[JeffMorrow]

We are vulnerable against non-vulnerable. I am dealer, and we play a fairly standard 2/1 gf.

My hand

♠Qxx
♥KJ9xxx
♦AKx
♣J

The bidding went 1H, (P), 1S, (P), 2H technically promising 6+, (P), 3H, (P)

At this point, I thought I had two options, 4H closing out the auction or 3S to see whether the secondary fit in spades improved partner’s hand enough for her to explore slam. I chose 3S, for which I may have been too weak. (I guess pass and 4D were also options, but honestly, neither went through my mind at the time.)

In any case, during our usual post-tournament autopsy, my partner was unhappy with my 3S bid. Her understanding is that any change of suit bid after agreeing on trump shows a control in the bid suit. That is certainly unambiguous. My understanding is that a change of suit after agreeing on trump is encouraging and shows a useful feature, which MAY be a control. Which if either of those understandings is standard? Or is this one of those issues where a partnership must agree on their own understanding? If the latter, is it alertable?

Despite our different understandings, she bid 4H, and we made +1. So this was not a disaster this time, but obviously it is not good to have different understandings when you know you have a fit.

[jillybean]

---

for me, 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ is not gf. Partner has not bid strongly and is unlikely to have a hand that will want to explore slam after I show 3 card spade support.
Therefore, 3♠ suggests a choice of games?

A change of suit after trump are agreed is initially a game try or probe for nt

[mw64ahw]

For me 3♠ is a 1st/2nd round control bid or non-serious if you swap 3♠ & 3N.
I'm not bidding 3♠ here with the two keycards and 6.5 mod. losers; just bid 4♥

[WasWinM]

jillybean is correct: the question is moot as 3H is not forcing.
So, pretending the question pertains to 1H-2D-2H-3H-4D, it depends on agreements. Could mean concentrated values, secondary support, or controls, and also could be good/bad.
To be safe, never assume it's anything other than a control and never make that bid without a control (not singleton of void).

[apollo1201]

 JeffMorrow, on 2026-August-31, 14:44, said:

We are vulnerable against non-vulnerable. I am dealer, and we play a fairly standard 2/1 gf.

My hand

♠Qxx
♥KJ9xxx
♦AKx
♣J

The bidding went 1H, (P), 1S, (P), 2H technically promising 6+, (P), 3H, (P)

At this point, I thought I had two options, 4H closing out the auction or 3S to see whether the secondary fit in spades improved partner’s hand enough for her to explore slam.

Why not pass as an option? Partner is traditionally not exploring slam but merely inviting to 4H (that here you can accept but would reject without one of tje red kings).

What would she bid with

Axxx
Qx
Qxxx
Kxx

Now that you promised 6 hearts and therefore identified a fi, while her 11 HCPs are not enough to impose gamet?

Unless you have a fancy 2NT relay for inv hands, obviously.

But I would rather use such a relay for GF hands (with either strong S or strong H fit) rather than inv. As there is no easy way to force except 3m and the auction is not very smooth after that (when you hold 6S, when partner does not know if they should bid 3NT or 3S, when you hold a slammish hand in H and either 3H or 4H could look like a preference with a sg honor or a fear of 3NT…).

[JeffMorrow]

First, I’d like to thank all three responders for taking the time to consider my question.

Second, I fully agree that my 3S bid was not appropriate given my hand and the prior bidding. I have 15 points in hearts and a respectable 6-card heart suit; partner should have 10-12 points on her bidding; we should be in game. It is possible that partner has five spades and one heart, but it is not probable. Partner may well have two or three hearts for her bids and may have only four spades. (She does not have 4+ hearts because we have ways to show a 5/4 or better fit in a major IMMEDIATELY.) So, the game most likely to make is 4H, and I should not confuse the issue by messing around.

Third, I do not, however, agree that my original question is therefore rendered moot. The question of what a particular bidding sequence means, or should mean, is a valid question regardless of whether a specific example fits with the sequence.

Fourth, I have not tried to think through all the situations where a suit different from the agreed suit is bid after a fit is found. In particular, I have not tried to think through bids after a minor suit fit is found because the question then becomes minor suit partial, no trump game, and so on. But I have thought through three situations. If those thoughts make sense (and of course my non-expert thoughts may NOT make sense), then one-size fits all seems to me to be a very poor approach.

Situation 1: 1H, (P), 2H, (P), 3C. I think this sequence has a standard meaning among most North American natural bidders. It invites game in hearts but only if responder is maximum AND can cover club losers in opener’s hand. It does NOT promise controls in clubs and is forcing only for one bid.

