[frouu]

Scoring: IMP

PASS - PASS - 1♠ - PASS
2♠ - PASS - ?

---

we play 2/1, (no drury, or bergen) 2♠ is constructive, 3+♠ 7-10 pts. Do you make a game try?

[jillybean]

no

[Jlall]

Yes this is a perfect hand for a game try opposite a constructive raise. The right minimums make game very good (xxx Ax xxxx KTxx), and partner could even have a less perfect hand that is a maximum (Qxx Jxx Axx KTxx). Partner could also have hands with 4 spades and a doubleton club that will make game very good (xxxx KQx Qxxx xx). Partner could also have hands with HEART values that will counter game try with 3H that make game good or very good (xxx AKJ9 xxxx xx).

Etc. Basically there are a lot of sets of hands that are well fitting minimums not to mention maximums and well fitting maximums that make game good.

[kenrexford]

If we were running out of time at IMP scoring, I'd bid 4♠. So, definitely.

Suppose I make a GT of a natural 3♣. Partner could easily have the "less perfect maximum" that Justin described of Qxx-Jxx-Axx-K10xx. But, he could also have an even better hand of QJx-Axx-xxx-K10xx. Not much difference?

Suppose you for some reason opted to play in 6♣, and clubs split 3-2. After a heart lead, you would take five spade tricks, four club tricks, the heart Ace, and a diamond ruff, for 11 tricks. Down one. But, with any lead but a heart, you would likely make. Say a trump, won in hand. Play a diamond, win a trump back, won on dummy. Ruff a diamond, heart to Ace, ruff a diamond, spade to Jack, pull the last trump, claim the slam. (You actually would likely make a club slam opposite Justin's example on any lead but a heart, but you'd go set two on a heart lead.)

What about, however, the wonderful hands QJx-AJ9-xxx-K10xx or Qxx-Ax-xxx-K10xxx? The first makes 6♣ when spades split no worse than 4-1, clubs no worse than 3-2 (or Jxxx onside), and the heart honors are split or both to the left. The second makes slam whenever clubs split 2-2 even on a heart lead, and possibly even if trumps are 3-1 with a heart lead.

If a slam is still possible, and not requiring an insanely wild hand, then a game try probably makes sense. Make Opener's clubs hearts, and hearts clubs, and the GT is REALLY appealing, as 4♥ would then very likely be a great contract, or 6♥.

[pooltuna]

frouu, on Sep 18 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

PASS - PASS - 1♠ - PASS
2♠ - PASS - ?

---

we play 2/1, (no drury, or bergen) 2♠ is constructive, 3+♠ 7-10 pts. Do you make a game try?

Based on the structure of your high cards and hand, you need to make some sort of try

[nick_s]

I know this is old-fashioned, but the first think I do when considering a game try is consult the Losing Trick Count. This hand has 6 losers, so right away I'm thinking game try.

Next I look at plus factors and minus factors: I have more aces than queens so that's a plus. I have a singleton, so that's another plus. Finally, the honor structure is great because the honors are working in combination rather than being alone.

I think making a game try is pretty clear here.

[P_Marlowe]

Yes.

Best would be either 3C (if this showes values)
or 3D (if this showes the shortage).

With kind regards
Marlowe

[EricK]

This looks like a rather obvious game try.

[neilkaz]

Playing constructive raises this really looks like a good game try to me as there is considerable playing strength.

[Winstonm]

Yes. You have a better hand than you might using LTC (6-loser) or simply using judgment - good controls, good HCP placement, good shape.

This would be a good hand for short suit game tries - could get to game with a perfect minimum like Jxxx, QJ, xxxx, Kxx.

[skjaeran]

Obvious game try IMO.

I'd make a short suit game try in diamonds if that's available. Else a help suit game try in hearts.

[aguahombre]

Even if the short suit diamond try is not avalable, and 3C is random, still 3C. Partner might jump to game with a scattered max (maybe good, maybe not), might show a concentration in a red suit to let me make the last mistake (good), or might just decline with 3S which I will respect.

[gwnn]

I learned something from this thread, I must admit I would have passed but I can see how it's much better to try for game now. Thanks

[Phil]

I would make a game try opposite a constructive raise, but not a simple raise.

