[Lobowolf]

billw55, on Feb 22 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

*sigh* yet again I am in the minority among clearly stronger players. Hopefully someone can explain why my thinking is wrong.

IMO, game tries don't exist in a vacuum; by this, I mean that a bid asking for help in diamonds doesn't JUST mean "Bid game if you have diamond help, and don't if you don't." The game try exists in the context of the general strength of hands in a particular range, whether it's 3-7, 6-10, or whatever. In practical terms, this means something like (make up your own numbers here):

15% of hands in the range are too bad to accept pretty much ANY game try, i.e. the question of help in a particular suit is irrelevant - if partner wants to be in game opposite a hand this bad, he has to suck it up and bid it himself;

10% of hands in the range are good enough to be in game opposite ANY game try - these are the hands that really only didn't make a limit raise on a mental coin flip, and if partner is interested in game, you want to be there - the question of help in a particular suit is irrelevant.

75% of hands are neither good enough nor bad enough for me to make the decision unilaterally. On these hands, and only these hands, do we address the question of help in a particular suit. The 3♦ bid essentially means something more cooperative, like, "If you think game might be reasonable, but you're not sure, evaluate based on your diamonds, and make a final decision." (or re-punt with 3♥.

The given hand is one of the first group of hands - it's so bad, even within the context of a 3-7 range, that I don't address the diamond question. I think given that the range is 3-7 and not 6-10, you might come to a different conclusion - it does have a 4th trump and a doubleton. But it's still pretty bad.

The specific answer, though, is less important than the process. It's not a 1-step process (bid game or don't). It's a 2-step process (evaluate whether game is potentially reasonable based on partner's failure to bid it himself and my advertised range; THEN evaluate my diamonds).

[Jlall]

Yeah this is not close andy, 3S. Yes 3H would be last train. If you wanted to make this interesting make it Kx of diamonds... if I had that I'd go 3H, the doubleton combined with the 4th trump is very valuable opposite Axxxx or w/e.

[billw55]

OK I give up

Out of curiosity, what sort of hand do you all expect partner to have, that rates such an invitation opposite a 3-7 single raise?

[quiddity]

A random 18-19 with bad diamonds?

[gnasher]

Does "3-7" mean that it would be in the 3-7 range if we had a balanced hand with 3-card support, and with other shapes we adjust accordingly? That is, a 3334 3-count would be strong enough, and a 6- or 7-count with 4-card support would be too strong?

If so, I think this hand is now roughly in the middle of the range, so 3♥ is reasonable. The extra trump is still valuable even when my doubleton is not opposite length, because it may reduce our trump losers, provide control, provide an entry, allow an elimination, or allow a dummy reversal. Also, partner is allowed to be 5143.

I realise that I'm assuming my own approach to raises here, and that that may be different from what the OP intended. However, I don't think it's sensible to treat a 7-count with 4-card support as weaker than an 8-count with 3-card support

[billw55]

quiddity, on Feb 22 2010, 03:40 PM, said:

A random 18-19 with bad diamonds?

That sounds stronger than the example hands that everyone thinks are just direct 4♠ bids.

[655321]

pooltuna, on Feb 22 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

WHAT!!!  I didn't think sane responses were allowed on this forum 

Ah, now everything is clear!

[peachy]

billw55, on Feb 22 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

OP stated that 3♦ is a "long suit trial".

ok, I missed that detail
Same goes for long suit tries, I answer the question that partner is asking. If by agreement I need BOTH the diamond filler AND more than minimum, then 3S. Otherwise 4S. But I still don't know their agreements.

[MarkDean]

I bid 3♠. This is always a tough problem: a max with bad stuff in pd's second suit or a min with good stuff. However, with this bad of a hand, I think 3♠ is warranted.

I know this is not popular, but I really do not like this re-invite, and last train stuff. In fact, I try (usually unsuccesfully) to get my partner's to agree you cannot invite over an invite, you almost always bid game or signoff - other bids are rare, and are if you think there might be a better strain.

[Free]

MarkDean, on Feb 23 2010, 08:35 AM, said:

I know this is not popular, but I really do not like this re-invite, and last train stuff. In fact, I try (usually unsuccesfully) to get my partner's to agree you cannot invite over an invite, you almost always bid game or signoff - other bids are rare, and are if you think there might be a better strain.

With the last train re-invite you can at least show one of the problem hand types: minimum with help. So why not use the space you have available? Don't call it a re-invite, call it a "describe my hand"