[awm]

Matchpoints, none vulnerable.

You hold ♠AKJxxx ♥xx ♦KT ♣T9x

1♠ - 2♦ - 3♦ (LR+) - Pass
3♠ (NF) - 4♦ - 4♥(cuebid) - Pass
???

Do you sign off in 4♠, or proceed past game?

[Apollo81]

I'd sign off. It looks an awful lot like pard is concerned about a diamond stopper, and while I have one, i doubt that it is a trick unless LHO is feeling friendly.

I actually wouldn't be surprised to go down in slam on the defense of ♦A, ♦ruff by RHO.

[mikeh]

This is easy, it seems to me. If partner has a hand that makes this a good slam, he has 5-level safety, especially after that weird 4♦ call virtually rules out xxx in diamonds in his hand, so he can make another try over 4♠, so long as I bid 4♠ in reasonable tempo.

[mtvesuvius]

4♠, yuck. I will bid this in good tempo so partner can push a little if he wants.

[awm]

The other side of this might be...

Partner evidently has terrible trumps. If partner also has no diamond control, it's hard to believe that partner can bid past 4♠ almost regardless of her hand. For example, give partner as good a hand as:

xxxx AKQ xx AKQJ

and it is not clear that you even have five-level safety (imagine ♦AK and an overruff of dummy if declarer has something like AKQxx Jxx Qxx xx, a hand I think everyone opens).

[jdonn]

5♦. I have the good trumps that partner needs. He won't bid past game without them on many hands that make slam. Are people considering what partner would need for slam from a hand that didn't even accept and invitation to game?

[mike777]

awm, on Mar 10 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

Matchpoints, none vulnerable.

You hold ♠AKJxxx ♥xx ♦KT ♣T9x

1♠ - 2♦ - 3♦ (LR+) - Pass
3♠ (NF) - 4♦ - 4♥(cuebid) - Pass
???

Do you sign off in 4♠, or proceed past game?

I thought this was an easy 4s but will now read the posts to see why I was wrong.

side note I give up on slam very very often at MP....this one seemed really easy to give up on.

[mike777]

awm, on Mar 10 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

The other side of this might be...

Partner evidently has terrible trumps. If partner also has no diamond control, it's hard to believe that partner can bid past 4♠ almost regardless of her hand. For example, give partner as good a hand as:

xxxx AKQ xx AKQJ

and it is not clear that you even have five-level safety (imagine ♦AK and an overruff of dummy if declarer has something like AKQxx Jxx Qxx xx, a hand I think everyone opens).

nonexpert but I rebid 5c /4s with that hand.......

[whereagles]

Sign-off if pard is optimistic. 4NT if he knows what he's doing.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2009, 08:38 AM, said:

5♦. I have the good trumps that partner needs. He won't bid past game without them on many hands that make slam. Are people considering what partner would need for slam from a hand that didn't even accept and invitation to game?

Pd makes a slam try with at most Qxxx in trumps and maybe lacking a diamond control in the face of the weakest possible rebid?
I have solid trumps, six of them and a diamond guard.

I really thought, that this is a no brainer 5 ♦- luckily at least some agree with this bid.

[Hanoi5]

This hand sort of turned out to be a pre-emptive hand, my only HCP outside spades are in diamonds and apparently badly placed. I sign-off at 4♠.

[mike777]

Hanoi5, on Mar 11 2009, 06:12 AM, said:

This hand sort of turned out to be a pre-emptive hand, my only HCP outside spades are in diamonds and apparently badly placed. I sign-off at 4♠.

Confusing are you saying:
1) limit plus or
2) less than limit?

3) assuming you have limit and often muchmore....then I rebid 4s...wait for your next bid....

[kenrexford]

5♦.

I have a sixth trump, with a diamond control, and both top trumps, and I advertised a minimum.

If my diamond had been the Ace, I might have bid game. If I had not bid game, I would now be seeing a grand.

[hotShot]

If partners 3♦ implies shortness in ♦, than my ♦K is a wasted value.
My hand has 7 loser, so I would need 6 covers from partner to make slam.
Even holding that monster hand ♠Qxxx ♥AKx ♦xx ♣AKQx 6♠ can be down.

[kenrexford]

hotShot, on Mar 11 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

If partners 3♦ implies shortness in ♦, than my ♦K is a wasted value.
My hand has 7 loser, so I would need 6 covers from partner to make slam.
Even holding that monster hand ♠Qxxx ♥AKx ♦xx ♣AKQx 6♠ can be down.

If partner's 3♦ implies three small clubs, then we might go down in game. But, it does not imply three small clubs,. Nor does 3♦ imply three small diamonds.

Besides, providing hands where we will go down in 6♠ does very little to help the cause along unless a 5♦ cue is a relay to 6♠. Partner would have four options after 5♦:

1. Seek a grand slam
2. Bid a small slam
3. Last Train the slam try by bidding 5♥, or
4. Decline the slam try by bidding 5♠

With the actual hand that you provide, your partner is looking at the diamond problem also. If he does any visualization at all, he may well realize that he needs Opener to have the AK-A perfecto, or diamond shortness. 5♥ could ask that question without going to the slam.

[Fluffy]

I sing off in 4 spades because I don't like my diamond holding, we could easilly be down on a diamond ruff.

Partner could had bid 5 spades if he was jsut woried about diamond control.

Partner is not having a good side suit (he would had showed it instead of 3♦). And our diamond holding makes slam very unlikelly. (where are we ditching our diamond losers?)

[oldman5757]

At one level, this is a simple question and answer. P's 4♥ cue asks for a control and we have good trumps, the ♦ K, and should therefore show it. WTP?

As a non-expert, to me the first problem is that shouldn't 5 ♦ show a first-round control, and indicate slam interest, even though my earlier 3 ♠ bid limited my hand? I don't think that my failure to bid game denies ♦ A. What would I have done with AQ10xxx, Jx, Ax, 109x? The second and related problem is that showing the ♦ K could therefore easily lead to an unmakeable slam or even a grand off an A.

I'm just going to bid 4♠ in tempo. If absolutely the only thing P needs me to have, in addition to my good trumps, is a 2d round control in ♦, would he not ask for it specifically by bidding 5 ♣? Now, with the control and with my good trumps, I'd accept and bid 6 ♠. Even if P produces a monster like Qxx, AQJx, Jx, AKQJ, slam is only 50-50. Presumably if P had any ♣ or ♥ length, he'd have shown it instead of the generalized cue in support of ♠.

[skjaeran]

Having signed off in 3♠ already, I'm not taking the low road now. 5♦.