Nonforcing 4NT

[keylime]

My 4NT agreements:

 

1. In comp, 2 places to play. When pard overcalled a suit tho, it's an 2 way bid: either a good raise to five of pard's suit, or takeout oriented (analogous to G/B 2NT). This came up recently (I sprung one on Larry).

 

2. If no suit is agreed on before 3NT, it's quant. seeking direction. Can be passed.

 

3. If one suit is agreed on, then ace asking.

 

4. If TWO suits agreed on, normally is asking about the 4-4 fit first, then the first 5-3 fit if applicable.

 

5. 1NT - 2R - 2M - 4NT = quantitative. Normally go through Texas to get to keycard but some play it the other way around. Important to discuss.

 

 

There are many more but wanted to give the gist of it.

[inquiry]

The two auction mentioned above...

 

Auction one.

(2S)-3H-(P)-4N.

 

This is clearly quantitative of sorts. If I wanted to use blackwood, I would start with 3♠ then 4NT. See rule about forcing raise.

 

Auction two.

2S (3H) 4N.

 

It was suggested that this one was "even more clearly RKCB". Well, maybe. I would say that 2H - (3S) - 4NT is RKCB for hearts, as you have no possible forcing raise available. on the 2S-(3H)-4NT there are three reasonable options. RKCB as you suggest. Takeout for either minor, or quantitative. We could run through the options. A forcing raise is available (4H's), so one could reasonable argue that this is natural and quantititative, and that is how I would play it. The idea is that good spades are needed for slam and that responder has source of tricks in one or more minors. The third option, both minors, seems unnecessary to me as you can bid 4♦ (forcing) and then 5♣ if necessary. There is also the possibility of double of three hearts for takeout, but after a preempt, that double should not be takeout -- it should be either CARDS or penalty as you see fit.

[cherdano]

Here is another one:

1H (3S) 4N. According to Justin's or Dwayne's rules above, it is minors. According to Ben's rule, it can't be RKCB.

 

I would think it is RKCB. With minors, you can just start bidding them with 4♦. With a RKCB-hand, you can't bid 4♠ and still RKCB later. I suppose you can bid 4♠ and hope partner will bid RKCB...

Probably Ben's rule makes sense if we reformulate it as "4N is never RKCB if we have a forcing raise below 4 of our suit available".

 

I think it is impossible to find rules that are

- easy

- intuitive (in all cases where we have a clear guess about the meaning when just thinking 3 seconds about it, it should agree with this guess)

- not clearly suboptimal.

 

Arend

[Guest Jlall]

Here is another one:

1H (3S) 4N. According to Justin's or Dwayne's rules above, it is minors. According to Ben's rule, it can't be RKCB.

Ok, fair enough, i said in competitve auctions but I think you took that a little literally. I mean 1C-(1D)-4N would be a competitive auction as well. I suppose competitive auction where you have no room to make a forcing bid and be able to show both suits at the game level would be more appropriate.

[inquiry]

Here is another one:

1H (3S) 4N. According to Justin's or Dwayne's rules above, it is minors. According to Ben's rule, it can't be RKCB.

 

I would think it is RKCB. With minors, you can just start bidding them with 4♦. With a RKCB-hand, you can't bid 4♠ and still RKCB later. I suppose you can bid 4♠ and hope partner will bid RKCB...

No. My rule is IF there is a forcing raise available it can not be RKCB. On 1H (3S) what forcing raise is available below game? There isn't one. So on this auction, 1H (3S) 4NT would be RKCB. For example, see the discussion I had on 2H (3S) 4NT in the post immediately before your post I quote here. My rule is certainly internally consistent on this view.

 

You could argue that this is a competitive auction, and 4NT should show the minors, but again, that would not be the case here (nor probably for Justin either). After 1H-(3S) you can DOUBLE to show the minors or (just as in my post just before yours) bid 4♦ then 5♣.

 

Probably Ben's rule makes sense if we reformulate it as "4N is never RKCB if we have a forcing raise below 4 of our suit available".

 

I think your "reformulation" of "Ben's rule" is what I already stated the rule is. And, rather than take credit for this, it has been around a long time. I had heard it before I ever read Kantar's RKCB book, but it is stated in that book So if you are going to make a rule out of it, to be fair, it is just one that I use, not one that I invented.

 

I think it is impossible to find rules that are

- easy

- intuitive (in all cases where we have a clear guess about the meaning when just thinking 3 seconds about it, it should agree with this guess)

- not clearly suboptimal.

 

Funny, I have never found the rules I use to be hard, so I think they are easy. As for Intuitive -- if you have rules, they don't have to be intuitive, they are simply what they are. Finally what is suboptimal anyway? No method would be ideal on all hands and all auctions. But even though that is true, there must be an "optimal strategy" of some sort, even if it will never be perfect. I think a strategy that allows you the most variety in options (to be able to use the bid as natural to play, blackwood, two suited, and quantatitive) is the best. This is why if there is a forcing raise available, there is never a need to use 4NT as RKCB, you can use the forcing raise and then bid. That is also why even in some competitive auctions, it is not best to use it as minors, because in that case you can bid one minor (if that bid is forcing) then bid the other. Also, part of the optimization is never allows a limited hand to use 4NT as RKCB. The "limited hand" is anyone that has bid a descriptive NT, or made a limiting raise.

 

Such rules gives you the greatest flexibilty (aka, optimal) strategy in my mind, although you can probably find hands were you would like for 4NT to mean something other than what it does by these (or any other) rules.

