Slammy?

[dake50]

I agree. Just because partner showed a strong hand and did not double 4♠ doesn't mean that there are 12 tricks here. And if there are, partner should have a reasonable idea where to play it when I bid 4NT. -- ArtK78

 

*** Should this be "Just because partner doubles, doesn't mean there aren't 12 tricks here"

"And if there are, I'll have a reasonable idea how to continue"??

[mfa1010]

I regard that hand as a vindication of my decision not to bid slam.

 

Sure. But it is close. If partner had a club less and a heart more, 6♥ would have been excellent, while we might go down in 5♣, if they take a heart ruff and we have another club to lose.

 

On this deal "know what you're doing" doesn't just mean "know what suits are being shown". Partner seems to have a lot of useful 10s and 9s, and the location of his jack is rather important:

- Opposite Ax KJ10x Ax A9xxx, 6♥ is the best of a bad bunch of slams.

- Opposite Ax KJxx Ax Axxxx, 6♥ is pretty poor on the bidding.

- Opposite Ax K10xx Ax AJ9xx, 6♣ is best, but again nothing special.

- Opposite Ax KJ10x Ax AJ9xx, 6♥ is best.

Even in an uncontested auction you'd be doing very well to get all these hands right.

 

Partner can see for himself where his queens, jacks and tens are placed. If we have solid agreements, he can generally make intelligent decisions. If we have bad agreements, he will hedge to avoid playing something completely silly.

 

Another consideration is that if responder shows a three-suiter and we reach 6♣ or 6♥, RHO will be on lead, If anyone has a side-suit singleton, it's likely to be him.

 

I don't think I agree with this one. The opponents had 11 spades, and it was as expected LHO who had 6. RHO would usually bid more than 1♠ with 6.

 

Finally, you're not bidding in a vacuum. The more information you exchange, the more likely it is that they find their ruff if there is one.

 

True of course. But hardly a good reason not to discuss system. On any given hand one is always free to take a shot instead of being technical if it looks right to give less info. But getting to a bad slam contract (where some much better one is available) is a huge disaster.

[gnasher]

I don't think I agree with this one. The opponents had 11 spades, and it was as expected LHO who had 6. RHO would usually bid more than 1♠ with 6.

Sorry, you're right. I'd temporarily forgotten who'd overcalled.

[gnasher]

True of course. But hardly a good reason not to discuss system. On any given hand one is always free to take a shot instead of being technical if it looks right to give less info. But getting to a bad slam contract (where some much better one is available) is a huge disaster.

Yes of course, but that wasn't quite what I meant. I was still talking about the merits of reaching slam on this pair of hands. 6♥ is a reasonable contract if we can get there without revealing much, but a bad contract if we show a club fit on the way. If the options are:

- Bid these hands to game

- Bid these hands to slam, sometimes getting to the wrong one

- Bid these hands to 6♥, but announcing a club fit en route

I still think it's right to stay in game

[ArtK78]

I agree. Just because partner showed a strong hand and did not double 4♠ doesn't mean that there are 12 tricks here. And if there are, partner should have a reasonable idea where to play it when I bid 4NT. -- ArtK78

 

*** Should this be "Just because partner doubles, doesn't mean there aren't 12 tricks here"

"And if there are, I'll have a reasonable idea how to continue"??

 

In the OP, there was a forcing pass over 4♠. This implies that partner does not have significant values in spades, or else he would have doubled.

 

In short, I meant what I said.

 

What you are saying is that slam might be possible even if partner had doubled 4♠. I suppose it is possible, but it is less likely than if partner makes the forcing pass.

 

I am not willing to bid a slam over the forcing pass. Hopefully partner will be able to do something intelligent over 4NT.

[mfa1010]

Yes of course, but that wasn't quite what I meant. I was still talking about the merits of reaching slam on this pair of hands. 6♥ is a reasonable contract if we can get there without revealing much, but a bad contract if we show a club fit on the way. If the options are:

- Bid these hands to game

- Bid these hands to slam, sometimes getting to the wrong one

- Bid these hands to 6♥, but announcing a club fit en route

I still think it's right to stay in game

 

I don't think a club fit (or any side suit fit) would be announced in these situations.

 

If we get to 6♥, the auction would continue: 5NT-6♥ or whatever bid instead of 5NT that announces a 3-suiter at once.

From the opponents' perspective, opener could still have "anything".

 

On the actual hand it is pretty big if opener chooses hearts after 5NT. On other hands (1 heart more, same texture) it would be obvious and we would be happy to get all three strains in play.

[dake50]

In the OP, there was a forcing pass over 4♠. This implies that partner does not have significant values in spades, or else he would have doubled.

In short, I meant what I said.

What you are saying is that slam might be possible even if partner had doubled 4♠. I suppose it is possible, but it is less likely than if partner makes the forcing pass.

I am not willing to bid a slam over the forcing pass. Hopefully partner will be able to do something intelligent over 4NT. -- ArtK78

 

*** Absolutely, so agree.

The forcing pass should have some slammy potential.

Double warns against further unless I have the nuts.

Now only the details of what is a minimum to use forcing pass.

Do you disagree with my posted minimum?

Do you disagree with my "must choose double"?