Quantative NT bids?

[vbcastor]

I haven't read up on quantative bids for years so I need to know what the rules are now. I was under the impression they were over 1NT openings only but this may not be the case now as I've come across this a couple of times with non-regular partners. If anyone could explain when quantative bids are made, I would appreciate it.

Vicki

[helene_t]

My impression is that most beginners first learn Blackwood and later quantis. As a conseqeunce of this, the default meaning of 4NT is Blackwood, and quantis apply only when specifically agreed.

 

Any raise of a natural notrump call is quantitative. E.g.

 

1♦-2NT* (13-15)

4NT

 

1♣-1♥

1NT-4NT

 

1♣-1♥

1♠-2♦* (fourth suit forcing)

2NT-4NT

 

If you assume that only such 4NT calls are quantitative, you have a simple rule. Also, allthough there are a lot of other sequences that would also be defined as quanti by most experts, it makes sense to assume that 4NT is Blackwood, since if it was intended as quanti, partner will probably recognize the msunderstanding after you have shown your aces, and bid 6NT, which may not be bad. The converse, passing 4NT intended as Blackwood (or raising to 6NT), could lead to very silly results.

 

Quantis ask partner to count his HCPs and state whether he is minimal or maximal. Therefore, they apply only in point-counting situations. This means: if partner's shape is reasonably well described, and there is not fit. So an immediatie jump to 4NT after partner's opening in a suit cannot be quanti.

 

My humble opinion is that Blackwood is a rather silly convention. Quantis are at least as useful, so why replace a simple natural treatment with an artificial one such as Blackwood, if there is no gain? Also, there are many versions of 4NT-ace-asking (RKC 0314, RKC 1403, CRS, Averelli, Classic Blackwood etc. Btw, what does 5NT mean?). Quantis can never create misunderstadings as long as you agree when 4NT is quanti.

 

As far as I know, most experts have the general agreement that 4NT is quanti (or sometimes a natural sign-off) whenever the trump suit has not been agreed: so if you want to ask keycards, you must first set trump. However, there are exeptions. For example, if there is no possible way to set trump, then 4NT may asks keycards for the last bid suit. Examples:

 

1♠-2♥

3♦-4NT* (Quanti: to ask keycards for diamonds, first set trumps by bidding 4♦)

 

1♥-(3♠) -4NT* (Not quanti. Allthough 4♠ could probably be used to set hearts as trump, a quantitative 4NT does not make much sense here.)

 

2♠-4NT* (Not quanti, presumably RKC for spades. Even if you consider 6NT, you must know where parter's HCPs are, not only how many HCPs he has. In that case, you would inquire with 2NT first).

[ochinko]

I recommend the ACBL lessons, written by Fred, at every possible opportunity. The cover a lot of ground, and are very clearly written. Here is an example from them:

 

1NT - 2D/2H (Jacoby transfer)

2H/2Sp - ?

 

Now, all NT bids from the responder are natural with 5 cards in the suggested major:

2NT are a game invitation;

3NT is to suggest for partner to pass or shift to 4M;

4NT is a small slam invitation;

5NT is a grand slam invitaion.

 

Deducing form the above, 4C is Gerber, but make sure that partner understands that, because it looks like an autosplinter too.

 

Petko

[coyot]

To avoid the autosplinter problems, a good agreement is that a new suit bid after opener accepts your transfer is at least seminatural and serves to show that you're interested in suit-contracts. So if you have short clubs, bid your closest honor control or longest suit... then you can have 4♣ in these situations 100% Gerberish.

 

Similarly, if you use FSF and partner bids 2NT, any suit bid after that prods to suit contract (and shows that your FSF was mainly to establish forcing situation, not because you wanted to play NT.)

 

This gives you the option of having 4NT invitational even in those auctions.

[inquiry]

Add this. If a game forcing "raise" is available, then jumps to 4NT are quantitative.

For instance,

 

1S-4NT is quantitative if you play jacoby 2NT

 

1S-2H-4NT is quantitative if you play 2/1 GF because you could bid 3H first. I will note that some prefer forcing 2NT over 2H then rebid 4NT as quantitative.

 

And of course all those Notrump raises mentioned earlier.

[Gerben42]

ochinko how do you deduce from that that 4♣ is Gerber? It's a splinter!

