"Generic Game Try"

[bixby]

[hv=pc=n&s=st754hq82da932cj9&w=sa8hj5dqjt85cqt43&n=sj32hak9763dkca52&e=skq96ht4d764ck876&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1hp2hp2sp3dp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

ACBL. I was West. 2S was alerted. When the bidding came around to me, I asked what it was, and South said, "It's a generic game try." No other explanation was asked for or offered. On the basis of the bidding, my partner chose not to lead a spade (SK would have been her natural lead otherwise), and North made 4H. On a spade lead we could have set the contact, assuming I overtake the SK, return a spade, and get a spade ruff.

 

After the hand was over, N/S explained that 2S was artificial and had no relation to spades. My partner and I felt that that was not conveyed by the term "generic game try" and partner thought she would have led her SK had she understood that 2S was not just "generic" but artificial. We didn't call the Director, but later during a break I spoke to the Director about the hand and while I didn't seek an adjustment, I suggested that he tell N/S to explain their agreement more fully next time. The Director, however, suggested that the phrase "generic game try" necessarily means "artificial game try."

 

Is that right? To me, the word "generic" just suggests that it's a game try without further refinement -- i.e., it's not a short suit game try or a help suit game try -- but it wouldn't occur to me that it had no relation to the suit bid. Is "generic game try" a recognized bridge term and does it necessarily mean "artifical game try"?

[bixby]

Sorry about the double post -- I must have hit the wrong button while editing. Admins, feel free to delete the earlier version.

[BillHiggin]

I kind of agree with the director - "generic game try" did imply artificial, but the wording could have been better (a crime of which I am too often guilty).

Will you feel better if I point out that your suggested defence does not set the contract - they will lose the first three tricks but then discard a club on the establised ♠10 and another on a diamond and still take 10 tricks. A double dummy line does beat the contract - small spade to the A, then three more rounds with W ruffing the 4th round so that a club loser remains.

[Mbodell]

If it related to the suit in question is likely would not have needed an alert. And, to me at least, "generic game try" does mean artificial. But you could ask for a more complete explanation if you were unsure. They also should give a more complete explanation. Give the south hand bid 3♦, it is possible that the generic game try had some sort of question/answer aspect to it since 3♦ presumably shows something (one or more of: best side suit, side values, whey you'd accept a long suit trial, where you'd expect a short suit trial, some sort of step responses, etc.). And presumably the opponents could and should give you a full explanation.

 

Also, I'm not sure you should ask after 3♦ as opposed to after the auction is over and partner has selected a lead. On some hands and in some situations there could be a suggestions of you improperly asking for partner's benefit or asking to induce a spade lead. Now obviously if you were planning on bidding (possibly doubling the 3♦?), then of course you should ask the opponents about the auction (and you can get the whole auction explained, including the 3♦ response).

 

Also, it isn't clear how the after the hand artificial answer came up. Obviously if it was one partner clarifying it to either you or their partner then that correction/clarification should have been given at the end of the auction, not the end of the hand.

[bixby]

Ah, good point. So it takes a low spade lead to set the contract, which wouldn't have happened. But I'm still interested in the question of whether the explanation was adequate. Thanks for your reply.

[Trinidad]

Ah, good point. So it takes a low spade lead to set the contract, which wouldn't have happened. But I'm still interested in the question of whether the explanation was adequate. Thanks for your reply.

If the question was whether it was "adequate", I will say that it was. But I will add that it was far from perfect. How much does it cost to say: "Generic artificial game try, not related to spades." or something similar?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

2S was alerted. When the bidding came around to me, I asked what it was, and South said, "It's a generic game try." No other explanation was asked for or offered.

So, 3♦ was not alerted? And you didn't ask about 3♦?

 

I think it is a good idea to ask about all alerted bids. In this particular case, I certainly would have asked about the 2♠ bid as well as the 3♦ bid (even if it wasn't alerted). The reason is that I don't want to create some kind of correlation between what I am asking and what suits I might be interested in.

 

Once you ask about an auction, then ask about everything with a meaning that is not absolutely obvious. The meanings of 1♥ and 2♥ (and later 4♥) are obvious. The meaning of 3♦ is not.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

As a practitioner of the 2M+1 generic game try, I have never used that term; I think people might assume that means the common help-suit game try rather than what it is (semi-random). So we use "non-descript about Spades, but he/she by inference has at least two of them."

 

I don't think North was violating disclosure, and agree with the analysts that there was no damage here.

 

The 3♦ continuation seems natural and non-alertable, but I agree that the same person should have asked about it once he asked about 2S.

 

Side note, irrelevant to any ruling: our 3♦ continuation on AXXX is not the side concentration of strength we would have shown; and sadly we would have missed this game which is only defeated by DD defense.

[barmar]

One of the definitions of "generic" is "not specific". That seems to be a reasonable way to describe a game try that doesn't refer to any particular suit.

[barmar]

Sorry about the double post -- I must have hit the wrong button while editing. Admins, feel free to delete the earlier version.

