[DavidKok]

What do you mean? If partner unblocks the king of spades under our ace the third round is ruffed, with Jxx in clubs there's no club trick and we're back to -500. Also 5♥ by North seems fine (actually club to the ace and a small diamond back and there's a moment of panic, but you don't have a choice), which I think is a likely destination if we took more aggressive action earlier.
As an aside, I love to play against opponents that will give me two bites at the apple on preemptive auctions.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2022-January-10, 17:52, said:

What do you mean? If partner unblocks the king of spades under our ace the third round is ruffed, with Jxx in clubs there's no club trick and we're back to -500. Also 5♥ by North seems fine (actually club to the ace and a small diamond back and there's a moment of panic, but you don't have a choice), which I think is a likely destination if we took more aggressive action earlier.
As an aside, I love to play against opponents that will give me two bites at the apple on preemptive auctions.

If he unblocks the ♠K I will have ♦Q rather than ♠Q. I don't crime him for not doing so.

Small diamond off the table given that declarer has 3 doesn't matter what partner does.

5♥ is in fact fine, but not sure how much I fancy it from partner's pov, I checked back, declarer does in fact have stiff Q♥.

I normally like to play against opps that give me a second chance, I trust the actual player (somebody I've also partnered) to know what he's doing and his judgment that 4♣ would win the contract was very nearly correct.

[Douglas43]

Given the choice of a slight overbid that gets the shape across (4♣) or another bid that reflects the strength but not the shape, I'd risk 4♣ and hold my breath. Anything might go wrong:
(3♣) -4♣ (5♣) -6♥ minus 1
(3♣) -X -(5♣) - 6♦ minus some

I'd just hope partner has two small Clubs and doesn't get excited (or too many for responder to raise Clubs).

[Cyberyeti]

Douglas43, on 2022-January-11, 03:49, said:

Given the choice of a slight overbid that gets the shape across (4♣) or another bid that reflects the strength but not the shape, I'd risk 4♣ and hold my breath. Anything might go wrong:
(3♣) -4♣ (5♣) -6♥ minus 1
(3♣) -X -(5♣) - 6♦ minus some

I'd just hope partner has two small Clubs and doesn't get excited (or too many for responder to raise Clubs).

Even 3♣-4♣-5♣-5M can go wrong if partner stretches thinking I've got a bit more.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2022-January-10, 10:23, said:

If you need an extra Ace and King for 4C, I’d take the bid out of my arsenal and play 4C as natural. That will happen with almost as much frequency as the huge 18 count 5-5 majors anyway🥸 (btw, I’m kidding)

For me, 4C should deliver about an extra King beyond this hand.

The problem with stretching to bid 4C is that you are violating your agreement. Do it once, ok. Do it again, you’ve now established a secret partnership agreement, contrary to the alleged actual agreement. I mean, if your bid is 4C here, then it’ll be 4D over 3D next time, on AJ8xx AQ10xx x xx. If not, why not?

If I were an opponent and responder bid a simple 4H over 4C with say Jx Kxxx Kxxx Axx I’d ‘know’ I was being worked over…that responder, knew damn well that overcaller wasn’t really showing a powerhouse.

I would bid 3S. If partner bids 3N, I bid 4H. That has to show 5 hearts and thus partner knows I’m too weak for 4C. Of course, that information may do him little good.

If he raises, he’ll usually have 3 or more spades and we should survive even if he has longer hearts.

Bear in mind that 12-14 hcp hands are more common than stronger ones, so we are going to be tempted to bid 4C a lot. Give in once, and you’ll give in again…and now you’re placing your partnership in an ethical bind. That’s not how one should play the game.

Although I agree with your ethics argument, my concern is missing slam when partner has to reign in because I often don’t have my bid.

[Winstonm]

Winstonm, on 2022-January-11, 09:32, said:

Although I agree with your ethics argument, my concern is missing slam when partner has to reign in because I often don't have my bid.

Along with this I might add that most bridge players do not attain the heights and play in team events of 128 boards or whatever it is. We tend to think in terms of 26 board matchpoint events. But in the big picture, the lifelong picture, steadiness and trustworthiness count more than individual acts of brilliance as the brilliances are always accompanied at some point by blunders.

When a young developing player, I had somewhat of a man-crush on the Italian Blue Team, primarily because I read mostly European bridge authors, and the examples of their playing skills left no doubt how gifted they were, regardless of any allegations (which I don't intend to rehash). One thing I always remember, and I'm not sure where I read this but I think it was Hamman's book, was how disciplined the Blue Team was and how their NPC demanded such from them.

The hand in this post is simply one of millions, and what we do with this one hand is unimportant compared to those millions. So the solution is to make the miillions-of-hands bid, whatever that is. But I'm leaning toward pass. If we have slam, partner will bid. If we have game, partner is likely to bid. If we are going down - and maybe a lot - I will be glad I stayed disciplined and thought about the millions instead of this one hand.

[DavidKok]

I couldn't disagree more. Game before slam, and shape before points. I think 4♣ should be wide range but GF, and does not at all promise a slam-going hand. I'm happy to give up the slams where other people can show 16+ and their partner with two aces and good support gets appropriately excited.

Of course you should stick to your agreements, and be disciplined within the range you have agreed. But I think an aggressive agreement is far superior to a conservative one on this auction. And, within that agreement, it is pass that is a breach of partnership trust.

But I fear nobody involved in the conversation, me included, is likely to change their mind on this. So I think it's a good time for me to leave the discussion.

[akwoo]

DavidKok, on 2022-January-11, 10:39, said:

But I fear nobody involved in the conversation, me included, is likely to change their mind on this. So I think it's a good time for me to leave the discussion.

One of the reasons it's harder to change people's minds on this is that it's really a partnership decision, not an individual one.

Those folks who bid 3♠ on this one have (perhaps implicitly) agreed with their partners for 3♠ to be raised more aggressively, and the folks who pass have agreed with their partners for balancing actions to be taken more aggressively. (Or think they have agreed with their partners. And this might not be about one partner, but rather local custom among a range of local partners.)