[Mbodell]

---

[Cyberyeti]

I think you have to bid more, I'd bid 5♣

AKJxx, x, AK, xxxxx for example is a potential grand on a non trump lead and an excellent small on a trump lead.

[mcphee]

I would have jumped to 5C over the 3H raise and got it over with, now (even though I would also bid 5C now)a 5C bid may get partner thinking we have a D card that looks better than j104th. Clearly there are lots of hands where 6, even 7 is a spread, but I sure hope he does not have Kxxx in D or Qxx and AK5th on lead. After all what is this puppy raise to 3H when they obviously have short spades and know there will be a raise. I make the next move but I am prepared to have bad things happen and accept the blame.

[whereagles]

Pass.

Slam depends on pard's diamond holding and there's no way he's gonna find out a 5C bid from me is based on a void (or a short at least). He'll have every reason to bid to a hopeless 6 on

AKxxx
x
Qxx
Axxx

[ggwhiz]

5C here

Partner will overvalue club honors but won't bid slam without a diamond control as per the above example.

[Hanoi5]

AKxxx
x
Axx
Qxxx

Why can't partner hold this hand? If you feel lucky 5♣ is the scientific way to go. A jump to 6♠ will work sometimes, too.

[cherdano]

I absolutely hate bidding on. There are many hands where 5♠ is down, and we won't be able to make an informed decision when we bid on. Diamond finesses are likely to be off. Also, opponents bid to 3♥ - either partner has a heart void (bad, that means he has less values elsewhere), or opponents are shapely (bad).

Oh, and partner does not have AK AK with good shape.

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2014-February-09, 14:05, said:

I absolutely hate bidding on. There are many hands where 5♠ is down, and we won't be able to make an informed decision when we bid on. Diamond finesses are likely to be off. Also, opponents bid to 3♥ - either partner has a heart void (bad, that means he has less values elsewhere), or opponents are shapely (bad).

Oh, and partner does not have AK AK with good shape.

Partner has climbed in vulnerable opposite a passed partner, he doesn't have a really bad 2♠ either, AKJxx, x, A8x, xxxx is potentially enough to make the slam, it gets much better if he has a 6th spade. Also he doesn't have to go nuts opposite our 4♥ as our hand is limited by failure to open.

[cherdano]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-09, 16:35, said:

Partner has climbed in vulnerable opposite a passed partner, he doesn't have a really bad 2♠ either, AKJxx, x, A8x, xxxx is potentially enough to make the slam, it gets much better if he has a 6th spade. Also he doesn't have to go nuts opposite our 4♥ as our hand is limited by failure to open.

So how are you going to find out whether partner has this hand or AKJxx x Ax xxxxx? And you did give partner AKA with no wastage...

[the hog]

Pass.I agree with Arend that there are too many hands where you will not make 5S to justify the risk of bidding on.

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2014-February-09, 18:04, said:

So how are you going to find out whether partner has this hand or AKJxx x Ax xxxxx? And you did give partner AKA with no wastage...

I gave partner AKA with no wastage because I expect him to have more than that most of the time, even opposite your hand the chance of the weak 2 opener having ♦Hx gives me play.

Yes partner can have an unsuitable hand, but it's going to be rare for 5 not to be decent. Yes AKJxx, x, Qxx, KJxx is perfectly possible and it might go off on a diamond lead, but they have to find it, if partner has AKJxx, J, xxx, KQxx OK I got it wrong, but I think I'm making 6 more often than I'm going off in 5.

Edit: there is also a question of philosophy here, in my partnership "are we bidding and making 6 more often than we're going off in 5 (or 6 if we bid it)" is basically the question we ask ourselves, other people like to be more certain that 5 is secure than we do.

[quiddity]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-09, 18:17, said:

Edit: there is also a question of philosophy here, in my partnership "are we bidding and making 6 more often than we're going off in 5 (or 6 if we bid it)" is basically the question we ask ourselves, other people like to be more certain that 5 is secure than we do.

In my partnership "do I have a seven count with a possibly worthless ♠Q and a ♥A opposite partner's void, and did I give partner a chance to bid on with a good hand, and did he just tell me to shove off despite likely holding a heart void, and am I really still sitting here wondering what to do" is basically the question we ask ourselves.

[wank]

i put dummy down and hope i've got enough to make game. making 2 slam tries opposite a 2 level overcall with a de facto 3 or 1 HCP would be excessive (i'm in a good mood hence the terminological restraint).

[gszes]

the bidding actually makes our hand (for slam purposes) look more like

xxxxx xxxx JT98 void The heart A is a trick but it will rarely be trick 12.

