Help-suit game tries

[bd71]

So my most regular partner and I have agreed to use help-suit game tries, but it became clear in recent bidding practice that we have significantly different understandings on when opener should use it and when responder should accept game. So would appreciate folks thoughts -- and most importantly, the background reasoning -- behind some of these questions:

 

1. What should opener's "help suit" look like to use the convention? In various sources we have found on the web, there seems to be different takes. This is also a key source for our different understandings: one of us had the impression that you should have a decent 4-card suit (AJ9x or better), and the other thought it could be a very weak suit (even Qxx). So what do the more experienced players here recommend, and WHY?

 

2. What guidelines should there be for how strong responders "help suit" support look like to accept the invite? And how should the strength of responders overall hand outside the help-suit play into this decision? Can responder bid game with a maximum and NO support in the help-suit? These answers are obviously significantly related to the answer to #1.

 

3. What should responses other than 3M or 4M mean for responder? Some online sources suggest a "counter game try" that identify a strong side suit if you can bid it below the 3M level; others suggest that bids other than the major suit be "advance cue bids" in case opener is investigating slam.

 

4. Since we use a strong NT, should we be using "Two-way game tries" that would incorporate short-suit game tries as well?

 

For what it's worth, this discussion got started as we were practicing with the "Bidding Box" hands in the January 2007 ACBL Bulletin. Our hands were AKT96 K87 6 AJ94 across from J87 QJ2 974 KT76. Our bidding went 1S-2S; 3C-3S and the issue was whether responder should have accepted the invite.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 Help suit tries basically show length with no values or wasted values.

KTxx is length, but the king is certainly not a wasted values.

Typical suits for a help suit try are xxx or Qxx.

Hence for the samplke pair: Your partner should have bid 2NT as a general game

try, since neither of his suits qualifies for length with wasted values.

 

#2 If you can prevent the opponents from taking two quick tricks in the suit,

you should accept, KTxx in the suit is a problematic holding, and since responders

happens to have a dead min. he should reject the invite.

 

#3 Bids below 3M are counter game tries, showing values, bids above 3M are cues.

 

#4 If you think you can handle the add. overload, why not, but "Two-way" game

tries combine "short suit" with "Long suit", "Long suit" is not the same as "Help suit",

a "Long suit" game try showes length with usefull values.

But the frequency is not high, and there is something to be said for playing no

game tries at all, at least playing IMPs.

 

In general "short suit" game tries are easier to define, a short suit game try showes

either a single or a void, "long suit" / "help suit" are a bit harder to define.

 

For whats it worth - we play Long suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[aguahombre]

Your disagreement is very common. It is the reason I never get a straight answer when I ask the opponents what their "help suit" typically looks like.

 

Just agree on something ;) and agree on inferences from bypassing one suit to make a game try in the next one, and agree on 2NT, and agree whether you use bar bids. Almost anything is workable, just agree.

 

There are those who believe their methods are vastly superior. I just believe our methods are fine for us: cheapest suit-random, bypassing if singleton or void, 1-2-3 stop (ancient), 2NT bad trump, etc. Strength concentration retries.

[bd71]

...agree whether you use bar bids.

What are "bar bids"?

[mikeh]

I sympathize.....it is remarkable how often the opps, when asked, reveal that they have no real agreement either.

 

My preference is that the hsgt shows a suit with problems.....Qxxx, Kxx etc....I want partner to upgrade any of the top 3 honours, or shortness: a stiff is often good, but a doubleton only if he has extra trump length.....which, if you play bergen, he will usually not have.

 

My even stronger preference, at imps, is not to use game tries very much at all....if it's close, bid game... the concealment of the nature of your hand is often worth a trick in the play...often on the opening lead.

 

If you make a hsgt, there will be times when you have two suits in which help would be welcome.....you intend to bid game if partner helps either.

 

Then....make the cheaper call.....if partner has a useful hand but no help in this suit, he will have room below 3M to bid the cheaper suit in which he has help.

 

So, after 1♠ 2♠ 3♣ 3♥ would deny help in clubs or diamonds but would show a hand interested in game if hearts was also a help suit.

 

If responder bids a new suit (or raises a minor help suit) above 3M, then that is a cue bid just in case opener was making a slam try.

 

If responder bids, in the example, 3♥, and opener was signing off in 3♠ and responder was in fact accepting the 3♣ try, and cue-bidding in case of slam interest, he can now raise 3M to game...retroactively converting the 3♥ 'counter-try' into an advance cuebid....of course, opener will not be going to slam anymore, having tried to sign off in 3♠.

 

1♠ 2♠ 3♥ 4♥ is not a cue bid....it is an effort to suggest playing in hearts if opener's hsgt was based on a 4+ heart suit.

[P_Marlowe]

...agree whether you use bar bids.

What are "bar bids"?

1M - 2M

 

Some peoble now play 3M by opener as a "blocking" bid, ie. a bid, which

is not invitational, the idea is to prevent them from balancing over 2M.

