Are you going to chase the perfect hand with partner?

[SimonFa]

IMPs, R v W, 2/1

 

♠AK76542 ♥97 ♦KQJ5 ♣void

1♣ (P) 1♠ (P)

1N (P) ?

 

At the table I did seriously think about a slam as all partner needed was xx AKxx Axx xxxx but bailed out because it seemed so improbable.

 

I see no point in using a spoiler because you've probably guessed that partner had the perfect hand (why else would I be posting :) ) and 13 tricks duly rolled in on split spades and a diamond lead.

 

So would anyone seriously go looking for a slam and if so how?

 

The lazy option, which I took, was to bid a direct 4♠.

[eagles123]

I think we at least have to make a try, kinda depends on methods would 4c be a splinter for spades for example? if not maybe we start with some kinda checkback and then set spades?

[mike777]

I like 3s here if that set trumps and is a slam try. (XYZ)

[1eyedjack]

If the granny makes opposite the perfect hand, perhaps you should at least be exploring 6.

[akwoo]

Usually, playing XYZ or 2-way NMF, 3♠ sets spades as trump with a 1-suiter and asks partner to evaluate their hand for slam and cue.

 

I think 3♠ followed by 5♣ should get the message across.

[karlson]

I think it's clear to try for slam. Moreover, I think we should at least consider getting to diamonds. So I'd start with 2♦.

[Jinksy]

What methods do you play? It's a nice hand for something like 2-way checkback, which lets you explore a ♠ and ♦ fit at leisure.

[ggwhiz]

We play Kantar 2♣ here instead of nmf. 2♦/♥/♠ are generic responses but it is at least invitational and we have a whole schedule of super accepts with or without 3 spades.

 

I can ask and then bail at no cost if I don't like the answer .

[rmnka447]

There are hands where partner might rebid 1 NT with a stiff ♠, but those aren't that common. So you're probably sitting opposite a doubleton minimum which means at least a 9 card spade fit. You also only have a 4 loser hand. There are just too many hands where slam will make to not at least explore for slam. (♥ A, 3 small spades, and another A are enough to make 6 ♠ a good contract.)

[aguahombre]

Well, I wouldn't be as lazy as OP -- but would not get to slam either. Via checkback I would find out at the 2-level that Opener had only two spades and only 11-12 pts. That would end my search for magic.

[helene_t]

Partner has appr. half the points you don't have (12-14 of 27), and since his distribution is about 1/3 of the cards you are missing in each suit, it is about right to give him 50% chance of holding each of the important cards you are missing.

 

That is four cards, and you need three of them for slam. But ♠Q may not be necesary, and possibly not ♥K either is there could be a finesse against it or the heart losers could go away on the diamonds if he is 3325 (but maybe it is his style to raise on that shape even with ♦A? Anyway, he is is obviously more likely to have two spades than three). Or a heart loser can go away on ♣A, or a ruffing finese in clubs if he has ♣KQ.

 

So all in all I think it looks pretty good.

[Trump Echo]

The strength for slam in Spades is there. Does partner have an Ace? Does he have a first or second round stop in Hearts? I don't know. His Club Ace would be convenient as I could throw a Heart loser on it. Solution? Right or wrong, I'd blast to slam in Spades. Bidding the Diamonds first might seem obvious but it would also promote a Heart lead.

[nullve]

Maybe

 

1♣-1♠

1N-2♦¹⁾

2♥²⁾-2♠³⁾

2N⁴⁾-4♣⁵⁾

4♦⁶⁾-4♠⁷⁾

5♥⁸⁾-6♠

P

 

1) ART GF

2) 4 H

3) 5+ S

4) 2434, most likely

5) Splinter, setting S as trumps

6) cue, liked 4♣

7) no H ctrl, NF

8) cue, good hand in context (even for a hand that liked 4♣)

[ifluffette]

In the same line of thought, You open 1♥ in 3rd seat with

Axx

AJ98x

x

AKxx

 

Part. LHO You RHO

p p 1♥ p

2♣ p ?

 

You play reverse Drury.

[phil_20686]

IMPs, R v W, 2/1

 

♠AK76542 ♥97 ♦KQJ5 ♣void

1♣ (P) 1♠ (P)

1N (P) ?

 

At the table I did seriously think about a slam as all partner needed was xx AKxx Axx xxxx but bailed out because it seemed so improbable.

 

I see no point in using a spoiler because you've probably guessed that partner had the perfect hand (why else would I be posting :) ) and 13 tricks duly rolled in on split spades and a diamond lead.

 

So would anyone seriously go looking for a slam and if so how?

 

The lazy option, which I took, was to bid a direct 4♠.

 

Incredibly lazy not to try for slam. It doesnt need a perfect hand at all. xxx KQxx Axx KJxx has 4 wasted points and needs a 3-0 spade break or a unlikely ruff to go off. Quite a lot of system dependence on how you bid. I would at least want a chance to show partner that I had diamonds, so for me that would start with 2D GF checkback, if partner shows 3 spades I am golden, if he shows 5d I am also golden, if he bids hearts I have a tough choice. I'd probably bid 2S and if partner cannot raise, he will bid 2N and I can bid 3d. If partner bids 3N now he will be 2434 most likely, and I will just give up in 4S as now I do need a perfect hand. If he bids 3S Hx or 4d I will cuebid.

