[affe82]

MPs.

2♣=GF or 20-21 balanced
2♦=not one suited positive (at least HHxxx)
2N=20-21
3♦=5+♥
3♥=at least Hxx support
3N=5♥, cog
4♦=cue bid

---

So we denied a good suit and a positive response asking pd with 20-21 balanced to choose game, he is still slamming
How close is our decision and what do we do?

[Fluffy]

slam is hopeless against ♥AKQx ♦AKQx ♣Q, and minor improvements only make it 50-55%. If you really think 4♦ is a cue you must sing off. If on the contrary it shows a source of tricks then yummi!, we have a monster.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-01, 05:48, said:

slam is hopeless against ♥AKQx ♦AKQx ♣Q, and minor improvements only make it 50-55%. If you really think 4♦ is a cue you must sing off. If on the contrary it shows a source of tricks then yummi!, we have a monster.

Well a minor improvement like J♦ may make it cold (xxx, AKQx, AKQJ, Qx).

I'd be signing off, I don't think slam is that likely to be 60% although it may make.

Did partner have any other options with heart support ? we know he has at least Hxx, but does he have other bids available with much more ? my worry is something like Kxx, AKxxx, AKx, Qx + any of J♣/Q♠/Q♦.

[dake50]

So we denied a good suit and a positive response asking
pd with 20-21 balanced to choose game, he is still slamming
How close is our decision and what do we do?
***
Not chasing this 21+8 slam. 4H.
Would Q-bid 4D if S-Kxx switched to D-Kxx,
below game, not promising the world.

[Free]

My first 2 thoughts:
- we have 2 balanced hands and lack lots of HCP strength
- for all we know, RHO may lead a ♣ through our K (because partner already denied a ♣ cue) and we'll lose ♣AQ from the start

Easy signoff, I would've bid 4♥ the previous round if possible btw.

[mikeh]

Another hand on which thinking of bidding is an overbid.

Yes, we can construct hands on which slam is good.

There are all kinds of issues, including whether partner denies the club A, which he would for me, but if 4♦ is intended to be a source of tricks, maybe he doesn't.

But the main point, imo, is that you are misinterpreting the slammish nature of 4♦.

He isn't 'slamming'. He is catering to your having a maximum 3N call....a hand just short of an invitational 4N....in which case he wants to show a willingness to go slamming.

After all, opposite a balanced 20-21, a hand such as Ax KJxxx Qxx xxx shouldn't invite slam, yet opposite the right prime values, slam might be great.....Kxx AQx AKJxx Kx slam is wonderful.

Otoh, you don't have certain 5 level safety nor can you be sure that you can stop in 5 even if it is safe....you may end up at the 5-level still guessing about slam. So you have at least 2 ways to lose by bidding on.....down at the 5 level or down in slam, with only one way to win...reaching and making a slam.

While sometimes one has to take a chance on 5-level safety, imo this should only be done when we think both that slam is a really good possibility and that we can, by risking the 5-level, find out if it is or isn't. I don't see how we can think either let alone both.

If you read 4♦ as a form of 'courtesy' cuebid, in case you have a max for your bidding, then while the semantic difference may seem slight, it will, I hope, suffice to keep you from overbidding.

Of course, if you followed my thinking, you probably missed a decent slam, hence the post

[SteveMoe]

3N is somehwat slam negative. Would partner open 2♣ holding something like: ♠KQ ♥AQ3 ♦AK10972 ♣Q2. Do you want to be in a slam that is at best on a finesse?

For the time being, partner might be catering to us having a 10-11 HCP max so I will be content to bid 4♥. If however we can be sure partner has to be at least ♠K2 ♥AK3 ♦AKQ1097 ♣Q2 then we can bid 4♠ with a clear conscience. I think this should be the case, after our 3N offer. We need partner to hold 7 controls.

We could be off 2 top tricks if partner doesn't have the ♣Q: ♠K2 ♥AKQ ♦AKQ1097 ♣72 - here at worst a 50% slam.

[Phil]

FWIW, I think 4♣ is more than a cue bid. Its a source of tricks, since generally when there are two balanced hands with points substantially short of slam zone, you needs a double fit.

[JLOGIC]

So with a source of tricks in spades you do what?

[quiddity]

I've never heard this sequence before. What kind of hand fails to super-accept on the previous round but now tries for slam?
edit: oops, I didn't see that 3H promised a fit.

[gnasher]

As 3♥ showed a fit, a choice-of-games 3NT must be a notrump-oriented 5332, rather than just a random hand with five hearts.

That suggests that responder has secondary honours or poor trumps. Opposite such a hand, slam will need more than just good controls - opener is going to have to provide some long-suit tricks too. Hence I think 4♦ should imply a strong side-suit. It seems natural to assume the opener will bid his side-suit, but maybe that's not necessary - 4♦ could just say "I have a source of tricks somewhere, and this is my lowest control."

In the context of what we've shown, the responding hand is quite suitable. However, slam is unlikely to be good, because our trumps probably aren't solid. Opposite something like Kxx AKx AKQxx Qx or KQJxx AKx AKx Jx slam is against the odds. I'd sign off, but if ♥J were the queen I'd cooperate.

mikeh said:

After all, opposite a balanced 20-21, a hand such as Ax KJxxx Qxx xxx shouldn't invite slam

I don't usually find myself disagreeing with Mike, so this surprised me somewhat. Once we hear of a heart fit, I think that hand is clearly worth a 3♠ cue-bid (assuming that's what it means). Cue-bidding doesn't commit us to slam - it just alerts partner to the possibility, and gives him a chance to say what he thinks of the idea. I would bid 3♠ and then sign off (even opposite a serious try), allowing opener to take control if he has the right hand-type.

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-02, 00:51, said:

So with a source of tricks in spades you do what?

Well you can't have everything

Or you might re-engineer some of the earlier calls.

[quiddity]

edit: nm, I failed to read the OP