[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-January-30, 11:02, said:

Should we have game tries at all? Interesting discussion

I’ll check out the other site

It's been discussed on the other site many times, with the majority concluding "no" and the minority advocating various ways to mitigate the perceived defects of traditional game tries.
Although the criticism as I recall focused more on the ambiguity of Help Suit Trials and on the general tendency to pinpoint weaknesses to opponents, rather than taking a more radical step back and arguing that a game try is simply not a good use of space.

My experience FWIW is that I have had good mileage from simple long suit trials in combination with a control-bid as the positive reply. But my opponents are not at the same level as those of the better contributors over there and that might well make a difference.

[mikeh]

Late to the thread …I’d started a post but got interrupted

I think there’s some basic problems with both North and South’s grasp of the game.

All is fine imo with the first two bids, but then both players took turns making a mess of things.

South has a good raise. Many expert and some advanced partnerships might play some form of transfers over the double…I think it extremely important to be able to raise 1S to 2S on virtually any excuse, for its preemptive value. So it’s useful to have a way of raising while reassuring partner that it’s safe to try for or just bid game. But most pairs don’t have that available so 2S is ok.

3C is simply wrong, whatever it means. That suit doesn’t need ‘help’ beyond not holding xxx, and whether it’s a help suit try or a long suit try it doesn’t ask or show what North thinks he’s showing or asking. Look at his red suit holdings!

It would be nice if north had a bid that meant…how good are your spades? Actually, although I doubt many experts would play this, maybe for intermediates a 3S bid might mean it.

Having castigated North for 3C, maybe it’s the only option he had other than blasting game. At imps, bidding 4S seems normal. I have only 5 losers and partner is odds on to cover some of them. Heck , Axxx xxx xxxx xx gives us play for game! But then I rarely make descriptive game tries at imps. I think it far more effective to blast game. Even against strong opps one often steals the game through having concealed key features of your hand. Defence is tough and the less information one has, the tougher it is.

Ok, over to South. How anyone could not bid 4S over 3C is a mystery. If they think that 3C says ‘only bid game if you help in clubs, ignore the rest of your hand’ then they don’t understand game tries.

As for north bidding game over 3S, that’s absurd. 3C was a try for game. Regardless of what one thinks about that choice, it clearly states that north doesn’t believe he can bid game without some encouragement from partner. Partner said: if you can’t bid game by yourself, let’s play 3S.

North then said: I know I asked you a question but I don’t believe your answer so I’m bidding game anyway. Just think about what that tells us about this partnership. Indeed, I’d be wondering how long South took before bidding 3S. If it was anything but perfect tempo, I think 4S should be rolled back unless it failed

Actually, there are situations in which it’s perfectly proper for north to bid game after his try was rejected…but it’s only when the try wasn’t a game try but a (rare) precursor to a slam try. Which, btw, is one reason why South, if he accepts the game try, should not bid 4 S if he has a side ace…he should bid the ace ‘along the way’. We’re getting into some subtle areas so I’ll leave it there, but there’s more to it than just that

[jillybean]

3C is the only game try we had. It said I have spades, my second suit is clubs, I have a better than minimum opening and I am interested in game. It's MP

My prefered method is a 3 way game try, 3S does indeed ask how good are your trump?

mikeh, on 2026-January-30, 17:31, said:

I think there’s some basic problems with both North and South’s grasp of the game.

Thick skin and short memory can be an asset in this game.

[johnu]

I really dislike the 2♠ bid. I would evaluate the hand as much closer to a 3♠ limit raise than a simple raise to 2♠, and after a takeout double, simple raises can be lighter than normal (e.g. going through 1NT with a weak single raise).


If playing some sort of transfer system after the T/O double, you could show diamonds and then spade support, but your options are limited if playing natural. So, I would have bid 2NT showing a limit raise, which could be lighter than normal since opener has more than 2 options (commit to game or pass out 3♠).

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2026-January-30, 17:31, said:

I think there’s some basic problems with both North and South’s grasp of the game.

I think this is too harsh. North identified that the hand is worth acting with again, but has limited options. In my opinion it's fair to criticse the 3♣ bid, but not the full grasp of the game over this one example.

jillybean, on 2026-January-30, 17:56, said:

3C is the only game try we had. It said I have spades, my second suit is clubs, I have a better than minimum opening and I am interested in game.

This seems exactly right, and this discussion can (hopefully) suggest some options if a deal like this comes up again.

