Bid this slam

[helene_t]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9764h7d6ca97642&n=saj5ha65daj94ckqt&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp2np3cp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

I don't think the 3♣ bid shows five spades so 4♠ obviously isn't the right call, but how should we reach 6♣? I managed to go down in 4♠ as clubs split 4-0 (West having the club length, didn't lead a club though). Double dummy it was possible to make 6♠ as long as they don't lead a club.

 

6♣ is a solid contract, though. I am not sure if you'd rather be in 6♣ or 6♠ at matchpoints.

 

Afterwards I discussed with partner how to reach 6♣ but we couldn't figure it out. Maybe something like

1♦-1♠

2NT-3♣

3♠-4♣

5NT-6♣

 

but I am not sure if 4♣ is even natural in that sequence. Even if it is, North has, of cause, a super hand for a a club slam and South can't really expect that so South would probably just bid 4♠ after hearing 3-card support.

[mikeh]

Even in my most sophisticated partnership, I doubt we’d reach any slam

 

1C 1H 1N is our start…1H shows spades, 1N shows 17-19 with 2-3 spades. Unfortunately 1C could be on a doubleton (we like this but undeniably it can create issues) and even be 3352.

 

We’d bid 2H transfer, and over 2S (forced) we’d bid 2N to show gf values with 5S and 4+ clubs but north has no reason to cater to 5=6…if 5=5 or 5=4 we want to be in spades.

 

So north will bid 3S and I think the club train has left the station, with no paying passengers aboard.

[LBengtsson]

Tough to be bid slam, even in Precision, I feel. Superprecision might go 1♣(16+) - 1♦(<8HCP) - 1NT (16-19) - 2S (6-7HCP at least 5/5 touching suits) but how we get to 6♣ from there is one for Meckwell to answer :)

 

25 HCP slams are difficult even for experts...

[pescetom]

Afterwards I discussed with partner how to reach 6♣ but we couldn't figure it out. Maybe something like

1♦-1♠

2NT-3♣

3♠-4♣

5NT-6♣

 

Easy to result having seen the hand, but for us I think it should go:

1♦-1♠

2NT-3♣

3♠-4♣

4♦-4♥

5♣-6♣

p

 

Our 3♣ is GF DSI, with priority to 3 card support in responder's suit.

[mw64ahw]

I doubt I'm looking for a slam with 6 points even with this distribution. 3♣ is artificial for me and I could construct a sequence to get there, but doubt I would bid it.

[Cyberyeti]

We bid 1♦-1♠-1N (15-bad 19)-3♣(less than GF values v 15, likely to be 4-6, 5-5 or 5-6 blacks, will be top end if 5-5)-3♠(3 spades and big)-4♥(shortage, more than 4 spades)

 

Quite where it goes from there is anybody's guess.

[mikeh]

Easy to result having seen the hand, but for us I think it should go:

1♦-1♠

2NT-3♣

3♠-4♣

4♦-4♥

5♣-6♣

p

 

Our 3♣ is GF DSI, with priority to 3 card support in responder's suit.

Ok, explain to us why south should play north for both side suit aces, the KQ of clubs and great spade support

 

I used to be astounded at how brilliant BBF posters were are bidding to wonderful contracts when seeing both hands. Strangely, I’ve not seen any of them winning major events, which puzzles me. How can they bid so brilliantly and not win everything in sight?

[riverwalk3]

Richard Pavlicek would count 1 extra HCP for the 4 aces + 10s, and open 2NT with the North hand. Then, after 3H transfer to spades, 3S, 4C, 4S (assuming matchpoints), South's hand reevaluates to 13 points, as 1 extra point is counted for each long club over 3. Thus, 4NT, 5C (0 or 3 keycards) 6S.

 

South's hand also reevaluates to 14 points after a 2NT opening in clubs (2 for the 6th club, 2 each for the singletons, and 2 for the long spade), so the bidding might go 2NT 4C 4N 6C.

[mikeh]

Richard Pavlicek would count 1 extra HCP for the 4 aces + 10s, and open 2NT with the North hand. Then, after 3H transfer to spades, 3S, 4C, 4S (assuming matchpoints), South's hand reevaluates to 13 points, as 1 extra point is counted for each long club over 3. Thus, 4NT, 5C (0 or 3 keycards) 6S.

 

South's hand also reevaluates to 14 points after a 2NT opening in clubs (2 for the 6th club, 2 each for the singletons, and 2 for the long spade), so the bidding might go 2NT 4C 4N 6C.

