Posted 2008-April-24, 05:58
Aggressive? Not really. The cards look nice.
Insane? Not really. One could imagine partner having the right cards.
Stumble-Bunny? Extremely. The auction shows a complete lack of trust. Although you have a hand where slam is possible, partner could have bid 3NT, 4♣, or 4♦ instead of 4♥ to encourage you. He did not.
The fact that he had the hand that you needed, almost, is irrelevant. He could have had much worse. If this hand is the hand that he needed, then correction of his bidding weakness through overcompensation defeats partnership development. If you think that this slam should be approached, then acknowledge what went wrong.
One could argue, for instance, that you should clearly pass 4♥, but that Responder should have, for instance, made a non-serious slam move of cuebidding 4♣. Perhaps then, as an aggressive move, you might have cuebid 4♦ as a Last Train move. Perhaps even yet, after partner declines, you could then cue 4♠ as one last try, enabled by initial partner's 4♣. Maybe then your partner likes his fourth diamond and the position of his club Queen and pops back 5♣.
This back-and-forth approach on this hand might yield a slam bid that, in retrospect, was a bit aggressive. But, it would make some sense. Your auction makes no sense, not because of insanity or aggressiveness, but because of the loud statement that it makes about the weakness and lack of trust and overcompensation in your partnership. My guess is that your tendency to bid 4♠ in this situation is because partner is so timid. My other guess is that partner is so timid because of your tendency to bid 4♠ in an auction like this. Get trust back!
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.