[jillybean]

---

Given the restrictions, is there any possible improvement ?

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2026-January-29, 21:14, said:

---

Givem the restrictions, is there any possible improvement ?

I think South is good enough for a three card limit raise so start with XX

If not, then easily worth a constructive raise so start with an artificial 2H

North has an easy game raise

[mw64ahw]

Both underbid just calculate your modified losers.
South is worth a 3-card limit raise and I'd bid 4♠ opposite a simple raise with the North hand.

Also may be better to use Kokish 3-way game tries and ask for trump help.
2N: reverse help suit try
3♣: asks for trump honours
Higher: splinter, don't bid 3♠ as a ♣ splinter when to you want to force to game.

After 3♣
3♦ none or Ace, 3♥ asks
3♥ K
3♠ Q
With 2 honours you can control bid in case opener has a slam going hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

South has a max, why does he not accept?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

I would rebid 4♠ as North. South did well to judge the value of their hand despite the low LTC and high HCP.

My personal style has been to reduce the number of game tries I use. The mathematics is firmly against invitational sequences. Computer simulations agree. And my experience does too, especially in a strong field where every leaked bit of information matters. I think making an invitational bid with the North hand is a decision that loses more than it gains, and I would jump to game instead for a number of reasons. I'll list the main one a bit further down.
This last part is very much subject to partnership agreement. Many people love their invitational sequences. My take is that this is demonstrably wasteful, and that these sequences are often misunderstood. In a more invite-welcoming environment I could well see the North hand being worth exactly an invite. However, I think 3♣ isn't a great description of the hand, and it puts South on the wrong foot. North doesn't exactly need help in clubs, and red suit values do pull their weight. This makes it difficult for South to guess right. A 5-5 with some quick tricks is difficult to describe below the 3♠-level. For an invitation to win partner has to successfully diagnose that we do not have game, and I think the 3♣ bid does not give partner enough information to get that decision right a sufficient fraction of the time.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

4S direct is certainly ok, but South has shortage, has max HCP,
I would accept.

But than again, i rarely invite, I just bid it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2026-January-29, 21:14, said:

---

Givem the restrictions, is there any possible improvement ?

When did single raise over a double stop being obstructive?

[Cyberyeti]

bluenikki, on 2026-January-30, 05:58, said:

When did single raise over a double stop being obstructive?

We play 1M-X-1N as a good raise, does anybody else do this ?

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-January-30, 06:05, said:

We play 1M-X-1N as a good raise, does anybody else do this ?

I put the good limit raises through a 2/1 GI

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2026-January-30, 06:25, said:

I put the good limit raises through a 2/1 GI

I wouldn't say this hand was GI, it's just a good raise to 2, it's just not 13 cards 3 of which are spades

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-January-29, 21:38, said:

I think South is good enough for a three card limit raise so start with XX

If not, then easily worth a constructive raise so start with an artificial 2H

North has an easy game raise

mw64ahw, on 2026-January-29, 21:45, said:

Both underbid just calculate your modified losers.
South is worth a 3-card limit raise and I'd bid 4♠ opposite a simple raise with the North hand.

Also may be better to use Kokish 3-way game tries and ask for trump help.
2N: reverse help suit try
3♣: asks for trump honours
Higher: splinter, don't bid 3♠ as a ♣ splinter when to you want to force to game.

After 3♣
3♦ none or Ace, 3♥ asks
3♥ K
3♠ Q
With 2 honours you can control bid in case opener has a slam going hand.

Unfortunately, none of these are available for this partnership who are learning hand evaluation and using minimal systems.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2026-January-30, 01:16, said:

I would rebid 4♠ as North. South did well to judge the value of their hand despite the low LTC and high HCP.

My personal style has been to reduce the number of game tries I use. The mathematics is firmly against invitational sequences. Computer simulations agree. And my experience does too, especially in a strong field where every leaked bit of information matters. I think making an invitational bid with the North hand is a decision that loses more than it gains, and I would jump to game instead for a number of reasons. I'll list the main one a bit further down.
This last part is very much subject to partnership agreement. Many people love their invitational sequences. My take is that this is demonstrably wasteful, and that these sequences are often misunderstood. In a more invite-welcoming environment I could well see the North hand being worth exactly an invite. However, I think 3♣ isn't a great description of the hand, and it puts South on the wrong foot. North doesn't exactly need help in clubs, and red suit values do pull their weight. This makes it difficult for South to guess right. A 5-5 with some quick tricks is difficult to describe below the 3♠-level. For an invitation to win partner has to successfully diagnose that we do not have game, and I think the 3♣ bid does not give partner enough information to get that decision right a sufficient fraction of the time.

As North, I could have done better. Second suit, clubs, was the only game try available but I'm hearing GT are over used anyway.
This obviously leaves a "game try", followed by game after a sign off was a mild slam try.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-January-30, 07:04, said:

As North, I could have done better. Second suit, clubs, was the only game try available but I'm hearing GT are over used anyway.

Even those of us who do have some faith in game tries would not use those clubs. If you don't have a suitable suit then just decide seat of pants, here that means go for it.

 jillybean, on 2026-January-30, 07:04, said:

This obviously leaves a "game try", followed by game after a sign off was a mild slam try.

That is logical, but not always true IME. I had one partner who would invariably bid game anyway after my negative response to his trial He usually turned out to have a very heavy invite or even clear game. I could never figure it out but I imagine it was an attempt to take out insurance against blame.

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-January-30, 06:50, said:

I wouldn't say this hand was GI, it's just a good raise to 2, it's just not 13 cards 3 of which are spades

The theory is this hand should be OK to play against a balanced minimum at the 3-level and if opener has a touch more than a minimum you should go for 4. Maybe use the term invitational rather than game invitational given the hcp count, but in practice you are inviting game.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-January-30, 07:38, said:

Even those of us who do have some faith in game tries would not use those clubs. If you don't have a suitable suit then just decide seat of pants, here that means go for it.

I think J high made me a little queasy

[jillybean]

So, if my game tries are bid game and try to make it, partner who had a max raise may be tempted to make a mild slam try.
How to we balance this when we have limited our more descriptive game tries?

[Cyberyeti]

Do you really want to be in game on this hand ? probably just about yes, but without the 10♣ it's not good

I wouldn't worry too much in this particular case, but the issues discussed are valid in others.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-January-30, 10:20, said:

Do you really want to be in game on this hand ? probably just about yes, but without the 10♣ it's not good

I wouldn't worry too much in this particular case, but the issues discussed are valid in others.

On this hand, I did want to be in game - everyone else bid game
This is a hand where perhaps we both could have done more, I'm not too worried but the discussion is helpful and interesting.

[DavidKok]

 jillybean, on 2026-January-30, 10:15, said:

So, if my game tries are bid game and try to make it, partner who had a max raise may be tempted to make a mild slam try.
How to we balance this when we have limited our more descriptive game tries?

If you bid game, that is not a slam try. Partner is not invited to act again.

If anything, reducing or eliminating game tries gives you more room for slam investigation, not less.

Also to be clear, I think it is wise to treat 'should I make a game try on this hand', 'should that game try be 3♣' and 'should my system have game tries at all' as three separate questions. There is a parallel ongoing discussion on that other site about 1NT where people are not succeeding at splitting analogous questions.

[jillybean]

Bidding game shows this is maximum for my bid. Then with any sort of ambition of slam, opener is making an another move, game try, cue bid, however you play it.

The game try here should not have been 3C but that is all that was available.

Should we have game tries at all? Interesting discussion

I’ll check out the other site