Responding to a Quantitative bid

[Hanoi5]

Yesterday I saw this sequence:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1hp2np4np5s]133|100[/hv]

 

Where 5♠ shows 3 Aces.

 

I was taught that quantitative bids could be 'answered' like blackwood (5♣ 0-4 Aces, 5♦ 1 Ace, etc) in case two aces were missing and then you could stop at 5NT; or you could just blast to 6. Later I found some people who bid a new suit at the 6 level to show a 5-card suit (generally after a quantitative over a NT opening) or even a 4-card suit in order to offer that contract as a possibility. However, I was wondering yesterday, why would you show 3 aces? What do other people play? What do experts play?

[ArtK78]

It is my experience that a bid of 5 of a suit over 4NT quantitative is natural and forcing, suggesting that there may be an alternate strain to 6NT. And a bid of 6 of a suit would show a 6 card suit, suggesting that the partnership might have 13 tricks given the 6 card suit.

 

I have seen some players who respond number of aces as a sort of double-check to make sure that the partnership is not off 2 aces, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

Here, the 5♠ response makes little sense under either choice. Clearly, the partnership is not off 2 aces if 5♠ shows 3 aces. And, given the 2NT call, it is not likely to be a second suit. So it serves no purpose other than to announce to the opponents that South has 3 aces.

 

I suppose a case could be made that the 5♠ bidder has 4 spades and that he is going to introduce them to suggest a 6♠ contract if there is a 4-4 fit, just in case partner chose 4NT instead of a checkback to avoid ambiguity.

[Zelandakh]

The general rule would be that it shows a maximum and a side suit (or extra length in a bid suit). Think of it like Baron.

 

As Art points out, if South would not bid 4NT with 4 spades then this makes little sense here other than trying to induce a diamond lead (or double bluff them out of a diamond lead).

[MrAce]

Yesterday I saw this sequence:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1hp2np4np5s]133|100[/hv]

 

Where 5♠ shows 3 Aces.

 

I was taught that quantitative bids could be 'answered' like blackwood (5♣ 0-4 Aces, 5♦ 1 Ace, etc) in case two aces were missing and then you could stop at 5NT; or you could just blast to 6. Later I found some people who bid a new suit at the 6 level to show a 5-card suit (generally after a quantitative over a NT opening) or even a 4-card suit in order to offer that contract as a possibility. However, I was wondering yesterday, why would you show 3 aces? What do other people play? What do experts play?

 

I personally play it very simple

 

5x = 4 card cheapest x suit + another 4 card higher rank suit and accepting the invitation (responder can bid his own 4 card cheapest suit if no fit yet, or can sign off in NT in his own chosen speed to avoid giving road maps to defenders)

 

6x = 5 or rarely 6 card suit accepting the invitation.

 

Responding aces of course can be helpful if missing 2 aces, however if we assume that both players made a reasonable call previously the odds of missing 2 aces are slim. the method i suggested is very common simplified version of what most people play that i know of. (some have their own more sophisticated versions of it) But basically this method allows you to make quantitative bids without fear of missing 4-4 5-4 or even 5-5 fits on your way to slam. I personally like it. It makes things simple.

[broze]

I play the same as Mr. Ace. Very good practical treatment in my experience.

[nigel_k]

You don't want to reveal information unnecessarily, especially if you are going to be declarer. Just pass or bid 6NT. Alternatively, have the agreement that you bid 5♣ with any accept, leaving space for partner to fluff around if they decide it's best to do that.

[ggwhiz]

Think of it like Baron.

 

I do and the same as Mr. Ace but with a twist.

 

The response shows the number of Aces (with an acceptance) and we bid 4 card suits up the line after that, landing in 6nt if we don't find a 4-4 fit along the way. With a side suit and an acceptance just bid 6 of them and pard can convert to 6nt if need be. If they cash 2 aces against this we blame the system not each other and are thankful that it is a rare auction. Either partner can blast 6nt anytime it looks right but a 4-4-3-2 shape has a better shot in a trump fit even opposite a 4-3-3-3.

 

I'm guessing that showing the number of aces over 4nt as a safety valve that allows the 4nt bid to be made more often is still common and with my glass 1/2 full partner, we really need it.

