Nonforcing 4NT

[1eyedjack]

Common uses of a 4NT bid (in no particular order) are

1) Blackwood of some variety

2) Quantitative, natural non-forcing but slam invitational

3) Contract suggestion, more discouraging than 2 above (would only apply in non-jump auction but not all non-jump auctions)

4) Forcing 2-suited hand "Pick a suit" instruction, in contested auction.

5) Doubtless some other options not considered above.

 

I want to prepare some sort of structured flow chart to help a beginner or intermediate decide which applies to a situation. Not wishing to re-invent the wheel it occurs to me that someone has already done this, so I thought to get some suggestions here. If it only distinguishes between the first two uses listed above then it still be worthwhile, I think.

 

Note, that what I am NOT asking in this thread is how do you determine whether or not Blackwood is the most appropriate slam investigation tool for a hand. Here it is your partner who has already bid 4NT and it is down to you to interpret what he meant by it. As you are playing with a beginner or intermediate you probably are not playing Minorwood, Redwood or similar.

 

When this happens to me at the table I work it out more by gut feel than analytical process, and get it right most of the time, but that is not much help to a beginner.

 

It does occur to me that the optimal flowchart might be quite complicated, and there may need to be a trade-off between complexity and practicality, having regard to the target audience and the fact that an inferior partnership agreement is better than disagreement or forgetting the system.

 

Any suggestions? There may be a link out there that does this, but my googling is not up to it.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

first of all, I would ask, which meaning of 4NT

would be relevant for beginners.

 

1) ok

2) ok

3) ???, I would say that even Adv. players may not

be able to stop in 4NT after 3NT got by passed

because the partnership was invertigating a minor

suit slam

4) ???, 4NT as a 2-suited take-out would also not be

on my high priority list, what I want to teach a beginner

5) Good-Bad comes to mind, but similar to 4

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

In order (so if #1 applies, don't check #2)

 

1. Would 4♣ be Gerber? If so, 4NT is quantitative.

2. Has the 4NT bidder agreed to a suit? If so, 4NT is Blackwood*.

3. Is it a jump to 4NT? If so, 4NT is Blackwood.

4. Otherwise, it is not Blackwood.

 

That's my personal basic rules.

 

*(such as 1♥-2NT Jacoby-4♥-4NT or 1♥-4♦ Splinter 4♥-4NT).

[helene_t]

4NT is surely quantitative if it's a raise of partner's natural notrump bid.

4NT is surely (some sort of) BWood/Turbo/etc if a major suit has been agreed

4NT is surely unusual if partner has not made any call other than pass. (An opening of 4NT may be an expection)

 

Other situations require some reasoning and/or special agreements. In particular:

- After Stayman/Jacoby. 4NT "should" be quantitative but if no forcing raise has been agreed, many interpret it as BWood.

- After minor suit agreements. Unless some sort of Minorwood is played, the easiest agreement is that 4NT is always some kind of BWood. For advanced players, 4NT can be sign-of by a player who has not cooperated with a slam try, but this can lead to misunderstandings.

- When no suit has been agreed. The "best" agreement is that it's quanti unless no forcing raise is available in which case it's BWood for the last-mentioned suit. An easier agreement is that it's always BWood for the last-mentioned suit.

- In various competive situations. My personal opinion FWIW is that the default meaning should be unusual.

[1eyedjack]

Hmm

 

I was kibbitzing a hand where the opponents agreed Clubs at the 4 level, (it was a 4-4 fit) and at some point thereafter one of the pair bid 4NT. My gut feel was that it was not Blackwood, but open to disagreement. Sure enough a commentator in the gallery confirmed that 4NT should "just be a slam invite". Wish I could find the hand in my database but I can't. One of the other kibbers, who I know was a beginner, asked why not Bwood, and no reasoned answer was forthcoming, although it did get me to thinking about the subject.

[helene_t]

As said, I think the criterion should be whether both players have cooperated in the slam investigation. In minor suit auctions, bids below 3NT are looking for 3NT and not for slam per se, so the first slamish bid is at the 4-level.

