4NT before trumps agreed

[Kingside]

After a sequence 1C - 1D - 1S - 4NT , is the 4NT unambiguous ? Is it a matter of partership agreement or does it have a defined meaning? e.g quantitative or agreeing Spades?

[helene_t]

I would avoid this 4NT bid since it's not quite clear how p would take it. If it came up I would assume it was quantitative. The reasons are that

1) Opener's hand is well enough described for 4NT to make sense

2) If I can't make a quantitiative 4NT, I would have to go through fsf, but depending on what the answer to fsf might be, quanti might not apply then.

[dicklont]

This is is quantitative.

You can support spades forcing after bidding fourth suit first or through a splinterbid.

[P_Marlowe]

Without discussion: RKCB, agreeing spades.

 

Quatitative is dangerous, because opener did not yet

limit his hand.

Usually a quantitaive 4 NT asks partner do you have a

max. / min. for your bidding so far.

 

After

 

1C - 1D

1S - ???

 

Opener could still have a hand ranging from 10-16/17HCP,

or even up to 20/21, if you happen to play 1S as forcing.

Hence the quatitative asks makes would not really work

very well, because the range of openers hand is to large.

 

Saying, that you can go via FSF if you want to establish the

suit as trumps, is ..., because the same is true, if you want to

make a quantitative invite.

Additionnally, if I play with a stranger, I may not even know,

if we happen to play FSF as inv.+ or GF, you may know for

sure, I dont.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pclayton]

Sigh.

 

I've never seen the need to play 4N as quantitative. Can anyone construct a hand where this makes sense? Pard may be 4-3 in the blacks, or 5-7. 4N is the kind of call that just wrecks auctions. If I have a 3=4=4=2 19 count, I'll just bid 2♥, thanks.

 

So its key card. Well, the scientist in you might say, ? just agree spades at a lower level; either through 2♥ or through an xyz 3♠, and then key card.

 

Here's the problem. Sometimes things don't always go as planned. Sometimes pard does something totally unexpected over the 4th suit (like 3N). Sometimes opponents do strange things like suddenly jump into our bidding at a late round.

 

Winning bridge is not messing up bunny auctions like this.

[kenrexford]

RKCB.

[Finch]

I don't think the auction exists.

 

All of pclayton's comments about the problems with playing it as quantitative are valid. But then what hand can you possibly have where all you need to know are partner's spade keycards, given that partner could be 6007 or (depending on methods) 4333? Go on, come up with one...

 

And anyway I can always agree spades in a forcing manner without having to worry about 4SF auctions e.g. via a splinter and bid RKCB next round.

[pclayton]

I don't think the auction exists.

 

All of pclayton's comments about the problems with playing it as quantitative are valid. But then what hand can you possibly have where all you need to know are partner's spade keycards, given that partner could be 6007 or (depending on methods) 4333? Go on, come up with one...

 

And anyway I can always agree spades in a forcing manner without having to worry about 4SF auctions e.g. via a splinter and bid RKCB next round.

KQJxx x AKQxxx x

[Free]

It's a noob bid, so I'd take it as Blacky...

[Finch]

I don't think the auction exists.

 

All of pclayton's comments about the problems with playing it as quantitative are valid.  But then what hand can you possibly have where all you need to know are partner's spade keycards, given that partner could be 6007 or (depending on methods) 4333?  Go on, come up with one...

 

And anyway I can always agree spades in a forcing manner without having to worry about 4SF auctions e.g. via a splinter and bid RKCB next round.

KQJxx x AKQxxx x

If partner has 3 aces, I'd like to know if he has some diamond length so I can bid 7NT.

 

What if he has a heart void? Are you expecting him to show it over RKCB (the normal approach is not to) ? With both black aces and a heart void he will, but do you expect him to drive the 6-level with Axxx - Jxx KQxxxx?

 

How about 10xxx AQx Jx AQxx (if that's a 1S rebid). Wouldn't you like to be in 6NT by partner to avoid the diamond ruff? (OK, I'm not sure there's any decent auction to 6NT by partner, but after a heart splinter and 3NT you have a chance)

 

I thought you were going to give

 

KQJ10x A AKQJxx x

 

which is a blackwood bid. But then I can happily splinter in hearts then bid RKCB next round and I don't need to confuse partner with 4NT the previous round.

[kenrexford]

A splinter and then Blackwood is silliness.

 

First of all, I would take that as Exclusion. Why jump to 5♥ or 5♦ over 1♠ as Exclusion when you can make a splinter, expecting a signoff (glad if not) and then use 4NT, the cheaper bid, as Exclusion?

 

Second, what if partner bids 4NT, stealing the decision? How do you catch up?

 

If you know what you need, bid 4NT and avoid disclosure. Jumps from 1x to 4NT should be RKCB, period. Just because you can use all sorts of wild auctions to get to 4NT does not mean you should.

[jdonn]

I thought you were going to give

 

KQJ10x A AKQJxx x

 

which is a blackwood bid. But then I can happily splinter in hearts then bid RKCB next round and I don't need to confuse partner with 4NT the previous round.

I congratulate you on being part of the 0.0001% of bridge players in the world who find a 3♥ or 4♥ (I don't even know which you mean?) bid now less confusing than a 4NT bid now.

 

The argument normally used to claim these 4NT bids are natural (that we could agree trumps a different way) can easily be used against it being natural or blackwood. So since virtually the entire world would take it as blackwood, that's what it is!

 

I also found this amusing.

 

But then what hand can you possibly have where all you need to know are partner's spade keycards, given that partner could be 6007 or (depending on methods) 4333?  Go on, come up with one...

