Yes or no

[andy_h]

Opponents are silent. Imps at w/w in 1st seat you hold:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=st87xh9xxxdkxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

P-1♠

2♠*-3♦

 

You had 2♣ as a 8-12 3+♠ at your arsenal so 2♠ is like 3-7.

3♦ is a long suit trial (not help suit trial like ♦xxx or something)

 

Do you play 3♥ as a last train? Assume you don't, do you go on?

[Hanoi5]

I'm tempted but I think I'll just bid 3♠.

[jukmoi]

I would bid 3♠. At best game is on finesse. At worst it is hopeless.

[billw55]

The way I learned this is, partner is not asking about my high card count. He is asking if I have a diamond filler. I do, I so bid 4♠. The fourth trump and doubleton club are nothing to be ashamed of either.

[hanp]

Declarer is asking about diamond help. I have diamond help. I still bid 3S, I have a 3-count.

[billw55]

Declarer is asking about diamond help. I have diamond help. I still bid 3S, I have a 3-count.

IMO, if you think your hand is too weak to accept an invite even when you have what partner asks for, then you should not raise in the first place. Maybe that's just me though.

[jdonn]

I bid 3♠. Luckily my hand has improved to the point I expect this to make.

[ArtK78]

I bid 3♠. Luckily my hand has improved to the point I expect this to make.

Absolutely. If all partner needed for game in spades was this, then partner has a 2♣ opening.

 

Just because partner made a game try is no reason for me to forget that partner opened 1♠. This hand rejects all game tries.

[helene_t]

I think if p had AKQxx-xx-AQxxx-x he would have bid game over my 2♠.

[pooltuna]

I bid 3♠. Luckily my hand has improved to the point I expect this to make.

Absolutely. If all partner needed for game in spades was this, then partner has a 2♣ opening.

 

Just because partner made a game try is no reason for me to forget that partner opened 1♠. This hand rejects all game tries.

WHAT!!! I didn't think sane responses were allowed on this forum :)

[Fluffy]

wow, the game reaiser really surprise me.

[billw55]

I think if p had AKQxx-xx-AQxxx-x he would have bid game over my 2♠.

Really? Even if we have agreed that I could bid 2♠ with 3 hcp? And why shouldn't he have AKQxx x AQxx xxx or AKxxxx xx AQxx x? Would those hands also jump to game opposite a possible 3 count? How about KQJxx A QJxx Axx?

 

Absolutely. If all partner needed for game in spades was this, then partner has a 2♣ opening.

This in particular is obviously wrong.

 

Ah well, I guess I am all alone again. :)

[ArtK78]

I think if p had AKQxx-xx-AQxxx-x he would have bid game over my 2♠.

Really? Even if we have agreed that I could bid 2♠ with 3 hcp? And why shouldn't he have AKQxx x AQxx xxx or AKxxxx xx AQxx x? Would those hands also jump to game opposite a possible 3 count? How about KQJxx A QJxx Axx?

 

Absolutely. If all partner needed for game in spades was this, then partner has a 2♣ opening.

This in particular is obviously wrong.

 

Ah well, I guess I am all alone again. :)

I will admit that partner need not have a 2♣ opening to make game opposite my hand.

 

But he needs a hand that is so good that he would not be making a game try. The suggested hand - AKQxx x AQxxx xx - is good enough to bid game. It should have some play opposite almost any hand that raises spades.

 

A hand from a Swiss Team event I played in yesterday had a similar theme. Vul in first seat I picked up xx KQT9xx AQ9x A. I opened 1♥ and my partner bid 1NT. I rebid a calm 2♦ and got a heart preference. I thought about making a game try. Finally, I decided that the game try I was going to make was 4♥. Bid game and try to make it.

 

Partner's hand had its good points and its bad points, but game was more than reasonable opposite JTxx Jx KTx JT9x. After the ♠K lead from KQx, the opponents could not prevent me from scoring a spade trick and, since the ♥A was on my left, they could not ruff out my spade winner. So I did not even have to figure out where the ♦J was. Also, with the ♥A was on my left, I had a couple of entries to dummy.

 

Playing your methods, I probably would have bid 4♥ opposite a single raise also. It doesn't take a lot to make 4♥ if partner shows a heart fit.

 

By the way, my opponents at the other table did not get to game on these cards.

[jdonn]

I think if p had AKQxx-xx-AQxxx-x he would have bid game over my 2♠.

Really? Even if we have agreed that I could bid 2♠ with 3 hcp? And why shouldn't he have AKQxx x AQxx xxx or AKxxxx xx AQxx x? Would those hands also jump to game opposite a possible 3 count? How about KQJxx A QJxx Axx?

All those hands are obvious game forces. Game won't always make of course but too many hands that would reject a game try make game good.

[billw55]

Playing your methods, I probably would have bid 4♥ opposite a single raise also.  It doesn't take a lot to make 4♥ if partner shows a heart fit.

For clarification, they aren't my methods, at least not the 3-7 single raise. But that is the condition of the problem.

 

The way I see it, partner knows our range for the single raise. If he wanted me to accept game with a maximium (6-7 points) but not with a minimum (3-4 points), he would invite with 3♠. The whole reason side suit game tries were invented (at least, so I think) is for the frequent hands where the location of high card strength is more important than the quantity. Here, partner is saying that the presence or absence of a diamond honor in my hand is more important than whether I am min or max on high cards. If that isn't true, he shouldn't bid 3♦.

