can someone explain

[sceptic]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sat5ht972dj983c32&w=sq973hak43dk2ck65&e=skj4h65daq6caqj84&s=s862hqj8dt754ct97]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

- Pass 1NT Pass

2♣ Pass 2♦ Pass

4NT Pass 5♠ Pass

5NT Pass 6NT Pass

Pass Pass

 

after a stayman bid pard bids 2 diamonds, then proceeds to bid 5 spades meaning 2xA + 1 K, I took it as 2xA + q diamonds ( this was purely speculative on my part)

 

is my 4NT quantative after the denial of a major for a diamond slam or what?

 

I would have corrected to 6NT if they bid 6 diamonds?

 

also is quantative (if my bid was correct) standard as no pick up ever seems to play it as a quantative ask, they always bid what ever type of Bwood or RKCB we have agreed to play

[CSGibson]

One treatment over a quantitative NT is to respond aces with a hand where you are accepting just to make sure you aren't 32 HCP off 2 aces. 5 spades on your partner's hand is just weird. Roman key card is for an agreed suit, and there was no agreed suit, so your partner should not include any kings.

 

Your own interpretation, showing 2 with the queen of diamonds, would also be strange, since partner never bid a diamond suit. Your partner could have 2 diamonds on the auction, even if 4N was keycard, diamonds is still not an implicitly agreed upon suit.

 

I am assuming a 15-17 NT range for the following.

 

Your hands work well together to get to a good 6N, but I would not invite with your hand. edit [though I would have to think about it if there were a 5 card suit since there aren't any jacks in your hand]. I need partner to have a good 5 card suit and a 17 count to make this a good slam, with no wasted values; in other words, a hand that would easily fall within range of an upgrade to an 18 count.

 

Basic math: 15+17 = 32. You should have 33 HCP for a 6N bid with two balanced hands. Invite (4N) with 16 or 17. Bid 6N yourself with 18-19. Invite a grand with 5N with 20-21. Bid 7N with 22+. This should not be hard; just memorize 33 HCP for 6N with two balanced hands and 37 HCP for 7N with two balanced hands. Then do the math to figure out whether to bid game, invite slam, bid slam, invite a grand, or bid a grand.

 

As for your questions: 4N is quantitative. This is standard. One of the big reasons beginners through intermediate players are that skill level is because they don't know standard treatments, so I would not be surprised if a player of that caliber did not take the bid as quantitative.

[Flame]

4NT is quentitive.

2♦ as you know is artificial and doesnt show more then 2♦s so oviously 4NT isnt keycard for ♦.

However over a quentitive 4NT it is possible to still show a suit to suggest playing in a suit contract, you will ofcourse correct to NT without support.

[Free]

4NT is quantitative, there's no reason to think ♦ is the trump suit. If West has ♦ he can bid a simple 3♦ after stayman, which is GF.

[helene_t]

4NT is quantitative. I think the "standard" responses are natural rather than ace-showing but without agreements it's probably better just to either pass or bid 6NT to avoid misunderstandings. OTOH I can sortof understand 5♥ just in case 4NT was meant as blacky. 5♠ is weird. If anything it should show 3 aces.

 

I would have signed off in 3NT with the west hand, requiring 16 points for a quanti. The East hand is arguably to good for a 1NT opening and even so 6NT requires clubs to be 3-2 and spades not be too naughty.

 

I think most people on BBO play "4NT is always blacky" either because they don't know any better or because they assume p not to know any better.

 

It is more tricky whether

1NT-2♣

2M-4NT

is RKC or quanty. If you have agreed on some forcing raise of the major, then 4NT is quanty because a hand that wanted to use RKC would use the forcing raise first. Without having discussed forcing raises, 4NT is probably RKC.

[ArtK78]

As others have said, the standard meaning of 4NT after Stayman is quantitative. Also, the standard meaning of a minor suit response to a quantitative 4NT is to show a 5-card suit to suggest playing slam in that suit rather than in notrump. I understand, as another poster has pointed out, that some choose to respond to the quantitative 4NT bid with aces, so as to avoid bidding 6NT if you are off 2 aces.

 

In order to ask for aces after Stayman and a major suit response, one should either agree that (1) 4♣ is RKC Gerber; or (2) 3 of the other major suit agrees on opener's major as trump, and resonder next bids 4NT RKCB.

 

It is my experience playing on BBO that the 4NT bid is always treated as Blackwood. To me, that is just wrong.

[kenrexford]

It might be a good idea to discuss options, as people do different things.

 

This auction is unique, for two reasons. First, Opener has denied a 4-card major. Second, as Responder would bid Smolen first with a five-card major, he has ruled out a major fit.

