4NT

[gwnn]

I think most beginners are under the impression that 4NT is always asking for aces. Then when they become intermediates or advanced (or not even then, gasp), they become acquainted with the idea that maybe sometimes it might be something else.

 

This must be because of faulty teaching. Why can't teachers start off with saying 4NT is always quantitative? I think it would improve many beginners' bidding and evaluation: they would get into less ridiculous slams just because they have a combined 29 and they would learn the importance of honour location, spots, controls, suit length, etc. Also, if I had to choose between 4NT always blackwood and 4NT always quantitative, I would definitely choose always quantitative.

 

Or is this done already and I'm not aware of it?

 

(I did not include the idea of 4NT as discouraging in minor suit auctions to make my point simpler)

[helene_t]

Agree.

 

I think many learn about 4NT from non-teachers. But also textbooks for some odd reason don't mention quanti until a late state, after blacky has been introduced.

[MattieShoe]

Sorry, I'm not sure what "quantitative" implies here.... Could you elaborate?

 

I've always used 4NT as ace asking or if NT is the bid (ie. 1NT 4NT), then small slam invitation. . . Is this what you mean by quantitative?

[gwnn]

yes, it is the functional equivalent of 1NT-4NT, in a way. but it applies (or should optimally apply) to millions of other sequences too, like

 

1♠-2♦

2♠-3♦

3♠-4NT

 

1♣-1♠

2♦-4NT

 

1♥-1♠

3♦-4NT

 

but these are the "tough ones" so to say, most beginners think

 

1NT-2♦

2♥-4NT is also RKC, etc

 

the common element of these is that there is no suit agreed and we can easily set or suggest trumps in a forcing way (4♣/♥ in the first, 3♦ in the second, 3♥/4♦ in the third). when you have a balancedish 18 count and partner opens and it's becoming clear that you probably have no fit, it's a very helpful tool (obviously I am not talking about the second or third auctions where opener should have 16+ or 18+ and then a quantitative invite should be a balancedish 14 count - of course we are not just counting points, sometimes in the first auction you will have a good 1273 or something and then you don't need 18 of course.).

 

there was a poll not long ago about 1♥-(2♣)-4NT and many people thought it was quantitative.

 

(edit: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=33745

well yes Fred said he wouldn't take it as such so not all of these sequences are quite so clear :) )

 

anyway the whole point of the opening post was to say that this is not the way to go about explaining quantitative 4NT, it should be considered by default and then there are some exceptions where it is RKC, even if perhaps RKC is more common. This is because it is a much more natural bid. In fact, it is probably one of the most natural bids in the world. Whenever you bid 4NT instead of 3NT, it promises more points than the 3NT bid, with precisely the same range of distributions.

[MattieShoe]

Interesting. It makes sense, provided both partners are on the same page of course. I'm still trying to get my family to give up strong 2's, so... baby steps. :-)

[Codo]

I really disagree.

 

Of course it is mandatory for any good partnership to have good rules about 4 NT.

 

But we talk about B/I instructions. And they need easy rules. They need milton point count not honour location. They need clear advice whether a raise is competetive or strong. So to make 4 NT always KC is an easy rule to follow.

And I doubt that quantitative is a better use. :)

[P_Marlowe]

Well: For starters I would skip slam bidding in a B/I course (*), but

we had this discussion before, and this does not answer your question.

 

Blackwood is an easy convention, and it is an easy asking bid, so one

reason, why Blackwood gets introduuce at an early stage is, that it is

an eays show case of an artifical bid, the asking and answering.

 

It is an example, in math you have similar show cases, take e.g. root

of 2 as a irrational number, and the proof that 2 is an irrational number,

or the proof that there are an infinite number of primes out there (show

cases for an indirect proof (?!)).

 

Now after they demonstrated how a convention works, most teachers will

focus on game bidding, following the sensible (*) advice (*).

The effect is of course, that the only tool for slam investigations most B/I

get told for a long time is Blackwood.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

The rule that it is only RKC if we have no way of setting trump in a forcing way is not graspable for beginners, and also I think it's somewhat controversial.

 

I agree that quantitative should be the meaning first taught to beginners, but the situations I would use in a teaching text would all be raises of partner's natural notrump bid, e.g.

1♣-1♥

1♠-3NT

4NT

should obviously be quanti. It's a simple rule that a raise of a notrump bid is always natural, and in such auctions, if 4NT is RKC, it wouldn't be easy to determine which suit is trump anyway. Maybe clubs is trump because there is no other trump that can sensibly be trump, but that's silly since it's a better and simpler agreement that 4♣ is an invite for 6♣ and 4NT is an invite for 6NT. (to preempt the argument that beginners should learn stone-age Blacky and not RKC so they don't need to worry about the trump suit: since a subsequent 5NT by opener is not to play, you need to know which suit is trump when you use Blacky, although maybe partner doesn't need to know).

 

Other auctions where no suit is agreed are tricky, and a teacher might chose to say they are undiscussed for now and should be avoided, or say that 4NT over a suit bid is RKC for the last named suit. Not sure what is best.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Also, if I had to choose between 4NT always blackwood and 4NT always quantitative, I would definitely choose always quantitative.

 

Or is this done already and I'm not aware of it?

 

(I did not include the idea of 4NT as discouraging in minor suit auctions to make my point simpler)

While I agree, with your sentiment to go for a quantitative approach

instead of ace asking, I would say, that this is a minority view.

 

Simply listen to two players, who did not play together before and try

to discuss their system for the upcoming tournament, ... most will at

least discuss to some extend Ace asking bids.

Please keep in mind, that it does not really matter, if you would like

to abolish 4NT as Blackwood, while being keen on playing Minorwood,

Voidwood, Spiral Scan, or whatever. It does not matter.

[gwnn]

But we talk about B/I instructions. And they need easy rules. They need milton point count not honour location.

 

Well exactly. And quantitative has more to do with milton work than RKC don't you think?

 

So to make 4 NT always KC is an easy rule to follow.

:)

but then they overuse it a LOT. I remember how I thought asking for aces was the beez kneez. So I would just ask for aces a lot and then didn't get it why the slam I got to was worse than I expected. But that didn't matter because selective memory made me think my slambidding was just fine.

[Ant590]

On a related note, this sequence caused some disagreement at our club...

 

2♦ - pass - 3♣ - pass

3♦ - pass - 4NT - pass

 

Keycard in ♣, keycard in ♦, 6-ace keycard & balanced slam try all seemed possibilities :)

[P_Marlowe]

On a related note, this sequence caused some disagreement at our club...

 

2♦ - pass - 3♣ - pass

3♦ - pass - 4NT - pass

 

Keycard in ♣, keycard in ♦, 6-ace keycard & balanced slam try all seemed possibilities :)

No.

 

The 4NT bidder can bid 4C, to set clubs, 4D to set diamonds,

3NT to make a bal. semi slamtry (3C was a pos. reponse, and

should show at least 6 good clubs), so if you happen to play

6-ace key card, well that is the only real option.

 

Everything else is just toturing partner, and forgetting the meaning

of the previously made bids.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Old York]

most beginners think

 

1NT-2♦

2♥-4NT is also RKC, etc

Many experts and teachers would say this is rkcb with Hearts agreed as trumps. The fact that the rest of the world disagrees makes no difference to them

 

My main pet-hate is using blackwood with a void, or with xx in an unbid suit, this is because many do not learn simple cue-bidding

 

Tony