[Echognome]

My partner and I agreed to playing game tries as one above two a major shows shortness somewhere and other bids are long suits game tries. I like the symmetry as it fits in well with the rest of the system.

Anyway, here are some of these game tries in action.

1.

Scoring: IMP

1♥(1) - 2♦(2)
3♣(3) - 4♥
All Pass

---

(1) 10-15, 4+♥ may be canape
(2) Limit raise or better in ♥
(3) Long suit game try

Note that responder was a bit aggressive showing this as a limit raise (2♥ would be 3-4 card support constructive raise).

Opener was aggressive making a long suit game try (2♥ would have shown a minimum opening hand).

All that being said, game is very good on a non-spade lead (we got a spade lead ).

2.

Scoring: IMP

1♥(1) - 2♦(2)
3♣(3) - 4♥
All Pass

---

(1), (2) As Above
(3) Shortness somewhere game try
(4) Where?
(5) Diamonds

When the ♥K and ♣A were offside, we drifted one off.

3.

Scoring: IMP

1♥(1) - 2♦(2)
3♣(3) - 4♥
All Pass

---

(1) 10-15, 4+♠, could have longer minor
(2) Typically less than limit raise, shortness somewhere
(3) Where?
(4) Hearts
(5) Sign-off

Technically the auction should have gone:
1♠ - 2♥(limit+)
2♠(min) - 2NT (SSGT)
...

And then as above. Or partner could have just bid 4♠. Anyway, this hand was more successful. I got a ♦lead and fearful of it being a singleton, I hopped Ace and dropped the singleton K!

4.

Scoring: IMP

1♥(1) - 2♦(2)
3♣(3) - 4♥
All Pass

---

(1) As above
(2) Again, singleton somewhere with ♥ support.

Here we played and made the good 4♥. The only thing I wasn't sure about here was pushing them into the making 4♠.


So, when I reflected on these hands I noted that the first two are 21 point games and the last a 19 point game. Whereas on the 3rd hand we have a combined 24 count (and 12 opposite 12 is usually nice) and responder pretty much has to bid game on his own.

So my questions are as follows:

1. Is the bidding simply too aggressive or should we be in all of these games? If they are too aggressive, which bids do you judge to be so?

2. Is this combination of short and long suit game tries something you have experience with? My limited experience here has been very good, however I'm open to suggestions.

3. Does it make sense to play the same type of bids over double? We have that XX shows a balanced hand and that 1NT+ are transfers up to 2M-1 which is still our limit raise or better.

[whereagles]

1. Yeah.. I think you guys overbid a bit Especially for a system of limited 4-card majors openings.

2. Mixed trials should be better than normal trials, but the partnership should agree as to what kind of holding a long suit trial shows. (This is trickier than it seems!)

3. Playing 4-card majors, your structure seems fine. With 5-card majors there's more of a case for penalty redoubles.

[inquiry]

I will not comment on the entire post, but deal with just one aspect of it. The question of experience with short and long suit game tries using relays.

They do "work" and I have played them. The main problem with the relay (when it is spades) is that if the LHO can wack that, you help them find a good save over your 4H at an alarming rate (i am less concerned about a 5C or 5D save). But it is certainly playable, and I played this for years (I have tried both ways, relay the help suit, relay the short suit). Now I just prefer the 2NT relay over these raises, as that seems to work well. You can reverse the meaning of 2S and 2NT over the heart raise if you like (with regards to the relay).

[Free]

The structure is fine, but you guys really overbid any hand! You play 4 card majors, 10-15HCP range, and you're already inviting with 9hcp with a 4 card support (with a slow Queen and no shortness)... And apparently the kind of raise you need to use on several hands seems blurry, since I would use a different response on EVERY hand you posted:
1. a normal raise
2. a normal raise
3. an long suit try
4. a normal raise
You have constructive raises available, so why push with invites when you don't even have one?

