What is 4NT?

[Walddk]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sak65h3da5cakq984]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Another hand from the Danish Premier League. You are dealer and the bidding goes:

 

2♣ - 2♦

3♣ - 4♣

4♦ - 4NT

??

 

Your 2♣ is strong, 2♦ is 0-1 control and 4♣ is support and shows any 1 control. 4♦ by you is a cue bid. How do you interpret 4NT from partner?

 

Roland

[mikeh]

My immediate reaction is that 4N shows the ♦K.

 

That remains my reaction.

 

I would like to know if my methods permitted/required me to cue a stiff major over 4♣, or whether such a cue unambiguously shows the control I am known to hold.. if the latter, then we can infer that partner has no major shortness.

 

I would also like to know whether, given that he has a control, our agreement/style is that he has to show it if possible, regardless of how ill-suited his hand is for slam, or whether he is allowed a little discretion.

 

The problem I face now is not readily resolved by knowing the answers to these questions, since it really comes down to whether I can find a resting place for my spade losers. If I know that he didn't have to show me his control, I think I will risk slam, because then there must be an increased chance that he has either KQx(x) of ♦ and/or 3rd round spade control (and the ability to deal with the 4th round as well). If I have no such inference, I sign off in 5♣

[mike777]

kD if partner is a premier expert

[Walddk]

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K.

 

Roland

[Walddk]

kD if partner is a premier expert

Definitely. 5♣ would too, so why did he bid 4NT?

 

Roland

[jdonn]

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K.

 

Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs.

[Walddk]

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K.

 

Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs.

If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K.

 

Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs.

If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control.

 

Roland

Huh? At the time the 4C bid was made it could have been based on "any 1 control" meaning a king in any suit. The fact that partner bid 4D doesn't mean that the 4C bid couldn't have been made on the CK. So partner needs all 4 steps to show his kings. It is intuitive to me that 4N shows the DK and 5C shows the CK.

[jdonn]

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K.

 

Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs.

If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control.

 

Roland

I agree but...so what B) responder can't help what opener is looking for, he can only show what he has.

[mike777]

I think partner has more than KD and J of clubs but still how much more, I do not know.

[Walddk]

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K.

 

Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs.

If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control.

 

Roland

Huh? At the time the 4C bid was made it could have been based on "any 1 control" meaning a king in any suit. The fact that partner bid 4D doesn't mean that the 4C bid couldn't have been made on the CK. So partner needs all 4 steps to show his kings. It is intuitive to me that 4N shows the DK and 5C shows the CK.

Of course the one control could have been ♣K after 4♣, but the 4♦ cuebid means that opener is not interested in ♣K (he must have it himself). As I said, if he had been looking for ♣K, he would not have bid 4♦.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

So 4♦ promises the club king is what you are saying? How about Ax AKQJ A AQxxxx, he wants to be in slam opposite the spade or club king but not the diamond king, and 4♦ seems like the obvious way to find out. I'm still not seeing your viewpoint I guess.

[Guest Jlall]

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K.

 

Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs.

If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control.

 

Roland

Huh? At the time the 4C bid was made it could have been based on "any 1 control" meaning a king in any suit. The fact that partner bid 4D doesn't mean that the 4C bid couldn't have been made on the CK. So partner needs all 4 steps to show his kings. It is intuitive to me that 4N shows the DK and 5C shows the CK.

Of course the one control could have been ♣K after 4♣, but the 4♦ cuebid means that opener is not interested in ♣K (he must have it himself). As I said, if he had been looking for ♣K, he would not have bid 4♦.

 

Roland

What is your point roland? What would you like partner to bid over 4D with xx xxx xxxx Kxxx? If you claim this is not a possible hand because partner bid 4D, it is certainly possible that if partner has the CK or the SK opener will want to be in slam, but if partner has the DK opener will not want to be in slam, so opener checks which king partner has via 4D.

[Walddk]

Responder is supposed to show his control, so 4♥ and 4♠ would be ♥K and ♠K respectively. The conclusion must therefore be that 5♣ shows ♦K.

