Blackwood, or quantitative?

[blackshoe]

Playing Standard American or 2/1 (I don't think it makes a difference, but I suppose it might) in the uncontested auction 1♣-1♥-1NT-4NT, what is the meaning of the last call?

[Phil]

Quant

[Echognome]

Ditto Phil and I think it's pretty clear.

[barmar]

+1

 

A natural NT bid followed by 4NT is practically always quantitative.

[Bbradley62]

Should be unanimous.

[BunnyGo]

I agree with the other responses. Is there a story that comes with this question, or just a question?

[jillybean]

100% Quantitative (unless you are playing with a BBO expert, then anything is possible :P )

[pirate22]

A bit surprising-what happened to Neg x-also what would 3n/t mean?

and what would 2hts mean?-I would expect my pard to bid his aces

we could be missing some slam???????????????

But im no expert-just advanced-and my reg pards would give ace factor

[manudude03]

A bit surprising-what happened to Neg x-also what would 3n/t mean?

and what would 2hts mean?-I would expect my pard to bid his aces

we could be missing some slam???????????????

But im no expert-just advanced-and my reg pards would give ace factor

 

I think you misread the OP. He said uncontested auction. You can't double your partner.

[blackshoe]

Sometimes I'd like to double my partner. I thought this 4NT was quant when I bid it the other day. My partner thought it was RKCB for hearts. 5♥ in our 4-2 heart fit did not fare well. :lol: :o

[karlson]

Sure it should be quantitative, but you had no reason to hang partner. Did you think 5♥ would be a good contract? It seems very likely he took it as blackwood so you might as well try 6n. If he understood it as quantitative and bid 5♥ then he's offering hearts as an alternative strain (perhaps in 4-3, maybe he never raises to 2♥ on 3), and that should be forcing I think.

[blackshoe]

It's a partnership. If I hanged anybody, I hanged both of us.

 

Did I think 5♥ would be a good contract? No. Did I think 6NT would be a good contract? No. Did I consider bidding something else? Yes. I considered 5NT, and rejected it because I was sure partner would take it as asking for kings. I suppose I could have bid 5♠ in the hope partner would recognize it as "I want to sign off in 5NT", but it didn't occur to me at the time.

 

Actually, the best contract would have been 3NT — but it's kind of hard to get there after 4NT. ;)

[barmar]

As stated earlier, it has to be quantitative. If you wanted to set hearts as trumps and create a game force, you had plenty of opportunity by starting with NMF, then rebidding hearts.

 

Some partnerships have agreements about what they do when they've decided to accept the quantititive slam invitation. Rather than just bid 6NT, they show something useful about their hand, which could allow you to find a minor-suit slam if it's better. For instance, if his original club bid was based on a 5-card suit, they'd bid 5♣.

[Bbradley62]

It used to be somewhat common to answer aces "along the way" when accepting the 4N invitation, to avoid the 32HCP slam off two aces. It sounds like this is no longer the case?

[barmar]

I've heard about that, too. In past threads discussing it, I think most have said that it's more useful to look for the best strain.

[Cyberyeti]

4N is clearly quantitative. 5♥ is 2 aces from a partner who is happy to accept the slam try if not off 2 aces. This is even clearer for us as 4♠ would be ace asking in hearts, and it's almost inconceivable we could hold that as we play a strong 2♥ response.

[Mbodell]

It used to be somewhat common to answer aces "along the way" when accepting the 4N invitation, to avoid the 32HCP slam off two aces. It sounds like this is no longer the case?

 

I think it is more common partnering randoms where each of you is unsure of if the other player is a "4nt is always blackwood" type of player. It is kind of dumb to show aces along the way (even though I have once been in the 32 point slam with the opening leader having the 2 missing As) as opposed to looking for alternate strains.

[Phil]

Aces along the way is less useful than using the 5 level to explore other strains.

 

By the way, in spite of my prior answer, I'm not really sure that 4N is really best as quantitative, although if you make the call, it better have a very rigid definition in terms of shape, hcp and even controls. All of this limits the frequency and usefulness of the call.