Showing a singleton where you have singleton Q isn't the same. Partner with KJxx in that suit will brake, but he should go on. On the other hand, a suit with AQJxx is way more valuable to show, since partner with the King will definetly accept.

I don't think the problem is the system, I think it's the hand evaluation... With a 5431 you can always use (distributional that is) a short AND a long suit trial, but some hands just need one specific try.

[Echognome]

Perhaps I should mention that I was opener on all four hands. But I'm not really looking for fault, but rather for judgment on each. I agree that the first two are quite aggressive, but is the judgment that off when the games are not bad?

[hrothgar]

Personally, I think that your evaluation is rather optimistic. I'd like to get a better understand how you define a "limit raise"...

Here's how I'd evaluate each of the hands in question opposite a MOSCITO type opening. I readily admit that MOSCITO is a bit more aggressive in its opening style, but its close.

1. I'd evaluate the first hand as a 4 card value raise. I'd immediately raise to 3♥, expecting this to be the limit of the hand. (3♥ also has the ability to shut down a a cheap overcall in Spades, which is a real danger). The 3♥ really pickles partner. There's going to be some hands where game will make, however, a lot more where game will fail. (For example, partner would choose the same bid with xx in Clubs).

2. Same sequences as before. 1♦ opening (showing 4+ Hearts) followed by a 3♥ value raise which would probably get passed out.

3. This hand would bid 2NT showing a limit raise in support of Spades. Game will be reached.

4. After the takeout double, this hand would make a preemptive raise

[han]

I think your methods are good, at least they suit these hands well. I also think that these four hands are different, and you shouldn't try to find a pattern. Here is what I think:

1. 2♦ seems an overbid, but 3C seems fine. Given your light openings this hand has serious extra playing strength.

2. 2♦ is again aggressive. Short suit game tries on a void are dangerous because partner will overvalue his ace (as happens here). Perhaps a long suit game try with spades would have been better, especially since you might find a 4-4 spade fit. Game seems good.

These two hands were at IMPs, the first one being vulnerable. With good fits and distributional hands it can't be that bad to bid aggressive games at IMPs, you rarely know exactly how well they are going to fit.

3. I would force to game with the east hand, even opposite your light openers. It seems like east was torn on this hand, or forgot the system.

4. Nice auction, against good opponents a direct 4♥ will make it the toughest for them. I wouldn't play systems on after a double btw. I especially think that you shouldn't use these undisclosed splinters in competition, because often you won't have time to find out which shortness partner has and it will leave you guessing. Better to make a descriptive bid immediately.

[Winstonm]

Like Ben, instead of individual hands I'd prefer to explain my experience with game tries in general. First, in my views short suit game tries are the most accurate - but the least likely to occur; however, to get the most from them they have to be used correctly, IMO. As I have said before, SSGT are exclusion bids, hence asking about 3 suits. The asking hand must have cards that would add value in at least 2 of the 3 unbid suits in order for SS to be most effective. As an example:

AKJxx, x, AJ9x, Q10x. After 1S-2S, 3H SSGT allows partner to upgrade even minimum holdings such as xxxx, xxxx, Kxx, Kx.

But if you made the same SS try on AKJxx, x, AQJ9, xxx, you mislead partner into believing that club cards are of value when they are not and thus is not a good SSGT, IMO. What you really want to know is if partner has the diamond King - the Q10x of clubs in his hand is of little help.

[1eyedjack]

Probably repeating what I must have said elsewhere, but I prefer to swap the bids around a bit compared with the original post. It doesn't make a huge difference but I think it makes some:

Use the first step as an unspecified long suit trial, and the others as a specific short suit trial. Bid short suit trials "up the line" and long suit trials "down the line".

[han]

Could you explain why you prefer to swap these game tries? It seems to me that the short suit game try is most revealing to the defense, so it makes sense to me not to show in which short suit you have. In fact, I noticed Arend sometimes uses this bid even when he doesn't have a short suit, and in that case it doesn't give away any information about openers hand.