 

Rule #1: 4♣ is never Gerber

Rule #2: Read Rule #1 carefully

 

As for Fred's lessons, I agree with those heartily as well as with the 2NT ... 5NT bids you describe there.

 

coyot: What are "the autosplinter problems"? Not having available a direct Ace Ask? If you have 18 opposite a 15-17 NT and you want to ask for aces to check if two are missing for 6NT, count again.

 

Then this auction:

1♥ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦ (4SF)

2NT - ?

 

4NT = quantitative

4♣ is NOT Gerber

[1eyedjack]

One of the higher priorities in system discussion is when 4NT is or is not Blackwood (after you have discussed when doubles are takeout v penalty) - because although there are some standard-ish situations when it is and is not Blackwood there are also grey areas that are open to disagreement.

 

In the grey areas I think it is equally important not just to agree whether 4NT is Blackwood but also how you go about bidding a hand that wants to make a quant 4NT bid in those situations where you are considering that 4NT might sensibly be used as Blackwood. If we cannot come up with a sensible way to do this (that is, show the quant hand type), and it is reasonable to suppose that such a hand can exist (ie perhaps excluding situations where a major suit fit has been expressed), then I tend to insist on an agreement that 4NT is quantitative, and find some other way to bid slammy hands that otherwise wanted to use Blackwood.

[Gerben42]

To Inquiry's post:

 

1♠ - 4NT as quantitative: have you ever bid that? There are so many hands partner might have, do you want to take all your bidding space now? Now RKC where you do not care much about partner's distribution, that I understand. (for example ♠KJxxx ♥AKQxxx ♦x ♣A partner opens 1♠ - if he has two key cards you want to play 7, if he has one you want to play 6. And what you don't want is a 7m-save against your 6 which will be more easily found if you bid 2NT first)

 

1♠ - 2♥

4NT: This is also an odd bid because

a) you could have supported ♥ and then bid 4NT to ask for aces

b) you could have bid 2NT then 4NT to bid quantitative

 

Why didn't you? Undiscussed bidding 4NT directly is just torture.

[ochinko]

ochinko how do you deduce from that that 4♣ is Gerber? It's a splinter!

 

Rule #1: 4♣ is never Gerber

Rule #2: Read Rule #1 carefully

 

As for Fred's lessons, I agree with those heartily as well as with the 2NT ... 5NT bids you describe there.

Awfully sorry, wasn't able to find such an example. Obviously I was wrong about 4C here. A jump to 4C is Gerber only after Stayman (apart from a direct jump over 1/2NT, which is Gerber too).

 

Seems that after 1NT - Jacoby transfer, you simply cannot ask about aces. I should have read it more carefully, but thankfully there are the forums, and knowledgeable people, like Gerben.

 

FWIW, it looked strange to me thinking about that sequence that first you tell your partner about your major suit, then ask about aces. Didn't feel right. You either exchange information, pose questions, or answer to questions. That mixing of modes looked out of place.

 

Apologies to Fred and to whomever I may mislead.

 

Petko

[Gerben42]

Right, if you show your 5-card major and then ask aces, you deny your partner the possibility to do anything with the information that you have a 5-card major. However, your opponents can still use that information. So why volunteer it in the first place?

[inquiry]

To Inquiry's post:

 

1♠ - 4NT as quantitative: have you ever bid that? There are so many hands partner might have, do you want to take all your bidding space now? Now RKC where you do not care much about partner's distribution, that I understand. (for example ♠KJxxx ♥AKQxxx ♦x ♣A partner opens 1♠ - if he has two key cards you want to play 7, if he has one you want to play 6. And what you don't want is a 7m-save against your 6 which will be more easily found if you bid 2NT first)

 

1♠ - 2♥

4NT: This is also an odd bid because

a) you could have supported ♥ and then bid 4NT to ask for aces

B) you could have bid 2NT then 4NT to bid quantitative

 

Why didn't you? Undiscussed bidding 4NT directly is just torture.

Have I ever bid 1S - 4NT quantitative?

 

Yes. With Jacoby 2NT, it is unnecessary to make it blackwood agreeing spades, you can bid 2NT first. If you think finding save is easy over 2NT, imagine it over 4NT (blackwood) followed by 6S. I use 1S-4NT for a hands too strong for what use to be a standard american 1S-3NT. Say you use 3NT here to show 16-18 or 15-17 (not suggesting you do, I don't), then 4NT would be stronger. I also limit myself to two spades for the most part. But it is a rare bid, and if you WANT it to be blackwood, then that requires specific agreement (i am not of the school 4NT is blackwood for last bid suit if undefined, so I would have to define that as blackwood to play it).

