[apollo1201]

 jillybean, on 2026-September-03, 08:08, said:

Could someone please outline what a generic game try is? Perhaps in a new thread. Thanks!

Sth very generic. I have sth that makes me believe we could be making game. Are you in?

[DavidKok]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2026-September-03, 05:10, said:

If your opponents thank you, you are way too kind to them. You needn't have a singleton every time you show one. For example, AK7652, A94, AQT, 5. You open 1S, partner bids 2S. Of course you are getting to 4S, but I prefer a 3D short suit game try. I plan to bid 4S anyway but hopefully partner doesn't have the diamond king and will bid it herself.

Indeed, you should probably always bid a false game try when going to game, and one most likely to be accepted by partner. It makes the defense more difficult. While game tries may give info the the opponents, if I have AK7652, Q94, AQT, 5, I really want to be in game opposite 843, KJ5, K63, 9832 (accepting a club short suit try) and in part score opposite 843, 832, 763, K64, KQ92 (rejecting the same club short suit try).

EDIT to add: Of course, the skeptics will point out that I will be exposed when partner doesn't bid the game and I go to 4 anyway. Nonsense, I say! The opponents don't know that I didn't have a powerhouse that made a try for slam and signed off in game when partner didn't have what I needed. Granted, they will know that my game try was true when I stop in part score, but as in the example above, I really want to be in part score and am still better off than if I had bid game and tried to make it.

Sorry, this crosses several lines for me. I tell my opponents what I play. If these game tries are "either I want you to evaluate your hand, partner, or I am trying to trick the opponents into the wrong deduction", that's what I will put on my cc and expect my partner's alert to state. Don't get me wrong: I like low information game tries, and even think the two-way short suit bids ('short or deceptive') can have merit. But only with full disclosure. Such an agreement should never be claimed to 'show a singleton'.

Put differently, we seem to agree that the downside of giving the opponents information is big enough to justify looking at new methods, aiming to make life more difficult for them. So make the newer, less transparent, method your official agreement. Don't change the agreement, but tell me how you envision this complete structure so I can learn from it, please.

[DavidKok]

Maybe another useful way to phrase the issue: by having different game tries we have more flexibility in choosing what to disclose and ask. In theory, this should let us more accurately minimise the information leakage to only that part that is necessary on the individual deal.

In practice I see the opposite. By having a large arsenal of scientific tools, people go for them far more often than I think wise. There's also a selection effect here, of course (which partnerships would introduce such tools in the first place?). I think it is important to speak out against this, and reconsider what we want out of invitational sequences.

[jillybean]

apollo1201, on 2026-September-03, 09:07, said:

Sth very generic. I have sth that makes me believe we could be making game. Are you in?

I like it

[mycroft]

Game tries, control cue-bidding, all the rest - are ways to get to games or slams *where you don't mind best defence*. Yes, the more accurate you make your tries, the less likely you will sneak a trick, and at matchpoints that can be critical.

You have to balance "hope you can Rodwell your way to the ninth/tenth trick often enough to make up for staying out of hopeless-against-best-defence games" vs "sorry, partner, I told them how to take their three tricks" when *everybody's* in game (or their two tricks when you were investigating slam). And learn to blast when it's right.

I will admit the number of times I make a shortness game try is - minimal. Not sure if it's just "don't get many hands for it" or whether I just blast-and-hope, or otherwise. But they're nice to have, and conversely playing the "what suit does dummy have help in" vs declarer asking specifically (and that *does* come up fairly often) is an advantage, if just a slim one.

But in general, "Just because you have a tool, doesn't mean you have to use it."

[Kaitlyn S]

DavidKok, on 2026-September-03, 09:39, said:

Sorry, this crosses several lines for me. I tell my opponents what I play. If these game tries are "either I want you to evaluate your hand, partner, or I am trying to trick the opponents into the wrong deduction", that's what I will put on my cc and expect my partner's alert to state. Don't get me wrong: I like low information game tries, and even think the two-way short suit bids ('short or deceptive') can have merit. But only with full disclosure. Such an agreement should never be claimed to 'show a singleton'.

Put differently, we seem to agree that the downside of giving the opponents information is big enough to justify looking at new methods, aiming to make life more difficult for them. So make the newer, less transparent, method your official agreement. Don't change the agreement, but tell me how you envision this complete structure so I can learn from it, please.

I agree wholeheartedly. That being said, when I used to play opponents in Flight A, this was not disclosed, and I always assumed it could be psychic, and it frequently was. That being said, I think they should have disclosed. Here there is a different ethical issue. We self alert on BBO and it feels kind of slimy to say "could be an attempt to trick you" when it isn't. However, I shouldn't feel bad if I always say that. BTW, undiscussed with a new partner (but having only short suit tries agreed), I see no problem about psyching it without disclosure because partner is also in the dark. Second time I do it with the same partner, I would hope she would disclose it.

[DavidKok]

I do not agree. To me this is a self-serving definition of full disclosure. I will not adopt a method in the hopes that I can psych it, even if partner is unaware.