 

It seems reasonable, to me, to have Opener define his minor holdings if he accepts 4NT:

 

5♣ = five clubs

5♦ = five diamonds

5♥ = 3334

5♠ = 3343

5NT = both minors

6minor = 6-card suit

 

Something like that. After Opener bids, the next-up suit that is not an offer to play could be used as some sort of asking bid, but you are running out of space.

 

Alternatively, though, you could facilitate Moysian inquiries:

 

5♣ = 4+ clubs (will rebid if 5)

5♦ = 4+ diamonds (will rebid if 5)

6minor = 6-card

5M = good 3-card, doubleton other major with Ax, Kx, xx, or AK, but not Qx.

 

Something like that.

 

You have a lot more options, though, if 4♣ is your quantitative bid -- more space, even enough to incorporate RKCB 4NT to agree a last bid/shown suit.

[helene_t]

I am not so happy with your approach, Ken. I don't think opener should volunteer any information responder hasn't asked for. Responder will typically want to play either 4NT or 6NT. Opener's exact holding may be of more interest to opps than to responder.

 

A slamish balanced hand with interest in a major suit fit but no interest in a minor suit fit may be rare, but it makes some sense at matchpoints and it makes some sense to those of us who already play Stayman but don't bother to make sophisticated agreements about follow-ups.

 

If I were to put energy into discussing and memorizing a way to find a useful doubleton and a minor suit fit, I would do so at a lower level so we could cuebid afterwards, and I would prefer responder rather than opener to patern out.

 

BTW Kleinman discusses this at length in his "The Notrump Zone". A quantatitive raise that also seeks a minor suit fit he calls "Yellow Rose" (because of its relation to Texas transfers).

[Guest Jlall]

BTW the west hand should just bid 3N, but 4N is quantitative.

[skjaeran]

BTW the west hand should just bid 3N, but 4N is quantitative.

Agree.

And east shouldn't open a 15-17NT with a hand that is too strong, like this one.

[mikeh]

BTW the west hand should just bid 3N, but 4N is quantitative.

Agree.

And east shouldn't open a 15-17NT with a hand that is too strong, like this one.

agreed

[TimG]

Lots of people are so in love with keycard that they agree that when there has not been suit agreement, the last bid suit is the keycard suit. Also, lots of people respond to a quantitative 4NT as if it was Blackwood, when they are accepting the invite (just to be extra careful). It does not surprise me that someone has combined these and concluded that 1N-2C-2D-4N is keycard for diamonds (when accepting).

[kenrexford]

I am not so happy with your approach, Ken. I don't think opener should volunteer any information responder hasn't asked for. Responder will typically want to play either 4NT or 6NT. Opener's exact holding may be of more interest to opps than to responder.

 

A slamish balanced hand with interest in a major suit fit but no interest in a minor suit fit may be rare, but it makes some sense at matchpoints and it makes some sense to those of us who already play Stayman but don't bother to make sophisticated agreements about follow-ups.

 

If I were to put energy into discussing and memorizing a way to find a useful doubleton and a minor suit fit, I would do so at a lower level so we could cuebid afterwards, and I would prefer responder rather than opener to patern out.

 

BTW Kleinman discusses this at length in his "The Notrump Zone". A quantatitive raise that also seeks a minor suit fit he calls "Yellow Rose" (because of its relation to Texas transfers).

Actually, what you say makes sense and is what I like:

 

1NT-2♣-2♦-4♣ = quantitative, looking for suits

1NT-2♣-2♦-4NT = quantitative bash

[barmar]

Lots of people are so in love with keycard that they agree that when there has not been suit agreement, the last bid suit is the keycard suit.

While it's common to agree that the last bid suit is the keycard suit (because sometimes you don't have any way to make a forcing bid that also sets trump), that understanding should generally only apply to suits bid naturally. While there may be occasions where the king or queen of the artificial suit happens to be the useful extra information you need, it's more likely to cause confusion later in the auction.

[han]

Agree with Harald and others.

[neilkaz]

Lots of people are so in love with keycard that they agree that when there has not been suit agreement, the last bid suit is the keycard suit.

While it's common to agree that the last bid suit is the keycard suit (because sometimes you don't have any way to make a forcing bid that also sets trump), that understanding should generally only apply to suits bid naturally. While there may be occasions where the king or queen of the artificial suit happens to be the useful extra information you need, it's more likely to cause confusion later in the auction.

People are too in love with keycard ! It's nice, but agree on trumps first ! Many times in an auction that's been crowded (often bcuz dpd (dumb pard) has jumped with no reason to when we're allreadt GF, all my hand wants to know is how many aces pard holds. Off course I wouldn't dream of giving up RKCB.

 

On this hand the 5♠ response is very silly. If responder intends to look for slam in ♦ he can bid 3♦ 100% forcing and with at least some slam interest.

