[fromageGB]

I much prefer 2M+1 as the game try after a normal raise, but I think the point is that a 2♠ bid with an 8 point range makes game tries unworkable. With this method you need a different set of continuations.

[dake50]

I never addressed whether the game try was or was not correct, instead focusing solely on the acceptance with Responder's hand.

That said, if you are suggesting that 3♦ was too aggressive because partner cannot have three cover cards, it seems fairly easy to see that ♠A, ♦Q, ♣K works well, as few would deem a 9-count a limit raise, especially if 4-3-3-3.

Plus, your observation is that "a wide-ranging single raise should/must have less than a three sure tricks top." Suppose that I agree. The stray diamond Queen is hardly a third sure trick, especially if doubleton. (If the club Queen for Opener is dubious, same for partner?) Thus, any combination of Aces and Kings plus the diamond Queen should work, eh? This of course is why the 3♦ call seems spot-on, identifying the one card that might not be known to be a sure trick as now worth something substantial.

** So you agree A+K +DQ ain't 3 sure tricks raise, so it fits a wide-ranging single raise.
How about the 3x or 4 primes cases??
Are you suggesting those also start wide-ranging raise??
Or will you disagree(while agreeing my point) again that
there should/must be another start for some such gooder 12??

[the hog]

EricK, on 2013-December-06, 23:30, said:

What should a 3D trial look like in your opinion, and would game be good with it opposite a 4333 6 count with just a Qxx in diamonds?

Imo Eric, a game try should be in a suit where you have a similar holding to KJx(x). To make a gt in a suit where you have AK?? is really silly.
We used to play short and long suit gt. I think Cherdano mentions the use of a short suit GT in a post above.
For example if opener held
AKxxx
Axx
KJTx
x
the game is good opposite this hand,
xxx
Kxx
Qxx
xxxx
is it not? It just depends on a 3-2 S break. Ok it is not good opposite 3433, however, it gives you an idea of why the 3D bid shows a lack of judgement in hand evaluation.To call it "spot on" as one poster suggests is a ridiculously poor example of judgement.

[nigel_k]

the hog, on 2013-December-10, 01:43, said:

Imo Eric, a game try should be in a suit where you have a similar holding to KJx(x). To make a gt in a suit where you have AK?? is really silly.
We used to play short and long suit gt. I think Cherdano mentions the use of a short suit GT in a post above.
For example if opener held
AKxxx
Axx
KJTx
x
the game is good opposite this hand,
xxx
Kxx
Qxx
xxxx
is it not? It just depends on a 3-2 S break. Ok it is not good opposite 3433, however, it gives you an idea of why the 3D bid shows a lack of judgement in hand evaluation.To call it "spot on" as one poster suggests is a ridiculously poor example of judgement.

You can't cash the top trumps before playing diamonds because they will win and draw dummy's trump. Unless diamonds are 3-3 they can probably get a ruff. That ruff may be in the long trump hand but then they can get a trump promotion using the club entry. On the other hand these things may not be possible after a club lead but I'd say it is an underdog against strong defenders.

[cherdano]

Given the wide range of 2M, I think you need to use your various game tries to show various ranges. E.g. 2M+1 = only accept if you have a maximum (responder can bid values along the way to sort out whether the hands fit), and 2M+2 and higher are natural game tries opposite a standard single raise.

[kenrexford]

dake50, on 2013-December-09, 21:40, said:

I never addressed whether the game try was or was not correct, instead focusing solely on the acceptance with Responder's hand.

That said, if you are suggesting that 3♦ was too aggressive because partner cannot have three cover cards, it seems fairly easy to see that ♠A, ♦Q, ♣K works well, as few would deem a 9-count a limit raise, especially if 4-3-3-3.

