[Jlall]

I think I like the gnasher way and the jdonn way...if that makes sense.

In fact I think it is very important to bid 3S any time you have 4 spades and a stiff in a competitive auction, gnasher calls this preemptive but it's also very descriptive for finding good saves or even light makes or double game swings. It is easily possible after 1m (1H) 1S (2H) 2S (4H) that partner passes on double game swing hands when you have like Kxxx x xxx AKxxx. Of course you could just bid 4S yourself after bidding 2S, but that's a little ridiculous too and very unilateral.

This means you can play 3H specifically as gnasher says so you have a bid with your power hands, or you can play 3H as jdonn suggests (possibly GF with the minor, possibly balanced 18 no stopper without 3 spades) combined with possibly a power raise to game. This means you have to overbid a bit with 18 balanced, or even 5422 17 and get to game, but it's not a big deal given that partner has already guaranteed 5 trumps. This will also make it hard to distinguish between a normal real GF raises which can be a loss (no big deal if partner bids 3S or 3N, you can bid 4H or 4S accordingly, but a bigger deal if partner bids something else).

Anyways thats how I prefer to play it, as I view especially GF club 1 suiters as a significant enough hand type to warrant having a bid for it. I play this with 4S also being "preemptive" as gnasher might call it.

This still applies for me for 1m 1H X 2H, even though forcing to game with marginal values is worse now, imo the negative double promises more strength than responding 1S over 1m p, so again you should be fine (see another thread where I said my 1 level negative Xs are sounder than most).

Also I am assuming support doubles in this post since "everyone" plays them here in USA.

[kfay]

I had a misunderstanding on this auction when playing with Mr. Daday.

We got to a 12.5% slam and went down... I'd intended 3♥ as a strength GT. Anyway, I'll be happy to read what others think.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jul 20 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

I think I like the gnasher way and the jdonn way...if that makes sense.

You can have all of that and more too, if you don't mind losing a natural 2NT:

2NT = clubs, competitive or game-forcing
3♣ = diamonds, competitive or game-forcing
3♦ = diamonds, invitational
3♥ = strong spade raise
3♠ = weak spade raise

The game-force with solid diamonds and no heart stop bids 3♣ followed by 3♥.

Of course, that creates another problem for 18-19 balanced without three spades.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-July-20, 16:17

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

Obviously not?!

Of course not, it was a rhetorical question. All the theory in this thread is very nice, but poor partner is totally endplayed in the auction after a jump to 4♥ if he has my example hand or something like it that makes a slam. He's going to scatter the missing honors and most of the ways to deal them involve dealing you a club honor and not one of the pointed suit honors (in fact, assuming he holds my example hand, you hold the only way to hold 5 of the 7 missing non-jack honors -- ♠AQ, ♦AKQ, ♣KQ that makes slam good).

That's why I'm opting for cheaper, but admittedly more ambiguous 3♥ call.

[jdonn]

xcurt, on Jul 20 2009, 09:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

Obviously not?!

Of course not, it was a rhetorical question. All the theory in this thread is very nice, but poor partner is totally endplayed in the auction after a jump to 4♥ if he has my example hand or something like it that makes a slam. He's going to scatter the missing honors and most of the ways to deal them involve dealing you a club honor and not one of the pointed suit honors (in fact, assuming he holds my example hand, you hold the only way to hold 5 of the 7 missing non-jack honors -- ♠AQ, ♦AKQ, ♣KQ that makes slam good).

That's why I'm opting for cheaper, but admittedly more ambiguous 3♥ call.

He is only endplayed if he lacks bidding judgment. This is far from the only hand that makes slam good with only 5 of the 7 missing cards queen or higher opposite Kxxxx Jxx Jxx Ax.
AJxx x AKTxx KQx is perfectly good.
AQxx x Axxx KQJx looks fine to me.
AQxx - AQTxxx xxx is on a finesse if they lead a club, virtually cold if they don't. Oh yeah, that's only four of those cards. Hmmm...
(Btw, the heart ace is a missing non-jack honor that matters and that we could hold)

Second btw. Why do you claim that essentially we have the fewest possible perfect cards and partner can't play us for them, then use as your example the hand for partner with the fewest possible perfect cards?

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 10:53 PM, said:

AJxx x AKTxx KQx
AQxx x Axxx KQJx
AQxx - AQTxxx xxx

1. Not without the ♦J (which I just put in the responding hand to avoid someone complaining about me assuming 3-2 diamonds, which is much more likely than 2-2 trumps, vide supra).
2. They cash the ♥A and switch to trump, you need 2-2 trumps someone to have 34 in the blacks.
3. I wouldn't include a hand with a void, I would assume partner or the opponents bidding more strongly, or both.

The opening hand here is a much better slamming hand than all of those, which need various secondary stuff. There was a thread a while back (don't ask me to find it right now) where we went through some percentages of slam making facing various hands, and most of the time, the various rare bad things add up to a significant drag on your chances of making, single dummy. Against that, you usually have declarer's advantage, but this hand won't be that difficult to defend, since they rate to cash their fast winner at trick 1 and can shift to trumps, or to try to cash a club, or to get out safely, as needed.

You also left out that all of these need trumps not 4-0 (9.6% in a vacuum), although I admit with the opponents not contesting the auction very much so far it's likely that the breaks won't be that bad.