[awm]

Recently in a team event I had the following auction (all four players bidding):

1♥ - 1♠ - 4♥ - 4♠
5♦ - Pass - 5♥ - ???

At this point it would be helpful for me to know what the 5♦ bid meant. I know of good players who use this as any of: (1) a slam try/cuebid (2) a second suit for competitive purposes (3) a purely lead directional bid. I had some interest in doubling 5♥ and/or competing to 5♠ and knowing which meaning of 5♦ was in use here would be helpful. Note that none of these are necessarily alertable (some might be delayed alerts) because the auction is well past game.

Unfortunately, my hand included ♦AKxx and I really wanted partner to lead a diamond against the eventual contract. It seems that asking questions about the 5♦ bid would convey unauthorized information to partner and might well be seen as disallowing a diamond lead. Obviously there's nothing I can really do here to tell partner to lead a diamond, but I certainly don't want to convey UI which would bar partner from making the best lead.

Is there any way out of this situation which permits me to inquire about the 5♦ call without effecting partner's lead options?

[jdonn]

awm, on Jul 11 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Is there any way out of this situation which permits me to inquire about the 5♦ call without effecting partner's lead options?

No. Your best option in general for this type of dilemma is to ask about the entire auction rather than one call, but on this particular auction it would be obvious what you were wondering about.

Obviously this is an advantage for either screens or computers.

[cherdanno]

If it really matters, of course you ask. Partner was never going to lead a diamond anyway [insert coughing joke here].

[kenrexford]

This is easy at the table. Look at the 5♥ card on the table as if this is really confusing to you. Turn to Opener and ask, "What the heck does 5♥ mean?!?!?" Then, if the response does not tell you what 5♦ meant, ask if he's showing one key card outside of diamonds. That should get Opener to say, "5♦ isn't Exclusion," with a strange look. Act surprised if he still doesn't say what 5♦ means, and then ask what Responder is supposed to show after this strange 5♦ call. If that doesn't work, tell partner to lead a damned diamond. The opponents are too dense to notice that comment anyway.

[Phil]

Agree with Josh. although I don't see a lot of reason to ask about ONE heart lol..

In practice I don't see a lot of issues with asking about 5♦ (after making some meaningless inquiries about 4♥ - do you play fit jumps? Is there another way to get to 4♥, such as 3N? is 4♥ wide ranging?). I think this line of questioning de-emphasizes the inquiry about 5♦, but its information you might want to know about anyway.

At this point in the interrogation it seems normal to ask about 5♦, since the answer may influence your decision to bid on or double.

[goodwintr]

What do you think the odds are of getting a meaningful answer to an inquiry about five diamonds? You already know it doesn't show the ace. I confess that I wouldn't have a clear agreement about five diamonds in any partnership I have had, and would be compelled to answer the inquiry with something like, "He thinks it is the best bid on his hand given the circumstances." I would expect most players to answer in much the same way, although perhaps not in those exact words.

[cherdanno]

goodwintr, on Jul 12 2009, 08:14 AM, said:

What do you think the odds are of getting a meaningful answer to an inquiry about five diamonds? You already know it doesn't show the ace. I confess that I wouldn't have a clear agreement about five diamonds in any partnership I have had, and would be compelled to answer the inquiry with something like, "He thinks it is the best bid on his hand given the circumstances." I would expect most players to answer in much the same way, although perhaps not in those exact words.

My answer would be "it shows a side suit, in order to help me decide whether to compete in case you bid 5♠". I would expect most players to answer in much the same way.

[goodwintr]

No fair, Cherdanno: you HAVE an agreement . . . .

[bluejak]

Thanks, kenrexford, but it is not really funny. It is a problem, and if you ask in this situation you may have to live the consequences.

Personally I would think on this hand you have some idea how it was meant so it is not worth asking, but that does not answer the general problem.

[Rossoneri]

bluejak, on Jul 13 2009, 04:37 AM, said:

Thanks, kenrexford, but it is not really funny. It is a problem, and if you ask in this situation you may have to live the consequences.

Personally I would think on this hand you have some idea how it was meant so it is not worth asking, but that does not answer the general problem.

You will get used to Ken's brand of humour in a while...

Granted, asking about 5♦ does create UI, but I don't see how the UI demonstrably suggests a diamond lead, or am I missing something? There would seem to be a lot of different reasons why one would ask about 5♦...

[cherdanno]

bluejak, on Jul 12 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

Thanks, kenrexford, but it is not really funny. It is a problem, and if you ask in this situation you may have to live the consequences.

Personally I would think on this hand you have some idea how it was meant so it is not worth asking, but that does not answer the general problem.

Some pairs may play this as purely lead-directing (could be a void), on the rationale that there is no need to involved the partner who preempted. Looking at ♦AKxx, the shortness is not so unlikely, and you want to double if it is a side suit, but bid on if it was a void.

[sfi]

I can't really imagine anyone making a decision on this hand without knowing what 5♦ means, so asking about it seems routine. Suggesting that it discloses anything specific about your hand is a big stretch.

[Trinidad]

sfi, on Jul 19 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

I can't really imagine anyone making a decision on this hand without knowing what 5♦ means, so asking about it seems routine.  Suggesting that it discloses anything specific about your hand is a big stretch.

I agree with sfi.

In fact, I would go further: You already have a ton of UI from the fact that partner passed 5♦ without asking what it meant. Partner's not asking means that he:
- truely does not want to bid anything, regardless of what 5♦ means
or
- thinks that the opponents don't know what 5♦ means.

Rik

[bluejak]

or he could not be bothered to ask

or he feels no compulsion to ask because he does not need to know yet

or ......

[mycroft]

or, of course, that he already knows what it means having played against these guys (with a different partner) before.

In response to the OP, yeah, sometimes even bridge isn't perfect.