1 part bidding, 1 part laws question

[jillybean]

(29)

[hv=pc=n&n=st32hkj874dacakq5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h1s2h2s?]133|200[/hv]

 

MP 2/1, 12-14NT, 3x is a help suit game try

[Tramticket]

Four hearts

[Cyberyeti]

What does partner bid with x, AQ10x, xxxx, xxxx or void, AQ10, xxxx(x), xxxx(x) ? if the answer isn't 2♥ I'm not looking for a slam.

 

So I basically want to bid 4♥, but potentially in a way that gets partner to lead a club or diamond if they bid too many spades. What that is in your system I don't know (4m is a splinter ?). I might start with 3♣ intending to bid 4♥ anyway if partner signs off. Think of a situation where you have a club, a diamond and a heart to cash, and need the diamond ruff to defeat 4♠ or get a decent penalty out of 5, and partner leading ♥A kills the comms.

[pescetom]

Help suit game tries are arguably not a great idea in general and certainly no help if hoping to attract a lead here.

What is the problem with a 4C control-bid instead? It describes your hand nicely: mild slam interest, decent trumps, no spades control. If partner is looking at AH then he can place you with both minor aces and make an informed decision about lead and any slam possibility.

[TMorris]

I find this harder than most - no surprise there. For me 2 ♥ is a pretty awful hand on this sequence. For example if I had

 

xx

xxxx

KQxx

xxx

 

I would bid 3 ♥ preemptive not 2 ♥. To bid only 2 ♥ I would have less of course. There are hands that bid 2 ♥ that I can make game

 

xx

Axxx

xxx

xxxx

 

for example, so passing makes no sense either. I think I bid 4 ♥ and hope but with no great confidence it will make.

 

Whilst there may be hands that make slam good most (almost all) of those that are mentioned above are far too good for 2 ♥ for me.

[DavidKok]

Give partner as little as ♠xx, ♥Qxx, ♦xxxxx, ♣Jxx and we have play in 4♥ (especially if the opponents would be so kind as to lead spades - and for some reason they always do on the auction). I'm always bidding 4♥, and hoping to figure out if it makes when dummy comes down. We have adequate defence against 4♠ so I don't need to make a shape-showing 4♣ bid.

 

If partner had something like ♠xx, ♥Axxx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx they would have bid more than 2♥ last round - doubly so with a spade singleton. I think slam is completely out of the picture.

[Cyberyeti]

Give partner as little as ♠xx, ♥Qxx, ♦xxxxx, ♣Jxx and we have play in 4♥ (especially if the opponents would be so kind as to lead spades - and for some reason they always do on the auction). I'm always bidding 4♥, and hoping to figure out if it makes when dummy comes down. We have adequate defence against 4♠ so I don't need to make a shape-showing 4♣ bid.

 

If partner had something like ♠xx, ♥Axxx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx they would have bid more than 2♥ last round - doubly so with a spade singleton. I think slam is completely out of the picture.

 

x, AQx, xxxx, xxxxx might only bid 2♥ and slam is almost cold.

 

xx, Axx, xxxxx, xxx you might regret not eliciting a club lead against 4♠ if they have singletons in both clubs and hearts, the ace of hearts lead kills the defence, even if the hearts break, you're costing yourself an undertrick as there's no entry for the diamond ruff.

[DavidKok]

x, AQx, xxxx, xxxxx might only bid 2♥ and slam is almost cold.

 

xx, Axx, xxxxx, xxx you might regret not eliciting a club lead against 4♠ if they have singletons in both clubs and hearts, the ace of hearts lead kills the defence, even if the hearts break, you're costing yourself an undertrick as there's no entry for the diamond ruff.

I would not bid 2♥ on that first hand. With a singleton and a suit quality like this I'll brave the three-level. The hand screams for us to bid one over the law.

I think it is much better to have competitive bids aimed at making the right 5/4 and 5/5 bidding decisions, rather than optimising the chances of a second undertrick once we lose the auction. Lead directing bids are always parlay bets, and you may lose avoidable double game swings or making 5-level contracts over their (good) sacrifice. I'm not sure that I would prefer a club lead against 4♠, or that partner would lead the ace of hearts from your example hand in the absence of a 4♣ bid (which I think should have a different meaning anyway).

[Cyberyeti]

I would not bid 2♥ on that first hand. With a singleton and a suit quality like this I'll brave the three-level. The hand screams for us to bid one over the law.

