[andy_h]

Opponents are silent. Imps at w/w in 1st seat you hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

P-1♠
2♠*-3♦

You had 2♣ as a 8-12 3+♠ at your arsenal so 2♠ is like 3-7.
3♦ is a long suit trial (not help suit trial like ♦xxx or something)

Do you play 3♥ as a last train? Assume you don't, do you go on?

[Hanoi5]

I'm tempted but I think I'll just bid 3♠.

[jukmoi]

I would bid 3♠. At best game is on finesse. At worst it is hopeless.

[billw55]

The way I learned this is, partner is not asking about my high card count. He is asking if I have a diamond filler. I do, I so bid 4♠. The fourth trump and doubleton club are nothing to be ashamed of either.

[hanp]

Declarer is asking about diamond help. I have diamond help. I still bid 3S, I have a 3-count.

[billw55]

hanp, on Feb 22 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

Declarer is asking about diamond help. I have diamond help. I still bid 3S, I have a 3-count.

IMO, if you think your hand is too weak to accept an invite even when you have what partner asks for, then you should not raise in the first place. Maybe that's just me though.

[jdonn]

I bid 3♠. Luckily my hand has improved to the point I expect this to make.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

I bid 3♠. Luckily my hand has improved to the point I expect this to make.

Absolutely. If all partner needed for game in spades was this, then partner has a 2♣ opening.

Just because partner made a game try is no reason for me to forget that partner opened 1♠. This hand rejects all game tries.

[helene_t]

I think if p had AKQxx-xx-AQxxx-x he would have bid game over my 2♠.

[pooltuna]

ArtK78, on Feb 22 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 22 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

I bid 3♠. Luckily my hand has improved to the point I expect this to make.

Absolutely. If all partner needed for game in spades was this, then partner has a 2♣ opening.

Just because partner made a game try is no reason for me to forget that partner opened 1♠. This hand rejects all game tries.

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

[Fluffy]

wow, the game reaiser really surprise me.

[billw55]

helene_t, on Feb 22 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

I think if p had AKQxx-xx-AQxxx-x he would have bid game over my 2♠.

Really? Even if we have agreed that I could bid 2♠ with 3 hcp? And why shouldn't he have AKQxx x AQxx xxx or AKxxxx xx AQxx x? Would those hands also jump to game opposite a possible 3 count? How about KQJxx A QJxx Axx?

Quote

Absolutely. If all partner needed for game in spades was this, then partner has a 2♣ opening.

This in particular is obviously wrong.

Ah well, I guess I am all alone again.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on Feb 22 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 22 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

I think if p had AKQxx-xx-AQxxx-x he would have bid game over my 2♠.

Really? Even if we have agreed that I could bid 2♠ with 3 hcp? And why shouldn't he have AKQxx x AQxx xxx or AKxxxx xx AQxx x? Would those hands also jump to game opposite a possible 3 count? How about KQJxx A QJxx Axx?

Quote

Absolutely. If all partner needed for game in spades was this, then partner has a 2♣ opening.

This in particular is obviously wrong.

Ah well, I guess I am all alone again.

I will admit that partner need not have a 2♣ opening to make game opposite my hand.

But he needs a hand that is so good that he would not be making a game try. The suggested hand - AKQxx x AQxxx xx - is good enough to bid game. It should have some play opposite almost any hand that raises spades.

A hand from a Swiss Team event I played in yesterday had a similar theme. Vul in first seat I picked up xx KQT9xx AQ9x A. I opened 1♥ and my partner bid 1NT. I rebid a calm 2♦ and got a heart preference. I thought about making a game try. Finally, I decided that the game try I was going to make was 4♥. Bid game and try to make it.

Partner's hand had its good points and its bad points, but game was more than reasonable opposite JTxx Jx KTx JT9x. After the ♠K lead from KQx, the opponents could not prevent me from scoring a spade trick and, since the ♥A was on my left, they could not ruff out my spade winner. So I did not even have to figure out where the ♦J was. Also, with the ♥A was on my left, I had a couple of entries to dummy.

Playing your methods, I probably would have bid 4♥ opposite a single raise also. It doesn't take a lot to make 4♥ if partner shows a heart fit.

By the way, my opponents at the other table did not get to game on these cards.

[jdonn]

billw55, on Feb 22 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 22 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

I think if p had AKQxx-xx-AQxxx-x he would have bid game over my 2♠.

Really? Even if we have agreed that I could bid 2♠ with 3 hcp? And why shouldn't he have AKQxx x AQxx xxx or AKxxxx xx AQxx x? Would those hands also jump to game opposite a possible 3 count? How about KQJxx A QJxx Axx?

All those hands are obvious game forces. Game won't always make of course but too many hands that would reject a game try make game good.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on Feb 22 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

Playing your methods, I probably would have bid 4♥ opposite a single raise also.  It doesn't take a lot to make 4♥ if partner shows a heart fit.

For clarification, they aren't my methods, at least not the 3-7 single raise. But that is the condition of the problem.

The way I see it, partner knows our range for the single raise. If he wanted me to accept game with a maximium (6-7 points) but not with a minimum (3-4 points), he would invite with 3♠. The whole reason side suit game tries were invented (at least, so I think) is for the frequent hands where the location of high card strength is more important than the quantity. Here, partner is saying that the presence or absence of a diamond honor in my hand is more important than whether I am min or max on high cards. If that isn't true, he shouldn't bid 3♦.

Quote

All those hands are obvious game forces. Game won't always make of course but too many hands that would reject a game try make game good.

Obvious game forces opposite a 3-7 raise? That's the part I am not following. Opposite a 6-10 raise, OK. But 3-7?

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

[jjbrr]

Ya, 3♠. If this hand is good enough for game, partner needs to adjust the range for which he makes game tries and for which he bids game.

[peachy]

If this were more or less standard bidding 1S-2S-3D, partner is saying "if you can stop three top losers in diamonds, bid game" and he is not asking "are you min or max". However, your agreements include 3 point raises so I don't know what your agreements are about evaluating HSGT [if 3D was a HSGT]. Therefore, can't answer, but if forced to pick without knowing, I bid 3S.

[billw55]

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

[P_Marlowe]

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

´<snip>

The way I see it, partner knows our range for the single raise. If he wanted me to accept game with a maximium (6-7 points) but not with a minimum (3-4 points), he would invite with 3♠. The whole reason side suit game tries were invented (at least, so I think) is for the frequent hands where the location of high card strength is more important than the quantity. Here, partner is saying that the presence or absence of a diamond honor in my hand is more important than whether I am min or max on high cards. If that isn't true, he shouldn't bid 3♦.
<snip>

Hi,

I disagree.

The game try is for hands, where p may not be sure, if he has a
max or a min, under the condition, this would be a hand with 5HCP.
If he happens to hold such a hand, the game try tells him, that he
can upgrade diamond honors, so that his hand becomes a max..

With kind regards
Marlowe

[quiddity]

I always thought LSGT bids asked for a combination of quantity/location. If I have a maximum raise I'll tend to bid game (or at least counter-try) unless my holding in that suit is truly wretched. And if I have a piece of garbage I'll reject, even though I might have a decent holding in that suit. The hands in the middle of the range are the ones for which the decision is based mainly on the holding in the trial suit.

Yes, partner could have some of the hands you mentioned where game has a decent shot but why shouldn't he have one of the vast majority of invitational hands where game is hopeless? He is catering for a possible 8-count!