 

Roland

I do not agree with that conclusion. I think 4NT shows the king of diamonds, whereas 5♣ denies any outside controls and therefore shows the king of clubs.

If opener had been interested if responder had a keycard, he would not have bid 4♦ (cuebid). 4NT rather to ask for ♣K if that was his problem. So he must be looking for a different control.

 

Roland

Huh? At the time the 4C bid was made it could have been based on "any 1 control" meaning a king in any suit. The fact that partner bid 4D doesn't mean that the 4C bid couldn't have been made on the CK. So partner needs all 4 steps to show his kings. It is intuitive to me that 4N shows the DK and 5C shows the CK.

Of course the one control could have been ♣K after 4♣, but the 4♦ cuebid means that opener is not interested in ♣K (he must have it himself). As I said, if he had been looking for ♣K, he would not have bid 4♦.

 

Roland

What is your point roland? What would you like partner to bid over 4D with xx xxx xxxx Kxxx? If you claim this is not a possible hand because partner bid 4D, it is certainly possible that if partner has the CK or the SK opener will want to be in slam, but if partner has the DK opener will not want to be in slam, so opener checks which king partner has via 4D.

My point is that if 4NT shows ♦K (I agree) and nothing about the rest of the hand, how is responder supposed to tell that he has extras without bypassing 5♣? He can't know if ♦K is a good card for opener, so he is not in a position to bid 6♣ over 4♦.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

My point is that if 4NT shows ♦K (I agree) and nothing about the rest of the hand, how is responder supposed to tell that he has extras without bypassing 5♣? He can't know if ♦K is a good card for opener, so he is not in a position to bid 6♣ over 4♦.

 

Roland

He can't. Don't look at me, they aren't my methods ;) Either responder can have the club king, in which case it seems 5♣ clearly shows that. Or you think 4♦ promises the club king and responder can't have it, in which case I think opener must be still wondering what to do if he holds the perfectly normal example in my last post.

[Walddk]

So 4♦ promises the club king is what you are saying? How about Ax AKQJ A AQxxxx, he wants to be in slam opposite the spade or club king but not the diamond king, and 4♦ seems like the obvious way to find out. I'm still not seeing your viewpoint I guess.

Even with that hand ♦K is not necessarily useless.

 

1. He may not get a spade lead.

2. If he does, dummy can have a doubleton heart and the 3rd is ruffed in dummy.

 

Roland

[kenrexford]

This debate seems to have developed into some confusion. Let me see if I can re-describe the potential problem that I see. (See also Mikeh's observation.)

 

Opener's 4♦ call is a cuebid. Responder is known to have one "control," a king somewhere. However, he might actually have two "controls."

 

The confusion might be that the first term "control" refers to "Aces are two, Kings are one," whereas the second term "control" refers to first-round or second-round control in a suit, which could be a King or could be a stiff or void.

 

So, whereas at first blush it seems that Responder simply bids his King (4M=this major King, 4NT = diamond King, 5♣ = club King), that analysis is unduly limited because Responder might also have a stiff or void.

 

Now, if Responder had the club King and a stiff, he should have bid 4♦, 4♥, or 4♠ after 3♣. So, we can disregard that possibility.

 

A stiff club is not possible, either.

 

With the heart King and a stiff, Responder can cue 4♥, Opener can last train 4♠, and Responder can bid his stiff if he has one.

 

This leaves some difficulty with a spade King and a side stiff, unless 4NT after 4♠ is last train as well and not an offer to play. There is no good solution for the diamond King and side stiff.

 

The question, if I am finally getting it, is as to who should move. Should Responder simply cue his diamond control, whether he has the stiff or not, or should he commit to the slam (and perhaps show his stiff along the way) with the diamond King and a stiff? Same for the spade-king-side-stiff problem if 4NT is not Last Train.

 

Am I seeing the problem right?

[awm]

Perhaps the point is that there's a wide range of "one control" hands. Responder could have any number of side queens, and any amount of distribution. Compare:

 

QJx

QJxx

x

Kxxxx

 

xxx

xxx

xxx

Kxxx

 

On the first hand it's hard to imagine not making a slam when partner opens 2♣ strong and rebids 3♣. On the second partner really need to have a good hand.