I think it is much better to have competitive bids aimed at making the right 5/4 and 5/5 bidding decisions, rather than optimising the chances of a second undertrick once we lose the auction. Lead directing bids are always parlay bets, and you may lose avoidable double game swings or making 5-level contracts over their (good) sacrifice. I'm not sure that I would prefer a club lead against 4♠, or that partner would lead the ace of hearts from your example hand in the absence of a 4♣ bid (which I think should have a different meaning anyway).

 

We would never bid at the 3 level, but then we play a 4 card heart. The problem is that partner with a 6th heart might arrive at the 5 level also deciding to bid one more and that's how you get a disaster.

 

I was bidding 3♣ rather than 4.

[nullve]

I would not bid 2♥ on that first hand. With a singleton and a suit quality like this I'll brave the three-level. The hand screams for us to bid one over the law.

There are 16 total trumps in the worst-case scnenario that partner is 45xx or 56xx, so 3♥ is actually Law-protected with that hand.

[jillybean]

I am playing here with a new (NZ) partner. We play help suit game tries as it is a step up from 1H 2H 3H, I hope we will be playing 3 way game tries in time.

 

Back to this hand; I really like the hand, partner is short in opps suit and my minor suits are great. I chose a 3C "game try", intending to bid 4 over a signoff and hopefully signaling to partner that I have this hand to compete if the opps put their oar in with 4S, or lead directing.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sahqt952dq742c763&w=sq874h63dt986cjt9&n=st32hkj874dacakq5&e=skj965hadkj53c842&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h1s2h2s3cp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

(Yes, as South I would have bid 2S or 4H straight away)

 

Part#2 of the question is relating to the alert and explanation of my 3♣ game try. Partner thinks that they can no longer describe my bid as a help suit game try.

I say it's just bridge. What do the laws say about this?

[DavidKok]

It's not a help suit game try, but half the world means 'long suit game try' when they say 'help suit game try' and most don't even know there's a difference (or that they chose the wrong one). I have no idea what the laws have to say about this, at any rate I was under the impression that stating a name is neither sufficient to form an agreement (apparently your partner expected a different type of hand) nor is it sufficient disclosure. It might be worth clarifying what type of hand your partner expected for the 3♣ bid.

 

I think the good old college game try (bid game, then try to make it) is superior on most hands to a help suit, short suit or long suit trial, and does about as well as a nondescript value game try. If you and your partner do not agree about the meanings of these game tries the gap is even bigger. Maybe that is a good solution to your problem.

 

Lastly I would exercise caution in asking partner for their thoughts on game prospects if they judge the South hand to be worth only a 2♥ raise.

[akwoo]

I would bid 3C, hoping to hear a 3S cue accepting the try and suggesting that slam might be possible if I was looking for that.

 

Perfect disclosure isn't possible. We try the best we can given time and comprehension constraints and accept the odd ruling against us when our best is not good enough.

 

If I were East on lead, I would know to ask more questions after that auction, and I don't need to know before that point. If you're playing opponents who don't know to ask a further question when they need to know, then you'd better have 10 minutes a board if you want to always fit sufficient explanations in.

[mikeh]

Here’s a tip for everyone thinking of bidding 3C: bid 4C

 

No, it’s not a splinter, lol. It commits to game while telling partner that we have length and strength in clubs.

 

Btw, I’m not bidding 4C (and never bidding 3C). Why?

 

The purpose of 4C is to help partner decide what to do if they bid 4S. Typically we have something like AQxx(x) and want him to bid 5H over 4S with the club king and something in hearts, but to double with his values in diamonds…and lead trump. We know he has nothing in clubs and we have a diamond card, so we are misleading him by bidding clubs. Just bid 4H

 

If they bid 4S, which they probably won’t (they will more often be on an 8 card fit than 9 or 10) we’ll double.

[jillybean]

It's not a help suit game try, but half the world means 'long suit game try' when they say 'help suit game try' and most don't even know there's a difference (or that they chose the wrong one).

We have agreed to play help suit game tries, "I have invitational values but I need help in this suit, bid game if you have honors in this suit" I chose to bid 3C knowing it would be interpreted as a HSGT, always bidding 4H over a 3H signoff. We need to talk about a 4C bid here.

 

 

"Lastly I would exercise caution in asking partner for their thoughts on game prospects if they judge the South hand to be worth only a 2♥ raise."

:)

[pescetom]

We have agreed to play help suit game tries, "I have invitational values but I need help in this suit, bid game if you have honors in this suit" I chose to bid 3C knowing it would be interpreted as a HSGT, always bidding 4H over a 3H signoff. We need to talk about a 4C bid here.

