[P_Marlowe]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-July-09, 04:34, said:

Will partner bid again if 16-17 if I sign off and is he in any way limited by the splinter ?

He is limited by his lack of game interest opposite a 4-7 raise, I would give him at most 15/16.
It is possible that the splinter range 11/12 ... 15/16 is way to large, and it should be tighter.
Which leads us to the question, if it would be better to go slower ..., given that we ended up in
the wrong contract, the answer may be yes.
... although I would argue, that partners hand, even with the wastage in club is still a hand that has
interest, we will have at least 24+ relevant points of the relevant 30 point deck.
In short I though, the hand is worth a 4D bid, ..., I know both hands, and I am not sure, I would have
bid 4D in partners place, he knowes only about a 5-3 fit, what turned out a 6-3, I was max. for my bidding
... I quite often rely on p, that he is more likely to push towards slam, than I am.

♠AJ6
♥KQ7542
♦KT2
♣8

Given that you know, that partner has the King of spades after he bid 2S, your hand improved even more,
which means it is super max. for the bidding.
So I guess the slow route would have given us a better chance.

[mike777]

As I mentioned above knowing partner has 6H makes a one trick difference and then having partner make a control bid tips the close decision to making the control bid of 4D clear.

[DavidKok]

I think there is an opportunity to improve along multiple axes here - bidding system, hand evaluation, choices of bids given the system. In general I think slam bidding is quite commonly misunderstood. Additionally, there are a lot of different styles and approaches. I think this is a fascinating set of topics. I'm afraid that this time a combination of factors resulted in you missing a good contract. In my opinion both partners made suboptimal choices within the bidding constraints, but I would still assign zero blame as the methods are just really unsuitable for slam exploration.

When it comes to 2/1 GF auctions there are also lots of different styles. I like several different ones, but make one request (if I have the freedom to impose my own 2/1 system): do not put the non-minimum hands with a sixth card in the major in with the 'catchall' bid. There are lots of ways to achieve this - 'shape first', Schuler Shift, relay, a lot of home-grown artificial continuations and more. This deal is a showcase of the value of the extra trump.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2026-July-10, 01:10, said:

I think there is an opportunity to improve along multiple axes here - bidding system, hand evaluation, choices of bids given the system. In general I think slam bidding is quite commonly misunderstood. Additionally, there are a lot of different styles and approaches. I think this is a fascinating set of topics. I'm afraid that this time a combination of factors resulted in you missing a good contract. In my opinion both partners made suboptimal choices within the bidding constraints, but I would still assign zero blame as the methods are just really unsuitable for slam exploration.

When it comes to 2/1 GF auctions there are also lots of different styles. I like several different ones, but make one request (if I have the freedom to impose my own 2/1 system): do not put the non-minimum hands with a sixth card in the major in with the 'catchall' bid. There are lots of ways to achieve this - 'shape first', Schuler Shift, relay, a lot of home-grown artificial continuations and more. This deal is a showcase of the value of the extra trump.

I am taking this one with me, ..., I think we need a way to discover the 6th heart, this is currently missing.
And the 2D bid contains a hand type that is dublicate with a different seq., in other words we can mod., without changing too much
and I usually wondered what the diffs were any way.

[mw64ahw]

mw64ahw, on 2026-July-09, 07:49, said:

I'm in the 1M-2♣ camp as I have 1♥-2♦ as 5+♦ or a constructive raise having flipped from a preemptive 3-card raise.

Here 2♠ is a slam try and 4♣ is playing ball so if 4♥ is a sign-off then this is the wrong call unless the jump from 2♠ to 4♣ limits strength.

One of he reasons I reverted back to
1♥ - 2♥ as 4~7
&
1♥ - 2♦ as 3♥ 8~10 or GF or 5+♦
was to facilitate slam tries

Now opener can show a non-minimum with a decent 15+ or 13+ w. 6.5 mod losers & a 6-card suit
Typically I play (similar approach to my Nebulous 2♣)
2♥ min
2♠ 4+♠
2N UB 6♥
3♣ x5(4x)
3♦ BD 18~19 or SB
3♥ self-sustaining

So here we have the following auction
1♥ - 2♦
2N UB 6♥

Now responder knows immediately that slam is possible given the combined mod. loser count and can ask for the shortage/4-card minor via 3♣
.. - 3♣ shortage?
3♥ 3631 - 3♠ 3♥ & ♠ control