Game Try

[aguahombre]

( In 2/1, 2S is 8,9 exact.... w/3 cards .)

In 2/1 with constructive raises agreed, I believe the range is 8-9 with 3 cards, or 10 with 4X3 flatness. However, that agreement is not a tenet of 2/1 per se. It is a supplemental option. This is off-topic, but part of my continuing rant about the difference between what "is" and what is a preference subject to agreement.

[billw55]

Bidding a HSGT of 3♦ on this hand is just wrong, not because the hand does not have the values for it within the system played but because you do not need any help in the suit. Qxx is a bad holding opposite a HSGT, not a good one. A singleton or void would be a good holding. Both 3♣ and (especially) 3♥ are better. Whether 2NT is an option depends on what that means within the methods.

This is close to what I was thinking. In my methods a HSGT shows a holding with weak honors, and is looking for fitting honors to secure the suit. ♦AKJx doesn't fit this description, but ♣Qx does. I think of it in terms of the difference in value of my holding, when partner does or does not hold fitting values. AKJx gets better opposite Qxx as compared to xxx, but not enormously so; it is pretty strong on its own. But compare Qx opposite KJx or xxx, the difference is huge. So I would bid 3♣ as a try, and north would sign off in 3♠. I would definitely not make a try out of ♥xx though.

 

Also I think it is absurd to suggest that the south hand is not worth a try at all.

[dake50]

4♠ was an idiotic bid. Partner has what appears to be at most two cover cards for you -- the diamond Queen and the heart King. If that is enough for game, he is expecting a 5-loser hand. With most 5-loser hands, you would blast game yourself anyway, so his take is already suspect.

 

But, let's assume a 5-loser hand that is poor on HCP's. This is usually a 5-5 holding. Something like your hand with an extra diamond and one fewer club or heart and probably not the club Queen. If you have that hand, the heart King is only potentially useful if you have short clubs. So, that King is only worth a 50-50 trick 50% of the time, or 25% of a trick. Plus, it is a less useful trick because it does not support some other diamond card or spade card in your hand needing support. Compare how more useful the diamond or spade King would be in protecting and growing up your hypothetical spade or diamond Queen or Jack. Thus, the heart King may well force another finesse in one of your two suits frequently and might instead by 12.5% or 20% of a trick.

 

Plus, if partner wants to be a lunatic and encourage you further, he always has a hedging 3♥ option over your 3♦, whether that for you is game last train or a card, either of which works this time.

 

The solution, then, is not so much systemic as CHO judgment. -- kenrexford

 

*** How many of SA +HAK +DQ +CAK might a single raise cover??

I'm assuming most of those that do have more than a single raise 12.

Or does no "super 12" (I got 3 tricks for you) exist by some other start?

A wide-ranging single raise should/must have a less than a three sure tricks top.

Something else for such good stuff.

[kenrexford]

4♠ was an idiotic bid. Partner has what appears to be at most two cover cards for you -- the diamond Queen and the heart King. If that is enough for game, he is expecting a 5-loser hand. With most 5-loser hands, you would blast game yourself anyway, so his take is already suspect.

 

But, let's assume a 5-loser hand that is poor on HCP's. This is usually a 5-5 holding. Something like your hand with an extra diamond and one fewer club or heart and probably not the club Queen. If you have that hand, the heart King is only potentially useful if you have short clubs. So, that King is only worth a 50-50 trick 50% of the time, or 25% of a trick. Plus, it is a less useful trick because it does not support some other diamond card or spade card in your hand needing support. Compare how more useful the diamond or spade King would be in protecting and growing up your hypothetical spade or diamond Queen or Jack. Thus, the heart King may well force another finesse in one of your two suits frequently and might instead by 12.5% or 20% of a trick.

 

Plus, if partner wants to be a lunatic and encourage you further, he always has a hedging 3♥ option over your 3♦, whether that for you is game last train or a card, either of which works this time.

 

The solution, then, is not so much systemic as CHO judgment. -- kenrexford

 

*** How many of SA +HAK +DQ +CAK might a single raise cover??

I'm assuming most of those that do have more than a single raise 12.

Or does no "super 12" (I got 3 tricks for you) exist by some other start?

A wide-ranging single raise should/must have a less than a three sure tricks top.

Something else for such good stuff.

 

I never addressed whether the game try was or was not correct, instead focusing solely on the acceptance with Responder's hand.

 

That said, if you are suggesting that 3♦ was too aggressive because partner cannot have three cover cards, it seems fairly easy to see that ♠A, ♦Q, ♣K works well, as few would deem a 9-count a limit raise, especially if 4-3-3-3.