Wonderful bidding. It’s almost as if you knew, when constructing your sequence, that partner held AJx KQ10 in your suits and both side aces!

 

I wonder how you’d bid if he held Kxx AKQx KQx Kxx?

 

You’d presumably have exactly the same auction to 4N. Partner shows 2 keycards. Do you bid the hopeless slam or stop in the extremely bad 5S?

 

Of course, it could be worse. Kxx AQJx AKJ Qxx

[riverwalk3]

Wonderful bidding. It’s almost as if you knew, when constructing your sequence, that partner held AJx KQ10 in your suits and both side aces!

 

I wonder how you’d bid if he held Kxx AKQx KQx Kxx?

 

You’d presumably have exactly the same auction to 4N. Partner shows 2 keycards. Do you bid the hopeless slam or stop in the extremely bad 5S?

 

Of course, it could be worse. Kxx AQJx AKJ Qxx

Partner could have duplication in hearts/diamonds, making the singletons worthless. Without duplication, only 30 points is needed for slam (hence why splinters exist; to evaluate fit). 33 points allows for the average amount of duplication, if there is no way to find out. With fancy conventions, partner might be able to show secondary values in hearts/diamond after the 4C rebid, allowing a stop in 4S, but I'd just shoot for the slam if I couldn't find out since according to Richard Pavlicek's methods South's hand is 14 points in clubs and North's hand is 20 points.

 

In your examples, there are tons of wasted honors in diamonds/hearts. But there could just as easily be far less duplication; partner could have AKxx Axx Axx KQx in which you'd want to be in grand slam, and slam can even be made for an ace less after a 1NT opening. The point is to bid slam if there is at least a 50% chance of making. This hand seems admittedly borderline after a 2NT opening, and there is a lot of guesswork involved unless there is a way to find out about the secondary values in hearts/spades (which is much easier after a 1NT opening due to more space).

[mikeh]

I’m not a huge fan of simulations, usually because there is almost always subjectivity involved, both in creating the constraints and in predicting who would bid what. But this is a good layout for a simulation. Give north 20-21, ignoring upgrades, and specify 3 spades and no 6 card suit nor any suit of fewer than 2 cards.

 

The reason to specify 3 spades is that many of the hands on which slam is good opposite 4 card support would superaccept…the example of AKxx Axx Axx KQx is, for me, a superaccept despite the shape…one rarely holds 8 controls in a 20 point hand…

 

I am morally certain that driving to the 5 level will be a long run loser even if you dial in a sudden onset of caution and avoid some hopeless slams when he has 3 keycards. If you drive to slam opposite 3 keycards, then I’d bet that this would be a heavy loser. Yes, you’d make sometimes but you’ll go down more often than not, and fail at the 5 level most times he has two keycards (and while he’s favoured to have three, that’s not a good argument since you’re driving to a usually bad slam when he has that.

 

Edit: I removed some snark, that was over the top and verging on a criticism of the poster rather than just the ideas

[pescetom]

Ok, explain to us why south should play north for both side suit aces, the KQ of clubs and great spade support

North showed 18-19 and then chose 3♠ rather than fast arrival in a GF situation, clearly his spades support was 3 card but great.

His 5♣ showed control but also affirmed odd keycards, which has to be 3, so at best both side suit aces plus ace of spades, at worst off one ace.

His shape is very likely 3343 or 3244, he promised the K of clubs and might well have or not need Q: no way of finding out, but it looks a reasonable punt.

As I said, it may be resulting, it might not happen. S might bid 3NT non-serious and N get cold feet, EW might wake up to having 9 hearts.

 

 

 

 

I used to be astounded at how brilliant BBF posters were are bidding to wonderful contracts when seeing both hands. Strangely, I’ve not seen any of them winning major events, which puzzles me. How can they bid so brilliantly and not win everything in sight?

 

Edit: I removed some snark, that was over the top and verging on a criticism of the poster rather than just the ideas

You could have used the same courtesy with me.

[mikeh]

North showed 18-19 and then chose 3♠ rather than fast arrival in a GF situation, clearly his spades support was 3 card but great.

His 5♣ showed control but also affirmed odd keycards, which has to be 3, so at best both side suit aces plus ace of spades, at worst off one ace.

His shape is very likely 3343 or 3244, he promised the K of clubs and might well have or not need Q: no way of finding out, but it looks a reasonable punt.

