A difficult slam to bid.
Bridge Column for December 20, 2002, Harvey Bernstein
Neither side vulnerable.  North deals.
                              North
                              S: Q 10 5 4         
                              H: A 10 3      
                              D: A J 10 9    
                              C: 8 4     
            West                             East
            S: 7                             S: 9 6 2        
            H: Q 5 4                         H: K 9 8 7 6  
            D: 8 6 5 4 3 2                   D: 7                 
            C: J 9 5                         C: K 10 7 2    
                              South                         
                              S: A K J 8 3
                              H: J 2        
                              D: K Q       
                              C: A Q 6 3  
          The Bidding:  
                  North    East    South    West                  
                   Pass    Pass     1S      Pass
                   3S      Pass     4C      Pass
                   4D      Pass     4S      Pass
                   5H      Pass     6S      Pass
                   Pass    Pass
     This hand is from a Swiss Team event at the Fall North
American Bridge Championships in Phoenix, AZ which was held from
November 29 through December 8.  I held the South cards.  My
partner, in the North seat, was Roger Siegel of Aurora.  Our team
mates, at the companion table were Jane Meyer of Mesa, AZ and Lee
Morgenlander of Sarasota, FL.
     The hand illustrates a bidding tool that is often misused
and misunderstood.  After Siegel passed in first seat, I decided
to open one spade.  There are some who would opt for two no
trump, but the placement of the honor cards makes me think that
this is not the right hand for that action.  Siegel's three spade
bid showed three or four spades and a 'near' opening hand.  
     I don't have any bidding room to show my power so I made a
"Cue Bid" of four clubs.  I am showing first round control of
that suit and starting a bidding sequence that my partner will
recognize as a part of a slam investigation.  
     Siegle cooperated by bidding four diamonds, showing first
round control of that suit.
     This was the point in the auction that caused me a problem. 
With many partners, a bid of five spades would say that I wanted
to be in slam but I had two quick heart losers and was unable to
bid the slam.  Siegel and I had never discussed this, or, I could
not remember having discussed it.  I decided to bid four spades
and leave it up to him.  
     Siegel realized that if I had a singleton heart I would have
just bid six spades, so I must have a problem in that suit.  He
resolved the issue by bidding five hearts.  I jumped to the small
slam and that became the final contract.
     You may ask why the Blackwood convention never came into
play.  From my perspective, had I asked for aces and found out
that my partner had only one, I would still not have enough
information.  Partner could have a singleton heart or the king-
queen of hearts and slam would be very possible.  From Siegle's
perspective, we were in a cue bidding situation and he had
another ace to show me.  I think that he may have bid Blackwood
if he had a singleton heart and was concerned about the ace of
spades.
     The play was straight forward.  West led the eight of
diamonds and I let it come around to my king.  Trumps were drawn
in three rounds.  The queen of diamonds was overtaken by the ace
and a club an a heart were discarded on the two high diamonds. 
The club finesse was successful and the contract was made with an
overtrick.  The opposition pair at the other table stopped in
game and as a result, lost 12 IMPs on the board.     
_______________________________________________________
Bernstein is a free-lance writer in Solon.