 

blah-blah

blah-4♣ (agreeing clubs)

4♦(cue)-4NT (BWood or such)

 

blah-blah

blah-4♣ (agreeing clubs)

4NT (non-slamish hand, suggests tgo play 4NT)

 

Even after both players have cued, one might want to stop in 4NT as soon as a control seems to be missing. It's reasonable to play

blah-blah

blah-4♣ (agreeing clubs)

4♥(no ♦ control)-4NT (let's stop, then)

 

But the consequence of this would be that one barely plays BWood for minor suit. Then it's probably better to abandon BWood for minor suits alltogether.

[1eyedjack]

Thanks Helene_t that helps clear the fog admirably.

 

One further question. Sorry that this one is rather woolly in its definition:

 

You have had a fairly long and involved auction, resulting in no trump fit express or implied. Indeed the last bid was in Notrumps, say 2NT or 3NT. You are confident that you have values for slam, but unsure if there are 2 aces off it.

 

Any way to enquire? Presumably 4NT would generally be quantitative here, but I absolutely do not want partner to pass it. Does it make a difference if the last bid was 2NT v 3NT? Or do you feel that such hands never arise or arise so infrequently that there is no point catering for it systemically?

[helene_t]

There's some discussion in Lawrence's 2/1 workbook and in his Bidding Quizes.

 

If 3♣ is forcing, 4♣ is a splinter and if it's can't be a splinter it's Gerber. If 4♣ isn't Gerber, 5♣ is. The latter sounds dangerous to me but who am I .......

[1eyedjack]

There is also the question of what happens if a major suit is agreed under duress.

Say

1H-1S

3C-3D

3S-4N

 

And also, if 4N is quantitative in a particular situation, is there any way that you can ask for Aces if that is what you want to know?

 

How about

2C-2D

3D-4D

4N??

Has the 4D bid "cooperated" in the slam try, or did he just show support because, well, he had support and for all he knows that is what partner wants to hear?

[david_c]

There is also the question of what happens if a major suit is agreed under duress.

Say

1H-1S

3C-3D

3S-4N

I wouldn't say that spades have been "agreed" on this auction. A minimum response to fourth-suit does not set trumps. So I would take 4NT as natural, as usual after 4sF.

[helene_t]

Difficult question, I'm probably not competent of answering them but I'll try anyway.

 

The first one is probably quanti because the fit is not guaranteed and presumably 4♣ and/or 4♥ could have been used to agree spades. I'm not so sure about this, though.

 

The second must be BWood since 3♦ and 4♦ both show slamish hands.

[inquiry]

Rules to live by...

 

Quantative is easiest.

Notrump raises and jumps to 4NT when it was POSSIBLE to issue a forcing game raise are quantitative.

 

That is to paraphrase Helene...

 

blah-blah-blah-3NT (natural)- 4NT is quantatitive

 

even

 

1H-4NT is quantitiative, even 1S-2H-4NT is quantitative (in 2/1 context) as you have a forcing raise (3H) available.

 

Blackwood then is easy too. If suit agreement has occurred, then jumps to 4NT are always blackwood -- since you have suit agreement. If the suit is a major, for practical reasons, 4NT will always be blackwood (or if you are fancy, see end of this paragraph). However, after minor suit agreement, if one partner has limited his hand (say by offering NT naturally or making a "weak raise or limit raise", then the "weak partner" can never* use blackwood, so his 4NT is always a suggestion of a place to play. *Jumps to 4NT remain "blackwood" even if by a limited hand, but that bid is just too rare to worry about. If a limited hand bids 4NT in a forward going auction after a major fit was found, it could be used as the most-space saving cue-bid if you wanted to play that.

 

Two suit takeout is for opening bids (opening 4NT) and competitive auctions (easy to pick).

 

 

So, you should have no trouble whatsoever with quantitative (NT raises or jumps when you have forcing raise of the suit available), two suited (when they are bidding and you ahve no suit agreement), and blackwood (when we have a major fit, when we have found a minor fit and the strong hand bids it). You can add something like kickback and make even more 4NT natural -- especially after minor fit if you like, but kickback can REALLY lead to disasters even with established partnerships of advanced players...so to suggest that solution to beginners is, well, not such a good idea.

[1eyedjack]

The second must be BWood since 3♦ and 4♦ both show slamish hands.

3♦ is forcing. Is responder obligated to bid 3N and conceal the Diamond support without a slammish hand? I can construct hands where 5D makes but 3N fails after these auctions. It is not uncommon for opener to have a huge single suiter with one suit unguarded, say singleton, and if responder is v weak they have the suit running in tops.

[1eyedjack]

Thanks Inquiry

Combining your response and that of Helene_t I think I have a pretty good starting point. But taking your post in isolation, are you satisfied that there are no hands in an uncontested auction that fail to fit one or other of the criteria for (_a_) Quantitative, (_b_) Blackwood or (_c_) contract suggestion?

 

I worry about the possibility of a jump to 4NT by an unlimited hand opposite a partner who has not just bid NT, where there is no suit agreed and there is no facility to agree or set a suit in a GF context. Perhaps you think that such a beast does not exist. Perhaps you are right - I have not thought that one through properly. It is common to agree that a jump to 4NT agrees partner's last suit as trumps by implication and as such is Blackwood. That then begs the question, suppose you would have preferred it to be quantitative, how would you then bid the hand?

[whereagles]

Hi there, some ideas below

 

1. 4NT as blackwood is the most common use. When a suit has been agreed, 4NT is blackwood for that suit.

 

2. 4NT is usually meant as quantitative when no fit has been found and a nat NT bid has been raised volunteerly to 4NT, .e.g.

 

1♥ 2♣

2NT 4NT

 

3. This is the way to declare a misfit when fits are looked-for at a higher level, e.g.

 

2NT 3♥

3♠ 4♣ (nat, 54, slammish)

4NT (misfit. Spade fit bids 4♠, club fit bids 4♦/♥)

 

4. Using 4NT as a 2 suiter happens after preempts. A rule of thumb is: "suit is more important than aces", so, when you haven't had a chance to bid suits below 4NT, the bid is better used to show 2 of them.

 

5. yeah, there are dozens of other uses to it :)

[Guest Jlall]

This is very tough for all partnerships. Usually I play...

 

2 places to play in competitive sequences

Quantitative if partners last bid was some number of natural NT

Non forcing/regressive if my last bid was 3N

Blackwood otherwise.

[bid_em_up]

There is also the question of what happens if a major suit is agreed under duress.

Say

1H-1S

3C-3D

3S-4N

 

And also, if 4N is quantitative in a particular situation, is there any way that you can ask for Aces if that is what you want to know?

 

How about

2C-2D

3D-4D

4N??

Has the 4D bid "cooperated" in the slam try, or did he just show support because, well, he had support and for all he knows that is what partner wants to hear?

While somebody later says thas sequence #1 is quantitative, I must disagree. You are in a game forcing sequence (after the jump shift), and technically, responder bid 4SF with his 3D bid. Openers failure to bid 3N (thereby denying a diamond stop) makes it highly unlikely that opener will accept any "quantitative" 4N on this hand since he is wide open in diamonds. Since responder has made a forcing bid over a forcing bid, 4N must be blackwood. Note also that on a normal jumpshift holding 2-5-2-4 and no diamond stop, opener should bid 4S (not three), imo. So the 3S call should be 3-5-1-4.

 

In case #2, I will assume 2D is negative or waiting, 3D says I have diamonds, 4D says I have at least one ace or king (and I have something worthwhile that could be useful for slam), 4N says what is it? You cannot stop in 4N in this sequence, once 3N has been bypassed, sorry. It is either 5D or 6D or 5N via forced signoff or 6N.

 

If responder had nothing worthwhile to contribute to a diamond slam (or scattered values and no likely slam interest), he would have either bid 3N or 5D initially.

[paulg]

Broadly I play 4NT as Blackwood only on the second round of the auction or if it is a jump bid after a suit bid.

 

Although beginners and intermediates may do better if they never use Blackwood, the key is avoid Victor Mollo's Rabbit syndrome and using it "as an expression of joy" rather than a slam bidding tool.

 

Paul

[1eyedjack]

Quite a bit of common ground among these posts, but also some divergence. In cases of divergence there are three tests to consider:

A_) Which is technically the better method? probably never get agreement on that

B_) Which method (if either) results in a simpler set of rules to remember, (quite a high priority for the beginner or intermediate player. Heck, a high priority for all players really) and

C_) How difficult do you make it for yourself to bid hands that do NOT qualify for 4NT having settled on a particular (whichever) definition of 4NT in the situation.

 

So far, not a lot of comment on test C, but I shall mull it all over.

[inquiry]

Quite a bit of common ground among these posts, but also some divergence. In cases of divergence there are three tests to consider:

A_) Which is technically the better method? probably never get agreement on that

B_) Which method (if either) results in a simpler set of rules to remember, (quite a high priority for the beginner or intermediate player. Heck, a high priority for all players really) and

C_) How difficult do you make it for yourself to bid hands that do NOT qualify for 4NT having settled on a particular (whichever) definition of 4NT in the situation.

 

So far, not a lot of comment on test C, but I shall mull it all over.

As to "A", having a natural, quantiative 4NT is key on a lot of auction where your other choice is a very heavy 3NT. Imagine if you will,

 

1S - 2H

3D - ?

 

If you don't have a natural 4NT to show extra values, clubs under control, and a willingness to go further, you will bid 3NT with a lot hands and rack up 490's and 690's rather than you slams. If you don't fit but are too strong for a quantitative 4NT, you can find a different forcing bid.

 

As to "B" simplier rules are not best. How much simplier is a rule that 4NT is always blackwood? That doesn't make it best. So you should just forgo the "simplier" rules and try to find a set that works logically for yourself.

 

As t o "C" there is some problem if you do not have a forcing raise (minor and major) available, and if you are not playing 2/1 GF. An example, I use the rule that IF a Forcing major raise was available, then 4NT is never Blackwood. This means, for instance, that 1H-4NT is not blackwood because I have jacoby 2NT available. Likewise, 1S-2D-2H-4NT is not blackwood becasue 2S, 3S, and 3H are all forcing and can be bid first. If 2D was not game force, then a raise to 3H would not be forcing. If you play that, then and only then, might you decide to use 4NT as "blackwood for hearts". Why? Because 3H is not forcing and 4H would be sign-offish. But playing 2/1 GF, there is no need for the immediate jump to 4NT with heart support.

[1eyedjack]

As to "A", having a natural, quantiative 4NT is key on a lot of auction where your other choice is a very heavy 3NT. Imagine if you will,

 

1S - 2H

3D - ?

 

If you don't have a natural 4NT to show extra values, clubs under control, and a willingness to go further, you will bid 3NT with a lot hands and rack up 490's and 690's rather than you slams. If you don't fit but are too strong for a quantitative 4NT, you can find a different forcing bid.

My instinct would have been that 4NT was Blackwood in support of Diamonds. Presumably you would bid 4D first here, then as that would clearly be forcing, and hope that 4N remains available next time (or that partner does not go and Blackwood on you, on a less suitable hand for the action). But I see that a natural 4NT has merit here, AND it is consistent with a simple rule (test B_), AND the blackwood hand type is at least biddable (test C_). I rather like it.

 

As to "B" simplier rules are not best. How much simplier is a rule that 4NT is always blackwood? That doesn't make it best. So you should just forgo the "simplier" rules and try to find a set that works logically for yourself.

Simplicity is relative. Going back to my original post, it was always going to be a trade-off, with a balance to be struck. Excessive simplicity does I agree distort that balance. Excessive complexity has a downside also.