 

 

In the same line of thought, You open 1♥ in 3rd seat with

Axx

AJ98x

x

AKxx

 

Part. LHO You RHO

p p 1♥ p

2♣ p ?

 

You play reverse Drury.

 

Assuming thta 2C was the 3 card heart support, I would just bid 4H now. Slam is a long way off unless partner has a very a typical drury which he might well have bid differently. E.g. x KQx xxx QJTxxx or something. Even v good hands from responder like KQx KQx xxxx Qxx offer you no guarantee, as still would require 3-3 clubs or a otherwise friendly layout.

[Caitlynne]

Yes I would since there are MANY minimum opening hands where slam will be ice cold. To specify just a few:

 

xxx, KQx, Ax, KJxxx

Qx, Axxx, Ax, QJxxx

Jxx, Axx, xx, AKxxx

 

and even a minimum hand with club wastage could easily produce slam:

 

Jxx, Axx, xx, KQJxx

 

What's more, there are several minimum hands that will produce a grand slam:

 

Qxx, Axx, Axx, Axxx

xxx, Axx, Axx, Axxx

 

So, to not try for slam is a very poor decision.

 

Unless you play weak single jump shift responses or some conventional response that removes 2S from consideration, I think you should have announced your hand's tremendous slam potential immediately with a jump shift of 2S in response to partner's opening bid of 1C.

[ifluffette]

Yes I would since there are MANY minimum opening hands where slam will be ice cold. To specify just a few:

 

xxx, KQx, Ax, KJxxx

Qx, Axxx, Ax, QJxxx

Jxx, Axx, xx, AKxxx

 

and even a minimum hand with club wastage could easily produce slam:

 

Jxx, Axx, xx, KQJxx

 

What's more, there are several minimum hands that will produce a grand slam:

 

Qxx, Axx, Axx, Axxx

xxx, Axx, Axx, Axxx

 

So, to not try for slam is a very poor decision.

 

Unless you play weak single jump shift responses or some conventional response that removes 2S from consideration, I think you should have announced your hand's tremendous slam potential immediately with a jump shift of 2S in response to partner's opening bid of 1C.

 

2♠​ wld have been fit-showing jump, showing 5 good spades and a 4 card fit, limit raise.

[ifluffette]

2♠​ wld have been fit-showing jump, showing 5 good spades and a 4 card fit, limit raise.

 

What does it cost to bid 2♦, asking for more information ?

[zillahandp]

Dont play 2/1 but 3d is possible in acol, 2c check back no t great solution, and I can rebid spades over 3nt, over 3h from p i can bid 3s. Edited October 31, 2015 by diana_eva

[PhantomSac]

3 small spades, 5 clubs, and both red aces is an 8 count that is a grand. You have to try for slam, how you do so depends on your methods.

[jodepp]

If XYZ was 'on', 3♠ seems clear although I think the third call isn't obvious (suppose partner simply raises to 4♠ for example - we're back in the same boat. If that sequence demands a cuebid it's fine but not everybody plays that).

 

Soapbox time - wouldn't a strong jump shift help here originally :)

[WesleyC]

Assuming you play some variant of 2-way checkback, then a handy treatment to handle this hand:

 

1C 1S 1NT 4X is a spade auto-splinter showing a singleton.

 

1C 1S 1NT 2C* 2D* 4X as a spade auto-splinter showing a void.

 

Normally I don't like playing conventions that are very low frequency due to memory load issues, but this is such an unusual sequence that it should be impossible to forget.

[akwoo]

If XYZ was 'on', 3♠ seems clear although I think the third call isn't obvious (suppose partner simply raises to 4♠ for example - we're back in the same boat. If that sequence demands a cuebid it's fine but not everybody plays that).

 

I don't play 3♠ absolutely demands a cue, but with A/AK you should make one - it's a much better hand opposite a one suiter with slam potential than some scattered 14 count.

 

I agree with 3♠ one might miss the slam opposite xxx KQxx Ax QJxx, though I think I would make a 5♣ try even opposite a signoff in 4♠.

[Mbodell]

I agree, 3♠, as long as it is agreed/read as forcing is a good bid. If you have less agreements about forcing stuff and can't splinter in partners suit even a heart splinter has something going for it. They might believe your splinter and cash only one heart then switch giving you a potential pitch on the clubs some of the time when you have 12 tricks but 2 quick heart losers.

[PhantomSac]

I agree, 3♠, as long as it is agreed/read as forcing is a good bid. If you have less agreements about forcing stuff and can't splinter in partners suit even a heart splinter has something going for it. They might believe your splinter and cash only one heart then switch giving you a potential pitch on the clubs some of the time when you have 12 tricks but 2 quick heart losers.

 

What will they shift to?