[jdeegan]

Playing BBO SAYC plus support doubles. IMP pairs. White vs red. Partner deals and opens 1 ♥. RHO passes and you hold:

KQJ8
10
J1098
K974

You bid 1♠. LHO overcalls 2♣. Partner raises to 2♠ (showing 4). RHO passes. Your bid.

[Bbradley62]

Is 3♠ really a bar bid in "BBO SAYC"?

[jdeegan]

Bbradley62, on 2012-April-20, 22:12, said:

Is 3♠ really a bar bid in "BBO SAYC"?

Actually no, but the BBO software kept typing that in for me when I was setting the question up, so I just gave in to it. It would be a good use for the bid, however.

[Siegmund]

Any particular reason why 3C is listed in the poll as GF rather than a game try just like 3D would be? (Playing garden variety standard I would have thought 3C was the obvious invitation to use, if you decide the hand is worth an invite at all - I voted pass in the poll.)

[jdeegan]

Siegmund, on 2012-April-21, 02:22, said:

Any particular reason why 3C is listed in the poll as GF rather than a game try just like 3D would be? (Playing garden variety standard I would have thought 3C was the obvious invitation to use, if you decide the hand is worth an invite at all - I voted pass in the poll.)

Well, 3♣ is a cue bid of the opponents' suit. One does need a general purpose game force since my hand is unlimited.

[BillPatch]

jdeegan, on 2012-April-21, 13:44, said:

Well, 3♣ is a cue bid of the opponents' suit. One does need a general purpose game force since my hand is unlimited.

The yellow card booklet defines the cue bid of RHO's suit as a "general purpose game force", this cue bid is
not so defined. I think I would need the game try more often than the game force. (For the example hand I
also prefer a pass.)

[jdeegan]

Thanks to all for your votes and comments. At the table in a Speedball game I made a game try which was accepted putting me in a terrible contract. Later, as I thought about it, I realized these types of hands usually play wretchedly. One hand is 4-5 opposite a four card fit, and the 5 bagger doesn't run. Plus, my ♣ king is probably not much good on offense.

So, I tried two types of analysis. LOTT tells a strong story. Most likely both sides have one eight card fit - 16 trumps. Evidently, no voids or very long side suits. My ♣ K973 is a negative adjustment. Looks suspiciously like a 15 trick hand. If we make 4♠ (unlikely), then their limit in clubs is five tricks. Hard to buy that. Going plus at 2♠ also looks pretty good.

I Fought the Law tells a similar story. Assuming pard has a stiff ♣, then our total of 'working points' is likely 10 in ♠ and 4 or 5 in ♦ (or maybe the ♥ ace) for a total of, say, 14.5. According to IFL tables (pg.149), we have nine tricks.

Turns out partner had:

A1094
AK982
Q4
108

This is a good hand for the earlier bidding so they accepted my stupid game try.

[BillPatch]

jdeegan, on 2012-April-21, 20:52, said:

This is a good hand for the earlier bidding so they accepted my stupid game try.

For the record, Jim; which stupid game try did you make?

[jdeegan]

BillPatch, on 2012-April-22, 16:29, said:

For the record, Jim; which stupid game try did you make?

3♠. Not a bar bid. I thought it was the weakest of the game tries. Fortunately, I was the declarer, so we ended up making five.