Another third seat opening contract. As such, this may be difficult to get to slam.

Bidding: West open's the bidding in third seat 1♠. This time East uses Drury to force the auction, 2♣ is a a 3-card limit raise (or better) asking opener to further define his hand. In response to 2♣ West bids 3♦ (2♦ would have been artificial) showing a second suit in diamonds. East raises to 4♦ ... let me STOP here for a moment. With East's Drury bid the trump suit has been established as spades, ALL subsequent bidding is helping the partnership form a contract, BUT the final contract will be in spades. So after 3♦ - 4♦, the partnership knows they have a two-suited fit in spades and diamonds. West further knows that with two singletons West has a powerful 4 loser hand and goes slamming with 4NT as RKC Blackwood for spades. East responds 5♥ showing both the ♦A and the ♣A and West is happy to bid 6♠.

Bridge Winners can see the bidding footnotes on: http://thecommongame.com

Play: I had a discussion from last week's write ups (on Bridge Winners) about "good slams" vs. "bad slams" ... all this slam needs is for diamonds to split 2-2. When 9 cards are known missing 4 cards what is the percentage the missing cards will split 2-2 (40.70%) and thus, that is the percentage of making this slam. Sooo Douglas Winship this is a 41% slam. The standard under which I judge good slams vs. bad slams comes from Ron Klinerger, in short 50% is a good slam, so this is not a good slam to bid. In the auction presented here West's bid of 3♦ was not a good bid because it was not a suit with values, just length. Give West ♦K9743 and it makes the world of difference.

Bridge Winners can see the trick by trick play on: http://thecommongame.com