 

Plus, your observation is that "a wide-ranging single raise should/must have less than a three sure tricks top." Suppose that I agree. The stray diamond Queen is hardly a third sure trick, especially if doubleton. (If the club Queen for Opener is dubious, same for partner?) Thus, any combination of Aces and Kings plus the diamond Queen should work, eh? This of course is why the 3♦ call seems spot-on, identifying the one card that might not be known to be a sure trick as now worth something substantial.

 

 

 

[JLOGIC]

Your partner showed 6-12 then jumped to game over a game try with a 4333 6 count. Think about that lol, does that seem like it could be right?

[mikestar13]

Your single raise range 6-12?? is unplayable, anything either of you do will be wrong a good portion of the time. Try a better structure, then your judgement will improve.

[ArtK78]

Your partner showed 6-12 then jumped to game over a game try with a 4333 6 count. Think about that lol, does that seem like it could be right?

I never said it was right. I thought his bid was absurd.

 

But I was looking for advice on how to fix the problem. So far I have gotten a very mixed bag ranging from the response structure is unplayable (not true, but it does create problems) all the way to the big hand should have passed the raise and not even made a game try (totally absurd).

 

We deliberately chose to play the single raise as 6-12 to allow responder to raise opposite a 10 point opener to act as a "constructive preempt." Most of the time we do just fine. But my partner is starting to make some very strange calls in these sequences, such as bidding game on a 4333 6 count.

 

I proposed to him a set of follow-ups by opener depending on whether opener had a mild invite (requiring a maximum single raise) or a normal invite (what someone would invite in a typical 1M-2M auction. He declined, stating that the memory load was not worth it. So we will muddle through the way we are at present.

[the hog]

I never said it was right. I thought his bid was absurd.

 

But I was looking for advice on how to fix the problem. So far I have gotten a very mixed bag ranging from the response structure is unplayable (not true, but it does create problems) all the way to the big hand should have passed the raise and not even made a game try (totally absurd).

 

We deliberately chose to play the single raise as 6-12 to allow responder to raise opposite a 10 point opener to act as a "constructive preempt." Most of the time we do just fine. But my partner is starting to make some very strange calls in these sequences, such as bidding game on a 4333 6 count.

 

I proposed to him a set of follow-ups by opener depending on whether opener had a mild invite (requiring a maximum single raise) or a normal invite (what someone would invite in a typical 1M-2M auction. He declined, stating that the memory load was not worth it. So we will muddle through the way we are at present.

 

It is not absurd. You play a structure that has inherent problems and will need to pay off to hands occasionally. You had a poor shape anda who knows what queen. You made a totally stupid trial bid in a suit where you didn;t need any help, showing that you have no hand evaluation skills. Your partner had the D help you asked for. You get a bad result and know come back bleating. Please!!

[BillHiggin]

I never said it was right. I thought his bid was absurd.

 

But I was looking for advice on how to fix the problem. So far I have gotten a very mixed bag ranging from the response structure is unplayable (not true, but it does create problems) all the way to the big hand should have passed the raise and not even made a game try (totally absurd).

 

We deliberately chose to play the single raise as 6-12 to allow responder to raise opposite a 10 point opener to act as a "constructive preempt." Most of the time we do just fine. But my partner is starting to make some very strange calls in these sequences, such as bidding game on a 4333 6 count.

 

I proposed to him a set of follow-ups by opener depending on whether opener had a mild invite (requiring a maximum single raise) or a normal invite (what someone would invite in a typical 1M-2M auction. He declined, stating that the memory load was not worth it. So we will muddle through the way we are at present.

Unplayable is too strong a word - unsound is certainly true. No matter what you do via game tries, you will either be missing a significant number of games where responder fits well and holds a hand in the higher end of your single raise range or you will be overboard at the three level when he holds a minimum.

 

But, perhaps I can make a semi-constructive suggestion of a method for dealing with the large range of a single raise:

Here I will specify point count ranges simply for brevity purposes - I think you should be able to translate into your favorite evaluation system. (note that when hearts is the agreed suit, that no-trump will stand in for spades)

1) Use a single step over the single raise to ask "If you have 11+, bid game, if you have 9-10 bid the cheapest suit suitable for accepting a game try, if you have 6-8, bid 3M"

2) Higher steps are a game try requiring a fitting 7-8. Responder always accepts with 9+ and rejects with any 6.

