[mikegill]

The 1d is not normal precision, and could be wk NT, 3-suiter short anywhere, single-suited diamonds, or 4M, 5+m (either one). Maybe I should have specified this earlier...

[P_Marlowe]

mikegill, on Feb 6 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

The 1d is not normal precision, and could be wk NT, 3-suiter short anywhere, single-suited diamonds, or 4M, 5+m (either one). Maybe I should have specified this earlier...

This means partner will always have a sure 8 card
fit in a minor, as long as he holds 55 in the minors
himself?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikegill]

Yes, the most major suit cards opener can hold is if he is (44)32, so an 8-card fit is guaranteed at least.

[Apollo81]

For those who can't get past the "0+ diamonds": the only relevant part of that here as compared to normal Precision is that opener could have a 3-suiter short in diamonds.

For those who can't get past the auction not being shown: assume you bid 4♥ over their 3♥ and then 4N over pard's natural 4♠ bid, and that both players understand that this shows a slam try with the minor suits.

[Fluffy]

Its close, the queens are awful, but so would be the a king opposite singleton, I think of something like x-Ax-Kxxxx-AJxxx, Slam is not perfect, but probably makes. I am gonna try 6

[Free]

I'm not gonna bid this slam, too much wastage.

[gwnn]

OK well I'm one of those who have a little trouble with "slam try". Just how strong is this "slam try"? i.e. what percentage of the time should opener accept it? What are the hands that you have had in the past for this (sort of) sequence? "Assume partner has his bid", OK, but how strong is the invitation?

[mikegill]

Quote

OK well I'm one of those who have a little trouble with "slam try". Just how strong is this "slam try"? i.e. what percentage of the time should opener accept it? What are the hands that you have had in the past for this (sort of) sequence? "Assume partner has his bid", OK, but how strong is the invitation?

Well, this is a lot of what this problem is about. My opinion initially was that you should definitely bid slam here, but maybe it's not as obvious as I first thought. Of the example hands given for partner by people in this thread:

x x KJTxx AQJxxx

Kxx - KJTxx AQJxx

x Ax Kxxxx AQxxx

x Ax Kxxxx AJxxx

really only the 2nd one looks like it fits "slam try" opposite a limited opener. The others just look like "pick a minor game". The first one is close, but you are missing 5 key cards (I think the club K is pretty important even if it's not officially a keycard). If partner is looking at 4 of them e.g. xxxx Axx AQx Kxx, I think he should raise your pick-a-game bid to slam. 3 at least is a good slam opposite our hand, but I think it's not a slam try unless you add some minor suit fillers - too much can go wrong otherwise. Isn't partner going to get excited about Axx xxx AQJx T9x?

I think that the actual hand has two clearly wasted major suit Qs, but I think that AQxxx Kx is way above average for your hand as a whole. Partner did make a slam try opposite a limited opener missing those awfully important cards. I don't think he should be making a slam try looking for perfecto cards. He can just bid game and if you have perfecto cards you might raise to slam. He really should have only one major suit loser in my opinion on this bidding.

[brianshark]

I'm bidding 5♦.

[pclayton]

mikegill, on Feb 7 2008, 05:30 AM, said:

Well, this is a lot of what this problem is about. My opinion initially was that you should definitely bid slam here, but maybe it's not as obvious as I first thought.

The problem is you don't have a clue about what losers you have in the majors. You have a very ordinary opening, and I don't think a working 8 count is that spectacular.

Playing a nebulous limited opening, you are going to get hosed in some slam auctions. That's life.

[jdonn]

Despite the majority for signing off I still think slam is a favorite, I would put it at about 60-40. Curious to see the actual hand, not that it would prove anything either way since I think either side admits it's pretty close.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

Despite the majority for signing off I still think slam is a favorite, I would put it at about 60-40. Curious to see the actual hand, not that it would prove anything either way since I think either side admits it's pretty close.

Me too. Maybe I expect more for a slam try opposite a likely weak NT than others. There will be many hands where we are off the first two tricks in the majors, but if we aren't (or if they lead the wrong major), I really like our chances.

[bhall]

To invite slam, responder should have at least second-round control of both majors. He may well have first-round control of one, in which case 6♦ is a good bet to make. It's hard to estimate the relative frequency of (stiff, Kx), (stiff, stiff),(void, Kx), (stiff, Ax), and (void, stiff), all of which should invite. But stiffs are a lot more likely than voids, and we don't want to punish partner for holding Kx rather than Ax. So I would choose a cowardly 5♦.

[Apollo81]

deleted

[han]

Mike, would you tell us what happened at the table and what partner's hand was?

[mikegill]

The actual hand was A x KJxxx AQJTxx, but it didn't really happen at a table. Noble and I were discussing it, trying to figure out whether this hand should be inviting slam (if it could, we don't actually have a minors, slam invite agreement here), or whether it should ask partner to pick a minor, then raise to slam. I thought people would bid slam if invited with the example hand, so it sparked a discussion about what you needed to invite, and/or accept slam here.

[Apollo81]

I said I wouldn't accept a slam try if I had ♦AQxxx ♣Kx and no other useful cards