[jillybean]

---

IMP

[DavidKok]

3♠ seems OK, but I'm not enthusiastic about collaborating with a slam investigation. We have so much shape, and so few hcp, that partner will have a hard time evaluating their hand. We only need very specific cards. What's more, partner obviously has a fairly strong hand, likely with values in clubs. It's going to be very difficult to have a collaborative slam investigation here. There is a very real risk that even a single positive noise from our side will see partner drive us to a bad slam, possibly even followed by accusations of the hand being clearly too weak.

[jillybean]

If we have agreed to open these hands, there should be no accusations when bad slams go down one, or worse. I think the thrill of making these ultra-marginal slams, based on fit rather than high card points, is well worth the occasional train wreck.
Perhaps I am still muddling IMPs and MPs

---

I'll post the complete hand when I'm back on laptop

[WasWinM]

DavidKok, on 2026-November-08, 08:47, said:

3♠ seems OK, but I'm not enthusiastic about collaborating with a slam investigation. We have so much shape, and so few hcp, that partner will have a hard time evaluating their hand. We only need very specific cards. What's more, partner obviously has a fairly strong hand, likely with values in clubs. It's going to be very difficult to have a collaborative slam investigation here. There is a very real risk that even a single positive noise from our side will see partner drive us to a bad slam, possibly even followed by accusations of the hand being clearly too weak.

Although I generally agree, what kind of hand would be interested in slam in this auction? 3H shows a 4-card fit, so Qx, Qxxx, Ax, AKJxx at worst?

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-November-08, 11:34, said:

If we have agreed to open these hands, there should be no accusations when bad slams go down one, or worse. I think the thrill of making these ultra-marginal slams, based on fit rather than high card points, is well worth the occasional train wreck.
Perhaps I am still muddling IMPs and MPs

---

I'll post the complete hand when I'm back on laptop

This is a hand where it seems that serious 3NT could make a difference.

[DavidKok]

You mistyped 'at best' and wrote 'at worst'. I am thinking more of hands like xx, Qxxx, KQx, AQJx. Or try x, AQxx, Kxxx, KQxx. Or even xx, AQxx, Axx, KJxx - look at all those prime controls in this non-minimum, plenty of key cards too, yet 6 has no play. We have not limited our strength, partner will cooperate on a wide range of hands. Someone needs to hit the brakes somewhere along the road. I am claiming that partner is in no position to accurately judge their hand, so we must be the ones to bid conservatively.

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-November-08, 08:19, said:

---

IMP

Aces and kings are undervalued as is shape and interior sequences. This hand is as good as most random 12 counts that are routinely opened so I, as a conservative opener, open it.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2026-November-08, 11:34, said:

If we have agreed to open these hands, there should be no accusations when bad slams go down one, or worse. I think the thrill of making these ultra-marginal slams, based on fit rather than high card points, is well worth the occasional train wreck.
Perhaps I am still muddling IMPs and MPs

---

I'll post the complete hand when I'm back on laptop

I think 4♦ was too much. I agree there should not be accusations about the opening, but there might rightly be some about presenting a minimum as slam-positive.

We already got lucky by opening and not getting into a big misfit auction. I am very eager to get to thin games, not thin slams. If partner really has the goods they can bid on over a signoff.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2026-November-08, 11:34, said:

If we have agreed to open these hands, there should be no accusations when bad slams go down one, or worse. I think the thrill of making these ultra-marginal slams, based on fit rather than high card points, is well worth the occasional train wreck.

I think, in general, you are tending to aim at the coolness factor rather than your results. This goes not just for bidding slams but trying out lots of bidding systems.

It's a fine and fun way to play, but don't confuse it for trying to do well.

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2026-November-08, 08:19, said:

---

IMP

Object to one spade, prefer pass. Mr. conservative here.

If forced to open then 4h over 3H. I need to slow down this runaway train....

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2026-November-08, 12:53, said:

I think, in general, you are tending to aim at the coolness factor rather than your results. This goes not just for bidding slams but trying out lots of bidding systems.

It's a fine and fun way to play, but don't confuse it for trying to do well.

This was not our auction, however I wouldn't object if it was.
I do want cool and fun, I'll save the serious stuff for when I am in a serious partnership and the Contra Cup.

[jillybean]

---

I was South here, no special agreements other than 2♣

[jillybean]

---

Using Fred's 3nt - can should South do any more? 4♣ gf+ in hearts

[WasWinM]

DavidKok, on 2026-November-08, 12:39, said:

You mistyped 'at best' and wrote 'at worst'. I am thinking more of hands like xx, Qxxx, KQx, AQJx. Or try x, AQxx, Kxxx, KQxx. Or even xx, AQxx, Axx, KJxx - look at all those prime controls in this non-minimum, plenty of key cards too, yet 6 has no play. We have not limited our strength, partner will cooperate on a wide range of hands. Someone needs to hit the brakes somewhere along the road. I am claiming that partner is in no position to accurately judge their hand, so we must be the ones to bid conservatively.

Maybe it's semantics. You wrote that it's obvious partner has a pretty strong hand but I don't consider any of the hands you provided as examples as pretty strong.

[mike777]

Certainly not getting to slam on this one.

[shyams]

mike777, on 2026-November-08, 16:13, said:

Certainly not getting to slam on this one.

Yes, me neither.

However, I cannot see South not exploring for slam.

I can visualise many partnerships settling in 5♥

[jillybean]

shyams, on 2026-November-08, 19:21, said:

Yes, me neither.

However, I cannot see South not exploring for slam.

I can visualise many partnerships settling in 5♥

3♥ was my exploration

[mike777]

 shyams, on 2026-November-08, 19:21, said:

Yes, me neither.

However, I cannot see South not exploring for slam.

I can visualise many partnerships settling in 5♥

If North passes as dealer, as I would, I don't see South making any slam try

[akwoo]

My weak NT partnerships start

P - 1C
1S - 1N
3H (showing 5/5, slam interest)

After this, 4C would be a control bid in support of hearts. I think we subside in 5H.

I wouldn't make the 3H bid as an unpassed hand, but given I would've opened with AQxxx KQxxx xx x, I think there's not much danger partner will go overboard. As it is, South has a great hand for slam with 6 controls.

[mike777]

akwoo, on 2026-November-08, 22:27, said:

My weak NT partnerships start

P - 1C
1S - 1N
3H (showing 5/5, slam interest)

After this, 4C would be a control bid in support of hearts. I think we subside in 5H.

I wouldn't make the 3H bid as an unpassed hand, but given I would've opened with AQxxx KQxxx xx x, I think there's not much danger partner will go overboard. As it is, South has a great hand for slam with 6 controls.

that is certainly a unique system bid, having a passed hand make a slam try across from a weak nt type hand