 

Playing SJSs, a jump shift followed by 4N is RKC for responders suit so I think its better to play 1x - 1y - 1z - 4N as RKC too.

[Bbradley62]

By the way, in spite of my prior answer, I'm not really sure that 4N is really best as quantitative, although if you make the call, it better have a very rigid definition in terms of shape, hcp and even controls.

I don't think this is true at all. Opener is very restricted as to strength and shape; the quantitative invite asks him to proceed if he's in the upper half (or so) of his range of possible hands and to pass otherwise.

[blackshoe]

As stated earlier, it has to be quantitative. If you wanted to set hearts as trumps and create a game force, you had plenty of opportunity by starting with NMF, then rebidding hearts.

 

Some partnerships have agreements about what they do when they've decided to accept the quantititive slam invitation. Rather than just bid 6NT, they show something useful about their hand, which could allow you to find a minor-suit slam if it's better. For instance, if his original club bid was based on a 5-card suit, they'd bid 5♣.

 

I didn't want to set hearts as trump, I wanted to make a quantitative raise of 1NT. And we don't play NMF, or any variant thereof.

 

I agree that it's useful to show something rather than just jumping to 6NT when accepting the invite, but we don't have any agreements there, either.

[Phil]

I don't think this is true at all. Opener is very restricted as to strength and shape; the quantitative invite asks him to proceed if he's in the upper half (or so) of his range of possible hands and to pass otherwise.

 

So you have one partner that defines his hand well via 1N, and another partner that makes a space hogging 4N call that may not be that well defined, and you expect the balanced weaker hand to make the final decision.

 

This doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[Bbradley62]

The Opener has been asked a simple question; I hope he will give a simple answer.

[Lurpoa]

Playing Standard American or 2/1 (I don't think it makes a difference, but I suppose it might) in the uncontested auction 1♣-1♥-1NT-4NT, what is the meaning of the last call?

 

 

Indeed, of of those sequences where you never know how a pick-up partner might will react.

All partnerships should have very clear agreements on the of 4NTquantitative.

 

 

 

Concerning SAYC:

4NT quanti only defined after a direct raise of of the 1NT and 2NT openers, or after a 2NTrebid after a 2♣ opener.

 

 

And for BWS2001 2/1 defaults:

 

QUOTE

If an non-discussed but clearlyforcing non-competitivefour-notrump bid might logically be interpreted as more than one ofthese alternatives, the priority order of interpretation is

 

(1) ace- or key-card-asking convention,

(2) offer of general slam encouragement,

(3) control-showing bid.

UNQUOTE

 

So, in the proposed sequence: ace asking.

 

 

[Lurpoa]

I think you misread the OP. He said uncontested auction. You can't double your partner.

 

 

I think they should change the rules......:rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

Indeed, of of those sequences where you never know how a pick-up partner might will react.

All partnerships should have very clear agreements on the of 4NTquantitative.

 

 

 

Concerning SAYC:

4NT quanti only defined after a direct raise of of the 1NT and 2NT openers, or after a 2NTrebid after a 2♣ opener.

 

 

And for BWS2001 2/1 defaults:

 

QUOTE

If an non-discussed but clearlyforcing non-competitivefour-notrump bid might logically be interpreted as more than one ofthese alternatives, the priority order of interpretation is

 

(1) ace- or key-card-asking convention,

(2) offer of general slam encouragement,

(3) control-showing bid.

UNQUOTE

 

So, in the proposed sequence: ace asking.

 

All partnerships of course sit down and form very clear agreements on every possible sequence. Suuure they do! :lol:

 

SAYC is not "Standard American". BWS is a variant of 2/1, but it does not define "standard" 2/1. Your conclusion is not a correct answer to my question.

 

Regarding "may not be well defined". Responder can't have a fit for partner's suit. He can't have a five card suit of his own (he would reverse, or jump shift, or make some other forcing call). He has a balanced hand. As for HCP, if he had 21-22, he'd just bid 6NT, so he has 19-20. All of that is just bridge logic, but we have at least agreed on the point range and that the hand will be balanced.