 

By use of counter tries, one can somewhat simulate short suit tries. It is far from perfect, but then we are dealing with an unsound situation anyway. At least you will have a foundation which rules out the absurd sort of acceptance shown in the OP.

 

Good luck (I think you will need it)

[benlessard]

Im in the "1NT non forcing" camp for at least 10 years.

 

Even playing a forcing NT I didnt like contructive raises and always prefer to raise to 2S immediatly & that 1NT always denied fit, but IMO if you want to open 10 count you have to make compromises and the simplest one to do is to bid 1NT with any 6-7 pts without shape so that 2S is 8-12 balanced or 6-12 with some shape.

 

Here its just obvious that 1NT is a lot more safe than bidding 2S (6-12) with a 6-7 4333.

 

If he cannot understand that his 4s is at least dubious (and IMO big lol) than he is surely not as strong as you think he is.

[gszes]

the_hog makes his case with his usual "enthusiasm" while also bringing up an important point. He would bid 3c

if we forced him to and this is a very sound idea for a couple of reasons. 1. You do not need dia help where the

worst case scenario you will need the dia finesse to work. A 3c bid however does something interesting it essentially

asks p if they have something useful in clubs which will bring your club Q back up to full value instead of in the

probably worthless state it is in now. But this is only the first step in acceptance-------responder need to be able

to evaluate their hand better also if responder is minimum they need all of their "stuff" in your two suits here

all they really had one one stinking queen the rest rated to be worthless opposite your 3d game try. This is an

easy 3s rebid.

 

If p does not "fit" your help suit try well they should probably have at least 2 aces to accept your game try (or

some compensating shortness). Note that even if south bid 3c the n hand would now have just one stinking

Jack and should bid 3s.

 

Since I would be happy to be in game opposite 2 aces (or even a tad more) I would definitely make a game try

(sorry hog) but I do agree that I think 3c is vastly better than 3d.

[the hog]

the_hog makes his case with his usual "enthusiasm" while also bringing up an important point. He would bid 3c

if we forced him to and this is a very sound idea for a couple of reasons. 1. You do not need dia help where the

worst case scenario you will need the dia finesse to work. A 3c bid however does something interesting it essentially

asks p if they have something useful in clubs which will bring your club Q back up to full value instead of in the

probably worthless state it is in now. But this is only the first step in acceptance-------responder need to be able

to evaluate their hand better also if responder is minimum they need all of their "stuff" in your two suits here

all they really had one one stinking queen the rest rated to be worthless opposite your 3d game try. This is an

easy 3s rebid.

 

If p does not "fit" your help suit try well they should probably have at least 2 aces to accept your game try (or

some compensating shortness). Note that even if south bid 3c the n hand would now have just one stinking

Jack and should bid 3s.

 

Since I would be happy to be in game opposite 2 aces (or even a tad more) I would definitely make a game try

(sorry hog) but I do agree that I think 3c is vastly better than 3d.

 

Gszes, here is why he should not make a gt

KQJxx ♥ xx ♦ AKJx ♣ xx.

 

Axx Axxx xxx xxx

You have 2 aces. You will lose 2 Cs off the top. Now after the H switch you need to bring in the Ds for no loser; and this hand is not the worst you can have to accept. 5422 shapes are pretty much rubbish. He has a hand a small min better with 6 losers. The problem is most players do not understand what a gt suit is.

[kenrexford]

3D is not a bad try. Granted 3C has merit because Opener has the Queen and therefore knows that Responder cannot errantly upvalue a queen he doesn't have but will properly value the club king fully after a 3C call. While thisrisks ddevaluing the diamond queen, that might not be as bad because 3C allows more space for sniffs, includinga diamond sniff. Had opener the same hand but no club queen, 3D Iis beyter. That with heart queen instead, that is.

[EricK]

It is not absurd. You play a structure that has inherent problems and will need to pay off to hands occasionally. You had a poor shape anda who knows what queen. You made a totally stupid trial bid in a suit where you didn;t need any help, showing that you have no hand evaluation skills. Your partner had the D help you asked for. You get a bad result and know come back bleating. Please!!

What should a 3D trial look like in your opinion, and would game be good with it opposite a 4333 6 count with just a Qxx in diamonds?

[cherdano]

It always amazes me how many people have extremely precise expectations of the suit bid in a help suit game try. I thought the point of a help suit is to allow partner to upgrade lower honours. Qxx is worth essentially no trick opposite Ax, half a trick opposite Axx or Kxx, one+ tricks opposite KJx, 1.3 tricks opposite AKJx. That always seemed useful enough to me.