Situation 2: Opener bids a major, responder bids the other major, and either opener or responder gives delayed support to partner’s major. Now suppose delayed support is given to the other major. That should, I think and as jillybean suggests, be a choice of games and should mean that the bidder’s suit is really bad but the support is really good. It is not control showing but is forcing to game. So, my original sequence of 1H, (P), 1S, (P), 2H, (P), 3H, (P), 3S should mean that opener has the points for game and good three-card support for responder’s spades but a ratty 6-card heart suit. It does not promise a control and is forcing at least to game. (Yes, I know my original example did not meet those criteria.)

Situation 3: Partners find a fit. A new suit is introduced at the 4-level. It shows a control and is forcing to at least game in the agreed suit. 1H, (P), 3H, (P), 4D shows a control in diamonds and indicates some degree of interest in slam.

Three different situations. Three different suggested meanings.

Now I shall welcome explanations about why I should eschew bidding theory.

[JeffMorrow]

apollo1201, on 2026-September-01, 04:21, said:

Why not pass as an option? Partner is traditionally not exploring slam but merely inviting to 4H (that here you can accept but would reject without one of tje red kings).

What would she bid with

Axxx
Qx
Qxxx
Kxx

Now that you promised 6 hearts and therefore identified a fi, while her 11 HCPs are not enough to impose gamet?

Unless you have a fancy 2NT relay for inv hands, obviously.

But I would rather use such a relay for GF hands (with either strong S or strong H fit) rather than inv. As there is no easy way to force except 3m and the auction is not very smooth after that (when you hold 6S, when partner does not know if they should bid 3NT or 3S, when you hold a slammish hand in H and either 3H or 4H could look like a preference with a sg honor or a fear of 3NT…).

Sorry. I was writing my follow up when you posted. I agree that my 3S bid was ill conceived given my hand and partner’s bids. Thank you for responding.

[WasWinM]

The interesting question here is should 3H be forcing in this auction, and I think there is a good case to switch meanings.
Starting 1H-1S-2H- as it is played now a new suit must be introduced to at the three level to create a game force.
There is merit is using the new suit as showing a 2-card limit raise and using 3H as a game force or simply pass or bash to game
depending on the quality of responder's limit raise type hand.

[Kaitlyn S]

JeffMorrow, on 2026-September-01, 04:33, said:

...Situation 1: 1H, (P), 2H, (P), 3C. I think this sequence has a standard meaning among most North American natural bidders. It invites game in hearts but only if responder is maximum AND can cover club losers in opener's hand. It does NOT promise controls in clubs and is forcing only for one bid.

Situation 2: Opener bids a major, responder bids the other major, and either opener or responder gives delayed support to partner's major. Now suppose delayed support is given to the other major. That should, I think and as jillybean suggests, be a choice of games and should mean that the bidder's suit is really bad but the support is really good. It is not control showing but is forcing to game. So, my original sequence of 1H, (P), 1S, (P), 2H, (P), 3H, (P), 3S should mean that opener has the points for game and good three-card support for responder's spades but a ratty 6-card heart suit. It does not promise a control and is forcing at least to game. (Yes, I know my original example did not meet those criteria.)

Situation 3: Partners find a fit. A new suit is introduced at the 4-level. It shows a control and is forcing to at least game in the agreed suit. 1H, (P), 3H, (P), 4D shows a control in diamonds and indicates some degree of interest in slam.

Three different situations. Three different suggested meanings.

Now I shall welcome explanations about why I should eschew bidding theory.

1. I don't think that you need a good club suit and a maximum on #1. If the auction went 1H P 2H P 3C, I think 4H is automatic on xxx, xxx, xxx, AQJx, Partner needs help in clubs and I have superb help. However, if 3C asks for help and I have the following "maximum" QJx, Kxx, QJxx, xxx, I think a return to 3H is prudent. Not 3NT as I don't think you have a decent shot for 9 tricks.
2. I agree.

3. In a well-oiled partnership, I suspect that 1H P 3H P 4D is more useful as a help suit slam try (!) than a control. A, KQ8653, A7652, A, doesn't want to be in slam opposite three small diamonds. Of course, if a random partner bid 4D I would assume it's a control bid. Admittedly a control bid might be more useful in a situation where the partnership is likely to have the strength for slam, but after 1H-3H, slam is unlikely without significant distribution and knowing how partner fits with that distribution is useful. (edited for spacing)

[WasWinM]

Kaitlyn S, on 2026-September-01, 14:52, said:

1. I don't think that you need a good club suit and a maximum on #1. If the auction went 1H P 2H P 3C, I think 4H is automatic on xxx, xxx, xxx, AQJx, Partner needs help in clubs and I have superb help. However, if 3C asks for help and I have the following "maximum" QJx, Kxx, QJxx, xxx, I think a return to 3H is prudent. Not 3NT as I don't think you have a decent shot for 9 tricks.
2. I agree.