As I said, it may be resulting, it might not happen. S might bid 3NT non-serious and N get cold feet, EW might wake up to having 9 hearts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could have used the same courtesy with me.

Fair comment!

 

I may have misunderstood your auction. I read 3C as ‘do something intelligent’. I don’t know your methods but unless 3C denies hearts, I don’t understand why opener would bid 3S before 3H if he were 3=4 majors. So I wasn’t sure how credible it was for you to say that opener’s priority is to show 3 card support. Obviously, he’d do that here since he lacks 4 hearts…maybe you use some other bid to check for hearts.

 

Also, while I don’t mind fast arrival, to me I’d use 4S as a very non-slammish hand as opposed to using 3S as ‘great’. Since responder is unlimited, jumping to game and wasting an entire level of bidding should not be the usual way of showing 3 spades, reserving the far more efficient 3S rebid only for ‘great’ support.

 

If 3S merely denies a terrible, in context, hand, then I think south is really pushing the boat out to drive to a slam. Isn’t your auction to 4D consistent with Kxx AQx AKJx Qx?

 

So what was 4H? You failed to mention, in your initial post, that you played what I assume is a form of Turbo…since I don’t know much about Turbo, I’m asking what 4H showed because you have opener driving beyond game.

 

Did 4H ask or was it simply a cue and opener could have bid 4S?

 

After 3 keycards, could opener have say Kxx AKx AQxx Kxx and, if not, why not? Isn’t that a great hand after 3C? 7 controls (plus 19 hcp) is an awful lot for a one level opener and yet the five level isn’t remotely safe but you’ve driven to a very, very bad slam. You need Ax in spades and to guess who has it plus you need clubs 2-2. Indeed, you’re in danger of being doubled if the black suits break badly.

 

Finally, given that south has never shown club length, and north hasn’t been able to clarify his clubs, why is 6C an offer to play rather than a try for grand, seeking third round control of clubs? This last point may be an irrelevancy because maybe your auction had (more) undisclosed meanings. But isn’t the auction consistent with south holding KQxxxx x xx Axxx nearly cold for grand opposite AJx Axx AKxxx Kx but hopeless opposite AJx Axx AKxx Kxx? But generally, at least in methods with which I’m familiar, trotting out a 6 level bid in a previously undisclosed suit, after agreeing on another suit, isn’t suggesting a strain but is, rather, asking for help in the suit for a try for grand in the agreed-upon trump suit.

 

So while you may think I’m being unfair, firstly you didn’t explain your auction and secondly the now-given explanation still makes your reaching slam, imo, a very poor gamble, and thirdly you seemed to blithely assume that both players knew that 6C showed 6+ club length (if 5, there’s no reason for north not to bid 6S) despite south never showing any club length below his out of the blue 6C bid.

 

Yet your post suggested that you felt that bidding to slam was a good decision….which, imo, can only be explained by seeing that partner had close to magic cards.

 

Still, I ought to have avoided implying that you were one of the frequent offenders, never missing contracts that depend, basically, on magically guessing partner’s actual cards. I don’t think of you as one of those so ought not to have implied otherwise

[smerriman]

But this is a good layout for a simulation. Give north 20-21, ignoring upgrades, and specify 3 spades and no 6 card suit nor any suit of fewer than 2 cards.

By my calculation, if opener shows at least 3 keycards, slam is almost exactly a 50/50 bet double dummy.

 

But on about 10% of all deals you end up going down at the 5 level (with 14-15% stopping there and making), which results in stopping in 4♠ clearly better at both MPs and IMPs.

[riverwalk3]

By my calculation, if opener shows at least 3 keycards, slam is almost exactly a 50/50 bet double dummy.

 

But on about 10% of all deals you end up going down at the 5 level (with 14-15% stopping there and making), which results in stopping in 4♠ clearly better at both MPs and IMPs.

Opener has 4 spades (and an off-shape opening) some of the time, so the percentage should increase. Still probably stopping at game narrowly wins out here. It's possible that bidding accuracy could be improved if there was a way for opener to show strength in diamonds/hearts (which would suggest poorly fitting values).

 

Also I wonder how clubs would do in a simulation.

[mikeh]

By my calculation, if opener shows at least 3 keycards, slam is almost exactly a 50/50 bet double dummy.

 

But on about 10% of all deals you end up going down at the 5 level (with 14-15% stopping there and making), which results in stopping in 4♠ clearly better at both MPs and IMPs.

