matmat Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 1♣-1♥2NT-3♦*3♥-4NT 3♦ is just checkback. what is the "standard" treatment and what structure do you use here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillHiggin Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 1♣ 1♥2N 4N Would have been quantitative. Partner did not do that. He asked about our major holding and then made a gleeful noise when we admitted to 3 card support for his suit. His values are unbounded. Ours are tightly limited. He wants to know about keycards and there is no ambiguity about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 i'm pretty sure i'd take it as rkb for the reasons he stated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 RKC for ♥, unless you play kickback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 1♣ 1♥2N 4N Would have been quantitative. I don't see why you need a quantitative 4NT when opener showed 18-19 exactly, but ok you can play it as that :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 Did 3♥ deny a 4-card spades? In that case it is quantitative. Responder has 4-4 in the majors. Otherwise it cannot be quantitative so it must be something else, presumably RKC. My rule is that it is quantitative unless it can't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillHiggin Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 1♣ 1♥2N 4N Would have been quantitative. I don't see why you need a quantitative 4NT when opener showed 18-19 exactly, but ok you can play it as that :( I agree that there is little need for quantitative when opener's range is so well defined. The actual range definition was not given and some (rare) use 18-20. My point is that while you just might want one way to bid 4N quantitative that you certainly do not need more than one. I will not even accept Helene's exception - over 3♥, a 3♠ bid would be forcing so responder could bid that and then bid 4N over opener's 3N. The possibility of responder actually having interest in spades is why I would not apply kickback without partnership discussion (and then if we agreed that 4♠ was kickback, 4N would be ERKC with a ♠ void - which is not an impossibility). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 I really can't see this as quantitative. I don't know where the assumption that the 3♥ bid denies four spades comes from either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.