3. In a well-oiled partnership, I suspect that 1H P 3H P 4D is more useful as a help suit slam try (!) than a control. A, KQ8653, A7652, A, doesn't want to be in slam opposite three small diamonds. Of course, if a random partner bid 4D I would assume it's a control bid. Admittedly a control bid might be more useful in a situation where the partnership is likely to have the strength for slam, but after 1H-3H, slam is unlikely without significant distribution and knowing how partner fits with that distribution is useful. (edited for spacing)

Your #3 has a lot of good in it. As an addendum, also the auction 1m-1M-4sm normally shows 4 card support and solid minor 6 long. It might make more sense to make it also help suit and strong.

[JeffMorrow]

WasWinM, on 2026-September-01, 07:19, said:

The interesting question here is should 3H be forcing in this auction, and I think there is a good case to switch meanings.
Starting 1H-1S-2H- as it is played now a new suit must be introduced to at the three level to create a game force.
There is merit is using the new suit as showing a 2-card limit raise and using 3H as a game force or simply pass or bash to game
depending on the quality of responder's limit raise type hand.

Thank you for suggesting an interesting alternative to what is standard. I am sure, however, that I do not command the tools required to assess the merits of deciding among these alternatives

[JeffMorrow]

Kaitlyn S, on 2026-September-01, 14:52, said:

1. I don't think that you need a good club suit and a maximum on #1. If the auction went 1H P 2H P 3C, I think 4H is automatic on xxx, xxx, xxx, AQJx, Partner needs help in clubs and I have superb help. However, if 3C asks for help and I have the following "maximum" QJx, Kxx, QJxx, xxx, I think a return to 3H is prudent. Not 3NT as I don't think you have a decent shot for 9 tricks.

WOW. Amazingly helpful. What is implied is that opener should NOT make a help suit bid if what is required is general strength from responder and help in a specific suit. It should be made only if all that is required is winners in a specific suit. 1H, 2H, 3H says “Pass unless your 2H was maximum,” whereas 1H, 2H, 3C says something like “Bid 4H with fewer than two club losers, but otherwise bid 3H.”

That makes obvious sense: two sequences for two distinct questions. I am not sure of course that everyone makes that distinction; I fear that 1H, 2H, 3C is fairly often used in a somewhat amorphous sense. But this is exactly the kind of clarification my most frequent and reliable partner and I need to make to improve. (She finds I suspect that my bidding sometimes strays into the occult.)

Quote

size="3"]3. In a well-oiled partnership, I suspect that 1H P 3H P 4D is more useful as a help suit slam try (!) than a control. A, KQ8653, A7652, A, doesn't want to be in slam opposite three small diamonds. Of course, if a random partner bid 4D I would assume it's a control bid. Admittedly a control bid might be more useful in a situation where the partnership is likely to have the strength for slam, but after 1H-3H, slam is unlikely without significant distribution and knowing how partner fits with that distribution is useful.[/size] (edited for spacing)

[size=“4”]Interesting. This will requires discussion with partner. She does not like bids that require additional clarification, but life is not always kind enough to permit instant gratification. When a bid at the four-level is a splinter, a control, an ace in a help suit, or a help suit without an ace are questions that may have different answers dependent on prior bidding. For example, 1H, 2H, 4D maybe could be a splinter, but 1H, 3H, 4D could maybe be a help suit headed by an ace.

[/size]

[WasWinM]

JeffMorrow, on 2026-September-02, 06:46, said:

WOW. Amazingly helpful. What is implied is that opener should NOT make a help suit bid if what is required is general strength from responder and help in a specific suit. It should be made only if all that is required is winners in a specific suit. 1H, 2H, 3H says “Pass unless your 2H was maximum,” whereas 1H, 2H, 3C says something like “Bid 4H with fewer than two club losers, but otherwise bid 3H.”

That makes obvious sense: two sequences for two distinct questions. I am not sure of course that everyone makes that distinction; I fear that 1H, 2H, 3C is fairly often used in a somewhat amorphous sense. But this is exactly the kind of clarification my most frequent and reliable partner and I need to make to improve. (She finds I suspect that my bidding sometimes strays into the occult.)






[size=“4”]Interesting. This will requires discussion with partner. She does not like bids that require additional clarification, but life is not always kind enough to permit instant gratification. When a bid at the four-level is a splinter, a control, an ace in a help suit, or a help suit without an ace are questions that may have different answers dependent on prior bidding. For example, 1H, 2H, 4D maybe could be a splinter, but 1H, 3H, 4D could maybe be a help suit headed by an ace.

[/size]

If I may add some to this: my favorite partner and I used to play like this. It required agreement between partners though, discussion, as it is not always automatically agreed. There is also, short suit game tries, where opener's game try bid is specifically looking for worthless cards in that suit in responder's hand, the idea being if so the other cards are are helping. So you see, deciding which method you use before it comes up is critical.

