Slam or no slam? (Part 1)

[iggygork]

Playing in a club MP event, all vul, you hold:

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sajxxxxxhaxxdakqc]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Playing 2/1 with Bergen raises, You open 1♠, leftie passes, pard bids 2♠, and now rightie comes in with 3♦! You bid 3♥ (random game try, the only one available, 3♠ would be competitive, X would be penalty and probably wise :P), leftie raises to 4♦. Pard now bids 4♠, rightie passes. And now you are in the hot seat.

 

Do you go slamming? If so, what is your call? All 5 level suit bids below 5♠ are cues (first round controls first in uncontested auctions, actual situation undiscussed).

 

If it changes your view of the situation, you may assume that you are an expert pro playing with an intermediate client who has about 700 MPs.

 

Gorkem

[Fluffy]

we can be cold to 7, so 6 is a good chance. Bid them before they know more than needed.

[jtfanclub]

Not being an expert pro, and never having had somebody be my client, I don't understand. Why did I bid 3♥?

[iggygork]

I am not the expert pro either, this hand was given to me under these conditions. If you did not bid 3♥, would you make some other forward going move or make double to end all penalty doubles? :P

[Apollo81]

I would have just bid exclusion over the 3♦ call if that was an option, but 3♥ seems OK since now you know that pard is very short in diamonds and that you can probably discard some heart losers.

 

Since this is a club game 6♠ rates to be an excellent score even if we are cold for 7, so that's what I'll bid. In a real game I would bid 5NT at this point.

[mikeh]

I'm bidding 6♠.

 

The bidding suggests that partner is void in ♦s. It is unfortunate that double of ♦ would have been penalty: I prefer it as 'extra values, no clear direction', such that 3♥ would have been specifically a ♥ try, and now I could draw an inference about the ♥ situation (a tenuous one, admittedly, since partner might accept all game tries with a ♦ void.

 

As it is, I am hoping to lose only one major suit trick... Kxx Kxxx void Jxxxxx is all I need even when trump are, as they may well be, 3-0.

 

Heck, KQx xxx void Qxxxxxx is virtually cold for 7♠ so I can hardly do less.

 

BTW, I would never have considered a penalty double with this hand. RHO is red. and presumably knows it. He must have an unusual hand... void xx Jxxxxxx AKQx.... catch LHO with xxx Kxx xxx Jxxx and try to beat 3♦ while missing your vulnerable slam.

 

(Note that on this hand, a penalty double would indeed be the 'double to end all penalty doubles', but not in quite the way suggested by iggy :P )

[whereagles]

Clients don't pay you for going down on speculative slams. Pass.

[Apollo81]

Clients don't pay you for going down on speculative slams. Pass.

I don't think this slam is very speculative. 7 would be speculative.

[pbleighton]

I bid 6S.

 

I would have bid 4S instead of 3S. It seems inconsistent to me that someone wouldn't consider this hand good enough for 4S, yet would think about 6S after pd goes to 4. Yes the opps bid diamonds, but you already knew you had no diamond losers/

 

Peter

[Codo]

Peter you never bid 3 ♠.

 

I think anything below 6 ♠ is an underbid.

But I do not have the tools to find out what my client has, so I settle for this contract and don´t gamble 7.

[the hog]

6S. Should have a good play. Clients don't want to languish in game when a slam is on.

[dake50]

The only single raise that I like is partner SKxx + HKx or HKQx .... Too perfect!

[han]

I like 6S as well.

[keylime]

Ditto. Six looks good here.

[HeartA]

another 6♠ bidder here

[whereagles]

I think you guys are right. To stop at 4♠ is gambling the layout is exactly the only one where slam doesn't make, e.g. something like

 

Kxx

xxxxx

x

KJxx

[iggygork]

Thank you to everyone for contributing their expertise and views. Most responders thought that the hand was worth a drive to 6♠. Here's the second part of this little hand:

 

Everything is exactly the same but....

 

Pard alerts your 3♥ bid as "showing shortness" right before she bids 4♠ after leftie's 4♦. The alert is a misalert, there is no such agreement (except in partner's head). 4♠ was bid in tempo.

 

Now, is there UI for the opener? If so, does it suggest going forward or staying put? What should you do? Does the 4♠ bid suggest whereagles' hand for pard rather than say, Kxx KJxxx x xxxx? Would you factor pard's lack of expertise into the decision?

 

I find these problems too tough to solve in the heat of the moment and am interested in knowing what people do in these situations.

[mikeh]

I suppose that there is an inference that partner thinks that ♣ cards are good and that ♥ cards are wasted, such that the alert (and subsequent misinformation) makes playing 4♠ more attractive.

 

Given that the consensus here was to bid on, and that the misinfo tends, to the extent it says anything, to suggest passing, passing would not be a permissible action, if I were on a committee.

 

If opener bid on in the face of the misinformation, and the opps protested a making slam, I would, on a committee, penalize (or warn) them on the basis that the Appeal Lacked Merit.