High level responses to 1NT

[pescetom]

We play a strong (15-17) 1NT with all possible responses defined up to 4♥ (Texas transfer to spades). Responses from 4♠ through to 5NT are currently undefined. Is there any expert standard usage for these responses, apart from 4NT/5NT as Quantitative invites (which we do not need)? Any good ideas?

[mikestar13]

Nothing is likely to be frequent enough to be worth the memory work. Are you sure you don't need 4NT/5NT quantitative? Do you play 2♠ range ask?

[Vampyr]

You could use 4♠ as ace-asking rather than keeping it idle. Never comes up though.

[pescetom]

Nothing is likely to be frequent enough to be worth the memory work.

I suspect so, but want to be sure, especially if it's something where we already did the memory work but never thought to apply it this way.

 

 

Are you sure you don't need 4NT/5NT quantitative? Do you play 2♠ range ask?

Exactly. Range ask freed up the NT bids, which caused me to ask myself the question. One idea I had was to use the NT bids to ask for a lower quantitative threshold compared to range ask, a sort of fine tune. But I suspect others may have better ideas.

 

 

You could use 4♠ as ace-asking rather than keeping it idle. Never comes up though.

We already have 4♣ Gerber, unless you see a useful way of distinguishing the two.

[Vampyr]

I suspect so, but want to be sure, especially if it's something where we already did the memory work but never thought to apply it this way.

 

 

 

Exactly. Range ask freed up the NT bids, which caused me to ask myself the question. One idea I had was to use the NT bids to ask for a lower quantitative threshold compared to range ask, a sort of fine tune. But I suspect others may have better ideas.

 

 

 

We already have 4♣ Gerber, unless you see a useful way of distinguishing the two.

 

4♣ “pick a major” is probably more useful.

[pescetom]

4♣ “pick a major” is probably more useful.

 

We already have precise ways for responder to describe an equal length holding in both majors of various strengths within our "Stayman". And our Gerber can reach to specific kings if necessary, all in all I think it pulls it's weight. Which still leaves 4♠ and 4NT up for grabs.

[Vampyr]

We already have precise ways for responder to describe an equal length holding in both majors of various strengths within our "Stayman". And our Gerber can reach to specific kings if necessary, all in all I think it pulls it's weight. Which still leaves 4♠ and 4NT up for grabs.

 

With both majors, there is an advantage to getting to the 4-level before the opponents get involved. I don’t know anyone who plays 4♣ Gerber, but if you have found it useful, then of course keep it.

 

I do not know how you are managing without 4NT quantitative.

[jmc]

Some people use 4♠ as a quantitative raise with 4-4 in the minors and a useful doubleton. If your 4NT is vacant you could differentiate the weak doubletons.

[pescetom]

With both majors, there is an advantage to getting to the 4-level before the opponents get involved. I don’t know anyone who plays 4♣ Gerber, but if you have found it useful, then of course keep it.

 

I do not know how you are managing without 4NT quantitative.

 

If I was going to reassign 4 clubs it would probably be as a South African transfer to hearts, with diamonds for spades. But the Gerber-Texas setup does it's job and I can play it with many partners without discussion or mishaps.

 

I don't need 4NT/5NT quantitative because we currently play 2 spades as range ask: opener responds 3 clubs with maximum, 2N otherwise. Given that information responder interested in NT rather than clubs can now place the final contract directly.

[pescetom]

Some people use 4♠ as a quantitative raise with 4-4 in the minors and a useful doubleton. If your 4NT is vacant you could differentiate the weak doubletons.

 

That's an interesting idea as 4-4 minors is one thing responder cannot show in our "Stayman". Not sure I follow your point about differentiation though - do you mean use 4♠ as a useful doubleton, 4NT as a useless doubleton, in both cases in an unidentified major?

[Vampyr]

That's an interesting idea as 4-4 minors is one thing responder cannot show in our "Stayman".

 

Really? I was under the impression that you used a 2♠ response as Baron.

[pescetom]

Really? I was under the impression that you used a 2♠ response as Baron.

 

In the "Stayman" I play in main partnership, 1NT-2♣-2♦ denies any 5-card major; then a 2♥/2♠ response asks for 4-cards in the other major and 3♥/3♠ responses are transfers to ♣/♦ (as they are if opener denies the 4-card major). So responder with both minors has to make a choice, although if he chooses ♣ opener can warn that he has better support for ♦.