[manudude03]

---

Partner has shown a good raise, your call?

[gszes]

many many ways to see 5d making not so many for 6d
its unfortunate 4s is not available but life is like that.

[Fluffy]

partner has denied spades with 3♥ so there is a big double fit, my main concern is that they don't defend over 6♦ because they are making a lot of tricks. Sadly my only choices are 4NT, 5♦ and 6♦. I will go with 4NT mudding the waters.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2013-March-25, 10:59, said:

partner has denied spades with 3♥ so there is a big double fit, my main concern is that they don't defend over 6♦ because they are making a lot of tricks. Sadly my only choices are 4NT, 5♦ and 6♦. I will go with 4NT mudding the waters.

But he also hasn't bid 4♣ fit, what shape do you think he has ?

[ggwhiz]

cue bid my ♣Q6 and hope for the best? Which would be good unless it goes float.

[Phil]

Fluffy, on 2013-March-25, 10:59, said:

partner has denied spades with 3♥

?

[billw55]

I'll try 6♦, which I expect to make when partner has the ♣A or K, or ♠A and they lead don't lead a club.

[mikeh]

What I don't see so far is any attempt to understand partner's probable hand type.

He didn't splinter, despite being marked with 0-1 heart...given RHO's blast on limited high card, there is a good chance of 0.

He didn't blast 5♦, as he would do with Kxxx in diamonds, not much defence, and a void diamond...or even a stiff.

So he rates to have soft black cards. Too much defence to take an advance save, and not enough pure offence to splinter. I'd guess he has 3 trumps quite often.

Even so, and assuming I am correct, it still seems to me to be a toss-up as to whether slam is going to make. Note that slam will make on a lot of hands on which it would fail on double dummy defence.

I don't see any way of involving partner. A fake 4N might work, but it is really not much different than blasting. After all, you might be down off the top opposite 2 keys with the trump Queen or might be cold opposite no keycard: picture Kxxx x Qxxxx KJx (I'm not saying that is or isn't a 3♥call, merely quickly making up a hand cold for slam with no keycards).

I don't think 5♣ is passable, but what does it accomplish other than make you sweat waiting to see whether partner agrees? How is he to know how to evaluate?

I swing low, and settle for 5♦.

Btw, I didn't see anyone double: there is a chance for 500 or 800 opposite our 400/420, if partner has strategic black cards and we can tap declarer, but I think the odds are against this.

[Cyberyeti]

I bid 6♦. I think it makes often enough to be worth bidding, and I think I know what to do to 6♥ if partner doesn't do it first.

[Lord Molyb]

Hmmm, based on the auction, I'm actually east.
6♦

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-25, 14:41, said:

I bid 6♦. I think it makes often enough to be worth bidding, and I think I know what to do to 6♥ if partner doesn't do it first.

Do you play in games in which the opps would ever bid 6♥? At equal? Wow.

Clearly, if playing in such weak fields, one should bid 6♦ for two reasons. One is that they may save and the other is that they must be so bad that your odds of misdefence go way up

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2013-March-25, 15:56, said:

Do you play in games in which the opps would ever bid 6♥? At equal? Wow.

Clearly, if playing in such weak fields, one should bid 6♦ for two reasons. One is that they may save and the other is that they must be so bad that your odds of misdefence go way up

Not often, but I made the point because I hate the auctions where I bid 5♦ and don't know what to do over 5♥.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-25, 16:24, said:

Not often, but I made the point because I hate the auctions where I bid 5♦ and don't know what to do over 5♥.

Well, it seems to me that if you have decided NOT to bid slam, hence 5♦, it would be very strange to refrain from doubling.

I'm not even going to get into the fp/not fp situation since I think this is one of those auctions on which there could be logical disagreement. I wouldn't take it as an fp situation, since we were never in a force beyond 4♦: my 5♦ call might be a save. Others may disagree

Obviously, if it were a fp situation, that would be perfect: indeed, if we knew that (1) they'd take the push and (2) it was an fp, then 5♦ is vastly superior to 6♦, since we can express both doubt and interest in slam, which seems a perfect description.

It is very tough to come up with a layout on which they can get out for less than 500 even if hearts are 3=0=6=4. I don't believe partner has Kxxx or KQxx in diamonds and a heart void, btw. Those holdings should get an immediate 5♦ call, not 3♥. If he has a heart void, I'd expect something like 4=0=3=6.

Since I expect partner to have some defensive values in the blacks, we'd be very unlucky if they could run either black suit as a surrogate trump suit, which is the usual counter to being tapped...tap the defenders back.

[rogerclee]

6D seems odds on to make so I would just bid it.

[the hog]

I will bid what will probably make and that is 5D, not 6.

[lycier]

I'd bid 4♠ to show a control in ♠,and then I will bid up to 6♦ if the partner can be able to cuebid 5♣,otherwise only sign off on 5♦.

[Cyberyeti]

lycier, on 2013-March-26, 00:52, said:

I'd bid 4♠ to show a control in ♠,and then I will bid up to 6♦ if the partner can be able to cuebid 5♣,otherwise only sign off on 5♦.

This is what I do with 6 or 7 diamonds and 4 spades offering the contract a level lower if partner wants to pass/bid 5♠ over 5♥, no thanks.

[PhilKing]

4NT - DI (general slam try in this case), and then sign off over 5♣ - my guess is slam is on about a third of the time, so I leave it to partner. He will often be 4135 (so llefty is 53M??m righty 45M??m) given no splinter, so there is a big double fit. I'm very tempted to double. Even though we are very unlikely to set up a force, the hand rates to play pretty badly for them, but slam prospects are just a tad too good to take the money.

[ewj]

6D for me.

[billw55]

PhilKing, on 2013-March-26, 06:10, said:

... my guess is slam is on about a third of the time ...

This seems a little pessimistic. Still, you have shown proficiency with data. I would be interested in a sim.