[the hog]

Deleted due to various inanities and a misreading of the op.

[kenberg]

Hog, one of us is reading this wrong. It's a spade void and Axx of hearts, is it not?

But then 6D does indeed sound nuts, absent a wire. Granted I don't play at that level but I don't get it.

Whether doubling and then pulling 4H to 6C promises diamonds is not clear to me. It may just be clubs and enough hearts to offer a club/heart choice.

Btw, over 3S-X it would not be amazing if the next call, on your left, is 4S. This brings more problems. If partner passes 4S I think I will settle, for 5C. If partner bids 5H over 4S I think I would try 5N, hopefully it's pick a slam.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Aug 10 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

Pretty obvious 6D bid.

LOL i know where this came from ahah

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Aug 10 2010, 07:23 AM, said:

But then 6D does indeed sound nuts, absent a wire.

And nuts on so many levels. For starters, if the 6D bidder buys the perfect hand so that the contract is cold, partner will raise to 7D.

A bid like 6D is not partnership bridge at all, let alone team bridge. When you have a big game at your table, it's not pleasant to find that a teammate at the other table has pissed away all those IMPs by taking unilateral fliers.

And even if you've had a rough time with a difficult set of boards, your counterparts at the other table have to play the identical difficult boards. Your teammates are definitely kicking butt the other table and don't need you to take any fliers.

Any player who would bid 6D with the example hand is not an acceptable teammate.

[kenberg]

I won't comment further on 6D. The OP wants to discuss reality. I would be interested in hearing more about expert views on handling such a hand.
Obviously (to me)
More often than not the hand belongs in clubs
With good luck there may be 13 tricks, with bad luch there may not be 11.
Possibly the hand will play better in one of the reds, either diamonds where you can (perhaps) can draw trump and run the long suit or perhaps (less likely I think) in hearts where you can increase the trick total by ruffing a couple of spades.

Far less obvious: How to maximize your chances of landing safely.
Once, after a 3S preempt, we got to a small slam making 7 and partner wanted to discuss how we could have reached the grand. My view was that when the auction starts at 3S and you get to a slam, played in the right strain, making, that's a good day's work and we should not screw around with whatever enabled us to do this. With the hand in question one can double and bid clubs, double and cue spades, double and jump, double and bid NT, and so on. I have no idea what all this should mean but it seems right to me that it should be directed towards getting to 6, and the right 6, when slam is there and getting out in 5, the right 5, when slam isn't there. We will look for a grand on another day.

I await advice. If the advice is to bid 6D, I'll take that advice right after I try sky diving without a parachute.

[cherdanno]

I think double is clear, the only question is whether to bid 5♣ or 6♣ over 4♥. It seems to me 5♣ is enough. I think we should forget the dreams that partner is raising, 5♣ has a much lower minimum than what we have. I just think that the odds of 6♣ making are slightly below 50%.

[awm]

With three potential losers in the red suits, we need a fair bit from partner to make 6♣. Note that this is different from the spingold hand which presumably inspired this thread -- I believe the spingold hand included the additional ♥Q.

If partner has two working cards outside spades (like both red kings, or the ♥KQ) there's a good chance he'll actually take another call over 5♣. If he doesn't have so much, we're unlikely to make 6♣ -- in fact even hands like ♠xxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx ♣xx don't necessarily make 6♣, although there are good chances.

It may actually be true that 6♦ is the most likely slam to make! All we really need for that contract is partner holding ♦Kxxx or ♦Jxxx with the heart king. Partner holding four diamonds and one useful card seems more likely than partner holding two useful cards, a priori. Of course, many of the hands where 6♦ makes, partner will actually bid diamonds at some point if we double and then bid on.

[MFA]

awm, on Aug 10 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

Note that this is different from the spingold hand which presumably inspired this thread -- I believe the spingold hand included the additional ♥Q.

Huh? We spend 600+ posts discussing -, Axx, AQxx, AKQxxx, so I really thought the hand didn't include ♥Q.
However 2 weeks ago I discussed the hand with a strong european player who also played the spingold and he also started to mumble about a ♥Q at first.
Does anyone know for sure what the actual hand was?

[MFA]

I would double and correct 4♥ to 5♣ btw.

