Quantative NT bids?

[coyot]

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?

My perception of 4NT quantitatives is: If you have the upper half of your point range and a good shape (not 4-3-3-3), answer positively. A good idea is to actually RESPOND to blackwood - because you will be able to bid 6NT with good 32 HCP hands (i.e. with minor 5card) with the safety of avoiding those contracts without 2 aces :lol:.

 

If your range is 12-14, you'd generally answer with any 14 and good 13 (any 5332, 4432 with a few extra 10's or working values (i.e. not QJ doubleton...)

[mike777]

Dealer: West Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ 85 ♥ 65 ♦ Q764 ♣ A10754 ♠ K7 ♥ KJ732 ♦ J85 ♣ K96 ♠ AQJ632 ♥ AQ984 ♦ K ♣ 2 ♠ 1094 ♥ 10 ♦ A10932 ♣ QJ83

 

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

Wow what a great hand to post for so many many reasons...where can we begin?

[ochinko]

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

How do you know that?

 

What's wrong with asking for aces after you asked for a 4 card major?

 

If you don't use Gerber, or don't want to be able to ask about aces after Stayman, that's fine, but you certainly can't use Blackwood there, since it's much more expected to be invitational.

 

Anyway, here is what it says in "Learning to Play Bridge 2":

If the responder rebids 4C after using Stayman that bid is always Gerber.

 

And it doesn't need an exclamation mark at the end in order to sound more affirmative. :lol:

 

Petko

[helene_t]

As for Roland's example: If you have no agreements about check-back-relay it makes some sense to use 4NT as Blackwood here, since you have no way of setting trumps. Actually, I have used 4NT as Blackwood once in the same auction, playing with a beginner. (This is bad, of course, since next week I will use the same 4NT bid as quanti).

 

Without better agreement, East should jump to 6♥. Maybe even immediately without mentioning the spades suit. On a good day you may make it with two aces off thanks to the non-informative auction. But of course, if you play strong jump shifts, East can also start with 2♠. I don't know if this East hand satisfies the criteria for a SJS (I've never played strong jump shifts myself) but it's certainly better than this Blackwood disaster.

 

A lot of beginners use Blackwood because there are so many other bids which are either non-forcing or may be seen as non-forcing by partner. Under those circumstances, I can understand that many prefer Gerber. We had a discussion about slam conventions at a bridge teacher's meeting. The instructor said that Blackwood is better than Gerber because it is so obviously flawed (partner responds 5♥ and now you are two aces off for 6♦. You try to sign off in 5NT but partner thinks it's king-asking) that it is less prone to abuse than Gerber.

 

Well, then let's teach them the Fibonacci carding suggested by Free so that they will not be tempted to over-signal. Those kind of arguments are disrespectfull to the students, IMHO.

 

Beginners should learn constructive bidding first, slam bidding later. New Minor Forcing (or whatever) should be taught several weeks before whatever slam conventions you choose. Without any discussion of slam conventions (immagine you'd never heard about ace-asking and cue-bidding) it's obvious that 4NT is quantitative.

[coyot]

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand :-(. If he keeps his mouth shut, the auction will proceed 1♠-1NT(F)-3♥- and then probably 4♣-4♦-4♠-5♥...

[bearmum]

[Finch]

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

[bearmum]

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

 

LOTS of folk open light <_< -- BUT I wouldn't have opened this one (lol)

 

BUT fact that W did open is one that East has to respond to -- and I still believe that E made the mistake in mentioning ♠s BEFORE supporting ♥s :rolleyes: (by whatever their system allowed :P )

[ochinko]

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

 

LOTS of folk open light :rolleyes: -- BUT I wouldn't have opened this one (lol)

Zar points bidders are notorious for their light openings, but even they won't open with that hand.

 

Petko

[Gerben42]

Whoa this thread is moving fast...

 

@Hannie:

 

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)

 

I don't have anything against anyone agreeing that in sequence X 4♣ is RKC for some suit, but call it something else please. And as long as the sequences are well defined and you won't mess it up, go ahead.

 

What I am raging about is the ace asking without a fit bid 4♣ that is used in some situations, and some players use it in many situations where they shouldn't, or even when ♣ have been bid (uh oh...)

 

With one partner I used 4♣ after a 3♥/♠-opening not as natural or cue but as asking for Key Cards on a specific scale (other than our usual 1430 becauseee 4 and 3 are sort of impossible :rolleyes:

 

Also 3minor - 4 in other minor as asking for Key Cards is one of those situations. This can be found in Preempts from A to Z and I'm not going to criticize any of the methods that are in there because it's really great!

