October 2006 - 62

Winsome & Loathsome
Tales of the Trail

Zeke Jabbour
jabbour@adelphia.net
The long one
Last month, utilizing a football
analogy, I described bridge as a game
of inches. We examined the rationale
governing invitations to game with
marginal hands after partner has
opened a 15-17 1NT. The margin
between inviting and not inviting can
be very narrow, often just inches.
The decision revolves largely around
8-point hands (or perhaps even fewer
points with a source of tricks).
The margin is wider when a major
suit is opened and raised, e.g.,
1 - Pass - 2 - Pass to you. There
can, in fact, be a goodly piece of
ground between action and inaction.
And if the choice is action, which
action becomes a decision of great
import. The answer is affected by
a variety of considerations. On
some hands, you may even fear that
venturing to the three level might
place you past the level of safety.
The form of scoring has some
influence. At IMPs, it behooves us
to be slightly more aggressive in
trying for game. However, the biggest
problem with game tries is that they
might pinpoint our weakness, guiding
the opponent's defense. The most
effective sequence is sometimes just
"one-two-four, say no more."
I have previously referred to the
invaluable surveys of experts conducted by Steve Robinson, whereby
62

he examines expert treatments of
non-exotic, everyday, run-of-the-mill
bridge questions. Steve asked his
expert panel what each would require
to make a game-try after partner had
raised his 1 opening to 2. The
consensus seemed to be that with upwards of 17 playing points, e.g., 15 or
more HCP and a singleton - slightly
less at IMPs - nearly all experts
would make a game-try.
But which game-try? The trick is
to discover if partner has the "right"
cards for game. In order to determine
how valuable that singleton might be,
some players play two-way (shortsuit and long-suit) game-tries. The
treatment is a useful one.
After 1 - 2, 2NT announces
a short suit somewhere and game
(or slam) aspirations. If your curious
partner wants to know where the stiff
is, he inquires with 3. Opener responds 3 to show short diamonds,
3 to show short hearts and 3 to
show short clubs. If partner has a
hand that would reject all short suit
game-tries, he can just sign off in
3. Conversely, he can jump directly
to game with a hand that would accept all short-suit game-tries. It
should be self-evident that if your suit
is hearts: 1 - Pass - 2 - Pass;
2 (rather than 2NT) is the way to
announce shortness somewhere (2NT
asks, and 3 shows short spades).
After 1 is raised to 2, any bid
other than 2NT is a long-suit game
try. Suppose opener held
A Q 7 6 5 A K 9 4 K 4 3 2
He has options; he could bid 3
to make a long-suit try or 2NT for
a short-suit try. In this case, I would
favor the long-suit try because it
might uncover a 4-4 heart fit that
is superior to the 5-3 spade fit.
For example, should partner hold
something like
K 8 2 Q 10 6 5 A 7 2 10 9 5,

assuming suits behave, we are oddson to make 12 tricks in hearts but
only 11 in spades. 4 making six
should be a fine matchpoint score.
On the other hand, identifying the
singleton will alert partner that, say,
his side suit of K-Q-6-5 is either pure
gold, or of very little use.
Probably the most widely used type
of game try is called the "help suit
game try." Say opener holds
A Q 10 7 6 7 A K 7 2 Q 8 5.
After 1 - Pass - 2 - Pass;
3 would instruct partner to look at
the club suit in his hand and decide
if he had help in that suit. If so, he
should bid a game. The bad news is
that it often pinpoints our weakness.
For that reason, some players do
not ask for help in a suit without
an honor. In addition, "help" has a
nebulous definition. By and large,
aces and kings are good help and
"slow" cards like queens and jacks,
are not. Shortness, i.e., a singleton or
a doubleton, is good, length without
strength, such as three or four low
cards, is not good.
Now, I don't like to complain,
but it's my job. I believe that when
we launch a river of descriptive
bids so complete that it would take
a gross failure of imagination for
the opponents not to find the best
defense, we have indulged in too
much science. Science is helpful
when it is helpful, but it often tells
the opponents more than we want
them to know. Without indicators,
opening leads are frequently hard
to choose and defense is, by nature,
difficult. Sometimes, when you're
in the red zone, it's right to conceal
information. Sometimes, particularly
vulnerable at IMPs, it's right to go for
the long bomb. (Note from Sharon:
"Here comes another interception.")
Sometimes, you should just sit up and
bid game (Sharon: "And here comes
another minus score.")
r
Bridge Bulletin
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2006