 

[hv=s=sk3hqj4dakq6ckt75]133|100|[/hv]

 

This hand is just about perfect for jump to 4NT. Give partner some yuck minimum (like in real life) of Axxxx K9x Txx A3, he passes, no problem. Give him soem meaty minimum, like AQJxx Kxx xxx Ax and he will respond with "aces" as if it was blackwood and you will get to slam, no problem. Maybe it is because I open so many 9 hcp hands, but I find this bid invaluable in stopping after I open and catch partner with 19 hcp.

 

There is a problem with 1S-2H-2NT then rebid 4NT as quantittative. Your parnter might step on you with a jump to 4S or 4H or he might bid 3D where a jump to 4NT gets "messy". Even a jump to 4C/4D could be a problem. Is 4NT on any of these natural (well not over jump to 4S surely), agreement for partners suit? IF over jump to 4C/4D is it to "play or blackwood. If you open 18-19 balanced 1S and partner bids game forcing 2H, 4NT as quantitive is just what the doctor ordered. And this puts limits on 2NT followed by 4NT (you didn't do it earlier). So once again, I feel the 4NT is just what the doctor ordered to desciibe my holding. Generally this is 5-2-3-3, 18-19 hcp (to strong for 1NT, no fit for hearts, no second suit).

[ochinko]

Here is another example. I think it goes along with Ben's methods. All red. My turn after a pass from RHO. I hold:

 

J842

AJ7

AQ86

97

 

The bidding goes without intervention from opponents:

 

1D - 2C

2NT - 4NT

 

Now, being minimal, I should decline the slam proposition, and simply pass. I made the mistake of answering for aces, and we ended in 6C for -3 and -13 IMPs. Partner had:

 

A7

Q52

42

AKQ654

 

With a better hand and running diamonds telling my aces would at least not be wrong. But this was not a forcing situation, and I took it for one.

 

Petko

[coyot]

ochinko how do you deduce from that that 4♣ is Gerber? It's a splinter!

 

Rule #1: 4♣ is never Gerber

Rule #2: Read Rule #1 carefully

 

 

coyot: What are "the autosplinter problems"? Not having available a direct Ace Ask? If you have 18 opposite a 15-17 NT and you want to ask for aces to check if two are missing for 6NT, count again.

 

Then this auction:

1♥ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦ (4SF)

2NT - ?

 

4NT = quantitative

4♣ is NOT Gerber

Nice rules. How do you deduce that 4♣ is splinter?

 

It is just a matter of agreeement.

If you play 4th suit as GF and partner shows stopper, 3 any of previous suits IS a suit-slam attempt - therefore 4NT can be quantitative and 4♣ might as well be Gerber, if you and your partner like it.

 

I have had hands that needed direct ace ask below 4nt much more often than I had hands that needed a club splinter.

 

BTW, why are you talking about 18 opposite 15-17NT?

1) This is one of the typical Gerber situations

2) We were talking about the auction below, where opener did NOT promise 15-17NT.

 

Anyway, if I have 18 opposite a 15-17 NT, I need a direct Ace ask (even though I will know the answer) because I will then have a direct king ask and still be able to park in 6NT if I hear bad things. There might be hands in which you want to find out whether the 9 HCP you miss are 3 jacks and 3 queens or three kings. There might be 33 points in your example - and I want to play 7NT on a longish suit, unless we're missing two kings. Without Gerber, this is hardly possible (unless you replace Gerber with something other and more complicated.)

[Gerben42]

4♣ is a splinter because <general rule> it is a jump in a new suit where simply bidding the suit would be forcing.

 

In the second situation 4♣ is more complicated, of course. Even though it is a bid suit I think the most sensible agreement is an autosplinter: solid ♠ with a shortness in ♣. If you are slammish with a very 1-suited hand in ♠ and bid partner will never know to devalue his ♣ honors when you bid 3♠ now.

[MickyB]

I don't know whether Stayman then 4♣ should be a splinter or a cue, but it isn't Gerber!

[whereagles]

Rule #1: 4♣ is never Gerber

Rule #2: Read Rule #1 carefully

Best rules EVER. B)

[vbcastor]

Given some of the examples that have been posted here, I see that 4n is quantative in a lot more instances than I thought. Now my question is what do i have to have to make a 4nt quantative bid and what do I have to have to accept an invite.