 

But these are

* Specific agreed situations

* Trump suit agreed

 

Inquiry gives this hand for the auction 1♠ - 4NT:

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

 

Is 2344 the only possible distribution, if so it never comes up, if not are you willing to give up on a minor suit slam by bidding 4NT. This hand does not just want to find out slam or not, but also which slam. If partner has a small singleton in ♥ 4NT may be very bad with 6m cold, take for example this normal minimum hand:

 

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

 

I know this is 1♠ for you (playing standard I think one should with this hand) and a minimum so pass 4NT. Or bid 5♥ for 2 aces? Or just 6♣ before partner bids 6NT? The problem with quantitative in this situation is that you have no idea what kind of hand partner has, unlike when he has made a balanced rebid.

 

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand :-(. If he keeps his mouth shut, the auction will proceed 1♠-1NT(F)-3♥- and then probably 4♣-4♦-4♠-5♥...

 

I would not criticize West for opening. Playing standard I wouldn't, with several partners it would be an obvious bid. East, however, lost his mind. Note btw that East has a reasonable hand for a direct RKC 4NT after 1♥ (rather have ♥K instead of the Q to make the 5-level 100% safe but nothing's perfect)

 

What you do not want to hear is the auction: 1♥ (pass) 2NT (3♦) something (5♦). Now I've shown my forcing raise but am not going to find out anything.

[coyot]

I would agree with the 1♠ bid - under the condition that you play something like Checkback Stayman in order to establish gameforce.

 

What are the possible auctions after 1♥-1♠?

 

1NT - with 2♦ GF, you can then support hearts and use RKCB, absolutely no problem in bidding

 

2m - gives you 4th suit to use as GF (and learn whether p has wasted values against your singleton or not - by his NT or other bid on FSF)

 

2H - 4NT RKCB, easy

 

2S - 4NT RKCB, even better, spade king will be a crucial card

 

(Any other bids are stronger, so 7NT is cold :rolleyes:)

[vbcastor]

On the hand that Roland presented, is that how most of you would bid it?

[Gerben42]

With fear for minor suit preempting I'd take the risk that partner may have 0 KC.

 

So 1♥ - 4NT - 5♣ 1/4 - 5♥ - pass

[EricK]

On Roland's hand, the easiest way to find the ♠K (which is an important card for a grand slam) is to start with 2♠.

 

Eric

[kgr]

On Roland's hand, the easiest way to find the ♠K (which is an important card for a grand slam) is to start with 2♠.

 

Eric

I play that:

1♥-1♠

1NT-3♥

Shows ♥-fit, a good 5-card ♠ suit and interested in slam. Asks to start cueing.

If partner cues ♠ then I know he has the K and I bid 4NT RKC.

... not sure how standard this is, but I suppose that everybody would play 3♥ forcing here?

[han]

With Roland's hand I would have bid 1H-4C, Gerber.

 

No, just kidding, I would set trump with 2NT and use keycards next. Perhaps partner's response to 2NT gives me some idea about whether a grand slam might be good.

[whereagles]

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

Nonsense. The bidding can be made very, very simple:

 

1H 4NT

5D 5H

pass

 

B)

[coyot]

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

Nonsense. The bidding can be made very, very simple:

 

1H 4NT

5D 5H

pass

 

B)

In this particular case, yes. If p. responds with 1 ace, you may still go down on spade finesse - and from your cards, it is quite obvious that you need it unless p has singleton. And a slam that relies on finesse is a bad slam.)

 

(If p. responds with 2 aces, some gadgets to find spade king could be possibly employed - maybe...).

 

In general, this fast bidding will work in "easy" cases. It will stop at 5 with 2 aces with opps, but will not allow you to bid a good slam and avoid a bad one.

 

(And the 11HCP aceless balanced opening stinks :))

[whereagles]

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

Nonsense. The bidding can be made very, very simple:

 

1H 4NT

5D 5H

pass

 

B)

In this particular case, yes. If p. responds with 1 ace, you may still go down on spade finesse - and from your cards, it is quite obvious that you need it unless p has singleton. And a slam that relies on finesse is a bad slam.)

 

(If p. responds with 2 aces, some gadgets to find spade king could be possibly employed - maybe...).

 

In general, this fast bidding will work in "easy" cases. It will stop at 5 with 2 aces with opps, but will not allow you to bid a good slam and avoid a bad one.

 

(And the 11HCP aceless balanced opening stinks :))

1. If pard has 0 aces he wouldn't have enough points to open.

2. If pard has only 1 ace the chance he has the spade king is rather high.

3. If pard has 2 aces the slam is 75%: if pard has the spade king, it makes. If not, maybe the finesse works. Besides, a 50% slam is a GOOD slam.