I moved the one reply (from Mbodell) into this thread, and deleted the thread.

[barmar]

Also, it isn't clear how the after the hand artificial answer came up.

I imagine it was during the post mortem, discussing something like "If he hadn't bid spades you would have led ♠K and then I could have gotten a ruff."

Obviously if it was one partner clarifying it to either you or their partner then that correction/clarification should have been given at the end of the auction, not the end of the hand.

But since it wasn't a misexplanation, there was no requirement to correct it. The fact that the opponents didn't understand the way it was described didn't come to light until after the hand.

 

As others have said, the explanation could be more complete, but it's not really inadequate as phrased. Auctions like this must come up all the time, and they presumably give the same explanation and it's generally understood. So what reason would they have to volunteer a clarification this time?

[mycroft]

I wouldn't have understood it (I would have taken it as "short or long game try in spades, as well") - and I play this.

 

I think a better explanation is the one we use - and we hear a lot around here: "She is asking in which suit I would accept a long suit game try."

 

I wouldn't have the implication that SSGTs take preference over LSGTs, unlike aguahombre - for me it's up to the asker to decide whether she wants to show or ask, or whether Jxxx is more of a concern than x.

[aguahombre]

I wouldn't have understood it (I would have taken it as "short or long game try in spades, as well") - and I play this.

 

I think a better explanation is the one we use - and we hear a lot around here: "She is asking in which suit I would accept a long suit game try."

 

I wouldn't have the implication that SSGTs take preference over LSGTs, unlike aguahombre - for me it's up to the asker to decide whether she wants to show or ask, or whether Jxxx is more of a concern than x.

Nothing in what I posted suggested SSGTs or LSGTs. And I would never give an explanation which included a prediction about what my own continuation bids might mean. But, our 2M+1 doesn't ask in which suit I would accept a LSGT anyway. Responder will accept, reject, or when in-between show a feature and bounce the decision back on Opener.

[blackshoe]

One of the definitions of "generic" is "not specific". That seems to be a reasonable way to describe a game try that doesn't refer to any particular suit.

You beat me to it on the definition, although I was going to go on somewhat differently. The OP asked 'Is "generic game try" a recognized bridge term and does it necessarily mean "artifical game try"?' My answers to these two questions are "no" and "yes, but it's a subtle inference".

 

If you are unsure about the meaning of an opponent's explanation, you should IMO always ask for clarification. In this case, I would ask during the clarification period (after the final pass, but before the opening lead is chosen) for an explanation of their entire auction. If they say 2♠ is "a generic game try" I'd ask for further clarification. I might or might not ask for further clarification of the 3♦ bid, depending on how it's explained. Unlike Rik, I don't think "generic game try" is adequate. It's certainly not "full disclosure", and that's what's required.

 

If your opponents do not give full disclosure in your opinion, call the director and explain the facts. Don't tell him what you think he should do, just explain the facts and let him deal with it. If you think he should tell opps to explain their agreements better, call him to the table at the time, don't go to him privately later.

[mycroft]

Nothing in what I posted suggested SSGTs or LSGTs. And I would never give an explanation which included a prediction about what my own continuation bids might mean. But, our 2M+1 doesn't ask in which suit I would accept a LSGT anyway. Responder will accept, reject, or when in-between show a feature and bounce the decision back on Opener.

Okay, your "implication that responder had two spades" led me to believe that there's a SSGT in spades available. I was wrong. I certainly would want to know more than "generic game try", at the table, then especially if there are more of those implications; and I am not sure that "generic game try" is sufficient clue that there is that information available.

 

I don't think that explaining what partner is asking about is "predicting what my [responses] would mean", any more than explaing Blackwood as "asking how many aces I have" or Stayman "asking about my major suits" is. If I started explaining my response selection, then I'd clearly be over the line, but 1♥-2♥; 2♠ in our system asks a very specific question, and only by inference *says* anything (yet, at least); why shouldn't I explain that?

 

[interesting note: I do play something I have explained before (badly, I believe) as a "generic game try": something like 1♥-2♣-2♥-3♣; 3♦ (playing competitive reraises in competition and maximal overcall doubles). I have had difficulty explaining this one to my own satisfaction, never mind my partners' or my opponents'.]

[Vampyr]

I don't think that explaining what partner is asking about is "predicting what my [responses] would mean", any more than explaing Blackwood as "asking how many aces I have" or Stayman "asking about my major suits" is. If I started explaining my response selection, then I'd clearly be over the line, but 1♥-2♥; 2♠ in our system asks a very specific question, and only by inference *says* anything (yet, at least); why shouldn't I explain that?

 

Yes; we explain that 2♠ is asking what suit(s) I would accept a SSGT in; how would you answer the question, AH, if you played this method?

[blackshoe]

[interesting note: I do play something I have explained before (badly, I believe) as a "generic game try": something like 1♥-2♣-2♥-3♣; 3♦ (playing competitive reraises in competition and maximal overcall doubles). I have had difficulty explaining this one to my own satisfaction, never mind my partners' or my opponents'.]

