[FrancesHinden]

Rebound, on Jan 8 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

If I may interject, I totally fail to see the purpose of transferring to clubs then bidding hearts. I have always thought that on a hand where you have slam interest, it is best to keep the bidding low unless the alternative gives a lot of extra information to partner.

The purpose is not to lie about your suit lengths. Opposite 3-3 in the rounded suits you'd rather play slam in clubs than in hearts. Suppose partner has

AKxx
Qxx
Kxx
Kxx

Then neither slam is a real joy, but 6C is much better. 6H needs trumps 3-2 and no club ruff and you to find the CJ, while 6C also needs you to find the CJ together with not four hearts and the ace of clubs and (trumps 2-2 or hearts 3-2).

The idea is that if you have an 8-card heart fit and a 9-card club fit, you have a chance of avoiding a 4-th round heart loser by playing in clubs, but whatever suit you play in you won't be avoiding your possible club losers.

(you may gather I feel quite strongly that telling partner your shape and allowing him to evaluate whether he has good cards or bad cards is the correct approach, rather than lying about your hand and then guessing the final contract)

[awm]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 8 2006, 04:44 PM, said:

The purpose is not to lie about your suit lengths.  Opposite 3-3 in the rounded suits you'd rather play slam in clubs than in hearts. Suppose partner has

AKxx
Qxx
Kxx
Kxx

Then neither slam is a real joy, but 6C is much better. 6H needs trumps 3-2 and no club ruff and you to find the CJ, while 6C also needs you to find the CJ together with not four hearts and the ace of clubs and (trumps 2-2 or hearts 3-2).

The idea is that if you have an 8-card heart fit and a 9-card club fit, you have a chance of avoiding a 4-th round heart loser by playing in clubs, but whatever suit you play in you won't be avoiding your possible club losers.

(you may gather I feel quite strongly that telling partner your shape and allowing him to evaluate whether he has good cards or bad cards is the correct approach, rather than lying about your hand and then guessing the final contract)

In fact neither slam is particularly playable, since you are off the ♦A and the ♣A. Of course, perhaps the opponents make the wrong lead and allow you to throw diamonds on the spades, but this is a rather poor bet to base a slam bid on (not to mention the need to play clubs for one loser, which is likely but not guaranteed).

On the hand you gave, even 4♥ and 5♣ are not totally safe (although I'd rather be there than not of course).

By "bidding out your relative suit lengths" you are forcing partner to make a decision at the level of 4♥ more often than not. Partner has no idea that he really has to pass 4♥ with:

AKxx
Qxx
Kxx
Kxx

But that there is pretty good play for slam if he holds:

Kxx
Qxx
AKxx
Kxx

And slam is excellent if he holds:

Jxxx
Qxx
AKx
AJx

But we really need to stop in 4♥ if he holds:

AKxx
Qxxx
Jxx
AJ

Anyways, my point is that the relative pointed suit lengths (void in spades, two diamonds) are more likely to impact the slam decision than the presence of the sixth club. By showing a hand with five-five in the round suits, I can keep the auction a level lower to allow both sides to cuebid controls and still stop in 4♥ when it is right.