Suit play is one area in which double dummy analysis consistently yields misleading results

 

A8x opposite Q97xx. If LHO has KJxx or K10xx, I lead the queen, smothering RHO’s honour and losing just one trick. If anyone did that in real life, absent clues from the opps, we’d all be certain declarer had illicit information. But double dummy always leads the queen in this layout

 

Kxx opposite Qxxxx…we need 3-2 trumps…but we need Ax. Say that happens. It’s roughly 27% likely…40% of 68.5%. We have to guess which defender has Ax. Absent clues from the bidding or the early play, we’re getting it right half the time…so our chances of losing only one trick are about 13-14%. Double dummy it’s 27%.

 

Axx opposite Q9xxx. On low to the Ace, the 10 or the Jack appear on our left. We rise with the ace and lead towards Q9xx. The odds favour inserting the 9, winning unless LHO has J10 tight. Double dummy only inserts the 9 when LHO doesn’t hold that…if RHO has Kxx, double dummy we play the Queen.

 

This is ignoring the club suit, but I think it should persuade anyone that, when a double dummy analysis says three keycards and the club king lead to a 50% slam, the real life odds are significantly below that.

 

Btw, I’m pretty sure that a 6-3 club fit, even if only Axxxxx opposite Kxx, is better than a 5-3 spade fit if only because AKx opposite Q9xxx may lose a trick to J10xx in either hand or Jxxx/10xxx in west, while if we have 6-3 clubs, we may be able to ruff a spade. But I haven’t seen any convincing route to clubs after spades are found. Pesce, for example, claims that he can introduce clubs at the 6 level and have partner comfortably pass….I’m not buying that absent some explanation.

 

Edit: none of this means that a simulation is of no value. It just means that one has to bear in mind the limitations of double dummy analysis. For instance, idpfca well-designed simulation showed that three keycards and the club King led to a 60% slam, I’d see bidding slam as a reasonable gamble…not because it’s 60%, which it won’t be, but because I’d guess that double dummy improves our chances of success by roughly 10%.

[mikeh]

Ironically, given that I’ve criticized posters who claim they would or might reach 6C, I do think that my two partnerships might…and I stress might..reach 6C

 

1C. 1H. 1C is all balanced hands, no 5 card major, out of range for notrump. 1H shows 4+ spades

1N. 2H. 1N is 17-19, 2-3 spades, balanced. 2H forces 2S, confirming 5+ spades, either extremely weak or gf

2S. 2N. 2S forced, 2N shows 4+ clubs, gf hand

3S. 4C. 3S shows 3 spades, doesn’t deny 4+ clubs. 4C natural, 5+ some slam interest

 

 

Now…look at what opener holds. AJx KQ10 in partner’s suits, where he is at least 5=5….possibly, as here, 5=6 but opener will assume 5=5. He has both red aces. If partner is only 5=5, but hasn’t signed off in game, he must have ‘something’ extra. KQxxx Axxxx would be a minimum.

 

I think, but am not 100% confident, that north should bid keycard over 4C. In one partnership, that would be for spades, in the other it would be six card keycard, for both black suits.

 

Responder owns to a keycard and north asks for the queen(s). Fortunately in the six card keycard partnership we can show the spade queen while denying the club queen. In the other, we can’t say anything about the club queen (or king).

 

Opener can infer that responder has Qxxxx Axxxx(x) (or AJxxx(x)) since he’d never bid 4C on a suit headed by the Jack or worse. He’ll assume south has a red king if he’s 5=5, else he has no business bidding 4C.

 

6C is never worse than 6S if south is 5-5 and is slightly better if he is 5=6, so at imps 6C is fairly clear…Qxxxx Kx x Axxxx isn’t getting to slam all the time, so opt for the safest slam at imps.

 

Lots of inferences but I think they all make sense in context. The extra level of bidding afforded by being able to show the big hand at the one level helps, because south can be aggressive without driving beyond game and while showing his shape fairly well. I think the key, if we did have this auction, is that it’s north who takes charge, not south. North is the one looking at the spade Jack and club queen: two key cards without which slams are bad. He’s also looking at both side aces and the club 10. He knows slam has to be good given that south showed some mild (or better, but this time it’s mild) interest via 4C.

 

There are lots of ways to go wrong. Responder might give up over 3S..I think that’s the biggest risk, and I can’t be objective on that because I know the hand.

