[diana_eva]

MrAce, on 2015-February-06, 17:01, said:

It is reasonable to to think slam. But to say 30-31 hcp with only 8 card fit and balanced vs balanced is plenty for slam, is an overstatement imo.

Yep. I know, that's what I am trying to debug. Why did I go from "too flat to 4nt" to "slam is certain" I guess it was something like
"If he answers 2♥ we might have slam"
"Oh my, he did answer 2♥ - we have slam!"

[gszes]

If your system has a bid that allows for a "mild slam try" this hand
is good enough to warrant its use. The different "standards" proposed all
take up a rather large amount of space w/o exchanging virtually any useful
information. Since responder may be interested in a grand this huge waste
of space may make the grand slam search much more difficult. W/o a low level
exploration mechanism I would subside in 4h.

Slam exploration w/o shortness needs a lot of space. IMHO 1n 2c 2h 2s
and 1n 2c 2s 3h (with the first forcing to at least 3h and the latter
forcing to at least 3s) should show some form of 54 in the majors and
invitational or greater. While the shape is unknown this shows opener
where 9 of your cards are located and allows them to much more accurately
make game or no game decisions. This is much like P_Marlowe but with game
decision utility also. It is highly important to be able to show distribution
so opener can tell how well their hand fits opposite yours for game or slam
purposes.

This mechanism also allows for slam exploration on hands where opener is
interested in game since they can begin cue bidding immediately (it will be
a rare hand that is not interested in game that is "slam worthy"). If opener
is not interested in game and responder still wants to search for slam all
they have to do is cuebid.