Plus, your observation is that "a wide-ranging single raise should/must have less than a three sure tricks top." Suppose that I agree. The stray diamond Queen is hardly a third sure trick, especially if doubleton. (If the club Queen for Opener is dubious, same for partner?) Thus, any combination of Aces and Kings plus the diamond Queen should work, eh? This of course is why the 3♦ call seems spot-on, identifying the one card that might not be known to be a sure trick as now worth something substantial.

** So you agree A+K +DQ ain't 3 sure tricks raise, so it fits a wide-ranging single raise.
How about the 3x or 4 primes cases??
Are you suggesting those also start wide-ranging raise??
Or will you disagree(while agreeing my point) again that
there should/must be another start for some such gooder 12??

As to the entire systemic approach, here's my take. The description of the "LIA" approach is that all 10-counts are opened. The way I normally play, with no LIA description, is that I would open almost any 11-count with a five-card major already. So, this is only a one-point difference to me, perhaps 2 on the close calls.

The HCP range of 6-12 seems somewhat silly, therefore. Extrapolating, this is akin to an effective range of 5-11 for me, which means that the partnership is merging the constructive raise and the nuisance raise into one bid, which seems somewhat unworkable. But, they admit this as a semi-flaw.

Even assuming this, however, the stated range may well have a cap that is not mentioned, like "not four primes." Contextually, four primes would seem forced to be specifically KQ in trumps (5 HCP) plus an Ace-King outside (7 HCP) to get within the range, and likely that 4-cover situation is upgraded. You end up then with the effective "cap" as three "primes." That is not unworkable, just as responding with a single raise with King-Queen in trumps and a side Ace (9 HCP) is not unworkable in Goren Standard.

The problem situation I can see is the "three primes and a side Queen," which also is a specific case -- King-Queen in trumps plus a side Ace and a side Queen. That holding is under the maximum for the range but with the potential of four cover cards.

I would agree, then, that "gooder" 11's and 12's (potential of four covers) are too strong for a simple raise, even assuming the mildly LIA approach. I do not know whether the system allows such calls as mere simple raises. If so, I sense problems developing.

[kenrexford]

the hog, on 2013-December-10, 01:43, said:

Imo Eric, a game try should be in a suit where you have a similar holding to KJx(x). To make a gt in a suit where you have AK?? is really silly.
We used to play short and long suit gt. I think Cherdano mentions the use of a short suit GT in a post above.
For example if opener held
AKxxx
Axx
KJTx
x
the game is good opposite this hand,
xxx
Kxx
Qxx
xxxx
is it not? It just depends on a 3-2 S break. Ok it is not good opposite 3433, however, it gives you an idea of why the 3D bid shows a lack of judgement in hand evaluation.To call it "spot on" as one poster suggests is a ridiculously poor example of judgement.

That's because you are completely failing to understand the purpose of the call. Or, you are an idiot.

The theory behind an approach where you would bid a suit of Ace-King-whatever is to tell partner what dubious covers are actually true covers. If you assume that partner's holding will consist of a combination of pure covers (Aces, and the King-Queen in trumps) plus probable covers (side Kings), plus one or more dubious covers (side Queens), then an approach that tells partner which side Queens carry fully weight is an effective game try method that effectively caters to a better Losing Trick Count and Cover Card analysis.

You, on the other hand, have offered no reason why "KJx" is a good game try bid but "AKJx" is not, other than to claim this fact and to give a pointless example that furthers nothing in this discussion. For, "KJx" or "KJ10x" is also for me a good game try bid, primarily because you lack the Queen and are doing exactly what I said you want to do -- indicate what Queens have value. In other words, I would have made a 3D game try with the example you give (which locates the game) or with the heart Ace moved to diamonds (diamonds AKJx and hearts xxx), after which partner could bid the game and hope for the heart King to be a full value (and IMP scoring) or try back with 3♥ if not so adventuresome. Thus, as your example proves nothing useful, it shows how inadequate your judgment and understanding of bridge theory truly is.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on 2013-December-10, 02:46, said:

Given the wide range of 2M, I think you need to use your various game tries to show various ranges. E.g. 2M+1 = only accept if you have a maximum (responder can bid values along the way to sort out whether the hands fit), and 2M+2 and higher are natural game tries opposite a standard single raise.