 

All those hands are obvious game forces. Game won't always make of course but too many hands that would reject a game try make game good.

Obvious game forces opposite a 3-7 raise? That's the part I am not following. Opposite a 6-10 raise, OK. But 3-7?

 

*sigh* yet again I am in the minority among clearly stronger players. Hopefully someone can explain why my thinking is wrong.

[jjbrr]

Ya, 3♠. If this hand is good enough for game, partner needs to adjust the range for which he makes game tries and for which he bids game.

[peachy]

If this were more or less standard bidding 1S-2S-3D, partner is saying "if you can stop three top losers in diamonds, bid game" and he is not asking "are you min or max". However, your agreements include 3 point raises so I don't know what your agreements are about evaluating HSGT [if 3D was a HSGT]. Therefore, can't answer, but if forced to pick without knowing, I bid 3S.

[billw55]

OP stated that 3♦ is a "long suit trial".

[P_Marlowe]

´<snip>

 

The way I see it, partner knows our range for the single raise. If he wanted me to accept game with a maximium (6-7 points) but not with a minimum (3-4 points), he would invite with 3♠. The whole reason side suit game tries were invented (at least, so I think) is for the frequent hands where the location of high card strength is more important than the quantity. Here, partner is saying that the presence or absence of a diamond honor in my hand is more important than whether I am min or max on high cards. If that isn't true, he shouldn't bid 3♦.

<snip>

Hi,

 

I disagree.

 

The game try is for hands, where p may not be sure, if he has a

max or a min, under the condition, this would be a hand with 5HCP.

If he happens to hold such a hand, the game try tells him, that he

can upgrade diamond honors, so that his hand becomes a max..

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[quiddity]

I always thought LSGT bids asked for a combination of quantity/location. If I have a maximum raise I'll tend to bid game (or at least counter-try) unless my holding in that suit is truly wretched. And if I have a piece of garbage I'll reject, even though I might have a decent holding in that suit. The hands in the middle of the range are the ones for which the decision is based mainly on the holding in the trial suit.

 

Yes, partner could have some of the hands you mentioned where game has a decent shot but why shouldn't he have one of the vast majority of invitational hands where game is hopeless? He is catering for a possible 8-count!

[Lobowolf]

*sigh* yet again I am in the minority among clearly stronger players. Hopefully someone can explain why my thinking is wrong.

IMO, game tries don't exist in a vacuum; by this, I mean that a bid asking for help in diamonds doesn't JUST mean "Bid game if you have diamond help, and don't if you don't." The game try exists in the context of the general strength of hands in a particular range, whether it's 3-7, 6-10, or whatever. In practical terms, this means something like (make up your own numbers here):

 

15% of hands in the range are too bad to accept pretty much ANY game try, i.e. the question of help in a particular suit is irrelevant - if partner wants to be in game opposite a hand this bad, he has to suck it up and bid it himself;

 

10% of hands in the range are good enough to be in game opposite ANY game try - these are the hands that really only didn't make a limit raise on a mental coin flip, and if partner is interested in game, you want to be there - the question of help in a particular suit is irrelevant.

 

75% of hands are neither good enough nor bad enough for me to make the decision unilaterally. On these hands, and only these hands, do we address the question of help in a particular suit. The 3♦ bid essentially means something more cooperative, like, "If you think game might be reasonable, but you're not sure, evaluate based on your diamonds, and make a final decision." (or re-punt with 3♥.

 

The given hand is one of the first group of hands - it's so bad, even within the context of a 3-7 range, that I don't address the diamond question. I think given that the range is 3-7 and not 6-10, you might come to a different conclusion - it does have a 4th trump and a doubleton. But it's still pretty bad.

 

The specific answer, though, is less important than the process. It's not a 1-step process (bid game or don't). It's a 2-step process (evaluate whether game is potentially reasonable based on partner's failure to bid it himself and my advertised range; THEN evaluate my diamonds).

[Jlall]

Yeah this is not close andy, 3S. Yes 3H would be last train. If you wanted to make this interesting make it Kx of diamonds... if I had that I'd go 3H, the doubleton combined with the 4th trump is very valuable opposite Axxxx or w/e.

[billw55]

OK I give up :(

 

Out of curiosity, what sort of hand do you all expect partner to have, that rates such an invitation opposite a 3-7 single raise?

[quiddity]

A random 18-19 with bad diamonds?

[gnasher]

Does "3-7" mean that it would be in the 3-7 range if we had a balanced hand with 3-card support, and with other shapes we adjust accordingly? That is, a 3334 3-count would be strong enough, and a 6- or 7-count with 4-card support would be too strong?

 

If so, I think this hand is now roughly in the middle of the range, so 3♥ is reasonable. The extra trump is still valuable even when my doubleton is not opposite length, because it may reduce our trump losers, provide control, provide an entry, allow an elimination, or allow a dummy reversal. Also, partner is allowed to be 5143.

 

I realise that I'm assuming my own approach to raises here, and that that may be different from what the OP intended. However, I don't think it's sensible to treat a 7-count with 4-card support as weaker than an 8-count with 3-card support