A Dodgy Slam

[OliverC]

Michael and I ended up in a somewhat dodgy slam today, but it was a nice sequence .

North (Dummy)
  AKQJ95
  J6
  AJ2
  KQ

4 led

South
  106
  A732
  9763
  A54

Bidding (Opps silent)
North     South
1         1
1NT⁽¹⁾    2 ⁽²⁾
2 ⁽³⁾    2NT⁽⁴⁾
3 ⁽⁵⁾    4 ⁽⁶⁾
4 ⁽⁷⁾    5 ^{( 8 )}
6 ⁽⁹⁾         All Pass

(1) Beta
(2) 4 Controls
(3) Iota in Spades
(4) xx
(5) Repeat Iota (Sets Spades as trumps)
(6) Still xx
(7) Epsilon in Hearts
( 8 ) 1st Rnd Control of , no 2nd or 3rd Rnd control
(9) This pretty much needs South to have AJxx, since I must have Axx(x) and cannot have the King. A rush of blood to North's head, perhaps LOL.

What to do on the lead of the 4? It's possible that West might have led from KQxx, in which case the Jack will suffice for 12 tricks here. Much more likely, in my opinion, that the lead is from K10xx(x) or Q10xx(x), in which case East will have to play their honour in order to beat the 9. At any rate, that is what I played for and East duly won trick one with the King and switched to a Club.

I eventually took the Diamond finesse against West for my 12th trick. Nice result, but it's worth noting that for this slam to succeed, you 100% need West to lead a small Diamond from their hand at trick 1. Almost no other lead will allow you to make this. Even the 10 lead defeats the contract because of the finesse against the 9 on the way back.

Bidding a slam on the basis of Partner having to have cards they've not shown can be a little dodgy. Bidding a slam knowing you have multiple "holes" ( and here) is doubly so. Nice when you can enlist Opps' help to allow you to make it, though LOL.

[tosunerk]

Hi all ,Nuri
would that be true

Bidding (Opps silent)
North     South
1         1
1NT(1)    2 (2)
2 (3)    2NT(4)
3 (5)    3NT(6)
               4 (61)
4 (7)    5 ( 8 )
6 (9)         All Pass

(1) Beta
(2) 4 Controls
(3) Iota in Spades
(4) xx
(5) Repeat Iota (Sets Spades as trumps)
(6) No Jack of Spades held
(61)Jack of Spades held

[OliverC]

As it stands at the moment, the issue of asking for possession of the Jack only applies when the original Delta/Theta/Iota got a response that shows xxxx or HHxx (ie: the only two responses that always show one particular holding rather than one of two alternatives).


The immediate answer to your question, therefore, is that no, that wouldn't be an alternative response.


However, it would be quite a neat idea, potentially, (Asker might have AKQxx or AK109x, for example) and logically there is absolutely no reason not to allow the same 2 responses in the following situation only:

• Teller has shown a balanced hand
• Iota (whether an initial Iota or a repeat Alpha, Delta, Theta or Iota in a different suit) got a 1-step response showing what in practice has to be xx in the suit

This could easily be managed by a subtle re-wording of the rules for Iota to something along the lines of "...any time that the original Iota got a response that shows only one possible alternative" rather than the existing reference to 4 or 6-step responses.

[tosunerk]

Hi all ,Nuri
would that be true

Bidding (Opps silent)
North     South
1         1
1NT(1)    2 (2)
2 (3)    2NT(4)
3 (5)    3NT(6)
               4 (61)
4 (7)    5 ( 8 )
6 (9)         All Pass

(1) Beta
(2) 4 Controls
(3) Iota in Spades
(4) xx
(5) Repeat Iota (Sets Spades as trumps)
(6) To play or single
(61) xx
           

[tosunerk]

Hi all ,

North       South
1           1
1NT(1)      2 (2)
2 (3)     2NT(4)
3 (5)     3NT(6)
               4 (61)

(1) Beta
(2) 4 Controls
(3) Iota in Spades
(4) xx
(5) Repeat Iota (Sets Spades as trumps)
(6) To play or single
(61) xx
                 Thank you ...