[Fluffy]

♠K1098x
♥x
♦A8x
♣1098x


2NT-3♥
4♠*-??

4♠ shows control of every suit and 4 card spades

20=20-21 (no upgrades with 19)

EDIT: 3♥ is suposed to be GF, 3♠ would had shown fit and is suposed to be forcing, so no need to stretch to 4♠ with marignal hands.

[the hog]

I think "slam killer" is right. To be honest, I have no idea. I guess ctr means A or K. Well, I would probably pass.

[mohitz]

In my opinion, the key on this hand is to find out if partner has any wastage in hearts. If he doesn't, it seems like slam should have good play. And if he does, I am not sure we want to be in slam.

I will try 5♥ hoping he interprets it as showing shortness inviting slam.

There is another question of 5 level safety. Not sure how often we make the contract when partner rejects. But i guess we should be fine.

[jjbrr]

Ya this is just a crapshoot now. I'd pass and go plus.

[Winstonm]

Quote

4♠ shows control of every suit and 4 card spades

So at minimum pard has to hold spade A, heart K, diamond K, Club K.

AQ(J)x, KJx, KQ(J)x KQx ?

Can't find out enough information, like do we have 12 tricks even without 2 quick losers?

I pass.

[kenrexford]

The agreement to show four trumps and control in every suit is probably incomplete, I'm guessing. By restricting to no marginals, my guess is that there is at least some concept of assured cover card minimums, meaning that partner is not looking at a bunch of kings.

Thus, I'm assuming that the forced problem in diamonds (he must have the King) probably forces the heart control (and the club control) to be Aces.

Hence, I expect that definitionally partner has ♥A, ♦K, ♣A for his outer controls.

Now is when cover-card expectation specifics, and alternative-rejected inferences, kicks in. If the super-accept specifically used suggests six cover cards, for example, then I'd expect a need for three more covers from the remaining 9-10 HCP (8-9 HCP if too control-rich). If you toss in the two expected covers in spades (A-Q), you need one more, right? And, you'd have burned up already seven controls (A=2, K=1), which gives no room for another control unless partner is looking at specifically 4-3-3-3 shape, or assuredly no body (no 10's or 9's), that is if you play with a frequent upgrader.

The real question, now, is what partner's alternatives were. My assumption (because I don't know) is that lower calls as super-acceptances tend to be COV bids. If so, then you would tend to make a really low COV freely (because space exists to unwind cues) but to avoid COV with higher suits if an appealing alternative exists and to avoid COV if exactly one-under (because of deprived re-transfers, perhaps).

All of this suggests to me that the missing "cover" is likely a red Queen.

The unfortunate alternative is that the "sixth cover" is three Jacks and a doubleton (likely in clubs).

If I assume all of this to be true, then I think the slam prospects turn on both (1) whether the red Queen is the diamond (50% of the time it is the hearts, plus 50% of the time the finesse in hearts succeeds, plus a smidge for doubleton diamond from partner making the finesse unnecessary, minus a smidge for the Jack's everywhere, plus a smidge for the diamond finesse working) and (2) what partner's precise club count/contribution will be (need a dopubleton or the Jack or some funky play like tight honors doubleton caught in croc coup).

Plus, I need some way to explore these questions at the five-level, if there is a way.

[whereagles]

I don't remember the LTC average for a 20-22 NT opener, so I'm gonna pass this one thankyouverymuch

[blackshoe]

4-5, if I remember correctly.

[whereagles]

Ok, so that leaves us with 12-13 LTC, which means borderline between 5 and 6.

So bid on if you feel lucky or have the tools to tell 12 from 13 LTC losers

[Fluffy]

I tried 5♥ partner didn't quite understand but signed off in 5♠.

he had

♠AJxx
♥KQJ
♦Kx
♣AQxx


Defence started with a heart to the ace and a club back.

He went down, how would you have played it?

[Free]

I would pass, partner's ♥ control doesn't help much.

[aguahombre]

Just opening 2NT, as a rule, is enough of a slam killer. Of course this hand must be opened 2NT, but I see no need to further cram the bidding by jumping to 4S. It is not like we need to let partner know we have four of them in case there is competition, and the hand does not have more than 21 in support of spades.

Without that 4S jump, I doubt responder would have tried for some kind of magic slam.

[jdonn]

Is it just me or is 4♠ silly? This hand isn't anything special and in these methods 3♠ already shows a fit and is forcing. Why jump?

I think it's clear to try for slam on the problem hand, but I definitely anticipate something a bit better opposite.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Mar 22 2010, 12:38 PM, said:

Is it just me or is 4♠ silly? This hand isn't anything special and in these methods 3♠ already shows a fit and is forcing. Why jump?

I think it's clear to try for slam on the problem hand, but I definitely anticipate something a bit better opposite.

I agree, in the context of the methods, in which we were already committed to game (not a method I endorse, but I understand the attraction...I just don't hold good enough cards to use it). 4♠ should, imo, be reserved for slam interest...not merely a decent hand with 4 trump. Of course, these are not my methods so maybe I shouldn't make this comment.

As it is, I would never pass 4♠....I would bid 5♦...surely a 5♥ bid, unless we have expressly agreed that I bid shortness (and why would we...aren't fitting high cards at least as significant) is too speculative.

There are a myriad of hands that make slam very good....Axxx Axx KQxx Ax is only 17...and we have play.

Over 5♦ he has an easy 5♠, since he has already promised a heart control, he need not show a 2nd round control...now my hand has done all it can...I have made a try...told him where my Ace is...and can bid 5♠. If he held, for example, AQxx Kxx KQxx AK....or AQxx Kx KQJx AQ, he can go on...he has already shown a great hand and we have asked him, in essence....how great? We may still reach a failing contract, but 5♠ will rarely fail and any slam we reach should have a play.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on Mar 22 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

I tried 5♥ partner didn't quite understand but signed off in 5♠.

he had

♠AJxx
♥KQJ
♦Kx
♣AQxx


Defence started with a heart to the ace and a club back.

He went down, how would you have played it?

Finesse the queen. If that doesn't work, guess trumps.

If ♣Q wins, the only danger is 4-0 trumps. The safe way to cater for that is a diamond to the ace, then a spade from dummy, planning to put in the jack. If the jack loses to LHO's queen, I can't suffer a club ruff, because RHO still has the king.

[Fluffy]

♣Q doesn't hold, LHO plays a club and RHO plays ♣J

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on Mar 22 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

♣Q doesn't hold, LHO plays a club and RHO plays ♣J

I carefully examine the club spots, try to remember what heart they led, study each opponent's face for signs of nervousness, and then misguess the trump suit.

Am I missing some subtle point?

[Fluffy]

no not really, someone has ♠Qxx, its just a plain guess, partner gave up club finese, I wouldn't have done so, but didn't matter much.