[Cascade]

This is messy but I will try my best to be objective (I was at the table)

---

Favourable vulnerable, first seat and the auction is uncontested.

1♦ 2♦
3♦ 3♥
3♠ 4♦
4♠ 5♦*
?

1♦ Precision - unbalanced two or three suited no five card major (1NT range is 12-15)

2♦ inverted

3♦ confirming diamonds but did not limit the range (implies clubs since no major has been bid)

3♥ ambiguous - advanced cue or no trump try

3♠ there seemed to be no clear agreement either a no trump try (without spades) or showing spade values

4♦ claimed by north to be RKCB

4♠ showing one or four (but obviously south has two)

5♦ to play and was made slowly, this was agreed although north claimed that other bids were also made slowly.

What are the logical alternatives for south?

South claimed that she knew that 4♦ was RKCB but misbid. She said that she was thinking of normal key-card (4NT) in which her response would be 5♠ and so mistakenly bid 4♠ thinking she was showing two.

To me this seemed an unusual argument as south does not have the trump queen and her response to a 4NT key-card would be 5♥ not 5♠.

I also thought it was significant that north, the bidder, rather than south explained the 4♦ bid as key-card. It seems possible given that north bid 4♠ that she did not interpret 4♦ as key-card.

Would you allow a raise to 6♦?

[lesh]

It really depends how many cards is 2♦ because some play it 5+cards then you dont need the Q♦ as you have 10

To me she didn't understand 4♦ was RKC and just cu bidded with 4♠ and then when no RKC came with 4NT, probably missing ♣ cu, she would just raise to 6♦ - partner should clearly has 2A and you dont need the Q as you have 5♦, also you got the ♣ cu

Therefore, a raise to 6♦ is not so unreasonable

Also showing 2Aces with a Q♦ is not unreasonable when you have at least 10 cards, if 2♦ is 5+. In addition, some think that you dont need the Q if you have 9cards.

Therefore, I think 6♦ bid would be reasonable if she misbidded so hard

[c_corgi]

I think in the cue-bidding auction South has a clear raise. But having responded to Blackwood she must respect partner's signoff: the slow 5D may have helped wake her up to having misbid.

[blackshoe]

When I first read the OP, I understood 4♦ as RKCB. Then I miscounted the steps and got the response wrong. So even if her correct response would have been 4♥, I don't think 4♠ was a control bid. It was the wrong response to 4♦ RKCB, but it was a response to that ask.

If 2♦ shows at least five, then the correct response to 4♦ is 5♣. Unless I miscounted again.

I suspect pass is a logical alternative. I think 6♦ is suggested by the BIT. If pass is a logical alternative, then the player should pass, and if she doesn't the TD should adjust the score. If there is no LA to 6♦ then bidding it is fine.

[lalldonn]

c_corgi, on 2013-March-02, 06:31, said:

I think in the cue-bidding auction South has a clear raise. But having responded to Blackwood she must respect partner's signoff: the slow 5D may have helped wake her up to having misbid.

In the cuebidding auction I think south has a clear pass. If she thought she had a clear raise here then why didn't she bid RKC instead of cuebidding 4♠? Regardless of that, her partner hasn't done anything particularly strong anyway.

I agree with you about the Blackwood auction.

Wayne, if south was responding to RKC wouldn't she show the queen? Certainly if 2♦ promised 5, and arguably even if it just promised 4.

[gnasher]

lalldonn, on 2013-March-02, 11:25, said:

In the cuebidding auction I think south has a clear pass. If she thought she had a clear raise here then why didn't she bid RKC instead of cuebidding 4♠? Regardless of that, her partner hasn't done anything particularly strong anyway.

Hasn't North made a slam try by bidding 4♦ rather than 5♦?

[FrancesHinden]

Is 2D game forcing or invitational plus?
Is 4D forcing (i.e. a slam try) or non-forcing (giving up on 3NT)?