[Tramticket]

Afterwards I discussed with partner how to reach 6♣ but we couldn't figure it out. Maybe something like

1♦-1♠

2NT-3♣

3♠-4♣

5NT-6♣

 

but I am not sure if 4♣ is even natural in that sequence.

 

 

2NT is 19-20 for us and 3♣ is natural, but I would take 4♣ as a cue bid in support of spades. What would be the meaning of:

1♦-1♠

2NT-4♣

 

It would be natural for us, showing a lot of shape and the black suits - but I've never encountered this sequence and not sure what it says about the relative lengths of spades and clubs.

 

Still tough to get to 6♣.

[riverwalk3]

Suit play is one area in which double dummy analysis consistently yields misleading results

 

A8x opposite Q97xx. If LHO has KJxx or K10xx, I lead the queen, smothering RHO’s honour and losing just one trick. If anyone did that in real life, absent clues from the opps, we’d all be certain declarer had illicit information. But double dummy always leads the queen in this layout

 

Kxx opposite Qxxxx…we need 3-2 trumps…but we need Ax. Say that happens. It’s roughly 27% likely…40% of 68.5%. We have to guess which defender has Ax. Absent clues from the bidding or the early play, we’re getting it right half the time…so our chances of losing only one trick are about 13-14%. Double dummy it’s 27%.

 

Axx opposite Q9xxx. On low to the Ace, the 10 or the Jack appear on our left. We rise with the ace and lead towards Q9xx. The odds favour inserting the 9, winning unless LHO has J10 tight. Double dummy only inserts the 9 when LHO doesn’t hold that…if RHO has Kxx, double dummy we play the Queen.

 

This is ignoring the club suit, but I think it should persuade anyone that, when a double dummy analysis says three keycards and the club king lead to a 50% slam, the real life odds are significantly below that.

 

Btw, I’m pretty sure that a 6-3 club fit, even if only Axxxxx opposite Kxx, is better than a 5-3 spade fit if only because AKx opposite Q9xxx may lose a trick to J10xx in either hand or Jxxx/10xxx in west, while if we have 6-3 clubs, we may be able to ruff a spade. But I haven’t seen any convincing route to clubs after spades are found. Pesce, for example, claims that he can introduce clubs at the 6 level and have partner comfortably pass….I’m not buying that absent some explanation.

 

Edit: none of this means that a simulation is of no value. It just means that one has to bear in mind the limitations of double dummy analysis. For instance, idpfca well-designed simulation showed that three keycards and the club King led to a 60% slam, I’d see bidding slam as a reasonable gamble…not because it’s 60%, which it won’t be, but because I’d guess that double dummy improves our chances of success by roughly 10%.

Declarer usually outperforms double dummy at the game level, because the opening lead matters a lot and the double dummy defender always makes the correct opening lead. At the slam level, the opening lead matters less, so it is about a wash. At the grand slam level, the double dummy declarer always makes the right play, so the defenders usually outperform double dummy at the grand slam level.

 

Also, in your "bad" examples where North had a lot of points in the red suits, he might bid 4NT instead of 4S, which discourages slam and shows strength in the unbid suits (as 4 clubs was a slam try since it commits the partnership beyond 3NT without assurance of a fit).

[mikeh]

2NT is 19-20 for us and 3♣ is natural, but I would take 4♣ as a cue bid in support of spades. What would be the meaning of:

1♦-1♠

2NT-4♣

 

It would be natural for us, showing a lot of shape and the black suits - but I've never encountered this sequence and not sure what it says about the relative lengths of spades and clubs.

 

Still tough to get to 6♣.

I think you’ll find that even many of those who are most disdainful about Gerber would think 1D 1S 2N 4C was Gerber. I don’t think I’ve used Gerber in at least ten years, but that sequence would be Gerber for me in every partnership I’ve been in, other than my transfer Walsh ones in which 2N is artificial (we bid our big balanced hand via 1C 1H 1N)

[mikeh]

Declarer usually outperforms double dummy at the game level, because the opening lead matters a lot and the double dummy defender always makes the correct opening lead. At the slam level, the opening lead matters less, so it is about a wash. At the grand slam level, the double dummy declarer always makes the right play, so the defenders usually outperform double dummy at the grand slam level.

 

Also, in your "bad" examples where North had a lot of points in the red suits, he might bid 4NT instead of 4S, which discourages slam and shows strength in the unbid suits (as 4 clubs was a slam try since it commits the partnership beyond 3NT without assurance of a fit).

Thanks for making me laugh.