[Kaitlyn S]

WasWinM, on 2026-September-02, 07:39, said:

If I may add some to this: my favorite partner and I used to play like this. It required agreement between partners though, discussion, as it is not always automatically agreed. There is also, short suit game tries, where opener's game try bid is specifically looking for worthless cards in that suit in responder's hand, the idea being if so the other cards are are helping. So you see, deciding which method you use before it comes up is critical.

You can have both. 1S P 2S P 3 of a suit is a short suit try.

1S P 2S P 2NT says "I have a help suit game try in one or more suits. Please bid the lowest suit in which you would accept a help suit try. Go back to 3 of my suit if you wouldn't accept any try, and bid 4 if you'll accept all tries.

When responder shows a suit, opener bids a higher suit to say "This is the suit I was looking for".

In the auction 1S P 2S P 2NT P 3C P 3D P 3H, the bids mean: 2NT help suit game somewhere. 3C says "I'd accept a club try". 3D says "No, I have a diamond try (and maybe a heart try). 3H says "I would have accepted a heart try also."

If your suit is hearts, 2S is the generic help suit try (2NT by responder says she would accept a spade try), and 1H-2H-2NT is a short suit try in spades.

Not for the casual, but certainly fodder for even a semi-serious partnership.

[mike777]

I used to do it all when it came to help suit game tries.

Now I very very often just bid game and try and make it. Less information leakage.
Less memory load, etc


Instead now reading, The Art of Declarer Play, by Bourke and Corfield to improve that area of my game..

[jillybean]

Kaitlyn S, on 2026-September-02, 17:57, said:

You can have both. 1S P 2S P 3 of a suit is a short suit try.

1S P 2S P 2NT says "I have a help suit game try in one or more suits. Please bid the lowest suit in which you would accept a help suit try. Go back to 3 of my suit if you wouldn't accept any try, and bid 4 if you'll accept all tries.

When responder shows a suit, opener bids a higher suit to say "This is the suit I was looking for".

In the auction 1S P 2S P 2NT P 3C P 3D P 3H, the bids mean: 2NT help suit game somewhere. 3C says "I'd accept a club try". 3D says "No, I have a diamond try (and maybe a heart try). 3H says "I would have accepted a heart try also."

If your suit is hearts, 2S is the generic help suit try (2NT by responder says she would accept a spade try), and 1H-2H-2NT is a short suit try in spades.

Not for the casual, but certainly fodder for even a semi-serious partnership.

And, 1S P 2S P 3S. I’ve opened on 5 to the Txxxx. do you have the honours ? 😊

[DavidKok]

For what little it's worth, I played these Kokish game tries for a few years. They were a lot of fun. My opponents thanked me for them greatly, it told them exactly how to defend.

I've since changed the way we handle game bidding, focusing much more on knowing when and what to communicate. More generally, I think most game tries are much worse than people think, especially the highly descriptive ones.

I think Kokish game tries are fun, and can really help in improving your way of thinking about communicating with partner. But I do think they are a stepping stone, not a good solution to a problem. From that perspective, 'semi-serious partnership' is spot on.

[apollo1201]

 DavidKok, on 2026-September-03, 00:39, said:

For what little it's worth, I played these Kokish game tries for a few years. They were a lot of fun. My opponents thanked me for them greatly, it told them exactly how to defend.

I've since changed the way we handle game bidding, focusing much more on knowing when and what to communicate. More generally, I think most game tries are much worse than people think, especially the highly descriptive ones.

I think Kokish game tries are fun, and can really help in improving your way of thinking about communicating with partner. But I do think they are a stepping stone, not a good solution to a problem. From that perspective, 'semi-serious partnership' is spot on.

I was reading with great attention the detailed methods and was thinking is it too much of a disclosure but thanks David for making that clear to me.

If I continue playing regularly I will try with my partner 2NT generic game try (could be 5431 with a good 14 count or 5332 that for some reason I decided not to open 1NT, or a decent 6322-6331), 3M as an obstructive bid and new suit = slammish with a real 2 suiter that could produce 12 tricks, often easier in the 44 or 45 fit btw.

I heard this at another table and it looks simple, non disclusive (there are probably more detailed follow ups)…and makes you exercice dummy play I guess, too😁😁😁

[Kaitlyn S]

DavidKok, on 2026-September-03, 00:39, said:

For what little it's worth, I played these Kokish game tries for a few years. They were a lot of fun. My opponents thanked me for them greatly, it told them exactly how to defend.

I've since changed the way we handle game bidding, focusing much more on knowing when and what to communicate. More generally, I think most game tries are much worse than people think, especially the highly descriptive ones.

I think Kokish game tries are fun, and can really help in improving your way of thinking about communicating with partner. But I do think they are a stepping stone, not a good solution to a problem. From that perspective, 'semi-serious partnership' is spot on.

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.

[jillybean]

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