2/1

[gwnn]

1♠-2♦

2NT-3♥

3NT-4♦

4NT

 

2♦ was GF and 2NT showed extras. (actually the fact that some people play this treatment is something entirely new to me - apparently half the people in Romania who do 2/1 think 2NT should be 15-17 ish) What is 4NT? What if 2NT was just 12-14 (or 18-19)

[Jlall]

sign off, lots of black suit honors.

[twcho]

2NT guarantee extra is not the one I used to play so I don't have any comment on what 4NT means in this case.

 

Given the 2NT shows 12-14 (18-19), the subsequent 3NT confirmed the former. Thus 4NT is another sign off for me. If one has slam interest, any suit bid is cue bid agreeing ♦ (♥ slam is out because at the best you are playing 43 trump fit).

[Fluffy]

3♥ is already screaming I don't wanna play 3NT.

 

The 4NT bid looks like an insult IMO. But I will stick to my meta agreements, this is negative to play (but playing it as blackwood on this certain sequence has more sense).

 

The NT range is irrelevant, I play 2NT as (15)16-20

[Phil]

4N is definitely a signoff. How would you bid: KQxxx, Jxx, xx, AQJ?

[jakob_r]

agree with jlall and phil. 100% sign off.

[Fluffy]

4N is definitely a signoff. How would you bid: KQxxx, Jxx, xx, AQJ?

Rebid 2♠ Phil :), but surelly you could add ♣K to make Justin's point.

[Codo]

W/O prior discussion, this is surely a sign off with "all" points in the blacks.

[kenrexford]

These "What is 4NT?" questions are a TON easier if you play that RKCB for a minor is four of the lowest out-of-focus major.

 

Here, 4♠ would be RKCB for diamonds, making 4NT unambiguous. It probably is anyway, but this method makes it friggin' obvious.

 

The other hand discussed on BBF has the same solution, IMO.

 

Not to mention, the lower RKCB has the bonus of more space.

[skjaeran]

4NT is a clear sign off.

[pooltuna]

4N is definitely a signoff. How would you bid: KQxxx, Jxx, xx, AQJ?

Basically if I understand the OP's system you can't have this hand as you would have bid 2♠

[mikeh]

4N is definitely a signoff. How would you bid: KQxxx, Jxx, xx, AQJ?

Basically if I understand the OP's system you can't have this hand as you would have bid 2♠

Even so, 4N is signoff... just add another high black card to the hand.

 

I must say that using 2N as extras seems idiotic.

 

1. many 15-16 (and a few 17) hands with 5332 can and should be opened 1N.

 

2. Having to rebid 2♠ on say, QJxxx AQx xx KJx seems silly... if ever there were a hand that cried out to be declarer in notrump, this is it... and requiring opener to bid 2♠ with this hand not only unduly increases the ambiguity of that call but complicates, needlessly, the auction thereafter when responder lacks a stopper in one of the side suits.. now the auction becomes all about stoppers, instead of exploring the best denomination and level.

 

This seems like an enormous cost all for the dubious benefit of catering to a narrow set of hands (15-17 hands are far, far less common than 11-14) that almost always can be handled in another way... either by opening 1N or by rebidding 3N as a picture bid.

 

Sorry for the rant... I realize the OP was merely reporting a practice, not endorsing it.

[gwnn]

This sequence came up next to a beer when one partner engaged in vituperation aroused by the fact that the other partner had 'only a 14 count' and was not to be moved by the number of aces and tens brought up as mitigating factors.

[Fluffy]

4N is definitely a signoff. How would you bid: KQxxx, Jxx, xx, AQJ?

Basically if I understand the OP's system you can't have this hand as you would have bid 2♠

Even so, 4N is signoff... just add another high black card to the hand.

 

I must say that using 2N as extras seems idiotic.

 

1. many 15-16 (and a few 17) hands with 5332 can and should be opened 1N.

 

2. Having to rebid 2♠ on say, QJxxx AQx xx KJx seems silly... if ever there were a hand that cried out to be declarer in notrump, this is it... and requiring opener to bid 2♠ with this hand not only unduly increases the ambiguity of that call but complicates, needlessly, the auction thereafter when responder lacks a stopper in one of the side suits.. now the auction becomes all about stoppers, instead of exploring the best denomination and level.

 

This seems like an enormous cost all for the dubious benefit of catering to a narrow set of hands (15-17 hands are far, far less common than 11-14) that almost always can be handled in another way... either by opening 1N or by rebidding 3N as a picture bid.

 

Sorry for the rant... I realize the OP was merely reporting a practice, not endorsing it.

idiotic sounds like too strong of a word for this.

 

Opening 1NT with 5 card majors has many downsides, missing your fit its the most likelly one, the most likelly holding for partner in your 5 card suit is 3 cards!.

 

Opening "some" of the 5 card major hands 1NT is even worse, you overload both 1NT adn 1M openings with the same handtype.

 

I could extend this, but I think that you will agree that playing 1NT denies 5 card major is a decent system.

 

Now for the other things, it is when you have extras that you most likelly might explore slam, that's why 2M gets the ambiguity, and the extras get defined quick. there is not much harm if you rebid 3NT with a minimum hand later.

 

BTW 15-17 might be narrow, 15-19 surelly is not.

[Cascade]

4NT is the least encouraging noise you can make beside an anti-systemic and anti-partnership PASS.

[gwnn]

I feel I misrepresented their position. They were playing this 2NT as 15-20 (as possible values, not in the sense that all hands with those values have to be bid like this - with some 15-17 they 1NT and with some 20 they 2NT).

[Finch]

I must say that using 2N as extras seems idiotic.

 

1. many 15-16 (and a few 17) hands with 5332 can and should be opened 1N.

 

2. Having to rebid 2♠ on say, QJxxx AQx xx KJx seems silly... if ever there were a hand that cried out to be declarer in notrump, this is it... and requiring opener to bid 2♠ with this hand not only unduly increases the ambiguity of that call but complicates, needlessly, the auction thereafter when responder lacks a stopper in one of the side suits.. now the auction becomes all about stoppers, instead of exploring the best denomination and level.

 

This seems like an enormous cost all for the dubious benefit of catering to a narrow set of hands (15-17 hands are far, far less common than 11-14) that almost always can be handled in another way... either by opening 1N or by rebidding 3N as a picture bid.

 

Sorry for the rant... I realize the OP was merely reporting a practice, not endorsing it.

You never used to be this dogmatic, I'm sure.

 

I play 2NT here as 15-17 in one partnership and 15-19 in another (the one where 2D wasn't game forcing).

 

I don't like opening 1NT with a 5-card major. There are plenty of very good players who don't like opening 1NT with a 5-card major, it's just most of them aren't in the US or Canada.

 

We aren't told what the OP methods are. I happen to play an semi-artificial scheme of rebids after a game forcing 2/1 where 2H is multi-way including a weak NT, so I don't have your 'problem 2' because opener will usually end up declaring NT anyway. You don't know what the other methods played on the example hand actually are.

 

Saying it's idiotic is, I'm afraid, idiotic. One of the major problems with 2/1 auctions can be getting an idea of the strength of opener's hand at a sensible level and this is one easy way to showing extras at a low level.