Opening 4NT has no meaning?

[Bbradley62]

[hv=lin=pn|lefty17,~~M5307,~~M5305,~~M5306|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S5TJKH57ADJQC3TKA%2CSAH246TKD57TKC89J%2CS2467QH8JQD249C56%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%207%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7C4N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCT%7C]360|270[/hv]

[Quantumcat]

I found the same thing in a recent robot tournament, I held something like ♠3 ♥AKQJT9832 ♦J ♣AK, hovered over 4NT and it had no meaning. Tried 2♣, got 2NT response and turned out 4♣ was Gerber, so it worked out for the better. But yeah, it should be too hard to go through all opening bids and assign them a meaning - there are only a limited number of them. Bids in the 3rd or 4th rounds I can understand being undefined, since there are thousands(?) of possible auctions.

[Thiros]

Partner's response to a 4NT opening bid should be simple: "5♣ if you have no aces, 5♦ if you have one . . . etc.".

[madongjun]

what's mean = opening bid 4NT?

[lycier]

I can't understand why open 4NT? Opening 4nt is usually used to ask specific Ace.

[Bbradley62]

I can't understand why open 4NT? Opening 4nt is usually used to ask specific Ace.

The purpose of this forum is to help the programmers improve GIB. This thread is to point out that there is an opening bid that is undefined, which should not be, so hopefully the programmers will assign a meaning. It is completely irrelevant why some human player chose to bid strangely and open 4NT on these cards.

[Bbradley62]

Partner's response to a 4NT opening bid should be simple: "5♣ if you have no aces, 5♦ if you have one . . . etc.".

Opening 4nt is usually used to ask specific Ace.

So, I guess it's not obvious what the meaning should be :o

[golfcurler]

[hv=lin=pn|lefty17,~~M5307,~~M5305,~~M5306|st%7C%7Cmd%7C1S5TJKH57ADJQC3TKA%2CSAH246TKD57TKC89J%2CS2467QH8JQD249C56%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%207%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%[handviewer][/handviewer]7C4N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCT%7C]360|270[/hv]

[golfcurler]

opening 4nt is preempting, asking for your minor 5♣ 5 ♦

[pescetom]

One could argue that GIB's system is already over complicated without adding further gothic ornations.

The fact that there is no standard meaning and it is often unassigned suggests that it is clearly not essential to assign it.

 

I play it as a request for specific Ace(s), which was once standard Acol I believe.

But even then there is no real agreement about what to do with ♣A or two Aces.

Used it once this year and not really certain that was wise.

[johnu]

opening 4nt is preempting, asking for your minor 5♣ 5 ♦

Nice necropost. Several years ago Bbradley62 was one of the most prolific reporters of GIB bugs in this subforum but he disappeared about 3 years ago. I hope he is doing well.

 

For GIB, 4NT is still undefined.

[pgrice]

One could argue that GIB's system is already over complicated without adding further gothic ornations.

The fact that there is no standard meaning and it is often unassigned suggests that it is clearly not essential to assign it.

 

I play it as a request for specific Ace(s), which was once standard Acol I believe.

But even then there is no real agreement about what to do with ♣A or two Aces.

Used it once this year and not really certain that was wise.

 

I too believe this - specific ace ask - was/is part of standard Acol.

Responder bids 5NT with two aces (should never have three!); 6C shows ♣A and opener needs to be aware of this when deciding to open 4NT.

I've used this opening twice in more than 20 years of bridge playing ...

[nige1]

I too believe this - specific ace ask - was/is part of standard Acol.Responder bids 5NT with two aces (should never have three!); 6C shows ♣A and opener needs to be aware of this when deciding to open 4NT.I've used this opening twice in more than 20 years of bridge playing ...

I agree the bid should have an agreed meaning. Asking for "Specific aces", Acol-style, is unlikely to help, however -- unless you you can make a slam opposite ♣A or 2 unhelpful aces; so I'm relieved that GIb hasn't adopted that daft convention. If the 4N opening must ask for aces, then it's better if responder shows the cheapest ace that he lacks. For example, 5♣ denies ♣A. 5♦ promises ♣A and denies ♦A. In either case, responder might have a more expensive ace. Even that is a bit daft. More useful meanings include

• Quantitative e.g. BAL 30 HCP (but there are more sensible ways of bidding such hands)
• Extreme minor 2-suiter e.g. ♠ - ♥ - ♦ Q J x x x x [CL} K J x x x x x as GolfCurler suggests.
• Ordinary Blackwood.

[pescetom]

I too believe this - specific ace ask - was/is part of standard Acol.

Responder bids 5NT with two aces (should never have three!); 6C shows ♣A and opener needs to be aware of this when deciding to open 4NT.

 

I agree the bid should have an agreed meaining. Asking for "Specific aces", Acol-style, is unlikely to help, however, unless you you can make a slam opposite ♣A or 2 unhelpful aces, so I'm relieved that GIb hasn't adopted that daft convention. If the 4N opening must ask for aces, then it's better if responder shows the cheapest ace that he lacks. For example, 5♣ denies ♣A. 5♦ promises ♣A and denies ♦A. In either case, responder might have a more expensive ace. Even that is a bit daft.

 

Our agreement is to show the specific Ace but that 5♣ is ambiguous (either ♣A or no A) and a successive 5♦ asks responder to clarify.

That keeps things clean and economical, but I agree it's a fairly daft ask anyway.