In the case of 1♣, 1♦, 1nt, 4nt...what do i need to have to make the 4nt call and what does the 1nt bidder have to have to take the invite.

 

I'm not one who likes to open 1st or 2nd seat with 11 but have seen a lot who do. the opener does not have 15 or would have opened 1n I would assume. So with 13 or 14, do you accept or do you have to have 14?

[han]

Gerben, I like to play the following with my regular partners, I wonder if you can explain to me why this is so bad:

 

1NT-2D-2H-4C: Gerber (1430 RKC of course)

1NT-2H-2S-4C: Gerber (same)

1NT-2C-2H/S - 4C: Gerber (again 1430 in the bid major)

 

Over 1NT-2D-2H, we use 3S as an unspecified autospliter (3NT asks), 4D as serious slam try without shortness (a-la last train), 4H shows mild slam interest, and 4NT is quant.

 

Over 1NT-2H-2S and 1NT-2C-2M we use similar methods.

 

Please explain why I shouldn't use Gerber here?

[han]

Another situation where I like to use Gerber:

 

preemt-4C: Gerber (once again 1430 RKC).

 

The only exceptions are over 3C and 4C, where we use 4D as "Gerber".

 

Once again, I do not understand why I should use the rules you suggest. It seems to me that if you make clear agreements about when you use Gerber, it can be a useful tool.

[luis]

My best recomendation is to never learn gerber and if you know it please forget it. I saw in a movie we'll be able to erase memories from the brain in the future, when such a technology arrives I will erase gerber first.

 

If you want to use blackwood use a 4 level transfer followed by 4NT I prefer south african transfers since they are easier to remember 4c->hearts and 4d->spades

 

Luis

[1eyedjack]

Another situation where I like to use Gerber:

 

preemt-4C: Gerber (once again 1430 RKC).

 

The only exceptions are over 3C and 4C, where we use 4D as "Gerber".

 

Once again, I do not understand why I should use the rules you suggest. It seems to me that if you make clear agreements about when you use Gerber, it can be a useful tool.

It can be a useful tool on those hands where the response to Gerber will tell you where you where you want the final contract, where there is no more useful use for the 4C bid, and where there is other way to bid the hand. On the other hand it can be a pain in the neck on the rather more frequent occasions in which 4C is more useful for some other treatment, whilst hands where there is no alternative to Gerber, and in which the response to Gerber is the only critical information, are rare.

 

In particular you cite the use of 4C over a preempt. The reason that preempts are effective is that they deny you bidding space, particularly for the investigation of trump fits. Whether you use 4C as natural, some sort of non-leaping Michaels or as an artificial fit-finding enquiry, any of these options would be more useful on grounds of frequency in defence to a preempt than its use as Gerber.

[han]

1eyedjack, perhaps my post was not clear. I meant of course 4C as Gerber over PARTNER's preempt, not over THEIR preempt!

[1eyedjack]

1eyedjack, perhaps my post was not clear. I meant of course 4C as Gerber over PARTNER's preempt, not over THEIR preempt!

Oh, LOL

 

Yes the post makes more sense now. I quite often use 4m as "RKCB" where a minor is agreed, because some of the responses to 4N RKCB take you beyond 5m when slam is not assured. Never really thought of it as Gerber. Now you have left me with a bad taste in the mouth :-(

[Walddk]

My best recomendation is to never learn gerber and if you know it please forget it. I saw in a movie we'll be able to erase memories from the brain in the future, when such a technology arrives I will erase gerber first.

 

Luis

Amen.

[Walddk]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s85h65dq764ca10754&w=sk7hkj732dj85ck96&e=saqj632haq984dkc2&s=s1094h10da10932cqj83]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The following auction appeared in a team game on BBO this morning (West dealer):

 

1♥ - 1♠

1N - 4N

pass

 

An obvious quantitative 4NT you would all claim. Sure, but evidently East will not agree with you.

 

The good news for the defence: With perfect timing they can cash the first 10 tricks.

 

The bad news for the defence: North had a natural club lead, and moments later declarer wrapped up 12 tricks.

 

Did anyone say that bridge is a fair game? One thing is certain: Next time East will bid 4NT again. Sigh.

 

Roland