If I bid slam on the first one, they'd lead a club to the A, and ruff the club return
On a more serious note, I don't think the East hand is quite worth 4
♥. It is a balanced 18 count with a LTC of 6 and, given that it is 18, a fairly 'soft' hand. I think it is a maximum 3
♥ call, which should still leave West thinking about slam.
I think this is a slam that is easier to bid in a big club method, where the fit and gf are established far, far below the 4 level. As it is, the West hand doesn't possess 5 level safety...I'm not worried, at all, about thinking of hands on which game fails, but it is easy to picture hands that are far 'stronger' than the one actually held on which the 5-level is unsafe: AQx K10xx AKQx xx offers no play for 11 tricks.
Ax AKxx KQxx Kxx is another 'huge' hand, and slam isn't that good a spot.....even if one avoids a club ruff, one still needs to find the club J.
On the second one, I don't understand how we cannot show a splinter. Moreover, assuming the same agreements, doesn't this weirdness make bidding the first one even more problematic?
I assume that on the first hand, opener could have a splinter as well? I would give up at that point....any method that requires the same blunt game bid on both hands is unplayable in a serious game, imo.
But getting back to the problem, on the second hand I think we are a little more slam friendly than the first, primarily because we own an Ace and we don't have a void in what rates to be partner's best suit. I'd bid 5
♦, then 5
♠ over 5
♥, and let opener decide if he has a 'good' hand for slam opposite this one try.
Had opener been able to show diamond shortness, I would again make one try.....if he did so via 4
♦, I would bid 4
♥ if playing last train....in some methods, 4
♦ shows a void (3
♦ being a stiff), and maybe that would slow me down.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari