[FrancesHinden]

We had the uncontested auction starting:

1D - 1S
1NT - 2D
2NT - 3H
4C - 4D
?

2D = game forcing ask
2NT = 2344 or 2254/2353 without good diamonds
3H = 5-5, unlimited
4C = cue for hearts (alternatives include 3S unsure about 3NT, 3NT to play, 4D cue for hearts, 4H unsuitable for slam)
4D = very slow indeed, described as either a cue bid (if he then went past 4H) or else last train

What does the slowness demonstrably suggest?

[gnasher]

He could be
- Choosing between Last Train and a signoff. That suggests 4♥ over other actions.
- Choosing between Last Train (planning to pass 4♥) and a black-suit cue-bid, on a hand with no diamond control. That suggests other actions over 4♥.
- Planning the auction on a hand where he intends to go past game. That suggests describing your hand accurately.

Unless we think that one of these is significantly more likely than others, a hesitation in itself doesn't suggest anything. Of course, any given partnership may have a better idea of what is suggested by a hesitation of a particular duration.

[campboy]

 gnasher, on 2014-January-01, 10:43, said:

- Choosing between Last Train and a signoff. That suggests 4♥ over other actions.
- Choosing between Last Train (planning to pass 4♥) and a black-suit cue-bid, on a hand with no diamond control. That suggests other actions over 4♥.
- Planning the auction on a hand where he intends to go past game. That suggests describing your hand accurately.

Only assuming you have a diamond control yourself. If you don't then both the first two possibilities suggest 4♥ I would think.

[nige1]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-01, 10:26, said:

We had the uncontested auction starting:
1D - 1S
1NT - 2D
2NT - 3H
4C - 4D
?
2D = game forcing ask
2NT = 2344 or 2254/2353 without good diamonds
3H = 5-5, unlimited
4C = cue for hearts (alternatives include 3S unsure about 3NT, 3NT to play, 4D cue for hearts, 4H unsuitable for slam)
4D = very slow indeed, described as either a cue bid (if he then went past 4H) or else last train
What does the slowness demonstrably suggest?

Lack of ♦ control, perhaps? I agree with Gnasher, however, that a player in an established partnership is better equipped than the director or opponents to diagnose what his partner's hesitation suggests.

[akwoo]

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it feels like it might be, and I might as well ask:

Are there alternate ways of showing game forcing 5-5s that this sequence excludes? For example, what would 3H directly over 1N mean?

[CSGibson]

slowness suggests uncertainty about slam prospects. So does last train. Partner could be either minimum or maximum for the slowness, I don't think anything is suggested.

[FrancesHinden]

 akwoo, on 2014-January-01, 23:33, said:

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it feels like it might be, and I might as well ask:

Are there alternate ways of showing game forcing 5-5s that this sequence excludes? For example, what would 3H directly over 1N mean?

No, this is the only way of showing 5-5 FG. 3H over 1NT would be 5-5 invitational.

[mfa1010]

Opener should be free to bid as he likes. Nothing exact can be deduced from the huddle with the necessary clarity.

Apart from what is already mentioned, responder could be thinking about blackwooding or how to handle a hand with a void.

[dburn]

Slow 4♦ shows extra values, no diamond control, the kind of hand that will make slam facing three aces but might go down in five facing one. Prototype is KQ fifth in both majors with the jack in one or both, two low diamonds, stiff ♣K. Suggests bidding more than 4♥ only with three aces, but opener might well do that anyway.

[ArtK78]

 dburn, on 2014-January-08, 08:10, said:

Slow 4♦ shows extra values, no diamond control, the kind of hand that will make slam facing three aces but might go down in five facing one. Prototype is KQ fifth in both majors with the jack in one or both, two low diamonds, stiff ♣K. Suggests bidding more than 4♥ only with three aces, but opener might well do that anyway.

I don't see why responder would not sign off with that hand. Opener, with 3 aces, would probably continue over a sign off.

[ArtK78]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-02, 13:42, said:

No, this is the only way of showing 5-5 FG. 3H over 1NT would be 5-5 invitational.

Is 4♥ over 1NT natural or something else? What would responder do with 55 or 65 in the majors and no slam interest?

[aguahombre]

 akwoo, on 2014-January-01, 23:33, said:

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it feels like it might be, and I might as well ask:

Are there alternate ways of showing game forcing 5-5s that this sequence excludes? For example, what would 3H directly over 1N mean?