As t o "C" there is some problem if you do not have a forcing raise (minor and major) available, and if you are not playing 2/1 GF. An example, I use the rule that IF a Forcing major raise was available, then 4NT is never Blackwood. This means, for instance, that 1H-4NT is not blackwood because I have jacoby 2NT available. Likewise, 1S-2D-2H-4NT is not blackwood becasue 2S, 3S, and 3H are all forcing and can be bid first. If 2D was not game force, then a raise to 3H would not be forcing. If you play that, then and only then, might you decide to use 4NT as "blackwood for hearts". Why? Because 3H is not forcing and 4H would be sign-offish. But playing 2/1 GF, there is no need for the immediate jump to 4NT with heart support.

I think that there is generally a problem on misfitting hands, even in 2/1. In your examples you conveniently have a trump fit that you can express below game, and I agree that while that condition holds, the problem is much reduced. One problem with 2/1 is that there is no upper limit to the 2/1 responder. Whilst the bid is I acknowledge game forcing, that does not really show anything very special. With a real powerhouse it can still be hard to get it off your chest, as you might have done in days of yore when playing strong jump shifts. And on such hands you might have no intention of playing in NT at all, ie when responder has a self supporting suit or identifies a lack of guard opposite his singleton, so an invitational 4NT then does not enter the list of options. Even the 2/1 players have the same problems as the rest of us if responder's suit is higher ranking than opener's leading to an auction that starts with a forcing 1/1 response that could be on potentially as little as a 6 count. Responder then has to continue making forcing noises via new suits until ultimately he gets across the fact that he has a GF hand, but even that does not express the extras in reserve, and by then you are likely to be up to the level of 3NT and rather running out of alternatives.

 

Misfitting hands should be devalued, of course, and tend (but only tend, mind) to be appropriate for NT denomination, as well as frequently qualifying for an occasion when Quant is more useful than Black, but even then there can arise hands when you know that you should be in slam if the controls are there. If responder is balanced he would have to be so strong that the hands become so infrequent that there is not much point in catering for it. But if responder has a self-supporting suit that requires no primary support from opener then it may not be so obvious.

 

No-one forces us to play weak jump shifts, of course.

[cherdano]

1H-4NT is quantitiative, even 1S-2H-4NT is quantitative (in 2/1 context) as you have a forcing raise (3H) available.

This logic is great in theory, but it's just not what happens in the real world unless you have it very firmly agreed with partner.

[inquiry]

1H-4NT is quantitiative, even 1S-2H-4NT is quantitative (in 2/1 context) as you have a forcing raise (3H) available.

This logic is great in theory, but it's just not what happens in the real world unless you have it very firmly agreed with partner.

Oh, I understand that precisely. I have always advocated that on BBO if you pick-up partner bids 4NT, it is BLACKWOOD, the rules I just layed out be damned. I can find such post if you like, but experience shows that is how most treat it. Of course, if you have a decent partner, this might not be the case.

[cherdano]

1H-4NT is quantitiative, even 1S-2H-4NT is quantitative (in 2/1 context) as you have a forcing raise (3H) available.

This logic is great in theory, but it's just not what happens in the real world unless you have it very firmly agreed with partner.

Oh, I understand that precisely. I have always advocated that on BBO if you pick-up partner bids 4NT, it is BLACKWOOD, the rules I just layed out be damned. I can find such post if you like, but experience shows that is how most treat it. Of course, if you have a decent partner, this might not be the case.

(I didn't mean to imply that you weren't aware of this.)

 

Actually, I would also think this rule does not hold with decent partners without discussion either. (2S)-3H-(P)-4N. Of course you have 3S as a forcing raise, but if I would have to guess the meaning by an unknown expert partner, I would bet on RKCB for hearts. 2S (3H) 4N. Even more clearly RKCB.

 

I think it's a lot easier to agree to this rule than to stick with it...

[Guest Jlall]

heh, I would have thought (2S)-3H-(p)-4N is quantitative with an expert pick up partner (even though it does not follow my rules). Maybe only if it's a very slow 4N :)