[Cyberyeti]

Over 3♣ can S not bid 3♦ saying "I'm not minimum, don't have clubs but do have diamonds" ?

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-January-31, 03:46, said:

Over 3♣ can S not bid 3♦ saying "I'm not minimum, don't have clubs but do have diamonds" ?

There are also people who play this as "I can help with your clubs, but can you help with my diamonds?".
I prefer it to be "I accept this game try, I control diamonds". That way partner can also use the trial with slam interest, which becomes manifest if he continues to control bid.

[jillybean]

jillybean, on 2026-January-29, 21:14, said:

Given the restrictions, is there any possible improvement ?

I could have phrased my question better. Given the restriction, playing std with "second suit game try", showing , not asking.
Yes, there are many gadgets we could add to make bidding this easier but given the system restrictions could either N/S have done better at evaluating their hand?
Should North blast to 4 after 1H 2H, does South have an hand to accept the game try? The feared singleton club is a distaction.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2026-January-30, 17:31, said:

It would be nice if north had a bid that meant…how good are your spades? Actually, although I doubt many experts would play this, maybe for intermediates a 3S bid might mean it.

Someone in the 70s recommended that. It had the extra benefit that if opener had trump AKQ, it would disguise a preemptive re-raise.

mikeh, on 2026-January-30, 17:31, said:

Actually, there are situations in which it’s perfectly proper for north to bid game after his try was rejected…but it’s only when the try wasn’t a game try but a (rare) precursor to a slam try.

Might it also try to prepare responder to make the final decision if opponents bid on over 4♠?

[mycroft]

I don't know if I agree with the previous calls, but after 3♣, I would counter-try if possible. Sometimes we have a "help in one of N suits" try and no bid to show that; so sometimes the counter-try works.

I can see this being "I have help in clubs and control diamonds in case you actually have a slam try", but 4♦ is right there, unambiguous (unless you think it's a splinter control; weird, but it might fit meta-agreements). But the number of times that's actually helpful, compared to "look, I have a max for my bidding. I don't have help in your suit, but if you have help in mine, it might not matter".

I, too, prefer three-way (Kokish) GTs, even if 9 times out of 10, my "trump game try" is "I know you have bad trumps, I'm pre-competing on AKJTxx". But if you don't play them, you don't play them.

[mikeh]

mycroft, on 2026-January-31, 09:39, said:

I don't know if I agree with the previous calls, but after 3♣, I would counter-try if possible. Sometimes we have a "help in one of N suits" try and no bid to show that; so sometimes the counter-try works.

I can see this being "I have help in clubs and control diamonds in case you actually have a slam try", but 4♦ is right there, unambiguous (unless you think it's a splinter control; weird, but it might fit meta-agreements). But the number of times that's actually helpful, compared to "look, I have a max for my bidding. I don't have help in your suit, but if you have help in mine, it might not matter".

I, too, prefer three-way (Kokish) GTs, even if 9 times out of 10, my "trump game try" is "I know you have bad trumps, I'm pre-competing on AKJTxx". But if you don't play them, you don't play them.

I should have been more specific/precise. When partner makes a long suit or help suit try, if I can't accept but have a useful hand...just nothing useful in his try suit, I make a counter-try by bidding a suit below 3M (if available) to say: I like my hand but your try didn't mesh. So if this info about another suit helps, go ahead and bid game.

This works in more than one way. Opener may have a hand with which he could make a try in either of 2 suits. Playing this method, he always makes the try in the lower suit, preserving room for responder to make a counter try with the appropriate hand. If he makes his try in the higher suit, responder won't have room below 3M.

The corollary is that to show an acceptance of opener's initial try and to cater to the rare time it was a slam move, responder cuebids ABOVE 3M but below 4M. So on the example hand, make it (if your methods allow/require 2S initially) Kxxx xxxx Axxx x, this hand has slam interest opposite something like AJxxxx Ax Kx AKxx

[jillybean]

jillybean, on 2026-January-30, 10:33, said:

On this hand, I did want to be in game - everyone else bid game
This is a hand where perhaps we both could have done more, I'm not too worried but the discussion is helpful and interesting.

This hand has taken a new twist, talking with another player sitting North, he opened 4S. I know I have been guilty of masterminding and may still have some of those tendencies but really, 4S?

Turning the focus to South, some want start 2D as they have 6 cards and add "points" for the diamond length and club shortage to justify showing a 10hcp hand.

---