Partner unhappy

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&e=sqt74hdaqtcaqjt97&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=ppp1cp1hp1sp4sp5cp5s(tempo%20break)p?]133|200[/hv]

 

Over 5♣ west looks unhappy with proceedings and bids a slow 5♠?

 

What is demonstrably suggested?

[weejonnie]

I can think of several things: he could have wanted you to bid Blackwood. He must have a pretty good hand to raise 1S to 4S having passed (4=5=3=1?) (I am assuming 5C is some sort of slam try in spades and 1C was natural). He hasn't cue-bid hearts (assuming that is what a 5H bid would mean), and I don't know whether he would have shown a Diamond King, if he had one. He could be interested in a slam but (not surprisingly) short of controls - other than AK of spades.

 

Suppose West had bid 5 Spades in tempo - that would surely suggest signing off. (otherwise the 5C call has become slam forcing). If you do make a forward bid then that is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the BIT.

 

A hand such as AKXX QXXXXX XXX X is certainly not out of the question.

[ahydra]

I'd say bidding on is suggested, but may not be surprised if a poll showed there was no LA to 6S.

 

ahydra

[Tramticket]

I'd say bidding on is suggested, but may not be surprised if a poll showed there was no LA to 6S.

 

If you polled players who would have (a) not bid a slam directly over 4♠ and (b) invited slam with a 5♣ cue bid, then I fail to see a LA to pass. After East invites slam, West could have accepted the invitation and bid slam, or shown some interest and cue-bid in a red suit, but has instead signed-off in 5♠ - the most discouraging option. It would seem strange to me to make an invitation, get a negative and then carry on anyway (unless East was considering a grand slam).

 

My guess is that West has very good trumps and wants to be encouraging, but does not have the right cards to cue-bid in a red suit. Based on this bidding on is likely suggested.

[barmar]

A hand such as AKXX QXXXXX XXX X is certainly not out of the question.

Would someone really bid 4♠ with that? Am I old fashioned in thinking that this is at best a 3♠ hand? Singleton in partner's first suit is not a feature, and the ♥Q could be worthless.

 

I have a hard time imagining hands where a passed hand could jump to game like this, maybe 6♥ 5♠? Or if East's bidding shows an unbalanced hand, maybe a maximum pass with a double fit in the black suits.

[Cyberyeti]

Would someone really bid 4♠ with that? Am I old fashioned in thinking that this is at best a 3♠ hand? Singleton in partner's first suit is not a feature, and the ♥Q could be worthless.

 

I have a hard time imagining hands where a passed hand could jump to game like this, maybe 6♥ 5♠? Or if East's bidding shows an unbalanced hand, maybe a maximum pass with a double fit in the black suits.

 

Slam is far from terrible opposite that, it's spades 3-2 and one of 2 finesses pretty much (there are other complications, it's not that good), and that's a sub minimum hand for the auction.

 

Partner looking unhappy and hesitating to me suggests a club void and a "should I cue a red K" situation. As such it's sort of 50:50 as to whether he's failed to give you good or bad news but in fact one of the most likely reasons for you cue bidding rather than using blackwood is a heart void, so it's most likely he's failed to cue something irrelevant, but that reduces the chances of holding something useful. As such I'm not sure this behavious suggests bidding on.

[barmar]

Slam is far from terrible opposite that, it's spades 3-2 and one of 2 finesses pretty much (there are other complications, it's not that good), and that's a sub minimum hand for the auction.

Yeah, there are other complications. If you use the club shortness to ruff clubs, it's going to be hard to draw trumps as well.

[Cyberyeti]

Yeah, there are other complications. If you use the club shortness to ruff clubs, it's going to be hard to draw trumps as well.

 

That's not the issue, I'm taking a ruffing finese so only ruffing one, I need a 3-2 trump break anyway the problems are where they don't split and the K doesn't appear.

[pescetom]

Would someone really bid 4♠ with that? Am I old fashioned in thinking that this is at best a 3♠ hand? Singleton in partner's first suit is not a feature, and the ♥Q could be worthless.

 

I have a hard time imagining hands where a passed hand could jump to game like this, maybe 6♥ 5♠? Or if East's bidding shows an unbalanced hand, maybe a maximum pass with a double fit in the black suits.

 

The OP doesn't say anything about their partnership or what a jump to 4♠ would mean.

Maybe he is used to playing that jump as weak signoff, which fits with the pass and with his perplexity after 5♣.

[Cascade]

Thanks for the responses so far.

 

I meant partner was obviously not happy with your slam try.

 

To answer some of the queries.

 

A jump to 4♠ by a passed hand in opener's second suit was unexpected. The opener's bidding at 1♠ was consistent with a balanced hand with four spades - could be 4=3=3=3 or 4 clubs - and also an unbalanced hand up to about 17(18) with longer clubs than spades (which must be at least four).

 

5♣ was a cue-bid. The partnership was in uncharted territory for a cue-bid opposite a limited (passed hand) partner. The general style was first or second round cues and cues below the next level of trumps are mandatory (expect in splinter type auctions).

 

A grand is possible (at the point of the 4♠ bid) with say ♠ AK and ♣K although there is likely to be additional work unless partner is 5=6, for example, AKxxx xxxxxx x K might be a pass in first seat.

 

Elsewhere others have suggested that 4♠ is weaker than some other ways to raise to 4♠. That is possible but I am not convinced for a passed hand. The obligation should be on describing your hand accurately with a distributional hand in case partner does have a great fit.

 

A poll found an overwhelming majority would pass 5♠ against that there were very good players who thought 6♠ was normal.

[sanst]

A poll found an overwhelming majority would pass 5♠ against that there were very good players who thought 6♠ was normal.

Well, there’s your answer in the first part of the sentence. What ‘very good’ players think, is irrelevant. Relevant is what players of equal strength, using the same methods, would do.

[Cyberyeti]

Well, there’s your answer in the first part of the sentence. What ‘very good’ players think, is irrelevant. Relevant is what players of equal strength, using the same methods, would do.

 

Were they very good players then ? If the "very good" players are their peers then they get to keep it.

 

I also don't know what you do if the 6♠ bidder says "I was intending to bid 6 or conceivably 7 whatever partner did, and partner's body language clearly suggested that he didn't like the fact that I'd invited so I didn't feel I was allowed to pass".

[helene_t]

I am not sure what is suggested. An unhappy face followed by a fast sign off would clearly be discouraging but an unhappy face followed by a slow sign off is more cryptic. It could mean that he thought 5♣ might be nonforcing and was thinking of passing it. It could be he was agonizing over whether to cue ♦K (good) or ♥A (bad).

 

Anyway, I pass since I don't think it makes sense to make a slam try and then not respect partner's sign off, since I wasn't looking for 7. I think this is a compelling argument even if pass is suggested by the UI so I can't imagine that the director will adjust 5♠= to 6♠-1.

[barmar]

Well, there’s your answer in the first part of the sentence. What ‘very good’ players think, is irrelevant. Relevant is what players of equal strength, using the same methods, would do.

Yeah, you shouldn't even bother polling other players.

[Cascade]

Anyway, I pass since I don't think it makes sense to make a slam try and then not respect partner's sign off, since I wasn't looking for 7.

 

Two things:

 

1. Seven is not impossible opposite ♠AK and ♣K.

 

2. If partner is supposed to dutifully cue a red suit then 5♠ could be good news and not a sign-off.