 

In my opinion, the idea has some merrits, if we talk about hearts, if

there is a chance that 2H gets passed out, they will strain to reopen,

since they still can play 2S, but if we own spades, it is less likely that they

will reopen.

 

But that is just me. Not everyone reopens as agressivly as my regular p.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[aguahombre]

Yep, "bar bids", or 1-2-3-stop are usually used when the bar-bidder has the same minimum he has already shown, but one extra trump and a reason to believe the opponents can balance sucessfully. Two common situations are:

 

1M 2M

3M and,

 

1m 1M

2M 3M

 

Whether you want to use them as a LAW tool is a matter of style(sequence not needed for something else), and is more effective (on the second example) if opener can be expected to have 4-card support.

 

As Marlowe suggested, bar bids should be combined with judgement...not just every time you have an extra trump.

[nigel_k]

My preference is for short suit tries. With no short suit, make the cheapest bid and responder can show their short suit. This has the benefit of being simple and good thin games often have small cards opposite a shortage.

 

If playing 'help suit' tries, I would define it as the suit which has the most losers in the top three cards. So with your example hand, AKT96 K87 6 AJ94, I would have bid 3♥ not 3♣, which works better on the actual hand.

 

Responder has to use their judgment and just include the new information in their overall valuation. So they may bid game with a maximum and no help in the suit. I would play any further bid by responder below three of the major as a further game try, not a cue bid or anything else. This just shows a hand that can't decide whether to bid game or not. If there is a choice of suit then choose the one with the best secondary values.

[Siegmund]

As already said, it matters more that you HAVE an agreement (so you know how to evaluate your hand), than exactly what the agreement is. It matters too that you know what your opponents' agreement is so you know whether the HSGT-suit is a good lead or a terrible lead against 3M.

 

My strong preference is that my game try says to partner "your king or queen in this suit is worth at least a full trick to me; your king or queen in the suits I bypassed are not.". As such, Axx(x) and JTx are good HSGT holdings, Qxx is questionable, xxx is wrong. (I am a big believer in LTC bidding and counting cover cards :) )

 

It's probably more common to play them the way p_marlowe described where the asker often has Qxx-to-xxx... but I don't think that accomplishes anything, since partner already knows an ace is worth a trick.

[fromageGB]

A general answer to your Q2, which I don't think has been answered, is that after 1M 2M a trial bid is a game invitation, so the strength of responder is important. Given that responder can have quite a range, say 7-10 if based on HCP, it makes no sense to base the answer purely upon the suit trialled.

 

So responder with a minimum should sign off in 3, regardless of good values (however that is judged) in the trial suit. Similarly, a responder with a maximum should bid game, regardless of the trial suit. Only if the responder is in the middle of the range, otherwise uncertain of whether to bid game or not, should his judgement be based on the trial suit holding.

 

 

A couple of contributors have hinted that it can also be a bad decision to make a game try because of the extra information given to opponents. This is very true. When you think about it, about a third of the time you make a trial bid, responder is going to be minimum and sign off in 3M, a third of the time maximum and will bid 4M, and only in one third of the hands will your trial bid enable responder to make the best judgement.

 

But in two thids of the hands, you have given opponents information without helping your side any. This can lose tricks. A "good" trial suit (typically honour) then that would be a disastrous lead, so LHO will not lead it. A "nothing" trial suit (eg xxx) then that is a perfect lead, as you are leading through whatever dummy has. Why help the opponents if there is no clear-cut lead ?

 

So consider the trial bids I play in my partnerships. The trial bid itself is always the next step up in the bidding. It says nothing about any suit, just invites game. 1♥ 2♥ 2♠ is the trial bid, or 1♠ 2♠ 2NT.

 

In reply, partner bids game if he is maximum, signs off in 3 if minimum, and only if he is midrange will he then make a trial bid himself. You then see if that trial will help your hand as declarer, and bid game or not accordingly.

 

If partner is undecided, say mid-range, then the trial bid he makes is best done as a "nothing" no values suit. This is typically xxx. This, from dummy, does not really help opponents. So two thirds of the time you give nothing away, and you only give something away when it makes a difference to you. And then the help you give opponents is minimal.

[Old York]

To make a trial bid, your partner must have 6 losers or around 16 points. He should choose to bid a suit that contains 2 or 3 losers asking for help in that suit

 

With 0-1 loser in that suit, bid game

With 3 losers in that suit, sign off in 3 of your major.... even if maximum

With 2 losers in that suit, bid game if max, sign off if minimum, or bid a new suit below the trump suit at the 3 level with help in that suit

 

Trial bids should not be made in strong suits (AJ94 in the example - this example works best with short suit trial bids, no wasted values in diamonds)

Weak responding hands with 3 card support are always bad, unless holding a singleton in the help suit

Both opener or responder can make trial bids

 

This might help:

http://www.mrbridge.co.uk/library/game_tries.pdf

 

Tony

[gwnn]

i like natural game tries much better, perhaps even with kenrexford's crazy 3NT superacceptance of the sidesuit. :lol: