[Phil]

IMPs, short matches, all vul

7xx, ATxx, J9x, KTx

1♠ - 2♠;
4♥ (s/v) - ?

Thanks

[kfay]

No

On the other hand I have basically a slam force if my ace is elsewhere

How can you call the ♥A a big card on this hand? It sucks! Did opener bid 4♦?

[gwnn]

AKQxx
x
ATxx
AQx

is a great slam. Not sure if my example is contrived. It is possibly. I did give him a singleton heart but I didn't give him more than 5 spades. Anyway, sign me up for 5C.

[jdonn]

Definitely 4♠. We are balanced, the trumps are awful, and the ace of hearts is not in the right suit.

Gwnn I'm not sure that slam is as great as you think it is. But move a diamond to spades and it's great (even then only about 2/3 believe it or not, though perhaps better in practice since you could get a king of diamonds lead if they are both off.) Hmm maybe that means I'm supposed to cuebid after all. Ehhh....

[gwnn]

OK I bid 4S.

[Cascade]

This illustrates why some sort of combination of short suit tries and jumps showing a void and slam interest is better. That way you can make a short suit game try and later show slam interest with a singleton.

With the methods described I would think that 4♥ will deliver a void too often for our minimum to be worth a move.

[Siegmund]

The good news is we have a shot at making 4S.

I can't imagine accepting a slam try, any slam try, with 4333 and only two working face cards, after 1M-2M. That's the definition of (almost-sub-)minimum; if partner splintered with 4C opposite these cards, I would be expecting to go down in 4S.

[whereagles]

I would try 5♥. If pard doesn't like that, he can go back to hand evaluation 101.

[Phil]

I was wound up and took a call. I need to curb these tendencies.

I was a little surprised at partner's KJ9xx x AKQ AQxx - 4♥ seems aggressive too. The 5 level was unforgiving, and we were both a little steamed at my LHO's antics holding Txx as he hitched on the 2nd round.

[whereagles]

well, you could have had ♠AQ ♣K no?

still, opener does need that magic hand opposite and the splinter is probably not the best way to find it.

[Phil]

whereagles, on Jul 2 2010, 09:23 AM, said:

well, you could have had ♠AQ ♣K no?

still, opener does need that magic hand opposite and the splinter is probably not the best way to find it.

I think there are other approaches to slam lower than 4♥. I will cooperate with a maximum.

[gnasher]

I think he should bid 3♣ if he's going to make a try. He wants you to focus specifically on clubs, wherease the splinter implies that either club or diamond honours will be useful. Look at how much better it is to hold Axx Axxx xxx J10x than Axx Axxx J10x xxx.

I don't think he should make a slam try though - it needs a perfect maximum to get it into the 60-70% zone, and I can't think of any hand that makes it cold.

[whereagles]

It's unlucky the 5 level goes down, but if it goes, say...

1♠ 2♠
3♣ 4♣
etc..

now it will be hard for opener not to ask for keycards. Curtains.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Jul 2 2010, 12:51 PM, said:

It's unlucky the 5 level goes down, but if it goes, say...

1♠ 2♠
3♣ 4♣
etc..

now it will be hard for opener not to ask for keycards. Curtains.

Lol no it won't. He bids 4♦. You bid 4♥. He has shown his slam try and that's all he has so he can bid 4♠, after all he could have an ace more. Then we have shown our A and K, it wasn't enough for partner to go on his own, and we are balanced with xxx of trumps so we have an easy pass. See bidding is easy if the players consult each other...

Wait a second why are we raising to 4♣ anyway, that should show support in case we belong in the 4-4 fit.

While I'm at it, why is it unlucky that the 5 level goes down? It's almost expected, not just in trumps but the 4th club could easily be a loser.

[MFA]

4♥ is way too optimistic. Responder needs specifically ♣K+♠Q+1A. And still there is a problem with the fourth club and if spades are 4-1.

I would sign off after 4♥. Opener will have a void a significant percentage of the time. Simply because it takes a very strong hand to have a slam try with a singleton, and those hands are rare.