[Phil]

Timo had this hand earlier in the evening:

---

How can this awful slam be avoided?

[quiddity]

Do you play serious/non-serious 3NT? If 3H can include nice 14-counts then responder's hand is non-serious.

[lalldonn]

It seems hard to avoid reasonably. I think slam being as bad as it is, is a bit unlucky. You could easily move honors or small cards around to make it better. For example, make east Qx xxxx AKQx ATx instead, or west AJx AKQTxx xx xx.

How bad is slam anyway. On simple analysis you need the diamond finesse, then either 3-3 diamonds or the spade finesse. That feels better than 1/3 already, with extra chances like JT doubleton of diamonds, or bad leads like club queen from QJ or spade from the king. I bet it would make at least 40% of the time. Not that good but hardly awful.

[Phil]

Yes, its an interesting play problem on a club lead.

At the table LHO falsecarded a lead (he was running on high tilt) from ♦JTx by leading the T. Would have been hilarious to duck this but the Q was played.

[inquiry]

Over 4♣, west might bid 4♦ (last train to clarksville) to show a spade control, but not enough to take control.

East with a diamond control will have to decide if he did enough with 2nt followed by 4♣ or not. IF he thinks 4♣ has shown extra values above the 2nt bid, and thus he has already shown his true values, he could bid 4♥. If he thinks he has undisclosed values, he could take some other call. The answer to this question might revolve around the question of rather or not 4♣ showed extras (the serious discussion already in the thread).

On the auction at the table, once west cuebids 4♠ instead of using last train (BOTH 4♦ and 4♠ shows spade control, but 4♠ shows a better hand than using last train, btw), you seem destined to bid the slam.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

When Opener replies 3H showing "extras" and no shortness, isn't that in itself showing "Serious" intentions toward slam ?
But, does West really have a 3H rebid ( showing 16+ hcp )?
Perhaps 3NT would better show his values ( a good 14-15 hcp , no shortness ).....

Based on "bean counting" and no shortness anywhere, East may not be so anxious to explore slam.

[Siegmund]

On the actual auction, I would think that East denied a spade control by bypassing 3S and West denied a diamond control by bypassing 4D. If two kings are missing and there isn't a club suit to run for pitches, we don't want to be in slam, even if the hearts are solid. Why are we feeling enthusiastic at all about a slam after the first round of cuebids?

Admittedly it'd be easier with firmer agreements around 3S/3N/4C.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

your side commited to slam, with openers 4S bid, I think opener
should not bypass 4H, he already showed add. values, and thats
it.

Of course the missing spade control may all partner may need for
slam, but if responder has enough he may bid.

This is always easier said as done.

And sometimes 30% slams make, and the slam seemed to be better.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

lalldonn, on 2012-April-07, 12:03, said:

It seems hard to avoid reasonably. I think slam being as bad as it is, is a bit unlucky. You could easily move honors or small cards around to make it better. For example, make east Qx xxxx AKQx ATx instead, or west AJx AKQTxx xx xx.

Those hands are both significantly better than the original versions, and neither change makes the slam cold. We could also make slam worse by changing West's hand to AJ AKQ10xxx xx xxx.

On the original deal, both players knew that they had strength in their short suits, so if anything I think your examples suggest that one or both players overbid slightly.

Quote

How bad is slam anyway. On simple analysis you need the diamond finesse, then either 3-3 diamonds or the spade finesse. That feels better than 1/3 already, with extra chances like JT doubleton of diamonds, or bad leads like club queen from QJ or spade from the king. I bet it would make at least 40% of the time. Not that good but hardly awful.

On a non-club lead you would also make with the diamond wrong but everything else right.

[gnasher]

I don't think we can answer Phil's question without knowing the partnership's agreements about serious/non-serious 3NT and Last Train.

If 4♣ was non-serious, West shouldn't have gone beyond 4♥ - that's what he'd do with a 6322 18-count. If 4♦ would have been Last Train, presumably West should have bid that, showing his spade control.

If 4♣ was serious, I think it was a slight overvaluation - it may be a 15-count, but the ♣AK10 aren't so great when they're probably opposite a 2- or 3-card suit. I think this hand is a non-serious try, then a slam drive if opener shows interest himself.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-10, 07:27

[TWO4BRIDGE]

gnasher, on 2012-April-10, 07:24, said:

I don't think we can answer Phil's question without knowing the partnership's agreements about serious/non-serious 3NT and Last Train.

If 4♣ was non-serious, West shouldn't have gone beyond 4♥ - that's what he'd do with a 6322 18-count. If 4♦ would have been Last Train, presumably West should have bid that, showing his spade control.

If 4♣ was serious, I think it was a slight overvaluation - it may be a 15-count, but the ♣AK10 aren't so great when they're probably opposite a 2- or 3-card suit. I think this hand is a non-serious try, then a slam drive if opener shows interest himself.

Phil, on 2012-April-07, 11:42, said:

---

1H - 2NT!
3D!*( 15+, no shortness, modified Jac2NT)- 3S!**( Serious; says nothing about ♠-Ctrl)
3NT!( ♠-Ctrl ) - 4C ( cue )
4H ( nothing more to cue ) - PASS ( missing ♦K and either ♠ A or K and no shortness in either hand )
__________________________________________________________________________________________
A modified Jac2NT can keep the replies below 3NT which would allow "serious/non-serious" room .
* 3C! would be any minimum; 3D would then ask if any shortness;
   a direct 3H/3S/3NT reply would show extras AND shortness .

** Using wyman's "Serious" from the recent 'Heart Auctions" thread: http://www.bridgebas...548#entry627548
________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: I'm resulting again. If Opener really had 15+ ( I actually count only 14 w/o distribution point ) , then he could easily have the ♣Q and slam is COLD .

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2012-April-10, 07:24, said:

I don't think we can answer Phil's question without knowing the partnership's agreements about serious/non-serious 3NT and Last Train.

If 4♣ was non-serious, West shouldn't have gone beyond 4♥ - that's what he'd do with a 6322 18-count. If 4♦ would have been Last Train, presumably West should have bid that, showing his spade control.

If 4♣ was serious, I think it was a slight overvaluation - it may be a 15-count, but the ♣AK10 aren't so great when they're probably opposite a 2- or 3-card suit. I think this hand is a non-serious try, then a slam drive if opener shows interest himself.

No idea. Timo was playing this one with a non-regular partner when this hand was dealt.

Timo and I play Serious 3N. Agree that the 15 equates to a mild slam try.

[rduran1216]

really don't like 3H. Any hand that can cover our 6 side losers, will make a move no matter what our rebid is. I've discussed with partners that 1M 2NT 3NT as a 5422 hand unsuitable for a 1NT opener, so thats what I'd bid here.

[han]

I think the methods are poor (as is to be expected in what likely was something like a pick-up partnership). Perhaps more importantly, I think that the 4S bid was too much. West has already shown extras, it seems clear to bid 4D instead.

Having said that, I don't dare to say that I would be able to avoid this slam with my regular partner. Opener would show a (6322) pattern with 14-16 HCP. Then responder (who has not shown anything) can invite slam in hearts or just ask keycards. It's not clear to me that an invite is best.