I don't have to, you seem to have done a fine job yourself :)

 

I thought you were going to give

 

KQJ10x A AKQJxx x

 

which is a blackwood bid.

[Finch]

The argument normally used to claim these 4NT bids are natural (that we could agree trumps a different way) can easily be used against it being natural or blackwood. So since virtually the entire world would take it as blackwood, that's what it is!

If the whole world would take it as Blackwood, that's fine for the whole world... but in that case why has it been posted as a question? There have already been replies (possibly reply, I can't be bothered to count) saying that it's quantitative.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you don't actually need an agreement for this bid, because you don't need to jump to 4NT whether you mean it as Blackwood or natural.

 

If you want to agree it, then good for you. I have vast numbers of agreements in my regular partnerships, and I'm certain we've never needed to discuss this auction (FWIW with one of my two regular partners I would take it as quantitative and with the other RKCB for spades, but I'm also certain the first would say "I would never bid this")

[skjaeran]

4NT can be whatever you agree upon.

 

The default meaning of most jumps to 4NT among non-experts would be Blackwood (of some version). I don't think there's a default meaning for such jumps among experts, though in many (obvious) sequences it would be quantitative.

 

This particular jump to 4NT doesn't make sense to me, as others have pointed out already. You'd be interested in knowing more about partner's hand before driving to slam, with almost any hand you'd hold.

[ASkolnick]

My agreement with partners are first agreed or last bid suit RKCB. Not necessarily best, but does avoid confusion.

[lilboyman]

It is not clear from the post whether standard BW or RKCB, has been agreed to. If standard BW has been agreed to, I see no reason for the jump to 4NT to imply agreement on Spades as trump and would doubt that absent agreement this call would be treated as quantitative.

 

If the poster was referring to RKCB, then one of the more common agreements, not the only posssible, is that the last bid suit is agreed as trump for the purpose of responding to the RKCB inquiry. However, other agreements are possible and so this should be discussed before you use RKCB. Absent discussion, I would think that it would be reasonalble to conclude that Spades are intended as trump.

[lilboyman]

It is not clear from the post whether standard BW or RKCB, has been agreed to. If standard BW has been agreed to, I see no reason for the jump to 4NT to imply agreement on Spades as trump and would doubt that absent agreement this call would be treated as quantitative.

 

If the poster was referring to RKCB, then one of the more common agreements, not the only posssible, is that the last bid suit is agreed as trump for the purpose of responding to the RKCB inquiry. However, other agreements are possible and so this should be discussed before you use RKCB. Absent discussion, I would think that it would be reasonalble to conclude that Spades are intended as trump for the purpose of making your RKCB reply.

[han]

I agree with the point Frances was trying to make.

[pclayton]

If partner has 3 aces, I'd like to know if he has some diamond length so I can bid 7NT.

 

Scoring wasn't mentioned, but I would never look for 7N at IMPs even if I thought pard had 3. MP is obviously different.

What if he has a heart void?  Are you expecting him to show it over RKCB (the normal approach is not to) ?  With both black aces and a heart void he will, but do you expect him to drive the 6-level with Axxx - Jxx KQxxxx?

 

Frances this might be the silliest thing you've ever said here. Do you really think the opponents are silent at the one level with 12 hearts? C'mon.

 

How about 10xxx AQx Jx AQxx (if that's a 1S rebid).  Wouldn't you like to be in 6NT by partner to avoid the diamond ruff?  (OK, I'm not sure there's any decent auction to 6NT by partner, but after a heart splinter and 3NT you have a chance)

 

Dream on.

[rogerclee]

I disagree with the point Frances was trying to make. I'm surprised Frances cannot ever see any gain in giving away as little information about declarer's hand as possible when you are reasonably certain (but not 100 % certain) where you want to play. It is very common to bid keycard in situations where you could go slower, and it is not so uncommon that the opponents lead poorly or misdefend when you do this.

 

Trying to get to 7N is ridiculous, worrying about "what if partner has a void..." because your methods are not good enough to be able to show voids is ridiculous.

 

Bidding 4N with AKxx A AKxxxx xx or AQJx Ax AKJxxx x may not be considered proper or pure, but I would always do that rather than be one of those unlucky players who had their opps find the right lead on both hands because I went slowly.

[peachy]

This auction *doesn't exist*. Quantitative, in particular makes no sense. If it did happen, I would think the bidder has not played bridge very long; therefore I would assume Blackwood and assume responder has some biggish hand and does not know exactly how to go about showing it all.

[mike777]

After a sequence 1C - 1D - 1S - 4NT , is the 4NT unambiguous ? Is it a matter of partership agreement  or does it have a defined meaning? e.g quantitative or agreeing Spades?

YES IF PLAYING KICKBACK....4NT IS RKC...EASY..this is simple .......really simple!

 

btw one spade showed unbalanced hand........5clubs and 4 spades and maybe a stiff or void somewhere often...very often!

[benlessard]

Quantitative doesnt really make no sense because partner hand may be unbalanced and wide-ranging.

 

So by default its RKC.

[CSGibson]

That bid is key card for spades in every partnership I'm a part of. I don't even see a hand where quantitative would be useful, frankly. Aside from the hands where I have spades, of which some good examples have been given I might even have a hand like QJx AK AKQJTxx x, and be deciding between 6 diamonds or 7 no trump.

[Kingside]

Thanks for all the input - not sure what the consensus is - other than dont use that auction. I was concerned because my partner on that hand was an "expert".