"Usual Expert Practice"

[aguahombre]

In a recent ACBL Bulletin, Allan Falk was discussing 4NT quantitative, and stated the "usual expert practice" is ---if accepting--- to show the number of aces.

 

I am not really looking for what is best to do in the situation. What I would like to know from those who are familiar with "usual expert practices", whether this is one. There are certainly other alternatives (source of tricks, etc.)

 

Debating the value of alternatives would probably be useful. And maybe, after some answers to this question I will start another thread for that.

[ArtK78]

I thought that the usual expert practice was to bid a good 5 card minor suit if accepting (6 card minor suit at the 6 level). But it would have to make sense in the context of the auction. For example, 1NT - 4NT - 5m should be a good 5 card minor.

 

If holding a long minor does not make sense in the context of the auction, then showing aces if accepting is as good as anything.

[gnasher]

It depends on whether you have another way to investigate 4-4 fits. If you don't, it's normal to bid 4-card suits in ascending order.

 

Otherwise, new suits show something slightly unusual, such as a five-card suit.

[phil_20686]

In a recent ACBL Bulletin, Allan Falk was discussing 4NT quantitative, and stated the "usual expert practice" is ---if accepting--- to show the number of aces.

 

Only if playing with a client.

[Phil]

Only if playing as a client.

 

FYP

[aguahombre]

I guess I need to improve the clarity of my questions.

[Zelandakh]

I think it is normal expert practise to show shape when accepting a quantitative 4NT invite whenever this information might lead to a superior slam contract.

[CSGibson]

Our practice is to show 4 card suits with 2 of the top 4 honors, or 5 card suits, up the line at the 5 level, and good 5 card suits/any 6 card suits at the 6 level if accepting.

[andy_h]

I like bidding out suits if there is still potential for a trump fit like 1NT-4NT or something, but if it's not possible for a trump fit to be found (for example after an extensive 2-over-1 auction where we have already looked for a trump fit) then I would show the # of Aces.

[debrose]

It is most certainly NOT standard expert practice to show aces when accepting a quantitative 4N invitation. I've only once encountered a true expert who even suggested such a thing.

 

What I believe to be "Standard" is to bid 4-card suits up the line at the 5 level (where a fit is still possible), and to jump to the 6 level with a 5-card suit.

 

Standard does not necessarily mean best. Where one might have a six-card suit (true for most NT openers these days), a jump to the 6 level should probably show six. You can usually bid 5 and then 6 with a five-card suit (yes, partner might spoil that plan by bidding 6N).

 

For regular partnerships, it is also worth discussing when 5 of a minor over 4N is an attempt to improve the contract, as opposed to accepting the invite and looking for the best strain. My system notes define 5 of a previouslyn agreed minor, or one which someone has rebid or is rebidding clearly showing 6+ cards, as to play.

 

Another thing to discuss is whether 5N over any of these 5 level continuations is forcing or not. I don't think it should be. That way you can accept with a marginal hand, which is more likely to have slam if you find a fit, and still stop in 5N if no fit is found.