[MFA]

In general I find situations like this hard to judge:

♠ AQ9
♥ AK743
♦ A5
♣ AK8

Imps/none. 2nd seat.

(3♦) - X - (pass) - 3♥
(pass) - 4♦ - (pass) - 4♥
(pass) - ?

4♦ was a strong raise to 4♥.

What now?

[ewj]

Well this is an easy pass as far as I'm concerned...you just don't have any tricks. Wouldn't surprise me if game didn't make....

[FrancesHinden]

Yes, I also pass.
But I would be a tad disappointed if game didn't make.

[dicklont]

Pass. Partner shows only a couple of hearts, nothing more.
You will lose a diamond so to make a slam partner must bring ♠K ♥Q ♣Q.
That would be a perfect hand. You won't find the perfect hand very often.

[bid_em_up]

I think this hand is worth one more try, and that 5♦ will best say "if you have anything at all, we have a play for 6. So 5♦ it is for me.

[ArtK78]

Pass.

The range of partner's possible hands on this auction is wide, but the top end should not include slam. I would guess that we are going to make between 8-11 tricks, with 10 being the most likely result.

Partner would need quite a few cards in the right places to make a slam. That is why I think it is right to pass. You did more than force to game - you made a slam try opposite a possible blizzard. And partner said no.

[Phil]

Pass. Pard should make a forward-going move with two honors, so slam rates to be on a losing finesse at best opposite xxx xxxxx xx Qxx.

Of course we could also be facing xxx xxxx xxx xxx where even 10 tricks will be a challenge, although I would not expect three hearts since pard will leave in the double with some really abysmal hands.

[Hanoi5]

I'm really bold or crazy in this sort of situations and usually get to 6, either by keeping on trying or by just jumping to the slam. It's certainly not a good approach, especially with this hand, terrible things could happen, some of the most obvious are that KJ of spades are badly placed or the ♦K lead might be even ruffed by preemptor's partner!
Our hand has LOTS of points but as someone said once, points don't take tricks, and in this hand we might even be playing against a 'mirror' hand and then there might be no way to make the slam.

Of course, you could say that this is a very pessimistic approach but being over-optimistic is just as bad. I think this all boils down on partner's style or level. By bidding 3♥ partner showed a really bad hand (0-9 ?), but would he cue-bid on:

Kx
Qxxx
xxx
JTxx

or could he have:

xx
Qxxx
xx
QJxxx

Both of which give us a fairly chance of making 6 (I believe...).

So partner's style is important, he should cue-bid on most hands where slam is on, and since he didn't cue-bid and I'm oh so crazy I'll give it a try again with 5♣, or 5♦ if the other cue-bid could sound some-how natural.

[Phil]

Hanoi5, on Mar 6 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

but would he cue-bid on:

Kx
Qxxx
xxx
JTxx

Yes, this is a 100% 4♠ call.

Quote

or could he have:

xx
Qxxx
xx
QJxxx

Slightly tougher, but I think 5♥ is OK. Of course this is easy knowing the mousse across.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Mar 6 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

Quote

or could he have:

xx
Qxxx
xx
QJxxx

Slightly tougher, but I think 5♥ is OK. Of course this is easy knowing the mousse across.

I think that's too double dummy, partner would automatically sign off with that hand. In fact move a club to hearts (edit: I meant diamonds, trying to create a hand that's even worse than this one) and slam is still all but cold. So I'll risk 5♦. Frankly I don't know what I would do with the hand above opposite that bid either, but I'll at least give partner a chance.

I'd be shocked to see 4 go down, and consider it pretty unlucky if 5 went down.

[xcurt]

You're very control rich and partner has no steps between 4♦ and the signoff (4♥) so his 4♥ call doesn't tell you very much (specifically, the information content, expressed by the Shannon entropy associated with partner's action set over 4♥, is low).

I think you need to give partner another chance.

[rogerclee]

I would pass, but a higher Shannon entropy would make me feel a lot more confident.

[mikestar]

I'd risk one more try. True, if partner had ♠K ♥Q and ♣Q he would have likely gone past game, but he doesn't need a this perfecto for slam to have a good play.

[H_KARLUK]

I respect 4H and I do not think having a reasonable option except Pass. Partner is not blind. X then cue gives th big.

[whereagles]

It's easy for pard to undervalue his 6 or 7-count. But I think we should stay fixed and pass.

[CSGibson]

I'm bidding 5♥, which I believe in this situation should show control bids in everything, not looking for any specific cue from partner, just overall suitability of his hand. If it goes down, then it goes down.

[OleBerg]

I am not moving.

On double, partner will be 4♥ with a good-looking 10-count. Thus on 4♦ he would surely move with a good looking 8-count.

So, even if 6♥ is more likely to make, than 5♥ is to go down, it will only be by a small margin. (And yes, I expect everyone to be in at least 4♥.)

There is another problem, however:

It is far from certain that partner will do the right thing, if we move on.

He might easily bid a bad slam, or stay out of a good one.

[P_Marlowe]

5H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[MFA]

I tried 5♦ which led to a not quite good enough 6♥, down 1.
I think a crucial point here is that partner will have a tough time moving towards slam over 4♦. There are no in between bids available and we have all the 5 key cards. But it's close to try again over 4♥.

[Hanoi5]

What was partner's hand? Would 5♣ have been better?