4. If pard has 3 aces there are indeed gadgets to look for the spade king.

 

So, I think 1H-4NT is a perfectly sustainable, reasonable and uncomplicated course of action :)

[coyot]

1. If pard has 0 aces he wouldn't have enough points to open.

2. If pard has only 1 ace the chance he has the spade king is rather high.

3. If pard has 2 aces the slam is 75%: if pard has the spade king, it makes. If not, maybe the finesse works. Besides, a 50% slam is a GOOD slam.

4. If pard has 3 aces there are indeed gadgets to look for the spade king.

 

So, I think 1H-4NT is a perfectly sustainable, reasonable and uncomplicated course of action B)

Oh, a slight misunderstanding in the bidding... I play 14/30 :-) and I wrongly took the 4NT for regular BW then :)

 

If he has 0 keycards, he still can have spade K, KQJ in one minor and QJ in other minor and Jack of hearts :) - that's 13 HCP and the opener above was 11 HCP :)

 

If he has 1 keycard, 5H is reasonably safe

 

If he has 2 keycards, you still have a likely spade loser along with one ace. If you bid slow, you will be able to find his shape (spade singleton would then make this a good slam)

 

Quote:

Hugh Kelsey in his excellent book Slam Bidding defined successful slam when the number of good slams bid by a partnership exceeds the combined total of good slams missed and bad slams bid. What is a good slam? Well any slam offering better than a 50-50 chance of success is a good slam, and should be bid.

 

Now, better than 50:50 is good. 50:50 is borderline.

 

IMP, NonVul: gain of 500 (980 vs 480) against the loss of 500 breaks even

IMP, Vul: gain of 750 (1430 vs 680) against the loss of 750 breaks even.

 

Of course, a lot depends on event type - who is at the other table in teams, who is in the field.

[Double !]

This thread reminds me of a bridge cartoon that I saw eons ago. There is an interesting theme in it.

 

The cartoon shows two elderly people (women, in this case) sitting at a table. One says to the other, "Now, remember Mabel, 4NT is always Blackwood!")

Most players would scorn at such a comment. Obviously, for most partnerships, such a statement isn't true, it's certainly not an advanced or expert method, and I am not at all suggesting such an agreement. But there was some method to their madness, so to speak. Maybe these two fictitious players might need (or have had) another way to ask the NT bidder if min/max, but the two likely never had any further misunderstandings about the meaning of 4NT. Just a little food for thought.

[keylime]

Gerber, the baby food product? Ick. I don't like carrots and peas STILL.

 

I use 1M-4NT as straight blackwood, aces only please (not keycard).

[han]

This thread reminds me of a bridge cartoon that I saw eons ago. There is an interesting theme in it.

 

The cartoon shows two elderly people (women, in this case) sitting at a table. One says to the other, "Now, remember Mabel, 4NT is always Blackwood!")

Most players would scorn at such a comment. Obviously, for most partnerships, such a statement isn't true, it's certainly not an advanced or expert method, and I am not at all suggesting such an agreement. But there was some method to their madness, so to speak. Maybe these two fictitious players might need (or have had) another way to ask the NT bidder if min/max, but the two likely never had any further misunderstandings about the meaning of 4NT. Just a little food for thought.

Good comment Double!

 

This was also my intention by mentioning the situations where I like to play Gerber (although I believe Gerben if he says that I shouldn't call it Gerber, but hey, I still call 1430 RKC "blackwood"!). As long as you have clear agreements about when you play it as what, it can't be that bad.

 

It's too bad that those expert bridge players that say "amen", "best rules ever", etc. can't come up with more convincing arguments to show why one should not play Gerber. I find the example of the pair that stops in 4NT because they don't know what they are doing almost insulting, what does this have to do with the discussion? Are you suggesting that pairs that play Gerber in some auctions have no idea what their agreements are?

[mike777]

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?

prefer kickback so:

1nt=2d

2h=4nt=quant.

 

1nt=2d

2h=4c=splinter

 

 

 

1nt=4d

4h=4s=ace ask

 

This method raises great point with Hannie method.

1) We do not play autosplinter so why start now

2) We do not play last train so why start now. Btw I love the MONKEES and have all their stuff.

3) We do play splinters

4) We do play kickback

 

On the other hand if you play both on many other hands....

Main point is if do not play that fancy stuff on other hand types, do not start now.

[vbcastor]

I would like to know what kind of hand you use quantative nt on when pard opens something other than 1n. I don't have any money and can't buy any bridge books so if I can't find out here, can someone give me an internet site to go look at. the sites I have bookmarked now, don't refer to quantative bids. Thanks in advance.

Vicki