Posted 2012-September-12, 17:29
I fault S almost entirely.
I accept the auction to 3♦, altho I see 4♦ rather than 2♠ as acceptable as an alternative.
I fail to see the attraction to 4♥. I don't like it as a void and even less as the partnership meaning of could be a stiff. Given the methods available, N was now endplayed in the bidding. I don't like 4N, but I suspect that N didn't like it either and chose it because he had to either bid 5♦ or keycard, and he (reasonably, imo) read more into S's slam try than was warranted...he assumed 1st or second round control in both blacks.
As for S, he had no reason to bid 4♥ given his club holding. Wtf was wrong with 3♠? Doesn't it both show the spade A (which 2N didn't even imply) while, and this is the key, allowing N the chance to bid the club control that S definitely knew would be important?
I can see an argument that N should devalue his hand opposite short hearts, but that is too conservative even for me.....surely opener understood that AKxx in spades had become less, not more, valuable on the auction? There was no chance that the xx could ever 'grow up'...of course they can be ruffed but they won't ever find combining honours across the table, as was possible when the auction began. And while I love slam tries, the splinter should show a 'useful' minimum (or better, according to style) and not just 'any hand with shortness'. It is, after all, a try for slam! When we have an alternate try that is far cheaper and that gets out of partner's way in the auction, it is very bad to splinter with a piece of crap.
one last note: as I have stated before, my view, for what it's worth, is that one's first cue should not be shortness unless unavoidable, hence 3♠ rather than 3♥.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