[1eyedjack]

Hannie, on Jul 11 2006, 06:47 PM, said:

Could you explain why you prefer to swap these game tries? It seems to me that the short suit game try is most revealing to the defense, so it makes sense to me not to show in which short suit you have. In fact, I noticed Arend sometimes uses this bid even when he doesn't have a short suit, and in that case it doesn't give away any information about openers hand.

The first step game try is ambiguous. The question posed is whether it should show an unspecified shortage or an unspecified long suit try. The issues that affect this decision appear to be (in no particular order):

1) Partner may be absolutely disinterested in which try you have. He may have a hand that will accept any try or will reject any try. This possibility, as Hannie points out, argues in favour of maximising the ambiguity in the bid. That in turn argues in favour of using the first step as an unspecified shortage.

2) The difference in playing potential between one long suit trial and another tends to be less than the difference in playing potential between one short suit trial and another. Partner is therefore more likely to be absolutely disinterested in which try you have, if you have an unspecified long suit trial than if you have an unspecified short suit trial. This argues in favour of using the first step as an unspecified long suit trial.

3) There is a good case for playing the first step as ANY trial. This dramatically reduces the subsequent scope for distinction between trials, but maximises the opportunity to allow partner to reject or accept without enquiring and so leave the opponents in the dark. If you are concerned that concealing your hand from opponents is more important than disclosing your hand to partner then this is the logical alternative to my preference, rather than the half-way house compromise of using the first step as an unspecified shortage.

4) Whatever your opinion on the balance between concealment and disclosure on game tries, on slam tries it pays to disclose. Thus if you wish to mix game tries with slam tries, this would argue in favour of using the first step as an unspecified long suit trial.

5) Whatever use you assign to the various trials, there is scope for opposition competitive bidding. The scope is small, given that they will have had opportunities earlier in the auction that they have failed to take, although it perhaps increases if disruption looks increasingy likely to be effective in severing communication in the auction and if the announced fit adds a degree of safety. The most likely intervention, if any, will be a double of a trial bid, although a space-consuming overcall is possible. I do not think that the type of trial bid will have much effect on the likelihood of intervention, but if intervention is encountered then I feel better equipped to cope with it if partner's hand is more narrowly defined than if it is more broadly defined. Uncertainty about the position of a known shortage is likely to cause more problems than uncertainty about the position of a known long suit trial. This would argue in favour of using the first step as an unspecified long suit trial.

6) In response to the first step ambiguous trial, partner has several other options apart from ( a ) sign out, ( b ) bid game (or cue in case of slam try), or ( c ) relay to ask where the indicated suit (or shortage) is located. I like to use these options to enable partner to make a short suit trial opposite the trial. I am less concerned about missing the location of the trial bidder's suit if that suit is a long suit tial than a short suit trial. This would argue in favour of using the first step as an unspecified long suit trial.

In conclusion, as I said at the outset, the argument is not (in my view) a landslide either way. I think it is a clear tilt, but ONLY a tilt, in favour of using the first step as an unspecified long suit trial. It is something of a personal opinion whether showing the shortage damages your side more than it helps partner accept or reject. To some extent it will depend on how narrow a range is the raise to 2. The narrower the range, the more important it will be to show the location of the shortage. Personally, I find it quite rare that the location of the shortage (once I am aware that there is one) is irrelevant in my assessment of placing the final contract (which sometimes means choosing 3NT).

[whereagles]

By the way, what does "threading the needle" mean?

[Double !]

whereagles, on Jul 12 2006, 04:06 AM, said:

By the way, what does "threading the needle" mean?

Have you ever tried to put thread through that little hole in a needle in order to sew something? It requires precise eye-hand co-ordination.
I am not a lexicologist but, "threading the needle", as I interpret it, means (in general) doing something with increased precision, or make finer or more refined decisions (increasing accuracy to a level greater than usual).

Don't listen to me. I always got lousy grades in English or Language Arts. lololol

DHL

[awm]

Some of these are not good games. It's not the methods that are at fault per se, it's the ranges used.

