Blackwood, or quantitative?

[aguahombre]

On this auction, responder did not search for a heart fit after 1NT So there are only two strains possible: NT and clubs.

 

After the quant 4NT, any 5-level bid (accepting slam) should, IMO, not only confirm the # of Keys (There are six with the two rounded kings) but also show a chunky 5-bagger in clubs. Maybe pard can then count tricks for a grand which he could not do before.

[Mbodell]

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.

 

Um, why is the 4nt bid in this sequence "clearly forcing"? Of course if a clearly forcing 4nt bid is made it can not be quantitative. But presuming 4nt in this sequence is clearly forcing is begging the question. This 4nt is clearly not forcing and quantitative to my eyes.

[MrAce]

This 4nt is clearly not forcing and quantitative to my eyes.

 

For most of us as well.

[jdeegan]

:P If 4NT is not quantitative, then how does one invite 6NT with a balanced hand? If you can't accurately bid simple point count slams, what kind of system are you playing?

[MrAce]

I think this topic shd have rest in peace after first reply by Phil.

[Lurpoa]

Um, why is the 4nt bid in this sequence "clearly forcing"? Of course if a clearly forcing 4nt bid is made it can not be quantitative. But presuming 4nt in this sequence is clearly forcing is begging the question. This 4nt is clearly not forcing and quantitative to my eyes.

 

 

 

 

Yes, you make ne doubt about my interpretation of BWS2001.

But another argument: isn't that "offer of general slam encouragement" not the Quanti were are talking about ?

[Lurpoa]

Just another idea.

 

When you set your system with partner,

maybe it is better to agree when Blackwood or RKCB apply, and not when Quanti 4NT applies, as it is done in SAYC.

Then, all which is not Blackwood is Quanti.

 

[Lurpoa]

:P If 4NT is not quantitative, then how does one invite 6NT with a balanced hand? If you can't accurately bid simple point count slams, what kind of system are you playing?

 

 

 

 

Yes, and if 4NT is Quanti, how do you check the condtions for a grand slam ?

[barmar]

Yes, and if 4NT is Quanti, how do you check the condtions for a grand slam ?

You bid slower, so you have room to cue bid all your controls, rather than wasting bidding space with a jump so you can use a crude tool like blackwood.

[barmar]

Yes, you make ne doubt about my interpretation of BWS2001.

But another argument: isn't that "offer of general slam encouragement" not the Quanti were are talking about ?

No, because it says that the 4NT bid is "clearly forcing". When would 4NT clearly be forcing? When you've already agreed on a suit. So you'll end up in 5 or 6 of your suit, depending on whether partner is encouraged.

 

BWS doesn't mention quantitative 4NT and 5NT bids at all. I guess these are considered "just bridge", not conventional agreements.

[Lurpoa]

No, because it says that the 4NT bid is "clearly forcing". When would 4NT clearly be forcing? When you've already agreed on a suit. So you'll end up in 5 or 6 of your suit, depending on whether partner is encouraged.

 

BWS doesn't mention quantitative 4NT and 5NT bids at all. I guess these are considered "just bridge", not conventional agreements.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I think you have a good point there. It is really how I would like to play it, but have (had) difficulty in finding the justification in the BWS2001standard.

But indeed it is all in the interpretation of "clearly forcing" (and what is "just "good" bridge").

 

And indeed I agree that it is only sound to initiate a Blackwood or RKCB if a suit is agreed.

 

Besides BWS2001 is very specific:

 

QUOTE

After opener’s one-notrump rebid:

 

(a) responder’s rebid ofthe cheapest two of an unbid minor is artificial, forcing, andpromising at least game-invitational strength (opener’s prioritiesover such a bid are: show three-card fit for responder’s originalsuit, show four-card length in the unbid major, show a minimum withthe cheapest other bid, show a maximum descriptively with anythingelse; responder’s next bid is forcing unless it is two of hisoriginal suit, two notrump, or a raise to three of the major just bidby opener);

(b) responder’s rebid ofthree of the cheapest unbid minor is weak.

©

four clubs is Gerber.

 

UNQUOTE

SO YES, 4NT is Quanti when you play BWS2001. ::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

 

 

[fromageGB]

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

Quantitative over 1NT, but I think 4NT over 2NT has other and better uses - particularly if your 2NT bids have 2 point ranges.

[Lurpoa]

♥

 

 

Mr Glen Ashton on his blog is giving some very easy, short and to-the- point advices on how to interprete 4NTbids: http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/2008/09/when-is-4nt-q-uant-itative-i-received.html.

 

 

I think this can be usefull for any partnership to set their defaults.

 

I have not (yet) checked them versus BWS2001 defaults, but I guess they can be used to solve the "clearly forcing" definition

 

 

♥

[gnasher]

Mr Glen Ashton on his blog is giving some very easy, short and to-the- point advices on how to interprete 4NTbids: http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/2008/09/when-is-4nt-q-uant-itative-i-received.html.

I disagree with three of his six rules.