Perhaps "3♥ here would be competitive, so 3♦ is a game try not specific to diamonds; it just says he has enough extra to try for game".

[aguahombre]

Okay, your "implication that responder had two spades" led me to believe that there's a SSGT in spades available. I was wrong.

My responder by inference has at least two spades, and your belief that there is a Spade SSGT is not entirely wrong; when we disclose 2S as a random try with at least 2 in the suit, we are disclosing that inference, but it doesn't mean 2S is asking for a fitter for any of the side suits. That might be splitting hairs, but the disclosure includes our inference. When we bypass 2M+1 to the next suit, the alert and disclosure are that Opener wants responder to discount quacks in the bypassed Spade suit; so it functions as a SSGT.

 

 

Yes; we explain that 2♠ is asking what suit(s) I would accept a SSGT in; how would you answer the question, AH, if you played this method?

IMO, that is different from telling the opponents (and reassuring partner) that you will be bidding a suit for which you would accept you would accept a SSGT or a LSGT and is different from the way Mycroft words the disclosure. If we disclose Blackwood, Stayman, or any bid which asks for information we are not disclosing what the answers will mean. In your case the continuation might actually show the suit asked about or not. You are not saying, "if I bid x, that means I have such and such."

[Bbradley62]

I think "generic game try" is a completely sufficient explanation.

 

OP: If you didn't think "generic game try" meant "game try without saying anything about the second-mentioned suit", what did you think it meant?

[pran]

I think "generic game try" is a completely sufficient explanation.

 

OP: If you didn't think "generic game try" meant "game try without saying anything about the second-mentioned suit", what did you think it meant?

If a call is a (game) try then there must be something particular about the responser's hand that will make him either accept or refuse the try.

 

A complete description of the "try" call should iniclude what kind of particularity is of interest to the caller.

 

(e.g. Blackwood: Count of Aces; Stayman: 4-card major suit; etc.)

[aguahombre]

If a call is a (game) try then there must be something particular about the responser's hand that will make him either accept or refuse the try.

It does not follow from what you say that the "generic" or random game try necessarily asks partner to make a bid which reveals that particular feature. In our case, the retry does reveal something, but it doesn't accept or refuse; it kicks back the final decision to the one who tried. Just accepting/rejecting the random game try on our own is possible.

[pran]

If a call is a (game) try then there must be something particular about the responser's hand that will make him either accept or refuse the try.

 

A complete description of the "try" call should iniclude what kind of particularity is of interest to the caller.

 

(e.g. Blackwood: Count of Aces; Stayman: 4-card major suit; etc.)

 

 

It does not follow from what you say that the "generic" or random game try necessarily asks partner to make a bid which reveals that particular feature. In our case, the retry does reveal something, but it doesn't accept or refuse; it kicks back the final decision to the one who tried. Just accepting/rejecting the random game try on our own is possible.

 

It follows from your post that the player responding to a "try" call has at least two different response calls to choose between and that there is some criterion for which choice he is supposed to select.

 

This criterion must be disclosed as part of a complete description of the "try" call.

[barmar]

If a call is a (game) try then there must be something particular about the responser's hand that will make him either accept or refuse the try.

 

A complete description of the "try" call should iniclude what kind of particularity is of interest to the caller.

If it's non-specific (a better term, IMO, than "generic"), then he's not asking about anything in particular -- often just general quality of the hand (i.e. minimum versus maximum for your bid, extra trump length, ruffing values).

 

And in the OP, responder apparently couldn't tell if he had what was needed. I presume 3♦ was a counter game try, this time showing something in diamonds so opener could evaluate his hand.

 

Old fashioned bidding would just use 3 of the agreed major for this, and just call it a game invitation (I tried this with a new partner last week, we missed game because he usually plays 1-2-3-stop). Using the first step shows essentially the same thing, but leaves room for responder to make a counter try.

[ggwhiz]

A trick I learned when you want to ask but avoid UI possibly to direct a lead, spades here is to ask for a general explanation of the entire auction. A very good player would often ask "What's your style" and get a response that includes the meaning of 3♦ etc. that doesn't influence partners lead.

[pran]

If it's non-specific (a better term, IMO, than "generic"), then he's not asking about anything in particular -- often just general quality of the hand (i.e. minimum versus maximum for your bid, extra trump length, ruffing values).

 

And in the OP, responder apparently couldn't tell if he had what was needed. I presume 3♦ was a counter game try, this time showing something in diamonds so opener could evaluate his hand.

 

Old fashioned bidding would just use 3 of the agreed major for this, and just call it a game invitation (I tried this with a new partner last week, we missed game because he usually plays 1-2-3-stop). Using the first step shows essentially the same thing, but leaves room for responder to make a counter try.

 

You are aware (I hope) that you contradict yourself?

 

The general quality of a hand is one (among several possible) particulars of a hand.

 

So in this case the complete description should include "asking if he has maximum or minimum hand strength"