Unnecessary.

After 2♠ and a 3♣ or 3♦ game try, partner can always "game last train" back with the tweener hands. The only problem is the one-under 3♥, which suggests that 1-2-3 not be stop but rather be a two-way heart-oriented game try, showing whatever 3♥ does not show (one weaker, one stronger). Or, you add definition elsewhere.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on 2013-December-10, 07:05, said:

Unnecessary.

After 2♠ and a 3♣ or 3♦ game try, partner can always "game last train" back with the tweener hands.

This is available to, and needed by, responder in standard methods. After a standard 2♠ raise you split responder's range into three - reject the game try, accept the game try, or make a return try. Playing a wider range 2♠ bid it makes sense to split responder's range into more ranges, which is what Cherdano's suggestion does.

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2013-December-10, 10:13, said:

Playing a wider range 2♠ bid it makes sense to split responder's range into more ranges, which is what CherdanoZel's suggestion does.

FYP (see #23).

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on 2013-December-10, 10:13, said:

This is available to, and needed by, responder in standard methods. After a standard 2♠ raise you split responder's range into three - reject the game try, accept the game try, or make a return try. Playing a wider range 2♠ bid it makes sense to split responder's range into more ranges, which is what Cherdano's suggestion does.

Suppose, for sake of argument, that there actually are four ranges. Call them perhaps Big, Upper Middle, Lower Middle, or Low. If this translates into, say, 1, 2, 3, or 4 tricks for you, then this seems like utter nonsense. If you go to the three-level needing Big (needing 4 tricks), then you go down severely when partner has low/1 and are in serious trouble opposite Lower Middle (2). Thus, you only ask if you need Upper Middle or Lower Middle. Hence, why I said that any "Big" within the range MUST be upgraded or the entire thing makes no sense. You cannot have four ranges, period. Catering to that silly situation makes little to no sense UNLESS you have protection from the Law of Total Tricks. In that event, you still have to have a structure to deal with the non-9-fit. Thus, although you MIGHT be OK on some hands with this structure, you usually are not.

If the simple raise showed 4-card support (or promised 4-card support if a "Low" hand), that helps tremendously and changes things. Now you might have a 4-way structure, in theory.

[dake50]

[quote name='kenrexford' timestamp='1386680130' post='768878']
As to the entire systemic approach, here's my take. The description of the "LIA" approach is that all 10-counts are opened. The way I normally play, with no LIA description, is that I would open almost any 11-count with a five-card major already. So, this is only a one-point difference to me, perhaps 2 on the close calls.

The HCP range of 6-12 seems somewhat silly, therefore. Extrapolating, this is akin to an effective range of 5-11 for me, which means that the partnership is merging the constructive raise and the nuisance raise into one bid, which seems somewhat unworkable. But, they admit this as a semi-flaw.

Even assuming this, however, the stated range may well have a cap that is not mentioned, like "not four primes." Contextually, four primes would seem forced to be specifically KQ in trumps (5 HCP) plus an Ace-King outside (7 HCP) to get within the range, and likely that 4-cover situation is upgraded. You end up then with the effective "cap" as three "primes." That is not unworkable, just as responding with a single raise with King-Queen in trumps and a side Ace (9 HCP) is not unworkable in Goren Standard.

The problem situation I can see is the "three primes and a side Queen," which also is a specific case -- King-Queen in trumps plus a side Ace and a side Queen. That holding is under the maximum for the range but with the potential of four cover cards.

I would agree, then, that "gooder" 11's and 12's (potential of four covers) are too strong for a simple raise, even assuming the mildly LIA approach. I do not know whether the system allows such calls as mere simple raises. If so, I sense problems developing.