It seems like you are making limit raises with balanced 9-counts and four trumps opposite limited four-card major openings. Then when opener makes a game try, you're accepting with any "help" whatsoever. I think this is too pushy.

For example:

Hand 1: Responder is minimum, has bad trumps, and the ♦K is potentially wasted. He should sign off, or at most make a counter-try in diamonds. If the diamond king was the ace then accept.

Hand 2: Again responder is minimum. Axx is a worse holding than xxx in the short suit. This is very borderline but I think rejecting the game try is superior.

Hand 3: How is this less than limit raise when hand 2 was limit raise? I don't get it. Anyways, this is not a bad game although the auction is somewhat silly.

Hand 4: Opener has a perfect hand opposite any singleton, so good bidding.

[awm]

My preference is to play the lowest bid as asking partner for further description, whereas the direct bids are short suit tries. This means that opener is never revealing his long suit, and that many auctions will be non-descriptive. Also opener has the opportunity to ask multiple questions when appropriate. So for example:

1♠-2♠-2NT = where are your values?

3♣ = I have club cards
3♦ = diamond cards, but weak clubs
3♥ = heart cards, weak in minors
3♠ = really atrocious hand, I don't want to tell you about it
4♠ = really good hand, let's just play in game

This combination seems slightly less informative than what you're using, since responder will almost always have to relay for opener's shortage (thus opener reveals the help suit or short suit regardless).

[Echognome]

awm, on Jul 12 2006, 06:08 PM, said:

Some of these are not good games. It's not the methods that are at fault per se, it's the ranges used.

It seems like you are making limit raises with balanced 9-counts and four trumps opposite limited four-card major openings. Then when opener makes a game try, you're accepting with any "help" whatsoever. I think this is too pushy.

For example:

Hand 1: Responder is minimum, has bad trumps, and the ♦K is potentially wasted. He should sign off, or at most make a counter-try in diamonds. If the diamond king was the ace then accept.

Hand 2: Again responder is minimum. Axx is a worse holding than xxx in the short suit. This is very borderline but I think rejecting the game try is superior.

Hand 3: How is this less than limit raise when hand 2 was limit raise? I don't get it. Anyways, this is not a bad game although the auction is somewhat silly.

Hand 4: Opener has a perfect hand opposite any singleton, so good bidding.

I pretty much agree with this and all of what Hannie said.

I designed this system and I certainly did not intend the first two responder hands to bid them as limit raises. We do have a bit more safety in that we are making limit raises at 2M-1, rather than forcing to the 3 level. However, there is not much benefit in selling a hand that is not a limit raise as a limit raise since opener can make a game try opposite 1M-2M.

My only point on presenting these two was NOT to say that partner bid them poorly, but rather to say that even though these hands were aggressively bid, the games were not so bad.

In response to the short, long, help, kokish game tries debate, we kept it as unspecified short suit try and long suit try because it paralleled the rest of the structure quite nicely. I found that the 1M - 2M+1 showing less than limit unspecifed shortness works really well. You want to find the magic low hcp games and you will be hard pressed to do better systemically.

I also really like 1M - 2M-1 as the limit plus. 1) It lets us get out in 2M with minimum opener, 2) it lets both partners make tries, and 3) it shows less about opener's hand (than relay) if I think slam is unlikely. Basically with a GF hand with support, I can choose to simply bid game, show a limit raise and see if I hear good news, or relay. I'm still learning judgment on when to do each of those.

By the way, there is a cost to having all this constructive bidding at a low level. Namely we pass misfitting hands with up to, say, a 9 count as responder. This can lead to the wrong part-score or the occasional missed game.

[whereagles]

Double !, on Jul 12 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 12 2006, 04:06 AM, said:

By the way, what does "threading the needle" mean? 

I am not a lexicologist but, "threading the needle", as I interpret it, means (in general) doing something with increased precision, or make finer or more refined decisions (increasing accuracy to a level greater than usual).

Hum.. I see. In other words, it's fine-tunning