Who plays constructive raises as a passed hand? Is this some kind of old-fashioned precision?

[Winstonm]

Phil, on Sep 20 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

I would make a game try opposite a constructive raise, but not a simple raise.

Who plays constructive raises as a passed hand? Is this some kind of old-fashioned precision?

It would depend on the game try available and vulnerability. Vulnerable at imps you would want to get to game opposite xxxx, QJ, xxxx, Kxx. The only way this would be remotely possible would be with a short suit game try.

[nigel_k]

I ran a simulation based on the following assumptions:

1. partner has three card support and 7-10 HCP
2. partner has 4333, 4432 or 5332 shape
3. partner will accept an invite with 9-10 HCP and signoff with 7-8 HCP (see below)
4. they pass throughout
5. we make the double dummy number of tricks
6. the other table plays in 2S

The results are as follows:

976 times partner is minimum and you make less than 8 tricks (lose 3 vul or 2 non vul)
2658 times partner is minimum and you make exactly 8 tricks (lose 6 vul or 5 non vul)
3066 times partner is minimum and you make exactly 9 tricks (break even)
1234 times partner is minimum and you make 10 or more tricks (break even)
236 times partner is maximum and you make less than 8 tricks (lose 5 vul or 3 non vul)
1316 times partner is maximum and you make exactly 8 tricks (lose 7 vul or 5 non vul)
3097 times partner is maximum and you make exactly 9 tricks (lose 6 vul or 5 non vul)
3260 times partner is maximum and you make 10 or more tricks (gain 10 vul or 6 non vul)
Total of 15843 hands

This works out to an expected loss of 0.96 IMPs per board vulnerable and 1.16 not vulnerable.

Now obviously the third assumption is unrealistic because partner will decide better than that based on our choice of game try. Suppose we assume partner always decides correctly, i.e. bids game whenever there are 10 tricks and signs off otherwise. Then we have an expected gain of 1.35 IMPs per board vulnerable and 0.55 IMPs per board non vul. But I think this assumption is (much) less realistic than my one. Making a specific game try rather than a general try would normally be a fairly small improvement - not enough to turn around a loss of this size.

There may be small change by varying the other assumptions as well, but I doubt it would pay to make a game try vulnerable and am almost certain you should pass if not vulnerable.

[Jlall]

Why cant partner have a stiff and bid 1S p 2S?

Also LOL you think partner bidding game with any 9-10 and signing off with any 7-8 is closer to accurate than if you bid 3C and partner uses their judgement? Wat?

[cherdanno]

nigel_k, on Sep 20 2009, 07:43 PM, said:

I ran a simulation based on the following assumptions:

1. partner has three card support and 7-10 HCP
2. partner has 4333, 4432 or 5332 shape
3. partner will accept an invite with 9-10 HCP and signoff with 7-8 HCP (see below)
4. they pass throughout
5. we make the double dummy number of tricks
6. the other table plays in 2S

Well, Justin knocked down 2 and 3. I would also be skeptical about 1, I would understand constructive as "good 7 to 10", maybe frouu can clarify.
Obviously 5 is rather questionable (it will be quite important for them to get the right lead). But assumption 6 is also very unrealistic, and it changes the odds for trying for game dramatically.
When partner has 3 spades and 7 hcp, good opponents won't often let us play 2♠. In that case, our "loss" of 6 IMPS in 3♠-1 may well be a win 1 against 3♦+1 at the table where you passed.

[Jlall]

Yeah why assume partner can only have 3 card support? OP CLEARLY stated 3+ spades so it wasn't even questionable.

[pooltuna]

nigel_k, on Sep 20 2009, 07:43 PM, said:

I ran a simulation based on the following assumptions:

1. partner has three card support and 7-10 HCP
2. partner has 4333, 4432 or 5332 shape
3. partner will accept an invite with 9-10 HCP and signoff with 7-8 HCP (see below)
4. they pass throughout
5. we make the double dummy number of tricks
6. the other table plays in 2S

The results are as follows:

I appreciate your effort but think the variables are too hard for an effective simulation. After all how does one program partner's judgment plus the definition of a constructive raise is variable by partnership.