 

No, declarers do NOT ever outperform double dummy handling of suit combinations. Ever. If you think they do, I suggest a little remedial reading. Heck, you could start with my examples of suit combinations and the differences between how mere humans play them and how double dummy analysis says they can be played. Hint: the phrase double dummy means that, unlike actual players, the computer ‘knows’ how the suit breaks every time. So it never loses a two way finesse. It always drops stiff kings offside. Missing AJ10xx, holding Qxxx opposite Kxxx, anytime we have the necessary doubleton ace in one hand, humans get it wrong (absent clues) 50% of the time. Double dummy, we know where the Ax is, so invariably lead through it, ducking on the way back and so on.

 

Edit. There is no inherent contradiction between claiming that, on the whole, declarers in, say game, on average may do better than double dummy, on the one hand, and stating that double dummy will consistently outperform on suit combinations. The edge a good declarer may have overall is because defence is harder than declarer play and, as you noted, often the opening lead turns out to be a bad choice, viewed double dummy. That rarely helps when the problem is how to play a trump suit.

[Stephen Tu]

Thanks for making me laugh.

 

No, declarers do NOT ever outperform double dummy handling of suit combinations.

 

I don't think the statement you quoted claimed that. He was talking about result of whole hand at game level, not individual suit combinations. Idea being losses from suboptimal opening leads at game level from defenders on average outstrip declarer's losses from inability to play suit combos DD.

 

[mikeh]

I don't think the statement you quoted claimed that. He was talking about result of whole hand at game level, not individual suit combinations. Idea being losses from suboptimal opening leads at game level from defenders on average outstrip declarer's losses from inability to play suit combos DD.

I do know that. You need to read the thread. I argued that driving to slam opposite 3 keycards, based on double dummy analysis, was an error. Merriman suggested (as I read his post, but I may have misunderstood) that on a double dummy basis slam made about 50% of the time. When we’re missing a keycard, it’s a spade much of the time and now we are often faced with Axx or Kxx in dummy. As I have tried, apparently with little success, to show double dummy analysis seriously overstates the odds of holding our losers to one trick in these combinations

 

It was to one of my threads advancing that pretty obvious argument that riverwalk replied by disagreeing with the notion that slam was bad and he did so expressly on the basis that human declarers outplay double dummy analysis below grand.

 

Do I think that in real life declarers, below grand, often outperform DD? Yes. And an expert declarer against non-expert defenders….by a wide margin, lol. But Michael Rosenberg won’t out perform DD analysis on the suit combinations I described. And he is generally regarded as being one of the finest declarers of all time.

 

Since few of us are as good as him, how do you think we’d do?

[Jyrki_63]

Partner and I might have chance, but I do predict our auction would peter out at either 4S or 5C.

 

Our system is 2/1 Transfer Walsh with a few extra agreements. The bidding would begin

1C(1) - 1H(2)

1S(3) - 2NT(4)

3S(5) - ?

 

Explanations:

1) Our systemic opening bid for balanced hands in this range without a 5 card non-club suit (1NT opening is 14-16, 2NT opening 22-23).

2) Transfer to spades.

3) Default acceptance (South could be very weak if they cannot tolerate clubs). Here 17-18 balanced without 4 card support would bid 1NT, so this is either 12-13 or 19-21).

4) XYZ showing a desire to play in 3C opposite 12-13 (1C only promised 2 cards, so this is usually 6), or a strong hand with 55 majors.

5) A 19-21 hand bids something other than 3C. Looking at the red aces as opposed to slower honors I would think that we want to play in a black suit.

 

But at this point I'm not sure about the continuation. It is not impossible to envision the actual hand, but it is usually prudent not to play partner for a perfecto. As South I would probably be happy to have located a 53 major fit, and suggest 4S. There is an inference that this might be 56, allowing North to correct to clubs. But it could simply be a judgement call, thinking that Moysian is the best chance. Particularly at MPS. It is undiscussed, to what extent 3S denied interest in 3NT? After all, North has shown 19-21 balanced with exactly 3 spades:-)

 

A tough hand. I'm not sure I would want to be in 6C with Jxxx trumps in the West. Is there not a danger of you getting tapped after a red suit lead? Need two ruffs to get to the long trump hand: once to lead towards QT of trumps, and the other to draw the Jack of trumps. At that point the trumps are exhausted, and the spade suit is still untouched! I guess a better timing might be to develop the spades earlier, but I'm not sure if that helps?