 

If responder's priority is just to locate the king, it's tough to tell between these hands!

 

Assuming that 4♥ and 4♠ show those respective controls, there are not enough calls to distinguish between the two minor suit kings and between extras/no extras.

 

I'd suggest that:

 

4M = that second round control

4NT = extras with the ♦K

5♣ = no extras, ambiguous about which minor suit king is held

Past 5♣ = extras and the ♣K, clearly this is the "right" hand for slam

 

This follows the general rule that 4NT in an auction where it can't be keycard is just a "general try" showing a good hand for slam, which applies in many other sequences as well. It's also sort of like last train (the final bid before 5♣). It just seems like knowledge about extras/no extras needs to take priority over "which king do you have" in these types of auction.

[Apollo81]

I agree with Josh and Justin. 4NT intuitively shows the ♦K and 5♣ the ♣K. That's as deep as I think either player should go.

[pclayton]

Definitely the ♦K but a few bits and pieces more.

 

The ♠Q seems particularly important.

[mikeh]

Definitely the ♦K but a few bits and pieces more.

 

The ♠Q seems particularly important.

Yes, it does... but how does partner?

[whereagles]

I don't care what pard has because it's a virtual certainty he doesn't have the ♥K and so he must have the ♦K. 6 is the limit and it's what I'm going to bid now.

 

If you *really* want to deduce something I guess 4NT is natural, showing some 4333-ish hand with ♦K and, say, two of the missing queens. Why natural: because undiscussed bids are supposed to be NATURAL.

[kenrexford]

I got to thinking about this while waiting for a damned train stopped in BFE, Ohio, while on route back from court. I'm thinking that this discussion is missing one huge problem.

 

2♣-P-2♦ was a weakish start, as step controls was apparently the approach. Willies, but OK.

 

3♣ was a big bid.

 

4♣ was also a big bid, but not that big. It showed a control.

 

4♦, I think, may have been too big.

 

Opener has three classic losers, by LTC. But, he also has that menacing fourth spade sitting there. Opposite two nice covers, like ♠Qxx ♥xxx ♦Kxxx ♣xxx, we still need a 3-3 spade split or a 2-2 club split or a squeeze, or possibly a 4-2 spade split with table feel and length in spades joining length in clubs. Sure, odds on, but that's hardly minimum.

 

It seems that Opener might have justified 5♣ with this hand, unless 4♣ showed one control plus something of interest. I'm not familiar enough with step controls and higher thinking to assess much, but I wonder if the acceptance of 4♦ as a given is misplaced.

[benlessard]

I agree with Josh and Justin. 4NT intuitively shows the ♦K and 5♣ the ♣K. That's as deep as I think either player should go.

 

Disagree

 

Perhaps the point is that there's a wide range of "one control" hands. Responder could have any number of side queens, and any amount of distribution.

 

agree 100%

 

4C is probably showing some extras.

 

with

xxx

xxx

Kxx

xxxx I think responder should be able to bid 5C. (if they agreement permit it)

 

 

But with

 

Qxx

xxxx

xxx

Kxxx

 

 

4C is the correct bid.

However over 4D. If you play that

 

4Nt show the K of D and 5C the K of C.

 

It means that with

 

Qxxx

xxx

Kxx

xxxx

 

you will need to bid 4Nt ?

 

How about

 

Qxx

xxx

xxx

Kxxx

 

&

 

xx

QJTx

xxx

Kxxx

 

are they both 5C bid bids ? or do you have to blast to 6C with 6 pts ?

 

I think its a much sounder agreement to play that 4Nt is showing a minor control + extras. and that 5C is showing nothing more then the initial 4C bids. Its nice to be able to point out specifics controls but general strenght is important too. Its a quite a wide range 0-1 controls when ur at the 4 level.

 

Most of the time opener will have a hand where 1 controls is enough to think about slam but rarely enough to bid it. A useful side card is often needed.