 

Some apparently play a help suit game try as promising xxx or worse. Do you alert this so that LHO knows what to lead?

 

I think I'd rather agree that 3♦ is game-forcing, looking for the best strain. If you really want to solve the problem of partner not know whether a singleton is helpful opposite the game try suit, then play a shortness ask.

[fromageGB]

I much prefer 2M+1 as the game try after a normal raise, but I think the point is that a 2♠ bid with an 8 point range makes game tries unworkable. With this method you need a different set of continuations.

[dake50]

I never addressed whether the game try was or was not correct, instead focusing solely on the acceptance with Responder's hand.

 

That said, if you are suggesting that 3♦ was too aggressive because partner cannot have three cover cards, it seems fairly easy to see that ♠A, ♦Q, ♣K works well, as few would deem a 9-count a limit raise, especially if 4-3-3-3.

 

Plus, your observation is that "a wide-ranging single raise should/must have less than a three sure tricks top." Suppose that I agree. The stray diamond Queen is hardly a third sure trick, especially if doubleton. (If the club Queen for Opener is dubious, same for partner?) Thus, any combination of Aces and Kings plus the diamond Queen should work, eh? This of course is why the 3♦ call seems spot-on, identifying the one card that might not be known to be a sure trick as now worth something substantial.

 

** So you agree A+K +DQ ain't 3 sure tricks raise, so it fits a wide-ranging single raise.

How about the 3x or 4 primes cases??

Are you suggesting those also start wide-ranging raise??

Or will you disagree(while agreeing my point) again that

there should/must be another start for some such gooder 12??

[the hog]

What should a 3D trial look like in your opinion, and would game be good with it opposite a 4333 6 count with just a Qxx in diamonds?

 

Imo Eric, a game try should be in a suit where you have a similar holding to KJx(x). To make a gt in a suit where you have AK?? is really silly.

We used to play short and long suit gt. I think Cherdano mentions the use of a short suit GT in a post above.

For example if opener held

AKxxx

Axx

KJTx

x

the game is good opposite this hand,

xxx

Kxx

Qxx

xxxx

is it not? It just depends on a 3-2 S break. Ok it is not good opposite 3433, however, it gives you an idea of why the 3D bid shows a lack of judgement in hand evaluation.To call it "spot on" as one poster suggests is a ridiculously poor example of judgement.

[nigel_k]

Imo Eric, a game try should be in a suit where you have a similar holding to KJx(x). To make a gt in a suit where you have AK?? is really silly.

We used to play short and long suit gt. I think Cherdano mentions the use of a short suit GT in a post above.

For example if opener held

AKxxx

Axx

KJTx

x

the game is good opposite this hand,

xxx

Kxx

Qxx

xxxx

is it not? It just depends on a 3-2 S break. Ok it is not good opposite 3433, however, it gives you an idea of why the 3D bid shows a lack of judgement in hand evaluation.To call it "spot on" as one poster suggests is a ridiculously poor example of judgement.

 

You can't cash the top trumps before playing diamonds because they will win and draw dummy's trump. Unless diamonds are 3-3 they can probably get a ruff. That ruff may be in the long trump hand but then they can get a trump promotion using the club entry. On the other hand these things may not be possible after a club lead but I'd say it is an underdog against strong defenders.

[cherdano]

Given the wide range of 2M, I think you need to use your various game tries to show various ranges. E.g. 2M+1 = only accept if you have a maximum (responder can bid values along the way to sort out whether the hands fit), and 2M+2 and higher are natural game tries opposite a standard single raise.

[kenrexford]

I never addressed whether the game try was or was not correct, instead focusing solely on the acceptance with Responder's hand.

 

That said, if you are suggesting that 3♦ was too aggressive because partner cannot have three cover cards, it seems fairly easy to see that ♠A, ♦Q, ♣K works well, as few would deem a 9-count a limit raise, especially if 4-3-3-3.

 

Plus, your observation is that "a wide-ranging single raise should/must have less than a three sure tricks top." Suppose that I agree. The stray diamond Queen is hardly a third sure trick, especially if doubleton. (If the club Queen for Opener is dubious, same for partner?) Thus, any combination of Aces and Kings plus the diamond Queen should work, eh? This of course is why the 3♦ call seems spot-on, identifying the one card that might not be known to be a sure trick as now worth something substantial.

 

** So you agree A+K +DQ ain't 3 sure tricks raise, so it fits a wide-ranging single raise.

How about the 3x or 4 primes cases??

Are you suggesting those also start wide-ranging raise??

Or will you disagree(while agreeing my point) again that

there should/must be another start for some such gooder 12??