[1eyedjack]

Sorry folks, another situation relevant to this old thread, with quite a few questions arising:

Uncontested auction starts:

1♥ - 1♠

2♦ - 3♣

3♠ - 4N

 

1: Meaning of 4N here?

 

My thoughts, running from the previous posts in this thread, are:

 

2: I think we can dismiss RKCB in ♦. Responder had opportunities to support ♦in a GF capacity below game and chose not to do so (via 4♦ instead of 3♣)

 

3: Incidentally, would 4♦ instead of 4N, ie AFTER 3♣ have been a cue bid with ♠ as trumps, or would that set ♦ as trumps? My feeling is that it would be a cue bid with ♠, given previous opportunity to bid 4♦ instead of 3♣ if wishing to set ♦ as trumps.

 

4: Perhaps we can dismiss the 4N in this auction as non-forcing invitation, as he might have made such a bid on the previous round instead of 3♣.

 

5: That seems to leave RKCB in ♠. But so far opener has not yet cooperated in any slam try, nor am I convinced that a ♠ fit has been agreed. Might opener not bid this way with ♠Kx and ♣xx?

 

6: How would responder have planned the auction with a 4♠-3♥-2♦-4♣ shape 18 count? Most players use an immediate 2N response as showing 4 card ♥ support, so they would presumably start with a simple change of suit. Playing 2/1 would you start with 2♣ rather than 1♠ in order to establish a GF auction? You know you have a ♥ fit, and starting with 1♠ leaves you with something of a shortage of GF ♥ raises, UNLESS you go through 4th suit, as in the auction at the head of this post. But in the example auction, opener's rebid over 4th suit seems to deny you an opportunity to agree ♥ in a forcing manner.

[mike777]

1) in pick up partnership 4nt=bw rkc for spades

2) in reg partnership....4nt= rkc for spades

 

wtp?

 

whatever gain you have playing 4nt to mean something else....I give up. Repeat I give up whatever gain you play 4nt non bw here.

[1eyedjack]

1) in pick up partnership 4nt=bw rkc for spades

2) in reg partnership....4nt= rkc for spades

 

wtp?

 

whatever gain you have playing 4nt to mean something else....I give up. Repeat I give up whatever gain you play 4nt non bw here.

I may accept that there is no problem when you have addressed point numbered 6 in my post.

 

Having said that, the primary purpose of this entire thread was to identify the logical process that leads to the conclusion that 4NT is or, as the case may be, is not B/W (with whatever suit agreement) in any particular case without having to learn each case (of a population of doubtless thousands of sequences) by rote. If you say that it is rkc for Spades "Because it IS", then this is not really very helpful.

[mike777]

1) in pick up partnership 4nt=bw rkc for spades

2) in reg partnership....4nt= rkc for spades

 

wtp?

 

whatever gain you have playing 4nt to mean something else....I give up. Repeat I give up whatever gain you play 4nt non bw here.

I may accept that there is no problem when you have addressed point numbered 6 in my post.

 

Having said that, the primary purpose of this entire thread was to identify the logical process that leads to the conclusion that 4NT is or, as the case may be, is not B/W (with whatever suit agreement) in any particular case without having to learn each case (of a population of doubtless thousands of sequences) by rote. If you say that it is rkc for Spades "Because it IS", then this is not really very helpful.

ok pard has agreed spades yes? what is bw if not 4nt? Ya this sounds really stupid simple but even playing Kickback(me)...how do I rkc?...ya i give up a natural

4nt..I agree.

 

 

If you want to bitch about 4sf esp this 4sf auction ok ok ok..I agree....4sf sucks esp this auction.....but I bid it and I live with it. I give up natural 4nt.

[mike777]

6: How would responder have planned the auction with a 4♠-3♥-2♦-4♣ shape 18 count? Most players use an immediate 2N response as showing 4 card ♥ support, so they would presumably start with a simple change of suit. Playing 2/1 would you start with 2♣ rather than 1♠ in order to establish

 

 

With this hand I start .......2clubs...game force(100%)...not one spade....next question?

 

1) give partner a junky 11 hcp she should rebid 2s with 5H and 4s, next question?

2) with a really really great 4 clubs and sucky 4s partner rebids 3c with 11 hcp...next question?

[P_Marlowe]

#1 RKCB for spades

#2 agreed, you have 4D to set as trumps

#3 responder could have bid 4D direct instead

of bidding 3C

#4 he can bid 3NT, which is stronger than 3NT

direct (3NT in this seq. should show 15-17/18)

#5 depends, but in my partnership the answer is

No, he has 3D, 3H as answer the default being

3H

#6 4th suit forcing followed by 3H, we have a fit,

and I will set the suit

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

#6 4th suit forcing followed by 3H, we have a fit,

and I will set the suit

Thanks Marlowe (and Mike777)

Just one problem with the above: 3H is an insufficient bid

[Finch]

This is a horrible sequence, because unless you play 1H - 1S - 2D - 3H as forcing* you have no easy way to agree any of hearts, spades or diamonds as trumps in a forcing manner over 2D. (It's such a horrible sequence that I have agreed to play specifically 1H - 1S - 2D - 4C as a 3-card slam try in hearts)

 

On your particular auction, my 4NT rules would say that 4NT is natural, because you haven't agreed a suit.

 

*(playing SF or F 1NT response to 1H you can bid 1NT on your 3-card invitational heart raise and hence play 3H as forcing here, but not in standard methods, or at least not in standard UK methods!)