If "bid game if you have honours in this suit" is really your agreement, then how can you expect anything except 3H signoff here?

 

In any case, that's how it should be explained, not "Help Suit Trial" (which is just a name, and usually a more complex agreement than yours too).

[thepossum]

Following out of interest in trying to understand game tries

 

I am in the 2S camp (that is South's first bid for clarification) - but not sure - jumping straight to 4 sounds too pre-emptive and weak - even 3 sounds too weak

In my system cue = limit bid or better!!!

 

I honestly find the constant discussion and confusion over game tries suggests avoiding unnecessary confusion

- I was asking for help- all these losers - oh dear I thought it meant you had something

 

Hard to reach slam though - but I hate to sound like a true beginner who counts losers but South should expect at least game hopefully

And I do, for some reason, find so much discussion about fairly simple bidding unnecessarily complex these days

Here to learn as always from assembled brains trust :)

 

To back up my comments I ran it through a fairly high quality bidding engine with multiple systems and choices of bids and struggled to get past 5H

 

But I am serious about confusion over game tries and the thread (and assembled brains) have not clarified it at all - my regular partner plays 2-ways allegedly

 

Genuinely hear to learn if anyone can make it sound sensible rather than just messing about on the way to an obvious game

 

I appreciate I am a basic level but South can see a game and North can see more than what SOuth can see - in my way of thinking a premeptive 4H by South would make me cautious about going further but something stronger and forcing from South would make me (as North) consider slam exploration. Sorry if my approach is basic

 

2S cue bid from then on all bids are looking for something more. 3C (or whatever) becomes a control bid, not just some vague game try

 

I imagine you could explore controls after a 4H bid or even just bid 6H :)

 

I know its maybe a very beginner approach but South thinks "I can see 4H" then North thinks "I can see two more tricks than South" etc

 

And South has Ace singleton in spades. What else - that would have implied a splinter in the absence of an overcall

 

2H by south is wimpy and should be in another forum. Sorry for an apparent rant. Still trying to understand game tries :lol:

 

I know I am an annoyance here but after the first 2 bids a sim shows that South can see approximately 9.8 tricks in Heart with East having approximately 9.1 in Spades and South can see a 62% chance of game. After the first two bids :) - then as I said North can see more. ALways good when my sims back up my rubbish which is very often - sorry are you playing 4 or 5 card majors. Maybe I should check

If 4 card majors it does change things a little but not much

 

I think you need to talk to South

[DavidKok]

A brief overview of game tries. The typical auction is 1♠-(P)-2♠-(P); ? and opener is about to make a bid inviting partner to bid 4♠ with a suitable hand.

 

• Long suit game tries - opener rebids a long (4+) suit, showing their shape. Responder re-evaluates their hand in context of this known shape and chooses between 3♠ signoff, 4♠ acceptance, some descriptive semi-positive bid below 3♠ or (depending on partnership agreements) a super-positive with a control bid between 3♠ and 4♠. Some people have agreements about a 3NT super-accept as well (I like 'to play').
  
• Help suit game tries - opener bids a side suit with multiple losers. Typically Hxx(x) or HJ(T)x(x). Note that in order to have multiple losers in the suit it must be of some length (3+), hence the overlap and confusion with long suit game tries. Responder is asked to consider whether their hand can help get rid of those losers, and is supposed to accept a game try typically either with honours or shortage in the bid suit (in the latter case they can be ruffed). Opener is not supposed to make this bid with a (semi)solid suit.
  
• Short suit game tries - opener bids a short suit (two small or any singleton/void). Responder evaluates their hand opposite known shortage, i.e. checks if they have sufficient values outside the short suit, and whether any values in the short suit are quick tricks or slow tricks.
  
• Value game tries - opener makes a nondescript bid asking for min/max. Responder signs off with a minimum, accepts with a maximum, or may choose to make a descriptive bid with intermediate hands.
  
• Good old college game tries - bid game (I can't resist including these).
  

In my opinion the good old college game tries and value game tries are most profitable, followed by the short suit game tries. The long suit and help suit game tries have the significant downside that rejecting the invitation, or even making a semi-positive response, alerts the opponents to known weakness in a suit. This usually makes it very easy for them to coordinate the defense against 3♠. This problem is somewhat shared by all game tries (other than good old') - a slow descriptive route to game may well give the opponents the critical clue for finding that fourth defensive trick. This is a big part of why, at higher levels, more and more players no longer use that many game tries.

