[Cyberyeti]

 the hog, on 2023-March-23, 01:05, said:

"I would have started with a 2♠ SJS because it would make it easier for me to find out about ♠Q in our methods, if partner has it with his 3 aces I'll play 7N, otherwise 7♥. If partner has ♠xxx I may be unlucky.."
Yes, that is REALLY important at IMPS.

I got the impression this was pairs, but is really important if you're suffering a trick 1 ruff which is by no means impossible when if partner has the ♠Q and at least one more you have at least 13 off the top in NT.

Our auction:
1♥-2♠(SJS, GF fit or single suited rock crusher)
3♣(at least Q/xx♠, ostensibly natural)-3♥(fit type, no long suit/high card diamond holding I want to show, no A/K♣)
3N(♦ cue)-4♣(shortage)
4♥-4♠(Kickback)
4N(0/3)-5♥(signoff opposite 0)
6♥(I have 3, but no other K, would bid 5N with ♠Q]-7♥

[sfi]

 jillybean, on 2023-March-23, 04:02, said:

1H 2H 3D can't be a slam try in diamonds. FYP ��
1H 2H 4H, now try to make it. Hmmm I'm not convinced information leak from trial bids is a concern for club and tournament bridge.

Why can't 3D be a slam try? It's not common, but when it comes up it really simplifies the rest of the auction. Responder immediately knows whether their cards are working or not.

And information leakage is a big thing with game tries at any level. For the past few years we've been playing a structure where we only have one game try (the next step over the 2M raise). Responder can show where their values are if unsure whether to bid game or not, but giving the opponents no information about opener's distribution has proven to give us at least half a trick advantage on average.

[jillybean]

 sfi, on 2023-March-23, 15:06, said:

Why can't 3D be a slam try? It's not common, but when it comes up it really simplifies the rest of the auction. Responder immediately knows whether their cards are working or not.

And information leakage is a big thing with game tries at any level. For the past few years we've been playing a structure where we only have one game try (the next step over the 2M raise). Responder can show where their values are if unsure whether to bid game or not, but giving the opponents no information about opener's distribution has proven to give us at least half a trick advantage on average.

You've opened 1H and partner has supported hearts but you are now making a slam try in diamonds knowing nothing about partners diamond holding?
I can see perhaps if you were 6♥6♦, or some such extreme distribution that you would want an immediate cue outside of the red suits. I assume you'd end up in a heart slam unless partner can also show support for ♦?

I'll think about the "only slam try" approach. I do like bidding slams and starting at the 2-3 level is exciting.

[DavidKok]

It's a slam try in hearts with a side diamond suit, not a slam try in diamonds.

[sfi]

Yes, you're aiming at 6H rather than 6D. Imagine a hand like:

---

Don't you want partner to value black aces and red queens and jacks? That's what 3D as a slam try does for you. 3D as a natural game try doesn't quite do the same thing because partner will often just jump to game on a flat 9-count because they are maximum. Now you kind of need to go on (otherwise bidding 3D rather than 4H doesn't make sense in the first place), but sometimes the 5-level is risky.

[sfi]

 jillybean, on 2023-March-23, 15:15, said:

I'll think about the "only slam try" approach. I do like bidding slams and starting at the 2-3 level is exciting.

A bit more about this, or at least the way I like to play it:

Over 1M-2M, our only game try is the next step. Responder can bid 3M or 4M if they know whether to accept, or bid a new suit to show soft values in that suit. The way we describe it is "would reject a short-suit game try in this suit, but would accept others." So holdings like Qx, Kxx and AKJ are examples of suits that might be bid this way. Obviously responder skips any suit they would accept in, and opener can make a counter-try by bidding a new suit to say "bid 3 if you would reject a short-suit try here". It's not perfect, but it seems to work well.

All other bids are natural-ish slam tries (length is expected but not guaranteed). Responder should raise to show a fitting honour (A/K/Q), cue a side ace, bid 3M with a semi-suitable hand or 4M or warn partner off. Then whatever cues you normally use. This also means that if you have a sequence like 1H-2H; 3D-3H; 3S-4D, the 4D cue has to show shortage rather than an honour.

The other point is that 2NT acts as a substitute for spades when the auction starts 1H-2H:

• 1H-2H; 2NT = slam try with spades
  
• 1H-2H; 2S-2NT = soft values in spades

[the hog]

 Cyberyeti, on 2023-March-23, 07:56, said:

I got the impression this was pairs, but is really important if you're suffering a trick 1 ruff which is by no means impossible when if partner has the ♠Q and at least one more you have at least 13 off the top in NT.

Our auction:
1♥-2♠(SJS, GF fit or single suited rock crusher)
3♣(at least Q/xx♠, ostensibly natural)-3♥(fit type, no long suit/high card diamond holding I want to show, no A/K♣)
3N(♦ cue)-4♣(shortage)
4♥-4♠(Kickback)
4N(0/3)-5♥(signoff opposite 0)
6♥(I have 3, but no other K, would bid 5N with ♠Q]-7♥

I doubt whether many are interested in these esoteric auctions that you pose after seeing both hands..

[the hog]

Jilly" "1H 2H 3D can't be a slam try in diamonds. FYP "Why on earth not? This is especially the case if you play constructive single raises.AQxxx x Axxx AKx
Kxx xxx KQJxx xx I would be very disappointed not to get to 6D here.
As far as trial bids leaking information, I think even a club player can recognise that if you bid a trial suit and partner accepts it may not be a good idea to lead that suit.

[the hog]

David Kok "It's a slam try in hearts with a side diamond suit, not a slam try in diamonds.
David please do not comment if you do not know! and you clearly do not! It is a slam try with Ds as a possible slam suit.

[TylerE]

I find it a bit funny to see someone arguing for constructive raises (my personal pick for worst convention ever... support with suppport!) to be so incredibly arrogant.

[the hog]

 TylerE, on 2023-April-04, 23:04, said:

I find it a bit funny to see someone arguing for constructive raises (my personal pick for worst convention ever... support with suppport!) to be so incredibly arrogant.

Before I started looking at systems sensibly I also had that view. Then after bidding a lot of hands and looking at many sims I came to the clear conclusion that constructive raises are far superior. With some research and reading you may perhaps well come to the same conclusion as top European and American experts.