Slam try

[BillHiggin]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sak532ht8daqjt83c]133|100|Scoring: IMP

... ... (p) 1♦

(p) 1♠ (p) ?[/hv]

 

What is your move and what do you expect p to do over that with any of the possibly useful values he might have?

 

2/1, assume normal agreements or explain your invention.

[aguahombre]

4C --Partner will expect 4-6 in the pointed suits, slam interest, undisclosed which rounded suit is short. He will also expect my diamonds to be solid, so I have lied on at least two of these things. But that is all the bidding room I am willing to consume, and want partner to help us get to the wrong level.

[Phil]

4C --Partner will expect 4-6 in the pointed suits, slam interest, undisclosed which rounded suit is short.  He will also expect my diamonds to be solid, so I have lied on at least two of these things.  But that is all the bidding room I am willing to consume, and want partner to help us get to the wrong level.

You've made some good arguments for 4♦ - is that what you meant to say instead?

 

PS: I bid 4♣.

[JLOL]

4C

[aguahombre]

4C --Partner will expect 4-6 in the pointed suits, slam interest, undisclosed which rounded suit is short.  He will also expect my diamonds to be solid, so I have lied on at least two of these things.  But that is all the bidding room I am willing to consume, and want partner to help us get to the wrong level.

You've made some good arguments for 4♦ - is that what you meant to say instead?

 

No, i don't want to tell a 3rd lie and deny slam interest (which 4D does per agreement).

[Phil]

4C --Partner will expect 4-6 in the pointed suits, slam interest, undisclosed which rounded suit is short.  He will also expect my diamonds to be solid, so I have lied on at least two of these things.  But that is all the bidding room I am willing to consume, and want partner to help us get to the wrong level.

You've made some good arguments for 4♦ - is that what you meant to say instead?

 

No, i don't want to tell a 3rd lie and deny slam interest (which 4D does per agreement).

Perhaps I can help:

 

1. 4♣ doesn't show solid diamonds, doesn't show 6 diamonds and isn't non-specific as to where my round suit shortness is.

 

2. 4♦ does not deny slam interest. By virtue of the fact that you have forcing to game means that you have substantial playing strength. As a matter of fact the modern interpretation is that 4♦ shows a hand better than Axxx x AKJxxx xx, which is a textbook example of a Walsh Jump from the 1970's.

 

I still think you are misreading the problem.

[neilkaz]

Another 4♣ splinterer here.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps I can help:

 

1. 4♣ doesn't show solid diamonds, doesn't show 6 diamonds and isn't non-specific as to where my round suit shortness is.

 

2. 4♦ does not deny slam interest. By virtue of the fact that you have forcing to game means that you have substantial playing strength. As a matter of fact the modern interpretation is that 4♦ shows a hand better than Axxx x AKJxxx xx, which is a textbook example of a Walsh Jump from the 1970's.

 

I still think you are misreading the problem.

 

that is helpful in knowing what your methods are. Ours are different, and I don't presume to say better --just different. Somehow, I thought our differentiation between 4d and 4c was from the Hardy/Walsh era, also --and that the hand you gave (AXXX X AKJXXX XX) was a 4D rebid after a spade response.

[hanp]

With Arend I play that 4D shows semi-solid diamonds (we show solid diamonds differently) so that is an option. Playing standard I would also bid 4C.

[se12sam]

What if partner spurns your splinter and bids 4♠. Will you pass now with the South hand or make one more move?

If the consensus is "one more move" then why not 5♣ as Exclusion Key Card immediately?

[rogerclee]

With Arend I play that 4D shows semi-solid diamonds (we show solid diamonds differently) so that is an option. Playing standard I would also bid 4C.

I would bid 4♣ anyway given these two options.

[neilkaz]

What if partner spurns your splinter and bids 4♠. Will you pass now with the South hand or make one more move?

If the consensus is "one more move" then why not 5♣ as Exclusion Key Card immediately?

When PD signs off after the splinter can't we be rather certain that he has no ♥ control or an absolute minimum?

[skjaeran]

4♣, void in my methods.

5♦ over 4♠, but this is close.

[kenrexford]

4♣, but I'm tempted to manufacture a 2♥ reverse.

[JLOL]

4♣, but I'm tempted to manufacture a 2♥ reverse.

LOL

[cherdanno]

4♣, but I'm tempted to manufacture a 2♥ reverse.

No 3♣ from you?

[kenrexford]

4♣, but I'm tempted to manufacture a 2♥ reverse.

No 3♣ from you?

Too little upside. 2♥ at least gets partner looking at the right cards. The problem is that he will always believe that I have hearts. The upside is that my fifth spade means that he won't likely have four hearts anyway, so the risk of a heart raise is VERY minimal. If I do get one, I know know that we have a 10-fit in spades, however.

 

Were my hand ♠AKxxx ♥--- ♦10x ♣AQJ108x, I would absolutely reverse to 2♦.

[mtvesuvius]

4♣

[Hanoi5]

4♦ and 5♣ over 4♠.

[kenrexford]

BTW -- the other lure to a 2♥ reverse is the obvious devious side to it.

[jdonn]

So it seems you have two arguments in favor of 2♥, that it's a good bid and that it's a bad bid.

 

I'll stick with 4♣.

[the hog]

A simple slam try of 6S. Sure 4C is the techically correct bid, but even if you have 2H losers, a blast to 6S may well get you a C lead.

If you want to be devious, Ken, I suggest a 4H splinter followed by 6S.

[petergreat]

I'd bid 3♠ first.

[aguahombre]

I'd bid 3♠ first.

gaining 7 imps because the other pair bid slam and you got 210?

[hanp]

210?

 

Surely if you want to be devious 5H exclusion is better than 4H. But it is all far too unilateral for me.