[kgr]

Scoring: IMP

---

1♥-2♥
??
 
2♥=constructive 3-card raise, 7 good till 10 pts.
 
3♠ now would be shortage ♠ (singleton or void) and slem interest.

[helene_t]

I don't have a splinter (= small singleton) and I don't have slam interest either. So 4♠ it is.

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Nov 25 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

I don't have a splinter (= small singleton) and I don't have slam interest either. So 4♠ it is.

No slam interest?

Give partner ♠xxxx ♥KJx ♦Ax ♣Qxxx. If clubs split 3-2, you will expect to take three clubs, a club ruff, five hearts, the spade Ace, and two diamonds, for 12 tricks. Add in a fifth club, and we can handle hearts not coming in.

Of course, we are playing stupid short-suit tries, apparently, so I'm not sure how this is bid.

Personally, in my methods, I'd just bid 3♣. Partner with the proposed hand would bid 3NT, a "super-acceptance of the side suit," and we'd be off to the making 6♣ contract.

If SSGT/ST is used, maybe 2NT is a LSGT/ST relay? 2NT-P-3♣(where?)-P-3♠-P-3NT(super-accept) works, except that Opener is too strong, perhaps. Maybe Opener bids 3♠ with a HSGT or 3NT with a LSST when he has clubs, allowing Responder to bid 4♣ after 3NT to super-accept clubs? That would work.

[kgr]

2S would be a trial with S
2NT would ask and partner will bid 3C/D with medium hand and pts in C/D
3C/D would be 5/5

[gnasher]

Just bid game. The chance of slam is small - look how contrived Ken's example is - and the chance of actually establishing that slam is good is tiny. Against that, you have the significant risk that a descriptive bid will help them with the lead or the defence.

[andy_h]

4♥. Don't mess around.

[jdonn]

Slam interest? xx Kxx xx Axxxxx I suppose.

Um, no thanks. 4♥.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Nov 25 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

Give partner ♠xxxx ♥KJx ♦Ax ♣Qxxx. If clubs split 3-2, you will expect to take three clubs, a club ruff, five hearts, the spade Ace, and two diamonds, for 12 tricks.

You'll also go down when hearts are 4-1 and ♣A is in the same hand as the heart length. So, you go down most of the time that clubs are 4-1, just under half the time that hearts are 4-1, and all of them time that either suit is 5-0. That puts it in the low 50s opposite a near-perfect maximum.

Quote

Personally, in my methods, I'd just bid 3♣.  Partner with the proposed hand would bid 3NT, a "super-acceptance of the side suit," and we'd be off to the making 6♣ contract.

Would you be able to combine that with stopping in 4♥ opposite Kxxx Jxx Ax Qxxx?

[pooltuna]

[quote name='kgr' date='Nov 25 2009, 09:56 AM']

Scoring: IMP

♠	xxx
♥	Kxx
♦	xx
♣	AQxxx

---

and you are still at best 50%

There are too many LR hands where slam is iffy so you should be satisfied with game

[neilkaz]

Pooltuna's posted hand here has 3 trumps, is 5332 and shows no spots. Not to argue, but this 9 HCP is just a good constructive raise for me, but I would expect PD to have much more and the posted hand basically is a near perfecta.

So.. another 4♥ bidder.

[Phil]

4♥. Rarely we can make a slam here but its quite possible game may be in jeopardy with the wrong lead.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Nov 25 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 25 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

Give partner ♠xxxx ♥KJx ♦Ax ♣Qxxx.  If clubs split 3-2, you will expect to take three clubs, a club ruff, five hearts, the spade Ace, and two diamonds, for 12 tricks.

You'll also go down when hearts are 4-1 and ♣A is in the same hand as the heart length. So, you go down most of the time that clubs are 4-1, just under half the time that hearts are 4-1, and all of them time that either suit is 5-0. That puts it in the low 50s opposite a near-perfect maximum.

Quote

Personally, in my methods, I'd just bid 3♣.  Partner with the proposed hand would bid 3NT, a "super-acceptance of the side suit," and we'd be off to the making 6♣ contract.

Would you be able to combine that with stopping in 4♥ opposite Kxxx Jxx Ax Qxxx?

Yes, because ♠Kxxx ♥Jxx ♦Ax ♣Qxxx is not a super-acceptance hand. You have to have at least three cover cards, usually at least two of which are in hearts or clubs, plus a club fit. The definition of a "key card" is an internal Ace, King, or Queen, plus side Aces.

Plus, Opener can ask questions. He bids 4♣ when interested in a slam in the side suit (even if the side suit is not clubs) to "agree" the side suit and ask for clarification. Four of the agreed major means only three covers. Six of the minors means four covers (on some deals, Responder might have KQ in hearts and KQ in clubs). Or, Responder can bid a side King with three keys and a side King (on some deals, Responder might, for instance, have the KQ in clubs or hearts, the Q in the other, and the King of diamonds or spades).

I don't see why this is deemed so remote.

Responder has an expectation of three hearts (especially with Bergen in place), meaning that he has on average 3.33 cards (not exactly, but..) in each side suit. Having four clubs seems fairly common. Give him also three covers, and slam looks good.

He could also have a fifth club, which makes it really good.

Or, what about a simpler hand, like ♠xxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣AQxxx? Five clubs, five hearts, the spade Ace, and a spade ruff, plus diamonds protected. Just need hearts 3-2 and no surprises.

