Gallup Poll

[jillybean]

1♣:2N*   *no 4cM 11-12

3♠:3N

4N

[hotShot]

Actually both options are impossible.

 

Since responder is limited to 11-12 a quantitative 4NT makes no sense at all.

Since no suit is set ace ask would be blatant nonsense.

 

With the give options quantitative seems a little less unlikely.

[gwnn]

There is a quantitative 4N available for 2N openers is there not? So only because it is a 2 point range quantitative raises still exist. If your point was that opener can't have 21, I beg to differ, especially if opener is one of those who never seem to want to open 2♣ with a two-suiter :)

[helene_t]

Could be 6-ace blackwood. In any case opener's most likely shape is 5116. And probably needs one of the 6 keycards for slam.

[nige1]

Could be 6-ace blackwood. In any case opener's most likely shape is 5116. And probably needs one of the 6 keycards for slam.

Heler_t's suggestion of Six-Ace Blackwood seems a sensible understanding -- with hands like ...

♠ AKQxx ♥ x ♦ A ♣ AQJTxx

♠ KQJx ♥ AK ♦ x ♣ KQJT9x

[Fluffy]

¿?, Opener forgot to bid 4♣, so he is not interested in keycards, set trumps before asking aces when you can.

[Free]

For me this is good old blacky, quant doesn't make much sense opposite a 2-point range. Opener could bid 4♣ just to set trumps, but apparently he didn't think that was necessary. I believe he has a 5-5 or 5=1=1=6 and is just interested in Aces to bid some slam. With a 6520 he'd probably bid 4♣ setting to hear about a control in his void.

[pooltuna]

quantitative just looks silly to me as you are asking parting do you have a good 12 versus a bad 11[why didn't you just bid 1NT]? This is IMO too narrow a range to be using this as quant with any kind of sanity. In all probabllity partner has such a good hand that he just needs to know if we have 2 controls.

[gwnn]

so Free and pooltuna what do you play 2N-p-4N as?

[pooltuna]

so Free and pooltuna what do you play 2N-p-4N as?

 

 

That's easy

 

♠AKT98

♥AQT

♦AT9

♣AT

 

is 6NT and

 

♠KQJ

♥KQJ2

♦KQJ

♣Q32

 

is pass :lol:

 

that is the difference between having 20 or 21 and 11 or 12 :)

[mtvesuvius]

♠ AT9

♥ A98

♦ AT98

♣ T98

 

is 6NT and

 

♠ QJ2

♥ QJ2

♦ QJ32

♣ Q32

 

is a pass. WTP?

[gwnn]

huh? I asked you

 

what do you play 2N-p-4N as.

 

I don't see an answer.

[Free]

so Free and pooltuna what do you play 2N-p-4N as?

Just like Gerber, it never comes up. We have found a better use for 4♣, but we don't need 4NT for something else. As a result we still play it as quant.

 

Note: we open good 19 to bad 21. Technically speaking it's a 2-point range, but in practice it's a 3-point range.

[gszeszycki]

i voted quantitative but i don't think this is a typical ask if p is merely at the top of their hand.

I believe partner is trying to reach 6c and is asking us if our hand fits clubs and spades well

 

A good example hand might be AKxx Ax x AKxxxx

 

slam is pretty awful opposite xxx QJx KQxx QJx

 

while a grand is great opposite Qx Kxx AJxx Jxxx

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Quatitative.

 

With 6-5 p can bid 4S, with 7/6-4 he can bid 4C.

 

And there good control rich 12HCPs and there are bad control poor

11HCP counts, so quatitative will answer your question, and p will

valuate black honors higher.

 

We can still play 6C, with a hand better suited for clubs p should

bid 5C, if he declines and 6C, if he accepts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Quant.

 

Obv.

 

lol.

[Phil]

Quant.

 

Obv.

 

lol.

 

x2

 

P.S. - play 3♠ as shortness, not a suit.

[han]

P.S. - play 3♠ as shortness, not a suit.

 

x2

[jillybean]

This was a hand from the sectional where I was playing with a partner I've only played with a couple of times.

I intended 4N as quantitative but knew there was a risk that it would be misunderstood. It could have been smarter to pass 3N

 

1♣:2N

3♠ - if I have a 2 suiter, why is this better as shortage and not the second suit?

[helene_t]

1♣:2N

3♠ - if I have a 2 suiter, why is this better as shortage and not the second suit?

A common problem hand is 4M6♣, not sure whether to play 3NT or 5♣, maybe 6♣. It is then useful for responder to know about the singleton, with a double guard opposite the singleton it is 3NT.

 

5M6♣ is not so common and besides, with those hands you don't want to play 3NT anyway so you can afford to bypass 3NT when describing your hand.

[han]

If your partner is any good 4NT is safe as quant, even though some responses here are very confused.

 

When you have a 2-suiter 3M is better as two-suiter. When you a single suiter with shortness it is better as shortness.

[hotShot]

When you have a 2-suiter 3M is better as two-suiter. When you a single suiter with shortness it is better as shortness.

 

It's great to get a helpful reply.

[jillybean]

If your partner is any good 4NT is safe as quant, even though some responses here are very confused.

 

I guess "good" is relative. ;)

 

When you have a 2-suiter 3M is better as two-suiter. When you a single suiter with shortness it is better as shortness.

 

I'll bite, single suiter is when I take the 3♠ card with my left hand, and second suit is when I use my right hand?

[kenberg]

The quants are clearly outvoting me but I don't get it. I should look at my diamond holding and bid 6 if I have the Jack and pass if I have the ten?

 

If 4NT is passable rather than ace asking, I would think it would be something such as: Please look at your cards and see if you have help in the black suits. If you do, and if you have an ace in the reds, please bid it. If you have a lot of minor honor stuff in the reds, maybe NT is right. If your red suits are shaking we may want to play this game in a suit, you choose.

 

Perhaps this might be called "extended quantitative".

 

I voted blackwood because I cannot imagine that my points in red quacks matter in deciding on slam. But I think I like the extended quant interpretation, aka invitational, best.

[gwnn]

any quantitative bid asks "in the context of the auction so far, I think we might have slam. do you think we have slam?"