 

A somewhat popular agreement (but keep the above in mind) is to combine multiple game tries. On the example auction I (have) play(ed) that

• 2NT - value game try
  
• 3♣/♦/♥ - short suit game try
  
• 3♠ - preemptive.
  

With spades it is admittedly losing bridge to make preemptive voluntary raises to three on uncontested auctions (although with hearts this approach has some merit). I've seen some people play:

• 2NT - nondescript help suit game try - bid the lowest suit in which you would accept a help suit game try. If it is below my suit I will bid my help suit next, if it is above my suit I will sign off, if it is my suit I will bid game. Can somewhat function as a value game try at the same time - if responder has a full maximum they will likely accept any help suit game try and can just bid game.
  
• 3♣/♦/♥ - short suit game try
  
• 3♠ - value game try.
  

I believe this is commonly called '2-way game tries', where you include both short and help suit trials (some partnerships prefer short and long suit trials instead). At any rate I think the benefits from this are marginal, and most of this is needlessly complicated. The good old college and nondescript value game tries are the main ones that I would consider playing, if any.

[akwoo]

Kokish game tries are fairly well known and standardized in ACBL land:

 

After 1H-2H:

 

2S - unknown help suit game try - partner bids the lowest suit in which they would accept (2N for spades)

2N/3C/3D - short suit game try (2N is for spades)

3H - value game try

 

After 1S-2S:

2N - unknown help suit game try

3C/3D/3H - short suit game try

3S - value game try

 

Some (me included if partner is on board) prefer long suit game tries to help suit game tries.

[jillybean]

If "bid game if you have honours in this suit" is really your agreement, then how can you expect anything except 3H signoff here?

 

In any case, that's how it should be explained, not "Help Suit Trial" (which is just a name, and usually a more complex agreement than yours too).

I realise that, and attempted to explain above that I was bidding game over partners 3H signoff hoping that partner would get the message that I was strong in clubs and hearts. As Mike noted, a 4C bid would have shown this but I had the wrong hand to do it.

 

My game try is usually,

2X + 1 asks where partner would accept a help suit game try

3x short suit game try

1H 2H 3H I've opened on 5 to the 10, do you have trump honors? :)

[jillybean]

Here’s a tip for everyone thinking of bidding 3C: bid 4C

 

No, it’s not a splinter, lol. It commits to game while telling partner that we have length and strength in clubs.

 

Btw, I’m not bidding 4C (and never bidding 3C). Why?

 

The purpose of 4C is to help partner decide what to do if they bid 4S. Typically we have something like AQxx(x) and want him to bid 5H over 4S with the club king and something in hearts, but to double with his values in diamonds…and lead trump. We know he has nothing in clubs and we have a diamond card, so we are misleading him by bidding clubs. Just bid 4H

 

If they bid 4S, which they probably won’t (they will more often be on an 8 card fit than 9 or 10) we’ll double.

1H (1S) 2H (P)

4C

Thanks for the reply. You laugh at the thought that 4C could be a splinter, I don't understand why it is obviously the second suit and not a splinter.

[DavidKok]

In competition, if there is shortness it is usually in the suit held by the opponents. In the situations where it is not, partner will usually have length in our short suit and/or there will be multiple poor breaks making slam chances remote. Splinters in side suits are not as valuable in competition as they are outside of competition.

Conversely, showing second suits for identifying possible double fits is more important than ever. That's why "only splinters in the opponents' suit in competition" is a popular agreement.

[jillybean]

Thanks

[pescetom]

My game try is usually,

2X + 1 asks where partner would accept a help suit game try

3x short suit game try

1H 2H 3H I've opened on 5 to the 10, do you have trump honors? :)

That's almost exactly what I used to play until I lost the only partner who could really deliver it :)

Now I prefer a simple long suit trial which occasionally gains more than it loses and at least reminds partner that 1H 2H 3H is about poor trump quality.

 

I realise that, and attempted to explain above that I was bidding game over partners 3H signoff hoping that partner would get the message that I was strong in clubs and hearts. As Mike noted, a 4C bid would have shown this but I had the wrong hand to do it.

OK, but that's not the message I would receive? As partner I would assume now you have 2 clubs losers but are strong everywhere else. As opponent too, and that is called a psyche :) So I can understand partner worrying about what it really means and how to disclose.

 

BTW, Mikeh's description of the 4C bid is standard and reasonable but not the only way to play it. As I understand from other posts you are trying to evolve towards Italian-style control-bidding, if so then it makes a lot of sense to redefine 2 and 3 level developments in that light: 4C as probable first level clubs control, denying first or second level spades control and whatever 3NT would have meant is a powerful tool here.