[Cascade]

Scoring: XIMP

Uncontested

1♦ 1♠
2♠ 3♥
?

---

3♥ is a long suit try not a help suit like xxx

[rogerclee]

Very obvious to bid 3S to me

[Fluffy]

roger that...

[jdonn]

Yes I don't accept, partner invited and I have a hand many people wouldn't have opened. His particular invite may make my hand better but not that much.

[Siegmund]

Put me down in the minority who are happily accepting. This hand has gotten WAY better with first the SQJ and then the HK being upgraded. I feel like 2S was an underbid of at least half a trick. (If partner also had a way to show a SSGT in diamonds and didn't use it, even clearer, since a singleton diamond is really the only thing partner could have that would be bad news.)

[gwnn]

please partner if we missed game don't blame me lol.

[Phil]

Wow, I think this is totally an acceptable minimum to go on. Assuming 3♥ shows length, then we have a nine card fit. ATxxx Axxx xx xx also looks like a minimum invite and game looks pretty good.

[Fluffy]

Phil, on May 6 2010, 09:55 PM, said:

Wow, I think this totally an acceptable minimum to go on. Assuming 3♥ shows length, then we have a nine card fit. ATxxx Axxx xx xx also looks like a minimum invite and game looks pretty good.

opponent's got half the deck and are passing all the time with too many clubs and too good, chances of partner having more than 1 diamond are slim IMO. But if he has 2 cards, then I think he has some club honnors.

[mikeh]

Anyone who accepts on this either opens incredibly light or never rejects game tries.

I hold, let me see, no...that is...no Aces and no...that is...no singletons or voids and I have ...umm...let me add them up again...11 hcp with no tens to afford my weak suits any solidity at all.

Put another way, partner was already entitled to play me for a better hand than this and he still didn't bid game.

I am influenced by the fact that I don't consider this to be an opening bid...I have a funny thing about wanting controls when I open light. I tend not to upgrade Queens and Jacks.


Obviously, if our methods define this as a solid opening, then, since my cards are in the right place and they might not have been....I still pass since I am not vulnerable.

[jdonn]

Phil, on May 6 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

Wow, I think this is totally an acceptable minimum to go on. Assuming 3♥ shows length, then we have a nine card fit. ATxxx Axxx xx xx also looks like a minimum invite and game looks pretty good.

So if partner has that we miss a game that is, I don't know, 40% maybe? I can live with that being the big example for accepting. Btw nice ten of spades partner.

Siegmund, on May 6 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

(If partner also had a way to show a SSGT in diamonds and didn't use it, even clearer, since a singleton diamond is really the only thing partner could have that would be bad news.)

It would be bad news to be off 4 top tricks, like AKTxx QJxx xx xx, KT9xx AQx xx JTx, etc. That's the kind of thing that happens often if you accept game tries on essentially the weakest (not worst, but weakest) hand possible.

[Cascade]

Supplementary question.

Imagine you accept this game try with a better hand I am with the majority who do not accept here - I like Josh's example with ♠ AK and ♥ QJ as a typical hand where accepting is bad.

When accepting how routinely do you make some other bid than 4♠ in case partner's 3♥ was the first move on a slam hand or does partner have to do something different on the previous round with a slam try?

[mikeh]

I think opener should always cue here with a slam suitable single raise. Of course, the fact that responder bypassed both minors tends to lower the likelihood that he really has a slam try, but it will rarely hurt to cue along the way. Ok...it may hurt by helping the defence, but if partner has only a gametry, the auction has already told them a lot.

Note however that if partner's gametry had been, say, 3♣...what would 3red mean? To me, it says I don't like clubs but I am max and would accept this suit. If I were accepting his try, I'd have to cue something beyond 3♠ or risk ambiguity.

[aguahombre]

Lets see. I opened. Partner doesn't give a sh-- about secondary minor suit cards, and I have a whole 6 points in the majors. I think I decline.

[the hog]

I would pass. This is a bare minimum opener, and in fact I would not open it playing PC or 2/1.

[Free]

Clear 3♠, really don't understand pass Hog!

[Fluffy]

pass avoids going down in slam since partner is a maniac who won't stop bidding

[WellSpyder]

rogerclee, on May 6 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

Very obvious to bid 3S to me

"Very obvious" might be an overbid, but certainly clear to bid 4S to me.

[pooltuna]

Cascade, on May 6 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Scoring: XIMP

Uncontested

1♦ 1♠
2♠ 3♥
?

---

3♥ is a long suit try not a help suit like xxx

4♠ for me. IMO Kx helps a long suit try plus I have a 4th ♠ that I probably but did not have to have..

[bluecalm]

Wow, I am surprised by the answers.
It's almost automatic 4♠ for me. Kx is the best possible holding facing long suit try. I don't understand why I would ever play them if I am not accepting on this hand.
I mean, partner is 5-4 in majors we will often win this even if we lose 3 tricks in minors.

[aguahombre]

1) If partner were 5-5 in the majors with a pure AK and A, she would have just bid the game.
2) The only thing we can be sure of about the invite is that responder has 5 spades and is not interested in my minor suit secondary honors.
3) My interpretation of a descriptive invite (long suit, short suit, whatever) is that if I am marginal I should use that information to break the tie.
4) This hand was weak to start with.
5) I decline the invite.