[ahydra]

Cross-IMPs, both vul

---

NS play a weak NT with 5cM, short club. 2NT showed 15-16 and there was a long hesitation before North bid 5C. EW called the TD after the hand to ask whether UI from the hesitation might have influenced South's jump to 6S, for example it might suggest extra and/or slam-suitable values which South would like to hear about because all he needs is cover cards. In the ensuing discussion it was unclear what 4C was meant as - South said it was some sort of asking bid but not for aces or keycards. North stated 5C was a natural signoff.

Declarer guessed hearts, so 6S made for +13.8 xIMPs to NS.

How would you rule?

ahydra

[helene_t]

Result stands. North is already limited so the hesitation doesn't suggest extra values. It shows uncertainty about what 4c means.

[sanst]

There’s no understanding about the 4♣ bid and I would, sitting N, need some time to figure out what S is trying to convey. The 5♣ doesn’t suggest anything else than that N thinks that S has clubs and spades, and suggest certainly not bdding on. That S never thought about a club contract is also clear, not with this spade holding and only two clubs opposite a balanced hand. Six spades is a gamble that makes with this distribution and finessing twice in hearts. With the queen E and the ace W 6♥ is doomed.

[chrism]

If 4♣ was "some sort of asking bid" then presumably 5♣ was some sort of answer (possibly non-systemic). It would be helpful to know what, if anything, it ostensibly meant from South's perspective, since South had the UI that it quite probably doesn't actually mean that.

[helene_t]

If 4c was an asking bid then 5c is surely a positive answer. So the slow bid suggests signing off. If anything, 5S= would need an adjustment to 6S-1 if there had been only 11 tricks.

[ahydra]

helene_t, on 2019-March-17, 00:37, said:

If 4c was an asking bid then 5c is surely a positive answer.

It was explained as a natural signoff.

Quote

Result stands. North is already limited so the hesitation doesn't suggest extra values.

This is also what the TD ruled.

ahydra

[barmar]

ahydra, on 2019-March-17, 01:47, said:

It was explained as a natural signoff.

That was North's explanation, but it seems like he forgot what 4♣ was.

In order to determine South's LAs, we need to know what it meant as an answer to South's asking bid.

[helene_t]

ahydra, on 2019-March-17, 01:47, said:

It was explained as a natural signoff.

By North, yes. But we are considering South's ethical options.

South thought 5♣ was an answer to an asking bid. As such, it must be positive (since it bypasses 4♠), so the bid itself (with or without BIT) suggests bidding slam.

The BIT, on the other hand, may suggest that they have a misunderstanding, in which case 5♣ may be meant as a negative bid.

So I think the BIT suggests caution, and hence bidding slam is South's ethical choice, assuming he has logical alternatives.