*** Absolutely agree. Was hoping the poster could flesh out his top for that single raise.
Seems to be "let the chips fall where they might".
That's too ambiguous for me.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on 2013-December-10, 10:33, said:

Suppose, for sake of argument, that there actually are four ranges. Call them perhaps Big, Upper Middle, Lower Middle, or Low. If this translates into, say, 1, 2, 3, or 4 tricks for you, then this seems like utter nonsense.

Yes, that would be utter nonsense. But in fact it's just a straw man. Nobody said that the difference between successive ranges was a whole trick.

When you play natural game-tries with return game-tries by responder, you split responder's range into three. The difference between successive ranges is 1/2 of the total range, or about 2HCP if the range is 5-9.

If you play the method suggested by Cherdano and Zelandakh you split responder's range into five. The difference between successive ranges is 1/4 of the total range, or about 1.5HCP if the range is 6-12.

Quote

If you go to the three-level needing Big (needing 4 tricks), then you go down severely when partner has low/1 and are in serious trouble opposite Lower Middle (2).

Playing wide-range raises means that you have to either sometimes miss game or sometimes go down at the three-level. That's a good reason not to play wide-range raises, but I don't see why it should lead to a conclusion that we should be conservative in raising.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on 2013-December-10, 12:04, said:

Yes, that would be utter nonsense. But in fact it's just a straw man. Nobody said that the difference between successive ranges was a whole trick.

When you play natural game-tries with return game-tries by responder, you split responder's range into three. The difference between successive ranges is 1/2 of the total range, or about 2HCP if the range is 5-9.

If you play the method suggested by Cherdano and Zelandakh you split responder's range into five. The difference between successive ranges is 1/4 of the total range, or about 1.5HCP if the range is 6-12.


Playing wide-range raises means that you have to either sometimes miss game or sometimes go down at the three-level. That's a good reason not to play wide-range raises, but I don't see why it should lead to a conclusion that we should be conservative in raising.

First of all, what on earth is this 1.5 HCP nonsense? Who does that?!?!? Just show where your cards are and play the hand out in your head. Which makes more sense:

1. I'd like you to have three assured tricks, or two assured tricks with the diamond Queen, please. Response -- I have one assured tricks, one possible trick, and the diamond Queen, or two assured tricks plus a possible tricks -- is that enough?

2. How many high card points do you have? 6, 7.5, 9, 10.5, or 12 ?

For some, the latter makes more sense. For some, the former makes more sense. I am happy to be in the first group.

Second, I like to be conservative in raising when the odds are 25% I make just my bid, 25% that I find a game, and 50% that I go down because of the raise. Seems to me like a 2:1 favorite for passing.

[the hog]

nigel_k, on 2013-December-10, 01:59, said:

You can't cash the top trumps before playing diamonds because they will win and draw dummy's trump. Unless diamonds are 3-3 they can probably get a ruff. That ruff may be in the long trump hand but then they can get a trump promotion using the club entry. On the other hand these things may not be possible after a club lead but I'd say it is an underdog against strong defenders.

Nigel, and if the hand holding 3 trumps holds the xx D, which is likely? Anyay the hand was a quick and dirty answer to Eric's question. The fact that both the hands i posted are lower in high card pointrs than the hand posted by the op shows how ridiculous the 3D try is. Many players, particularly at club level have no understanding about what a gt is or should look like. I think as this is the case with the op and given the methods played, Cherdano is probably correct that the best method to use here is a step bid to ask for range - low mid top of the range.
Just read Rexford's post - there is another person who clearly has no idea what a gt is. These people really should think about hands a little before they open their mouths and make fool of themselves.

[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2013-December-10, 17:58, said:

Just read Rexford's post - there is another person who clearly has no idea what a gt is. These people really should think about hands a little before they open their mouths and make fool of themselves.