 

Answering a quant 4NT with aces in this hand is silly since opener has a huge max that many think (due to the potential of the 5 card ♣ suit is too good for 1NT)and should've been opened 1♣ followed by 2NT. Opener should like not muddy the waters with anything but 6NT, but I suspect at the table he was unsure what 4NT meant and was playing it safe as 5♠ is clearing getting to slam. After 5NT he didn't respond kings and just ended things with 6NT.

 

When would I answer a quant with aces ? Well when having a good 16 count makes sence..ie a 16 count with a likely useful 5 card suit or extra useful looking 10's. This is to insure that we aren't off two aces, but the method of responding in a 5 card suit, if you think slam in that suit will play better than 6NT could help (good look being sure however and you may help the defence lead better)

 

Responder is supposed to have 16-17 HCP, so 33 HCP is assured here.

 

However, there are all sorts of 15 opposite 17 HCP hands lacking 1 ace where 6NT is a huge favorite. How do we find them ? The answer is not so clear and upgrading the given opener is not guaranteed to work so well 100% of the time.

No easy answer.

[TimG]

Lots of people are so in love with keycard that they agree that when there has not been suit agreement, the last bid suit is the keycard suit.

While it's common to agree that the last bid suit is the keycard suit (because sometimes you don't have any way to make a forcing bid that also sets trump), that understanding should generally only apply to suits bid naturally. While there may be occasions where the king or queen of the artificial suit happens to be the useful extra information you need, it's more likely to cause confusion later in the auction.

Of course it's silly to assume keycard for diamonds on this auction. Did you misunderstand me and think that I was recommending keycard on this auction?

[sceptic]

4NT is quantitative, there's no reason to think ♦ is the trump suit. If West has ♦ he can bid a simple 3♦ after stayman, which is GF.

 

I knew diamonds were not agreed, I assumed that was what p had in mind, a dumb logic there I know, but I had to think something

 

Also I would like to disagree with a statement made about beginners and intermediates, I actually seem to have this issue a lot with BBO advanced and Experts,

 

I would just like to understand this seeminly easy convention, that apparently is not, even though I have a bad habit of using any excuse to bid this convention

[sceptic]

4NT is quantitative. I think the "standard" responses are natural rather than ace-showing but without agreements it's probably better just to either pass or bid

 

Actually I thought the responses were simply accept or not accept the slam try

[helene_t]

4NT is quantitative. I think the "standard" responses are natural rather than ace-showing but without agreements it's probably better just to either pass or bid

 

Actually I thought the responses were simply accept or not accept the slam try

In this case where opener has shown a balanced hand, yes, I agree he should just pass or bid 6NT.

 

There are situations in which one can agree to play 4NT as quantitative although opener may be unbalanced, e.g.

 

1♠-2♥

3♦-4NT

 

Here opener responds naturally to 4NT.

[neilkaz]

4NT is quantitative, there's no reason to think ♦ is the trump suit. If West has ♦ he can bid a simple 3♦ after stayman, which is GF.

 

I knew diamonds were not agreed, I assumed that was what p had in mind, a dumb logic there I know, but I had to think something

 

Also I would like to disagree with a statement made about beginners and intermediates, I actually seem to have this issue a lot with BBO advanced and Experts,

 

I would just like to understand this seeminly easy convention, that apparently is not, even though I have a bad habit of using any excuse to bid this convention

Fortunately here, as so often is not the case, you have little care whether PD has intended to respond aces or ♦ key cards ! You asked him to bid 6NT with a max, and he's responded 5♠ probably misunderstanding that you meant Blackwood of some type, or perhaps playing it safe, saying I am accepting the invite to 6NT but responding as RKC just in case that's what you meant !

 

Off course Quant is "standard" after 1NT-2♣-2♦ and PD may even know that, but may not be sure that you know that so he plays it safe, and assumes that you may (weird as it seems here) be intending RKC for the last suit bid when none was agreed. In that sense his 5♠ costs little since since there's no chance of playing it there.

 

Now from your side and hand, you don't care whether PD has shown 3 aces or 2 and the ♦Q as you have three or four aces combined and aren't interested in a grand. So play it safe, since if he was certain you meant Blackwood, 5NT may be asking for Kings and sad as it may seem, lets him bid a grand with an undisclosed source or tricks. I wouldn't expect that to happen, but I'd just bid 6NT in your seat after 5♠ as you seem endplayed into it. After your 5NT, PD didn't respond kings, perhaps realize you two were both confused as to what the sequence meant.

 

If this is a regular PD, I suggest that you discuss Quant NT's and also how to ask for aces or keycards while using Quant in these sequences, and "yes" forumers Gerber for aces does occasionally play a roll in these sequences.

 

 

Sorry for the long post, but just trying to stress the need to not panic when the rather uncommon sequence seems ot may have confused PD. Just get to 6NT here after 5♠ as that's where you want to be anyhow.