[PhantomSac]

mgoetze, on 2014-October-20, 08:23, said:

Partner certainly could have that hand but it is not exactly likely. On the other hand, imagine that hand and the auction up to 2♥ had been given as a forum problem. Would you confidently bid 2♠, certain that partner will pass? Or would you hesitate to do so because there is at least a chance partner could take it as, say, a game try in hearts?

I would have before this thread. It basically blows my mind that you are saying you cannot make a natural 2S bid because partner with no agreements might take it as some weird artificial bid. Have you noticed that everyone in this thread who thinks it should be artificial has had a different meaning?

You said 5 hearts game try.
Kenrexford said xx Qxxx Kxx AJxx (strong 3D bid)
Jinksy said non forcing game try in SPADES.
Mrace offers up it's ridiculous to not be natural while giving no suggested meaning.

The only people who give the same meaning are the people who think it is natural. What would be better, we never bid 2S ever without an agreement opposite a random partner no matter what because there are 5 possible different meanings, or that we just take bids like this as natural and at least get the utility of that. I know I am just stealing this from Fred but bids that might reasonably be natural are natural is a great way to navigate through the many undiscussed sequences you might have. I also think natural is the right way to play, but that is irrelevant, even if I thought some other meaning was superior I could never bid it undiscussed since as you have seen people who think it should be artificial all think it should be something different from each other, so I would rather have an "inferior" default meaning than never make the bid.

I mean come on dude you really think in an undiscussed partnership anyone should be busting out 2S artificial game try with 5 hearts and something in spades?

I also don't understand why having 4 bad hearts and not wanting to play a 4-3 with the tap in the (hopefully!) good trump hand is such an unlikely scenario lol. Trump quality definitely matters in a 4-3 fit scenario way more than it does in an 8 card fit scenario because we have to like, try and keep trump control and also score some trump winners + some side tricks.

[MrAce]

wank, on 2014-October-20, 16:50, said:

i disagree. both hands are quite closely defined. you don't need loads of invitational bids.

if you have a crappy heart suit you don't want to play a partscore in a weak 4-3 fit, especially when the strong hand is getting tapped in the 4th suit. i'd expect something like axx xxxx jx qxxx.

What are we trying to achieve by correcting 2♥ to 2♠? And how many times in our life will it matter? On the other hand think about this; it is not about re invitation. It is about information. It is not about "pd I am minimum/max" It is not about "You invited me but I am neither min nor max" It is about letting pd know with how many trumps we are going to game. 8 or 7 card fit? We may still have 26 hcp combined but may not be sure which game to play. We may still belong to 3 NT. We have already leaked a lot of information for defense, we may as well look for the best game available for us, instead of trying to find out a deal where 2 sp instead of 2h makes a huge difference, if any at all.

I may be under estimating the situation. I saw a lot of part score swings and I am aware of how important they are. I just don't remember too many of them where pairs find two 4-3 fits and one of them gains because they chose one over other intentionally and spare that bid for it in their system.

[mgoetze]

PhantomSac, on 2014-October-20, 18:23, said:

Have you noticed that everyone in this thread who thinks it should be artificial has had a different meaning?

Not really, no...

Quote

You said 5 hearts game try.
Kenrexford said xx Qxxx Kxx AJxx (strong 3D bid)
Jinksy said non forcing game try in SPADES.
Mrace offers up it's ridiculous to not be natural while giving no suggested meaning.

I'm pretty sure Jinksy and MrAce both agreed with me, they both upvoted my post and only chimed in once more people said it should be to play. Jinksy was just saying that partner should have the option to prefer playing the 4-3 fit at the 2 level rather than the 5-3 fit at the 3 level, if he doesn't want to accept the game try.

As for Kenrexford ... I mean this in the nicest possible way but ... we all know he is a visitor from an alternate dimension where people think differently than we do here.

I may have been too hasty to say there is no reason whatsoever to ever prefer one 4-3 fit to another, and if you say that it is worthwhile to have a bid for that, it is certainly cause for me to reconsider. But I do think it is very "natural" for the "artificial" alternative to be a help suit game try in hearts. Yes, you do have 3♥. But I would think there is a wider range of hand types with 5 hearts here than hands with exactly Axx-xxxx in the majors, and it might be nice to give partner a bit more information before he decides whether to accept the invitation.

[PhilKing]

I have never said this before - I completely agree with gszes.

Partner has described his hand almost exactly, so 2♠ should show a hand that, of all things, wants to play in 2♠ (look at his example hand to see why that could make sense). With a a game force you can, er, bid game, and with a heart try you can raise hearts.

[kenrexford]

In all fairness, my own analysis was caveated heavily. I would take this as natural in any random situation. My point was that in an established partnership with discussion, the parallel situation of a club opening removes 3C as a convenient cue. After 1C-1H-1S-1NT-2H, I would want 2S as a power raise of clubs. In that alternative sequence, 3D would force a higher level and thus would be a cue of some variety supporting hearts.

I then stated a preference for consistency. Because of this, I would likely have the same structure, even if it were not theoretically ideal, only because of this preference.

This is not the same as what I would interpret blind, out of the stated context.

[Jinksy]

mgoetze, on 2014-October-20, 19:32, said:

I'm pretty sure Jinksy and MrAce both agreed with me, they both upvoted my post and only chimed in once more people said it should be to play. Jinksy was just saying that partner should have the option to prefer playing the 4-3 fit at the 2 level rather than the 5-3 fit at the 3 level, if he doesn't want to accept the game try.

Yeah, I didn't think of it as an artificial bid any more than a normal game try is (and, for the record, I thought it was a game try in ♥s). It's just NF, because it's obviously NF no matter what else you reason about it, given that a) P knows you do have the suit and b) you're highly limited.

That said, if there's one person in this forum whose opinion I'm going to take as all but settling a bridge issue, it's Justin's.

[gszes]

mgoetze, on 2014-October-20, 08:23, said:

Partner certainly could have that hand but it is not exactly likely. On the other hand, imagine that hand and the auction up to 2♥ had been given as a forum problem. Would you confidently bid 2♠, certain that partner will pass? Or would you hesitate to do so because there is at least a chance partner could take it as, say, a game try in hearts?

I do not feel a partnership is "wrong" to choose to play this change of suits as
some form of game try or better but w/o agreement (and we have done this many times
under many circumstances) if a bid has a reasonable chance to be natural treat it
as such. We constantly strive to improve our contracts and this situation appears
to be no different than the other attempts to improve. I would confidently expect
my p to take 2s as a correction and leave it there. Just as I am sure when they
corrected 1n to 2h they were hoping we would leave it there:)

[gszes]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-21, 00:03, said:

I have never said this before - I completely agree with gszes.

Partner has described his hand almost exactly, so 2♠ should show a hand that, of all things, wants to play in 2♠ (look at his example hand to see why that could make sense). With a a game force you can, er, bid game, and with a heart try you can raise hearts.

I hope you don't mind I have had this quote transcribed for my trophy mantle but I left out the part about
never said this before:)))))

[akwoo]

This sequence actually came up in the BBF individual today, and hence I knew to pass, though I'm still convinced that the right agreement is for it to be a game try in hearts with honor concentration in the majors.

Partner afterwards said that it meant they had to go to the bathroom.