Akwoo's question seems quite relevant, but I would extend it by asking whether Responder could have bid 4H over 2NT instead of 3H with 5-5M and mere game interest.

Would the answer still be:

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-02, 13:42, said:

No, this is the only way of showing 5-5 FG.

?
If 3H already confirmed 5-5 and extras, 4C was cooperating for slam, and the B.I.T. wouldn't suggest anything at all to me other than Responder is taking her time to absorb it all before proceeding.

4H, not 4D, would be "no Diamond control", so that isn't it. We might need LT to show slam interest if we hadn't already shown slam interest.

[dburn]

If 2NT showed three hearts, then 3♥ would presumably show slam interest since one could bid 4♥ with "game only". But the OP says that 2NT is consistent with 2=2=5=4 without good diamonds; though I am not certain why one could not bid 3♣ with that shape, no doubt there are excellent reasons.

[gnasher]

 ArtK78, on 2014-January-08, 09:29, said:

I don't see why responder would not sign off with that hand. Opener, with 3 aces, would probably continue over a sign off.

Why would opener do that when responder hasn't shown slam interest?

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2014-January-08, 12:43, said:

Why would opener do that when responder hasn't shown slam interest?

That quote was not in reply to me, but my contention that no ruling should be necessary and no usable UI was available is based on a presumption that slam interest (Responder) and slam cooperation (Opener) were established. If a serious method flaw has caused this not to be the case, the B.I.T. and what it might suggest are better known to the pair involved.

Frances herself might be the only one to give an objective ruling (for or against herself); the rest of us can only try to find out their inferences and speculate from there. Of course, right now we don't even know how the auction proceeded from 4D, but dburn's guess about the slow 4D might well be the one we would have to use when deciding whether Opener chose a continuation which demonstrably could have been suggested.

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-08, 13:27, said:

That quote was not in reply to me, but my contention that no ruling should be necessary and no usable UI was available is based on a presumption that slam interest (Responder) and slam cooperation (Opener) were established.

Responder's 3♥ didn't show slam interest. We know that because Frances, who isn't prone to innacuracy in what she posts, told us so (twice).

Quote

If a serious method flaw has caused this not to be the case, the B.I.T. and what it might suggest are better known to the pair involved.

You're saying that if the players don't play the same methods as you, you're unable to give a ruling?

Quote

Frances herself might be the only one to give an objective ruling (for or against herself); the rest of us can only try to find out their inferences and speculate from there.

What inferences are you hoping for beyond what appeared in the original post? 2NT includes some 2254 shapes. 3♥ contains all game-forcing 5-5s. Therefore 3♥ includes 5-5s that don't have slam interest.

[aguahombre]

Sorry, Gnasher. Didn't mean to ruffle. If you don't see the flaw caused by a 2NT rebid on this sequence possibly being 2-2 in the Majors, combined with collateral retrictions on being able to show 5-5 G.F. hands prior to the 4-level, then disregard that aspect.

Our conclusions will probably end up the same anyway on the issue of the BIT --- that it provided information otherwise unobtainable from the auction alone, given the conditions. I just went a little farther, with how the problem could have been avoided by the simple expediency of a differenly defined set of continuations.

[c_corgi]

To me, the slow 4D suggests the following:

a) responder expects opener to push beyond 4H with each of the following hand-types:

1) A diamond control, but no values/suitability beyond that already advertised.
2) Maximum values/suitability, but no diamond control.

b) that the 5-level may be in jeopardy opposite one of those hand types, but slam is likely opposite the other.


If that is the case, the slow 4D means that responder was making a complex risk-reward judgement, but doesn't demonstrably suggest any action to opener.

If the way this pair play last train is not consistent with (a) then some action may be demonstrably suggested.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-08, 17:05, said:

Our conclusions will probably end up the same anyway on the issue of the BIT --- that it provided information otherwise unobtainable from the auction alone, given the conditions. I just went a little farther, with how the problem could have been avoided by the simple expediency of a differenly defined set of continuations.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to the ruling.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-08, 17:32, said:

Which is, of course, irrelevant to the ruling.

Absolutely. It is only relevant that there is uncertainty about responder's strength thus far...perhaps resolved by the BIT....it is irrelevant why this uncertainty occurred, but when we know why it occurred we are reassured that it did occur.