This reminds me of this interview with a mother of 10 on how to raise your children: When one of the kids was misbehaving, he got a spoonful of cod-liver oil. According to her, that worked really well. The interviewer continued: "What if all kids are misbehaving? You will be out of cod-liver oil in no time!" The answer: "No, because then I take a spoonful myself."

Rik

[Trinidad]

The inherent problem with the method lies not so much in the game tries or the wide range in itself. It is easy to construct a structure to figure out precisely how many points responder holds.

The problem with the structure lies in the fact that it creates the problem it tries to prevent: getting to the 3 level on insufficient values.
You are trying to prevent getting to the three level on 10-11 (opener) + 11-12 (responder) hands, but in return you are forcing yourself to the three level on 13-16 (opener) + 6-7 (responder) hands. If responder can be as strong as 12, opener basically will have to invite (and force to the three level) as soon as opener has traditional values for an opening.

Rik

[dake50]

[quote name='Trinidad' timestamp='1386748638' post='769000']
The inherent problem with the method lies not so much in the game tries or the wide range in itself. It is easy to construct a structure to figure out precisely how many points responder holds.

The problem with the structure lies in the fact that it creates the problem it tries to prevent: getting to the 3 level on insufficient values.
You are trying to prevent getting to the three level on 10-11 (opener) + 11-12 (responder) hands, but in return you are forcing yourself to the three level on 13-16 (opener) + 6-7 (responder) hands. If responder can be as strong as 12, opener basically will have to invite (and force to the three level) as soon as opener has traditional values for an opening.

Rik

*** Yeah, yeah.
That's what I was trying to suggest with "let the chips fall".
Take your too highs at 3M. Hope you find 4M to balances out those losses.
Win mostly when you get to 2M end.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on 2013-December-10, 13:13, said:

First of all, what on earth is this 1.5 HCP nonsense? Who does that?!?!? Just show where your cards are and play the hand out in your head. Which makes more sense:

1. I'd like you to have three assured tricks, or two assured tricks with the diamond Queen, please. Response -- I have one assured tricks, one possible trick, and the diamond Queen, or two assured tricks plus a possible tricks -- is that enough?

2. How many high card points do you have? 6, 7.5, 9, 10.5, or 12 ?

For some, the latter makes more sense. For some, the former makes more sense. I am happy to be in the first group.

Thanks for your advice about hand-evaluation. Do you have any other good tips?

I used the range "6-12 HCP" as an example, because those were the range and metric used in the original post. Regardless of whether your method of hand-evaluation is HCP, an estimate of how many tricks your hand is worth, or the Diego Garcian Special Potato Count, the point is the same. As responder's range widens, either you split his range more ways, or you lose accuracy.

Quote

Second, I like to be conservative in raising when the odds are 25% I make just my bid, 25% that I find a game, and 50% that I go down because of the raise. Seems to me like a 2:1 favorite for passing.

When you make up numbers to support a argument, you could at least take the trouble to check that they do, in fact, support your argument.
If we accept these figures, when you're vulnerable bidding has an expectation of 11 * 0.25 - 5 * 0.5 = +0.25. Non-vulnerable you'd be right, though: 7 * 0.25 - 4 * 0.5 = -0.25. And I've no doubt that if you make up some more numbers for the frquency of being doubled or going two down you'll be able to "prove" your point.

But I don't accept your figures anyway. In the context of ArtK's "6-12" raise with the opponents silent, if you only move on a hand which would move opposite a standard raise, you will miss game at least as often than you go down at the three level and would have been allowed to go plus at the two-level.

[PhilKing]

IMO "the answer" is to treat all situations where a suit has been agreed and range is undefined or wide as Rodwellian - ie step 1 should be non-serious and higher steps are serious. Normally, that only applies for slam auctions, but it can be applied for game tries as well. So after 1♠-2♠:

2NT = Non-serious. Partner signs off unless decent. With a good hand he just bids game and with marginal values he shows a high-card feature
3♣/♦/♥ = good game tries