[1eyedjack]

MP (does it make a difference?)

---

Reason for choice of subforum will become apparent.
And yes, I know that GIB does not play 3D here as short suit, but for this purpose it is.

[diana_eva]

I'd bid 3N, both in MPs and in IMPs. I think the hand is def worth accepting, esp since GIB doesn't play constructive raises, and I see no harm in patterning out. I don't play short suit game tries, but the way I saw it played was something like xxx in diams, not an actual shortness... so we probably won't be ruffing those diamonds anyway. I;m curious to hear why a direct 4S is better.

[Antrax]

I think xxx is a help-suit game try, not short suit. Opposite what I consider short-suit, I don't want to play 3NT.

[1eyedjack]

OK it is clear that I am way off base here, the unanimous view being in favour of bidding game.

---

It is clearly a bad example of the point that I had intended to illustrate.

In GIBberish, the uncontested auction 1S-2S-2N shows an unspecified shortage.
I have used this game try on several occasions but I have never yet (to my best recollection) known GIB to ask after the location of the shortage. It has only ever (in my experience) signed out or gone straight to game, this hand being no exception.

There is certainly a case for shooting game if the location of the shortage is irrelevant to that decision, in order to conceal the shortage from defenders. It is not all positive: Opener could have a powerhouse intending to make a slam try after showing the shortage, in which case the consumption of bidding space would not be appreciated. But that is very rare.

This North would clearly be stronger opposite a Club or Heart shortage than opposite a Diamond shortage, but if it is still worth game opposite a Diamond shortage then GIB bid it fine, and it was my fault for making a game try and I should pass 2S (I was seduced by my LTC).
I just observe that swapping North's red suits makes game respectable. But then it is not so good swapping the minors, so definitely rose tinted to move.

[lycier]

yes,4♠ first since all of hcp focused on both of ♠ and ♦ even though 4333 holding is too flat.

[manudude03]

The actual hand should be making a long suit try in hearts.

[Lord Molyb]

manudude03, on 2013-December-27, 18:41, said:

The actual hand should be making a long suit try in hearts.

yes, shortness is mis-descriptive imo

[1eyedjack]

I have come around to the view that passing 2S is better than any other alternative

[iandayre]

The actual opening hand has no business making any sort of game try, even vul at IMP's.

[1eyedjack]

iandayre, on 2013-December-28, 14:10, said:

The actual opening hand has no business making any sort of game try, even vul at IMP's.

As I have already agreed in the immediately preceding post. That said, I find it not hard to construct hands that will miss game opposite a simple raise if passed out in 2♠, such as

---

, which is then a simple game bid opposite a short suit trial in ♦. Probably also worth game opposite a long suit trial in ♥. Move one of the Spades into another suit and it is still a good (albeit slightly worse) game.

I confess that I had not really thought about the merits of a long suit trial in ♥ originally. I can see the merits but remain unconvinced that it is superior (granted that we move at all over 2♠ of course, which I think is wrong on balance, but close).

A problem with any single-suit trial bid, whether it be a long suit trial or short suit trial, is that it is all very well in helping partner to assess his strength in that suit, but partner will generally assume that any values that he has outside the trial suit are working equally hard regardless of the suit in which they reside. That is not a problem if those values are indeed working equally hard, but that is not always the case.
On this example hand, values in Hearts are working harder than values in Clubs, which in turn are working harder than values in Diamonds. If I make a short suit trial in Diamonds, partner will assume that that the ♥A or ♥J are no more valuable than ♣A or ♣J respectively, which is not the case. Likewise if I make a long suit trial in ♥ he will assume that ♣A or ♣J are no more valuable than ♦A or ♦J respectively, which is also not the case.
One (perhaps not the only) measure of which trial bid is superior is the extent by which that assumption (of equal value attributed to values outside the trial bid suit) is unjustified. I take the view that values in Clubs outweigh values in Diamonds by a greater extent than the disparity between values in Hearts and Clubs, which being the case leads me to conclude that the short suit trial in Diamonds is superior (not superior to pass, just superior to a long suit trial in Hearts). I find that it is generally the case that given a choice between a short suit trial and long suit trial, that will normally hold true (although as with most things Bridge, I can construct exceptions).

Another possible advantage to showing a short suit trial in D over a long suit trial in H is that on occasion (as here) responder can justifiably sign out in partscore or game without enquiring into the location of the shortage, which is less revealing than a long suit trial in H, where the H feature is disclosed before responder can make that choice.

Another possible advantage to showing a short suit trial in D over a long suit trial in H is that, assuming responder does enquire, the Diamond short is shown at a cheaper bid (3D) than the long suit trial in H (3H). This allows the possibility of responder bidding 3H over 3D if remaining in doubt (such as if a disparity in the split of values between H and C might be of relevance). There is I think a flaw in the methods where (say) a long suit trial in H is shown at 3H, while one in Clubs is at the much cheaper level of 3C despite that the hand types are similar and equally demanding of bidding space. But no point bitching about that. There are other compelling reasons to leave that be.