[aguahombre]

Would agree with all the 4H bidders, and I think Helene is really one of them

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Nov 25 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

Or, what about a simpler hand, like ♠xxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣AQxxx?  Five clubs, five hearts, the spade Ace, and a spade ruff, plus diamonds protected.  Just need hearts 3-2 and no surprises.

In hearts this is an odds-against slam. In clubs it's at best 50-50 on the right lead, which of course you have told your opponents what that is with your auction. Ken you do realize that there are downsides to telling the opponents about your hand every time that you only reach game anyway, right?

Edit: Typed lots of nonsense, then deleted it, then changed, then settled on the above.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 25 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 25 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

Or, what about a simpler hand, like ♠xxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣AQxxx?  Five clubs, five hearts, the spade Ace, and a spade ruff, plus diamonds protected.  Just need hearts 3-2 and no surprises.

In hearts this is an odds-against slam. In clubs it's at best 50-50 on the right lead, which of course you have told your opponents what that is with your auction. Ken you do realize that there are downsides to telling the opponents about your hand every time that you only reach game anyway, right?

Edit: Typed lots of nonsense, then deleted it, then changed, then settled on the above.

As to the slam being odds-against in hearts. Exactly. That's why the entire structure kicks into the other suit. 3NT super-accepts the other suit, and 4♣ over that, as an asking bid, re-focuses to the other suit for slam purposes, taking advantage of the late-discovered alternative strain. You only go back to the major if slam is rejected (and get your MP advantage back).

But, as to the club slam being at best 50-50. What?!?!? Give me any lead. I win. I pull trumps. If trumps are not 4-0, I then run the hearts, ditching two diamonds from dummy. I play the spade Ace. I concede a diamond (for fun) and claim on the cross-ruff at the end. Needing clubs to split 3-1 at worst and hearts to come in is not that bad. Plus, if clubs DO split 4-0 or hearts split 5-1, I can THEN fall back on the diamond finesse. I'd say that 6♣ is probably a huge favorite, on any lead. Heck, on a diamond lead I just claim, just about. Actually, on any lead but a diamond I make 7 if clubs split 2-2.

As to telling the opponents about my hand. Responder's announcement is hardly a problem. When Responder can make the super-acceptance, the slam is almost assuredly on. So, the question then is whether the announcement of a club suit costs.

Well, as the club slam makes when Responder has a super-acceptance but Opener has only a game invite, then the real question is whether game invites make sense. I think they do, in the long run, especially if you have the fringe benefit of occasionally finding slams also.

But, of course there is a downside to advertising hands. This is why on many occasions I use things like just blasting to game or 2NT as a "random game try." But, with this actual hand, the fair likelihood of a slam materializing seems worth the risk, especially as there is no clear lead that seems threatening.

Finally -- the nonsense you ended up with was bad. I wish I had seen the first version!!! LOL

[P_Marlowe]

Move the Ace of spades to another suit, and a splinter is sensible,
with the given hand I think 4H is enough.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

In fairness to my nonsense, I was thinking of the club slam being played from the other side. I still think you are making a mistake but I'll shut up.

[Jlall]

4H

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 25 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

In fairness to my nonsense, I was thinking of the club slam being played from the other side. I still think you are making a mistake but I'll shut up.

I hate when a good debate stops so abruptly, especially under the circumstances of the other person getting confused.

I think we can both agree that a club slam is a good bet whenever Responder has three cover cards (of the four missing -- trump King, diamond Ace, club Ace, club Queen) and some depth (heart Jack, fifth club).

I think we can both agree that Responder can safely explore that idea if 3NT as a super-accept of clubs shows three covers (or more).

So, the entire question as to "mistake" would be whether a 3♣ call from Opener risks more than it possibly gains, right?

But, with Opener's precise holding, what is the fear? This seems like the type of hand where the defense really can't gain that much from disclosure. I mean, sure. You might not get a juicy "throw me in the briar patch" underlead of Qxxx in clubs by LHO. But, is there really that much risk here?

If the opponents have a good spade sacrifice, for instance, then we may well have a slam to bid, because then partner's cards get forced toward clubs anyway.

[jdonn]

To the point about what slam needs to be good, I agree. But let's at least note that many combinations of those cards, and most actual hands that have 3 of those cards, make responder too good for a constructive raise.

To your point about bidding 3NT, I don't play 3NT that way. I don't think anyone here but you plays 3NT that way. And the ability to do that is not a discussion I'm very interested in having. You did use that key word "if". Not to mention I am far from convinced responder won't push hard on slightly worse hands, although I shudder at the thought of your post that tries to convince me that won't happen.

To point about what could be lost, lots! In approximate order of likelihood, here is just what I can think of off my head:
- On the second/third/fourth round of trumps in 4♥ LHO may have discards to make. It's much much easier when he knows our side suit than when he doesn't know it or doesn't even know we have one. Imagine he may cling faithfully to some perceived spade stopper if we don't tell him our hand!
- LHO might have been about to lead a club from the queen and now won't.
- LHO might have clubs locked up and now know to lead a trump against 4♥.
There are also more obscure ways to lose. We might show a club fit but reach a heart slam and LHO could lead from club length with either the ace of clubs or king of hearts, paving the way to a ruff. Things like that.

And how about the next time you play these opponents and bid 1♥ 2♥ 4♥. If they are astute they can eliminate this approximate shape and strength of hand from your possible holdings and have an easier time defending. And that is a big deal since it applies to you holding any suit suit, not just clubs.

So yes, there is lots of risk here.