C= 3 card support but shortage Hi/Lo by agreement

3D= 3 card support but no singleton

3H= 3 card support but shortage obverse to 3C

3S= minimum of minima with 4 card support

higher= 4card support with relevant cue by agreement eg NT= trump cue, other =1st/2nd by agreement

 

Of course in the situation which is less convenient (H raise & C =minor) you can recover the ground by allocating 2S as the forcing enquiry....

 

Note that using such an enquiry you will uncover a shortage in say C with 3 card support or a useful 4 card support and your issue will be one of judgement dependent on the stregths of your minor suit openings (with minimum raises) eg Axx xxx AQxxxx x is good enough?

but presumably Axx xx Axxxxx Ax control rich 3 card raise...

while a minimum (of minima) 4 card raise in a strong NT structure presumably would be of no interest whatsoever as by definition it would deny a shortage presumably.

[mcphee]

Seems to me Garrozzo asking relay handles this problem quite well.

2NT asks opening hand to describe what raise type they have, where now they tell if the raise is 4 card minimum or maximum, or even a 3 card minimum or maximum. This asking bid also lets the opening hand show at once if the 4 card raise contains shortness. When the raise is 3 cards you are able to ask if the hand contains shortness.

[kfgauss]

I play with some partners that over a game try you're supposed to bid 3NT with an accept, to leave room for partner to show a slam try. (We use 3NT so it can't be doubled for the lead.)

 

We use 3S in these sorts of sequences as a general (power) try.

 

Andy

[Finch]

I also play 2NT as a relay here.

I don't use 3S as pre-emptive (which I agree is not really necessary) but as a general game try with a 5-card suit. This is also not strictly necessary (the relay must be INV+ values), but to some extent I find the relay more useful in slam exploration because you learn something about partner's hand at the 3-level. If you bid 3S to show a slam try you've lost a level of bidding.

[mikeh]

I agree that using the 2N bid here as a relay (and I use the simple scheme of 1st two steps = min/max with 3 card support, next 2 are min/max 4 card and 3N and higher are specific hand types). Obviously, when 2♠ promises 4, this is an inappropriate structure. I play that raise = 4 card support in one partnership and now 2N is a relay with complex responses.

 

Since the poster is asking in terms of a partnership prepared to devote some time to this, my advice is to use 2N, not 3♠, as the relay. Given that you have discovered at least a 4-4 fit, the chances of wanting to use 2N as a passable natural bid are low..... certainly low enough that the bid can be co-opted for another purpose at low cost to the system.

 

And using 2N rather than 3♠ saves virtually an entire round of bidding: often a key factor in slam bidding.

 

Without that approach, using the hand in question, I would make a game try in ♦ and I require, in my methods, that opener must bid concentrated values on the way: I used to play that he had to cue an Ace, but I have been persuaded, in part by earlier threads here, that bidding concentrated values is more useful.

 

Should partner bid 3♠, I think I am worth 4♥, retroactively converting my ostensible game try into a slam try while at the same time identifying (admittedly for the defence as well) the ♣ flaw.

 

I am not at all happy with this approach, but that is one reason I play 2N as a relay: to avoid this issue (while maybe having a different problem later)

[mike777]

IF you play a version of long/short suit game tries...2nt as a relay is out.

 

As others have said partner can cue if he accepts the game try very often.

[Winstonm]

I agree that using the 2N bid here as a relay (and I use the simple scheme of 1st two steps = min/max with 3 card support, next 2 are min/max 4 card and 3N and higher are specific hand types). Obviously, when 2♠ promises 4, this is an inappropriate structure. I play that raise = 4 card support in one partnership and now 2N is a relay with complex responses.

 

Since the poster is asking in terms of a partnership prepared to devote some time to this, my advice is to use 2N, not 3♠, as the relay. Given that you have discovered at least a 4-4 fit, the chances of wanting to use 2N as a passable natural bid are low..... certainly low enough that the bid can be co-opted for another purpose at low cost to the system.

 

And using 2N rather than 3♠ saves virtually an entire round of bidding: often a key factor in slam bidding.

 

Without that approach, using the hand in question, I would make a game try in ♦ and I require, in my methods, that opener must bid concentrated values on the way: I used to play that he had to cue an Ace, but I have been persuaded, in part by earlier threads here, that bidding concentrated values is more useful.

 

Should partner bid 3♠, I think I am worth 4♥, retroactively converting my ostensible game try into a slam try while at the same time identifying (admittedly for the defence as well) the ♣ flaw.

 

I am not at all happy with this approach, but that is one reason I play 2N as a relay: to avoid this issue (while maybe having a different problem later)

Thanks for the response; however, as we use 2-way game tries (short suit and help-showing) in both opening and responding sequences we already have 2N assigned. Hence, the concept of using a self raise as the slam try.

 

Winston

[kenrexford]

Echo the idea that 3D, for example, is not "a game try," but should be taken as a game try with the possibility that the try is slammish.

 

If your Game Try techniques somehow are too complicated for this to work, you have way too much time on your hands. For that matter, I do not quite get the complicated game try structures any more. In the past, I used a multi-tiered game try scheme that was amazingly useful at describing exactly what I held and/or needed for the game to possibly make. Then, that damned defense got in the way. Strangely, bashing seemed to increase the game-landing percentages.

 

This leads me to conclude that natural game tries, possibly masking slam tries, makes more sense than anything else, with 2NT simply a quantitative bash suggestion, allowing 3NT. After naturals, assumptive cuebidding follows.

[Double !]

Funny hand- old-fashioned jumpshift to 2S: partner's raise to 3S would then show the missing top Honour...and he knows your minimums strength....

Shhh. Be vewy, vewy qwiet.

Not allowed to refer to strong jump-shifts. It's like they have become taboo or obsolete.

I agree with you that an initial 2S response would get the hand "off your chest" asap, and then let you not feel like you are spending the remainder of the bidding trying to catch up.

 

A philosophy that i was told many years ago still makes a lot of sense to me today: to wit: "Try to describe as much of your hand as possible in the fewest number of bids". Then show the specifics if and when necessary.

 

DHL

[whereagles]

This seems simple to me: just bid 3♦. If it goes..

 

1♦ 1♠

2♠ 3♦

4♠ pass

 

then I'd say the 4♠ bid should show no controls in the side suits. If opener had those, he'd bid 4♣/♥ instead, no?

[EricK]

This seems simple to me: just bid 3♦. If it goes..

 

1♦ 1♠

2♠ 3♦

4♠ pass

 

then I'd say the 4♠ bid should show no controls in the side suits. If opener had those, he'd bid 4♣/♥ instead, no?

Some people, quite sensibly IMO, play 3♦ as invitational with just 4♠ and probably 5♦. This allows them to play in the known 9 card fit instead of a possible 7 card fit if opener is minimum and it also allows opener to bid game on slightly more than a minimum since he knows of the double fit.

[Winstonm]

I appreciate all the input but perhaps I misstated the question. What I am asking is not why to but why not use 3 of the same major as serious? What is the give up? If there is no real give up, then isn't it better to have one precise slam try bid than having game try bids take on double duty?