Help
gnasher, on Feb 12 2008, 10:33 AM, said:
kenrexford, on Feb 12 2008, 02:15 PM, said:
If you are going to accept the game try, make the call that caters to the slam try. If it turns out to have been a mere game try, partner will sign off. If you assume a game try only and just bid game, partner will be stuck. IMO, this is one huge area of failing for many people.
It's even worse to be obliged to make a descriptive bid in reply to a game/slam try, on the off chance that partner has a slam try. The occasional gains on slam hands will never make up for the IMPs lost by helping the defence on all the hands where you are in a marginal game.
The answer, as I said in an earlier post, is for responder to accept the game try by making a bid which is economical but doesn't say anything about his hand. I'd be happy to bid 3S over 3D, as long as all that it says is "I'm accepting your game try".
That's true, but I solve the problem, in a sense, before the reply.
After a major is raised in a non-forcing sequence, I use 2NT as a "generic game try." Quantitative bash. 3NT only a possible end contract after a 2NT game try.
In contrast, suit-based game tries always force the partnership to declare the major (if game only) and are the usual start for slam sequences as well. In this scenario, we already have directed the defense, in a sense.
Now, I'll grant that in this specific scenario, we might not have told the defense whether to lead clubs or to lead spades. However, the opponents have had quite a bit of discussion themselves. It seems rather silly to not disclose what you have to partner in the context of the opponents already having exchanged information themselves. What, do you think that the opening lead might be a spade if Opener cannot show a spade control? I bet that card was hitting the table anyway, myself.