[kenrexford]

The discussion so far suggests an idea. The concept is to combine both the alternative-strain approach with the aces-response approach into something that gets the "best of both world."

 

Start with general principles. Answering aces is redundant, as Art noted, if the person answering has 3+ Aces. So, the first observation is that a response of 5♠ or higher as answering Aces is a dumb idea. Furthermore, what if we assume that the context suggests only two possible "in fear" numbers of Aces. In other words, for sake of argument, one knows that 3+ aces is never in fear, one might also assume that 0 aces is a holding of non-acceptance, and thus the "in fear" holdings that would accept are always 1-2 aces. If one makes that assumption, then:

 

5♣ = accept tentatively but only two Aces

 

5♦ = accept tentatively but only one Ace

 

The reason for this order is that you might need more space for the two-aces scenario than the one-ace scenario. Either order works. After either response, then, you revert to showing suits if you want, as generally described below (but with 5NT a signoff). With the 3+ aces holdings, you immediately show suits:

 

5♥ = 3+ aces, suit

 

5♠ = 3+ aces, suit

 

5NT = 3+ aces, suit

 

By "suit," we mean not literally hearts, spades, and other, but rather lowest in-focus, middle in-focus, and highest in-focus. If four suits are "in focus," 5NT diamonds, and all others natural (6♣ for clubs).

 

The showing of a suit means previously unshown length.

 

For the situation of extremely unshown length (two cards more than previously announced), you could bid at the six-level.

 

In the auction given, what are the "suits in focus?' In a normal world, neither hearts nor spades are in focus in this sequence, because Responder would likely have bid some form of checkback first if a major fit were possible. Thus, one would normally expect the minors to be the sole "in focus" suits. This is governed by logic, as dangerous as that is. So, Opener would bid 5♥ with a fifth club and 3+ aces and acceptance strength, 5♠ with a fourth diamond 3+ aces and acceptance strength, or 6♣ with a sixth club and acceptance strength and 3+ aces. If Opener bids 5♣ or 5 ♦, Responder could bid 5♥ with a third club, 6♣ with a fourth club, or 5♠ with a fourth diamond. Something like that.

[MrAce]

The discussion so far suggests an idea. The concept is to combine both the alternative-strain approach with the aces-response approach into something that gets the "best of both world."

 

Start with general principles. Answering aces is redundant, as Art noted, if the person answering has 3+ Aces. So, the first observation is that a response of 5♠ or higher as answering Aces is a dumb idea. Furthermore, what if we assume that the context suggests only two possible "in fear" numbers of Aces. In other words, for sake of argument, one knows that 3+ aces is never in fear, one might also assume that 0 aces is a holding of non-acceptance, and thus the "in fear" holdings that would accept are always 1-2 aces. If one makes that assumption, then:

 

5♣ = accept tentatively but only two Aces

 

5♦ = accept tentatively but only one Ace

 

The reason for this order is that you might need more space for the two-aces scenario than the one-ace scenario. Either order works. After either response, then, you revert to showing suits if you want, as generally described below (but with 5NT a signoff). With the 3+ aces holdings, you immediately show suits:

 

5♥ = 3+ aces, suit

 

5♠ = 3+ aces, suit

 

5NT = 3+ aces, suit

 

By "suit," we mean not literally hearts, spades, and other, but rather lowest in-focus, middle in-focus, and highest in-focus. If four suits are "in focus," 5NT diamonds, and all others natural (6♣ for clubs).

 

The showing of a suit means previously unshown length.

 

For the situation of extremely unshown length (two cards more than previously announced), you could bid at the six-level.

 

In the auction given, what are the "suits in focus?' In a normal world, neither hearts nor spades are in focus in this sequence, because Responder would likely have bid some form of checkback first if a major fit were possible. Thus, one would normally expect the minors to be the sole "in focus" suits. This is governed by logic, as dangerous as that is. So, Opener would bid 5♥ with a fifth club and 3+ aces and acceptance strength, 5♠ with a fourth diamond 3+ aces and acceptance strength, or 6♣ with a sixth club and acceptance strength and 3+ aces. If Opener bids 5♣ or 5 ♦, Responder could bid 5♥ with a third club, 6♣ with a fourth club, or 5♠ with a fourth diamond. Something like that.

 

No thank you, i need my memory cells for declaring and defending.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif