A Short-Suit Game Try

[Flem72]

As Opener, East, you hold ♠AQJxxx ♥Q ♦xx ♣AKxx

As Responder, West, you hold: ♠TxxxX ♥xxxx ♦Axx ♣xx

IMPs (Knockout), N/S vulnerable, the simple unopposed auction by E/W is 1♠-2♠/3♥, where 3♥ is a SSGT, 99% of the time a stiff.

 

Do you accept the invitation? Do you agree with opener's 3♥?

 

Comment fodder: I'm interested to hear from anyone with a tried and tested metric for hand types that should be 1) making a SSGT and 2) accepting one. (Originally posted on That Other Bridge Site, but not feeling ... gratified ... by the responses. Probably an indication of how many folks in ACBL Land play SSGT.)

 

 

 

[Cyberyeti]

14 card responder, 4432 ?

[Jinksy]

At this vul I'd have responded 3♠ as W (assuming four spades).

[Cyberyeti]

I wouldn't make the short suit game try but only because I'm afraid of 3♥-X-3♠-4♥ and it being unbeatable or being doubled in 4♠ when opp who bid 4♠ directly isn't, my hand is distinctly short of defence. 4♠ directly for me.

[Flem72]

14 card responder, 4432 ?

 

yes, sorry, 4=4=3=2

[hrothgar]

I'd bid 4♠

 

I have an extra trump, my points are in the form of an Ace, and I have a doubleton.

 

Plus, nothing is wasted opposite partner's 3♥ bid.

(Admittedly, this is because I don't have jack ***** to be wasted, but still...)

[GrahamJson]

This reminds me of someone I used to play with. With Txxx xxxx Axx xx he would bid 4S on the basis that "nothing was wasted". Then with Txxx Kxxx Axx xx he would bid 3S on the basis that "it was only worth 4 points as the HK was wasted". You can take a good principle a little too far sometimes.

[zillahandp]

I commend Zar point hand evaluation in this situation but with or without that ltc says make a try on opening hand and at teams in all colours accept on responderr

[KurtGodel]

What you should bid depends a lot on your raising style, if your partner can have Kxx xxxx xxx xxx, then you can't really bash and bid game, but otherwise it's probably worth it, that was a pretty bad hand, and game is still only one off, Kxxx xxxx xxx xx and now game is cold. So if partner raises on complete junk, make a try: I would prefer a natural try showing clubs if that were possible, but if not I would probably make a shortness try of 3♦. If partner needs something vaguely useful to bid 2♠ then I would bid game. That being said, if your partner has made a try you should only accept if you raise on junk. If you normally make a constructive-ish raise then you don't have much more than a minimum - partner could be making a try with AQJxx x Qxx KQJx or AJxxxx x Kxx KQx et cetera...

[jodepp]

I absolutely accept a 3♥ SSGT as responder and don't think it's close. I also wouldn't even bother asking as opener - I'd just bid game. Any hand with a doubleton club and spade support offers a play for game, no?

[wank]

opener is far too good for a game try.

 

i'd accept as responder, but i don't feel too strongly about it.

[nige1]

rubbish deleted

[ArtK78]

I would not accept with responder's hand. It is nice to know that what few values he has are working, but it still isn't enough opposite a game try.

 

And this last comment is my point - opener has a game bid, not a game try.

[Winstonm]

I have long contended that a SSGT should be construed as an exclusion-type bid, attempting to determine how well the hands and face cards fit together. I think bidding 3h with this hand is fine and bidding 4s is automatic. The idea is that once a single suit is "excluded", partnership is playing in a 30-point deck, provided there is enough roughing strength to not lose control.

[ggwhiz]

I have long contended that a SSGT should be construed as an exclusion-type bid, attempting to determine how well the hands and face cards fit together. I think bidding 3h with this hand is fine and bidding 4s is automatic. The idea is that once a single suit is "excluded", partnership is playing in a 30-point deck, provided there is enough roughing strength to not lose control.

 

Yes. If you can't accept a SSGT with this hand you shouldn't play them. Play them all of the time or none of the time. Some of the time doesn't work for me.

[Winstonm]

Yes. If you can't accept a SSGT with this hand you shouldn't play them. Play them all of the time or none of the time. Some of the time doesn't work for me.

 

Even better are two-way game tries, but as this introduces an artificial relay there is a give up of a natural bid for its use.

[jdonn]

I would not accept with responder's hand. It is nice to know that what few values he has are working, but it still isn't enough opposite a game try.

 

And this last comment is my point - opener has a game bid, not a game try.

I agree with this. The only thing opener might do instead is show clubs since slam is barely possible opposite a club fit, SK DA CQ but that is remote enough that I wouldn't bother.

[PhilKing]

I might be being a bit dense, but I can't think of that many hands where game is not reasonable opposite a short suit game try.

 

But I'm not going to throw stones and call anyone a bean counter. B-)

[mikeh]

In my partnerships, such as they are, we generally don't use many game tries in the 1M 2M situation. Now part of that is that we usually play constructive raises, by an unpassed hand, but much of it is due to the benefits of blasting game without telling the opps about our hand. Defence is the toughest part of the game and on many hands the defence is pretty much going to depend on the opening lead.

 

Having said that, even if we did play gametries of any kind, I agree with those who have said that opener, here, has to simply bid game. The extra trump and the AKxx side suit mean that we need so little on which to make game that making a try is unnecessary.

 

Consider this: we have play for game opposite xxx xxx xxxx Qxx (not a good play but far from hopeless), so what makes us think we need to involve partner here, let alone tell the opps that we have a stiff heart.

[Fluffy]

I have long contended that a SSGT should be construed as an exclusion-type bid, attempting to determine how well the hands and face cards fit together. I think bidding 3h with this hand is fine and bidding 4s is automatic. The idea is that once a single suit is "excluded", partnership is playing in a 30-point deck, provided there is enough roughing strength to not lose control.

 

The problem is your 30 point deck is actually a 34 point deck.

[Fluffy]

In my partnerships, such as they are, we generally don't use many game tries in the 1M 2M situation. Now part of that is that we usually play constructive raises, by an unpassed hand, but much of it is due to the benefits of blasting game without telling the opps about our hand. Defence is the toughest part of the game and on many hands the defence is pretty much going to depend on the opening lead.

 

If you are scared of leaking info just throw fake invites here and there to add noise. Deceiving dummy is free anyway.

 

 

OP must be playing a different system than I because 4 balanced is not worth a raise in my book. And north is obviously worth a game drive opposite a constructive raise, even opposite a 6-9 raise he is worth game.

[cherdano]

because 4 balanced is not worth a raise in my book

Huh? He has 4-card support, a doubleton and an ace!

[mycroft]

If you are scared of leaking info just throw fake invites here and there to add noise. Deceiving dummy is free anyway.

Until dummy tanks and refuses the invite, and has a hand like this one.

 

You're clear, of course, if you have a "nobody could think this is an invite" hand; it's just that the world breeds a better idiot...

[Fluffy]

even if the hand is borderline, nobody could think I am making a real short suit tral bid in clubs with ♣Qxx at least :)

[Fluffy]

Huh? He has 4-card support, a doubleton and an ace!

 

I will assume you are joking arend, not because of your tone, but because you say having a doubleton is a feature.