[Cascade]

What's your call?

Pass - I can't imagine anyone doing this. Well maybe a beginner. I did see someone (a relative beginner) recently get talked out of bidding with quite a good hand by a pre-empt.

Double - This seems reasonably normal and what I imagine some might do with this sort of hand intending to bid again to show the strength.

3N - Very unusual. However I once kibitzed Stephen Burgess overcall 3NT after a weak two with a similar hand - he may have had a stiff spade - unsuccessfully when partner did not produce a stopper. After going down 2 or 3 he laughed it off by saying "bad experiment".

4C - This is possible. Although I think it is an underbid. However it is more flexible that 5C or higher. Perhaps if partner expects a really good hand for this bid it is possible.

4N - Not my style but some might do this intending to show both minors. An alternative treatment is 4S to show both minors and 4NT to show something else.

5C - Maybe ok on values but slightly overstates the clubs and definitely understates the flexibility of the hand.

6C - Its possible some might bid this much. Especially as the speculation mounts about adding the hQ to the hand. However I think it is way too much to hope for

1. A fit;
2. Not a bad break;
3. A useful king (or maybe two finesses)
4. A finesse
5. Something good to happen with the long diamond (and maybe long heart)

6D - I have made some canape overcalls in the past into four-card suits after an opponents preempt but these have been at the three level into a four-card major where the alternative has been to bid a minor at the four-level or bid 3NT without a decent (or any) stopper. I have never contemplated a unilateral jump to slam in a shorter suit. At a lower level there is still enough flexibility to possibly get to alternative strains.

[BudH]

MFA, on Aug 10 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 10 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

Note that this is different from the spingold hand which presumably inspired this thread -- I believe the spingold hand included the additional ♥Q.

Huh? We spend 600+ posts discussing -, Axx, AQxx, AKQxxx, so I really thought the hand didn't include ♥Q.
However 2 weeks ago I discussed the hand with a strong european player who also played the spingold and he also started to mumble about a ♥Q at first.
Does anyone know for sure what the actual hand was?

I might have an idea what the hand was. They are non-vulnerable and you are vulnerable.

♠ ----
♥ Axx
♦ AQxx
♣ AKQ7xx

It is not material to THIS discussion, but partner's hand was

♠ xx
♥ xxx
♦ Kxxx
♣ T98x

I would probably have doubled, LHO would most likely have bid 4S, and after two passes I would bid either 5C or 6C.

[kenberg]

Surely an interesting hand. Some thoughts:

With eleven spades I think a call of 5S over a double is a real possibility. It's a good sac against a making game. 4S might even come in if, say, the clubs are 3-0.

I concede some logic for the 6D call. Neither my Aunt Gladys nor I will be making this bid any time soon.

I guess a 4-1 diamond split and a heart lead will cause some problems for 6D. That split could put stress on a 5C contract also.

So maybe I bid too much. Or I lack imagination. But still, 6D? I shall meditate.

Added: Thinking through the comments of Adam and Wayne, maybe the logic goes something like (their argument my rephrasing): " I've got this AQxx in diamonds that will have to be dealt with somehow. Give partner Kxx in diamonds and I still need another trick, even of I can ruff the last diamond, to bring in 12 tricks at clubs. Adding a fourth diamond to dummy won't do anything for me in 6C but 6D will be looking reasonable." I think the conclusion I would finally draw from this, if I got this far, would be to forget about slam in anything.

I still feel that this hand is of a fairly frequent type: The bidding starts at 3S, you have a lot of stuff, and you would really like to bring partner in on the decision making instead of just bashing it whether the bash is 5 or 6, clubs or diamonds. Some definitions could, perhaps, be useful. Although, here, a raise on the left to 5S will force a guess regardless of any preparation.

[kenrexford]

Again, good cause for the Piltch Convention. After a 2M opening, 5M shows a powerhouse with 6-4 in the minors, 3-0 in the majors. Respopnder picks the contract, using transfers. Seems obvious, now.

Actually, I think Modified Piltch may be better. After the 5M jump, I think 5NT by Responder should show 4-4 in the minors, 6♣ should be pass-or-correct for the 6-card minor, and 6♦ should be a transfer to the major.