 

As to the entire systemic approach, here's my take. The description of the "LIA" approach is that all 10-counts are opened. The way I normally play, with no LIA description, is that I would open almost any 11-count with a five-card major already. So, this is only a one-point difference to me, perhaps 2 on the close calls.

 

The HCP range of 6-12 seems somewhat silly, therefore. Extrapolating, this is akin to an effective range of 5-11 for me, which means that the partnership is merging the constructive raise and the nuisance raise into one bid, which seems somewhat unworkable. But, they admit this as a semi-flaw.

 

Even assuming this, however, the stated range may well have a cap that is not mentioned, like "not four primes." Contextually, four primes would seem forced to be specifically KQ in trumps (5 HCP) plus an Ace-King outside (7 HCP) to get within the range, and likely that 4-cover situation is upgraded. You end up then with the effective "cap" as three "primes." That is not unworkable, just as responding with a single raise with King-Queen in trumps and a side Ace (9 HCP) is not unworkable in Goren Standard.

 

The problem situation I can see is the "three primes and a side Queen," which also is a specific case -- King-Queen in trumps plus a side Ace and a side Queen. That holding is under the maximum for the range but with the potential of four cover cards.

 

I would agree, then, that "gooder" 11's and 12's (potential of four covers) are too strong for a simple raise, even assuming the mildly LIA approach. I do not know whether the system allows such calls as mere simple raises. If so, I sense problems developing.

 

 

 

[kenrexford]

Imo Eric, a game try should be in a suit where you have a similar holding to KJx(x). To make a gt in a suit where you have AK?? is really silly.

We used to play short and long suit gt. I think Cherdano mentions the use of a short suit GT in a post above.

For example if opener held

AKxxx

Axx

KJTx

x

the game is good opposite this hand,

xxx

Kxx

Qxx

xxxx

is it not? It just depends on a 3-2 S break. Ok it is not good opposite 3433, however, it gives you an idea of why the 3D bid shows a lack of judgement in hand evaluation.To call it "spot on" as one poster suggests is a ridiculously poor example of judgement.

 

That's because you are completely failing to understand the purpose of the call. Or, you are an idiot.

 

The theory behind an approach where you would bid a suit of Ace-King-whatever is to tell partner what dubious covers are actually true covers. If you assume that partner's holding will consist of a combination of pure covers (Aces, and the King-Queen in trumps) plus probable covers (side Kings), plus one or more dubious covers (side Queens), then an approach that tells partner which side Queens carry fully weight is an effective game try method that effectively caters to a better Losing Trick Count and Cover Card analysis.

 

You, on the other hand, have offered no reason why "KJx" is a good game try bid but "AKJx" is not, other than to claim this fact and to give a pointless example that furthers nothing in this discussion. For, "KJx" or "KJ10x" is also for me a good game try bid, primarily because you lack the Queen and are doing exactly what I said you want to do -- indicate what Queens have value. In other words, I would have made a 3D game try with the example you give (which locates the game) or with the heart Ace moved to diamonds (diamonds AKJx and hearts xxx), after which partner could bid the game and hope for the heart King to be a full value (and IMP scoring) or try back with 3♥ if not so adventuresome. Thus, as your example proves nothing useful, it shows how inadequate your judgment and understanding of bridge theory truly is.

 

 

 

 

[kenrexford]

Given the wide range of 2M, I think you need to use your various game tries to show various ranges. E.g. 2M+1 = only accept if you have a maximum (responder can bid values along the way to sort out whether the hands fit), and 2M+2 and higher are natural game tries opposite a standard single raise.

 

Unnecessary.

 

After 2♠ and a 3♣ or 3♦ game try, partner can always "game last train" back with the tweener hands. The only problem is the one-under 3♥, which suggests that 1-2-3 not be stop but rather be a two-way heart-oriented game try, showing whatever 3♥ does not show (one weaker, one stronger). Or, you add definition elsewhere.

 

 

 

[gnasher]

Unnecessary.

 

After 2♠ and a 3♣ or 3♦ game try, partner can always "game last train" back with the tweener hands.

This is available to, and needed by, responder in standard methods. After a standard 2♠ raise you split responder's range into three - reject the game try, accept the game try, or make a return try. Playing a wider range 2♠ bid it makes sense to split responder's range into more ranges, which is what Cherdano's suggestion does.

[Zelandakh]

Playing a wider range 2♠ bid it makes sense to split responder's range into more ranges, which is what CherdanoZel's suggestion does.

FYP (see #23).