Do we really wish to push on when all p could do was bid 4s after we bid 4h????

Pass now and accept partners decision to not go slamming even though you tried

with your 4h bid. Once in a while P will have a perfecto but maybe not often enough

to make up for some 6 and even 5 level contracts failing.

[Cyberyeti]

 quiddity, on 2014-February-09, 20:56, said:

In my partnership "do I have a seven count with a possibly worthless ♠Q and a ♥A opposite partner's void, and did I give partner a chance to bid on with a good hand, and did he just tell me to shove off despite likely holding a heart void, and am I really still sitting here wondering what to do" is basically the question we ask ourselves.

This is the most ridiculous post I've seen in a while, partner is going to think a load of small clubs are terrible when in fact they're great. The Q♠ is potentially extremely important as I may be playing a complete crossruff and it won't be overruffed, the 5th spade is absolutely vast, my hand has become a clear opener in the knowledge that partner has spades. Also with all these intermediates, I'd have opened this hand with another Q, so I'm pretty max, is partner really expected to see that AKxxxx, (x), KQ/Ax(x), xxxx is dynamite ? I'd bid as I have with say QJx, Axxx, xxx, Kxxx and my hand is several tricks better than that.

[cherdano]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-10, 04:24, said:

This is the most ridiculous post I've seen in a while, partner is going to think a load of small clubs are terrible when in fact they're great. The Q♠ is potentially extremely important as I may be playing a complete crossruff and it won't be overruffed, the 5th spade is absolutely vast, my hand has become a clear opener in the knowledge that partner has spades. Also with all these intermediates, I'd have opened this hand with another Q, so I'm pretty max, is partner really expected to see that AKxxxx, (x), KQ/Ax(x), xxxx is dynamite ? I'd bid as I have with say QJx, Axxx, xxx, Kxxx and my hand is several tricks better than that.

I think you are really way off. Partner is never going to figure out that you have club shortness, so how is he supposed to stop with club shortage and go one with diamond values?

If you want to bid on now, you should have started with a 5♣ splinter over 3♥ - at least, then you would get to slam opposite the right hands more often.

[cherdano]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-09, 18:17, said:

Edit: there is also a question of philosophy here, in my partnership "are we bidding and making 6 more often than we're going off in 5 (or 6 if we bid it)" is basically the question we ask ourselves, other people like to be more certain that 5 is secure than we do.

I don't think there will be many hands where slam is better than 60%. You need 5 such hands for every hand where you go down in 5♠.

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2014-February-10, 05:16, said:

I think you are really way off. Partner is never going to figure out that you have club shortness, so how is he supposed to stop with club shortage and go one with diamond values?

If you want to bid on now, you should have started with a 5♣ splinter over 3♥ - at least, then you would get to slam opposite the right hands more often.

I would have bid 5♣ first time, but was going with the OP, and from my point of view with a passed hand I'm only going on here with something exceptional, so 5♣ IS a void almost all the time.

 cherdano, on 2014-February-10, 05:18, said:

I don't think there will be many hands where slam is better than 60%. You need 5 such hands for every hand where you go down in 5♠.

don't get this maths at all

Assuming game at the other table, going off in 5 costs you 12, making 6 gains you 13 so why 5:1 ?

Also you seem to think partner will bid on much more often than I do.

[rmnka447]

Pass.

Although you haven't shown your ♣ control, you have already shown the value of your hand with your 4 ♥ bid. Unless opener has made an unusual weak 2 bid with 5 vulnerable or responder has raised with a doubleton, your A ♥ is probably only useful to provide a pitch from partner's hand.

You have no reason to suspect the high card assets in the hand are split any more than evenly between the pairs. Putting specific cards in partner's hand is never a good idea unless bridge logic really tells you they are there. Here you have no idea what partner holds and really never will be able to find out. If partner holds the right values, slam might be lay down. But as likely, if partner holds the wrong cards, 4 ♠ goes down. Making an additional move toward slam at this point is a top or bottom shot in the dark.

Partner heard your 4 ♥ and didn't make any further move toward slam. Since bidding is a cooperative process, I think it's right to accept partner's judgment and pass.

[Mbodell]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-10, 05:56, said:

I would have bid 5♣ first time, but was going with the OP, and from my point of view with a passed hand I'm only going on here with something exceptional, so 5♣ IS a void almost all the time.

I thought about it, but with this partner we:

1. Don't play exclusion
2. Do play in general fit jumps by passed hands and in competition

Now a fit jump above game likely doesn't really make sense (although maybe it shows all my values in my 10 black cards?), but I didn't want to pull it out undisucssed and test partner with this.