If 4D is a slam try, then opener can say with full justification that (s)he has a maximum in HCP and controls in every suit; if that isn't enough for slam what possibly could be?

[lalldonn]

gnasher, on 2013-March-02, 13:03, said:

Hasn't North made a slam try by bidding 4♦ rather than 5♦?

I wouldn't take it that way but it depends on their agreements. It's my feeling that players who can't figure out the correct keycard response probably don't have specific enough agreements to claim any particular meaning about 4♦. But if they say they have an agreement of course I'll listen, and if 4♦ really does show a slam try then I would feel differently and say passing 5♦ probably is not an LA.

[aguahombre]

If it was South who first said it was Minorwood, I understand the doubt. It sounded to me in the OP as if North intended it as RKCB and South later agreed and said he screwed it up.

Of course none of the other system items in the numbered list make any sense either.

1D can't be just diamonds? No mention of 2D being G.F ---without which 3D cannot be as described unless 2N is artificial showing a weak opener.

Anyway, the only evidence to go on for a ruling seems to be that we shouldn't believe anything about their system.

[bluejak]

Messy certainly. But if partner uses RKCB and signs off slowly then it is difficult to believe that pass is not an LA. Case law from the ACBL has determined (not unreasonably, in my view) that having miscounted the number of aces/controls does not stop pass being an LA because the BIT has suggested looking at your bidding again.

I am never very impressed by arguments that partner "must" have a certain number of aces/controls to have used Blackwood because experience shows that sometimes he doesn't and logic suggests hands with few aces but lots of second round controls are perfect for Blackwood.

[aguahombre]

They become less perfect when we can't tell whether the answer showed one or four. But, they won't be successfully claiming hesitationwood when responder continues to slam holding four.

[blackshoe]

Blackwood rule #1: do not bid 4NT (or whatever the ask is) without first deciding what you will do over each possible response.

[gombo121]

I cannot make my mind about final decision, but claim about 5♠ response on 4NT Blackwood is reasonable - North almost certainly does not know about 10th diamond so it can be counted as Q.
Also, if this is supposedly cue-bidding auction, why wouldn't South bid 4♥?

So, I'm inclined to believe South's story but still don't know whether pass is LA for me.

[Fluffy]

pass is no LA for a player who thinks what he's doing, but BIT served as wake up for previous missbid, this is a common scenario and one that I've asked on this forum many times, not getting a clear response.

David says there is an important case on ACBL that has ruled on this matter for the specific case of ace asking bids. That should make it clear here.

[PhilKing]

North could hold: ♠Jx ♥KQJ ♦QJxxxx ♣AQ or ♠x ♥KQJ ♦QJxxxx ♣AQx. They may not be perfect RKCB hands, but are hardly ridiculous.

Having said that, I don't think the BIT should be assumed to have woken partner up to miscounting aces and it is not a crime to recount aces as long as partner does not go on when he has the number he showed. It's not as if the pause tells partner to go on if they have misbid by one ace, so South is entitled to punt here.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-04, 23:54, said:

Blackwood rule #1: do not bid 4NT (or whatever the ask is) without first deciding what you will do over each possible response.

Rule #2: don't bid BW with an uncontrolled suit.

But I'm sure we've all seen both rules broken many times.

Usually it's not a problem. If you get lucky, you get the benefit of it. But when there's UI, you usually lose the benefit of the doubt.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-04, 09:45, said:

They become less perfect when we can't tell whether the answer showed one or four. But, they won't be successfully claiming hesitationwood when responder continues to slam holding four.

"hesitationwood" is an ugly and old-fashioned name. Nowadays we call it "BITwood" [copyright notice attached].

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 09:14, said:

"hesitationwood" is an ugly and old-fashioned name. Nowadays we call it "BITwood" [copyright notice attached].

I have a friend who's trying to get "kingleton" (referring to a singleton king, obviously) into the lexicon. I'll try to use your word if you'll use hers.