[Phil]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-04, 21:32, said:

I don't think this is true at all. Opener is very restricted as to strength and shape; the quantitative invite asks him to proceed if he's in the upper half (or so) of his range of possible hands and to pass otherwise.

So you have one partner that defines his hand well via 1N, and another partner that makes a space hogging 4N call that may not be that well defined, and you expect the balanced weaker hand to make the final decision.

This doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[Bbradley62]

The Opener has been asked a simple question; I hope he will give a simple answer.

[Lurpoa]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-02, 12:17, said:

Playing Standard American or 2/1 (I don't think it makes a difference, but I suppose it might) in the uncontested auction 1♣-1♥-1NT-4NT, what is the meaning of the last call?

Indeed, of of those sequences where you never know how a pick-up partner might will react.
All partnerships should have very clear agreements on the of 4NTquantitative.



Concerning SAYC:
4NT quanti only defined after a direct raise of of the 1NT and 2NT openers, or after a 2NTrebid after a 2♣ opener.


And for BWS2001 2/1 defaults:

QUOTE
If an non-discussed but clearlyforcing non-competitivefour-notrump bid might logically be interpreted as more than one ofthese alternatives, the priority order of interpretation is

(1) ace- or key-card-asking convention,

(2) offer of general slam encouragement,

(3) control-showing bid.

UNQUOTE

So, in the proposed sequence: ace asking.

[Lurpoa]

manudude03, on 2011-June-03, 00:09, said:

I think you misread the OP. He said uncontested auction. You can't double your partner.

I think they should change the rules......

[blackshoe]

Lurpoa, on 2011-June-05, 03:47, said:

Indeed, of of those sequences where you never know how a pick-up partner might will react.
All partnerships should have very clear agreements on the of 4NTquantitative.



Concerning SAYC:
4NT quanti only defined after a direct raise of of the 1NT and 2NT openers, or after a 2NTrebid after a 2♣ opener.


And for BWS2001 2/1 defaults:

QUOTE
If an non-discussed but clearlyforcing non-competitivefour-notrump bid might logically be interpreted as more than one ofthese alternatives, the priority order of interpretation is

(1) ace- or key-card-asking convention,

(2) offer of general slam encouragement,

(3) control-showing bid.

UNQUOTE

So, in the proposed sequence: ace asking.

All partnerships of course sit down and form very clear agreements on every possible sequence. Suuure they do!

SAYC is not "Standard American". BWS is a variant of 2/1, but it does not define "standard" 2/1. Your conclusion is not a correct answer to my question.

Regarding "may not be well defined". Responder can't have a fit for partner's suit. He can't have a five card suit of his own (he would reverse, or jump shift, or make some other forcing call). He has a balanced hand. As for HCP, if he had 21-22, he'd just bid 6NT, so he has 19-20. All of that is just bridge logic, but we have at least agreed on the point range and that the hand will be balanced.

[aguahombre]

On this auction, responder did not search for a heart fit after 1NT So there are only two strains possible: NT and clubs.

After the quant 4NT, any 5-level bid (accepting slam) should, IMO, not only confirm the # of Keys (There are six with the two rounded kings) but also show a chunky 5-bagger in clubs. Maybe pard can then count tricks for a grand which he could not do before.

[Mbodell]

Lurpoa, on 2011-June-05, 03:47, said:

And for BWS2001 2/1 defaults:

QUOTE
If an non-discussed but clearlyforcing non-competitivefour-notrump bid might logically be interpreted as more than one ofthese alternatives, the priority order of interpretation is

(1) ace- or key-card-asking convention,

(2) offer of general slam encouragement,

(3) control-showing bid.

UNQUOTE

So, in the proposed sequence: ace asking.

Um, why is the 4nt bid in this sequence "clearly forcing"? Of course if a clearly forcing 4nt bid is made it can not be quantitative. But presuming 4nt in this sequence is clearly forcing is begging the question. This 4nt is clearly not forcing and quantitative to my eyes.

[MrAce]

Mbodell, on 2011-June-05, 15:15, said:

This 4nt is clearly not forcing and quantitative to my eyes.

For most of us as well.

[jdeegan]

If 4NT is not quantitative, then how does one invite 6NT with a balanced hand? If you can't accurately bid simple point count slams, what kind of system are you playing?

[MrAce]

I think this topic shd have rest in peace after first reply by Phil.

[Lurpoa]

Mbodell, on 2011-June-05, 15:15, said:

Um, why is the 4nt bid in this sequence "clearly forcing"? Of course if a clearly forcing 4nt bid is made it can not be quantitative. But presuming 4nt in this sequence is clearly forcing is begging the question. This 4nt is clearly not forcing and quantitative to my eyes.

Yes, you make ne doubt about my interpretation of BWS2001.
But another argument: isn't that "offer of general slam encouragement" not the Quanti were are talking about ?

[Lurpoa]

Just another idea.

When you set your system with partner,
maybe it is better to agree when Blackwood or RKCB apply, and not when Quanti 4NT applies, as it is done in SAYC.
Then, all which is not Blackwood is Quanti.

[Lurpoa]

jdeegan, on 2011-June-05, 23:01, said:

If 4NT is not quantitative, then how does one invite 6NT with a balanced hand? If you can't accurately bid simple point count slams, what kind of system are you playing?

Yes, and if 4NT is Quanti, how do you check the condtions for a grand slam ?

[barmar]

Lurpoa, on 2011-June-06, 00:01, said:

Yes, and if 4NT is Quanti, how do you check the condtions for a grand slam ?

You bid slower, so you have room to cue bid all your controls, rather than wasting bidding space with a jump so you can use a crude tool like blackwood.

[barmar]

Lurpoa, on 2011-June-05, 23:37, said:

Yes, you make ne doubt about my interpretation of BWS2001.
But another argument: isn't that "offer of general slam encouragement" not the Quanti were are talking about ?

No, because it says that the 4NT bid is "clearly forcing". When would 4NT clearly be forcing? When you've already agreed on a suit. So you'll end up in 5 or 6 of your suit, depending on whether partner is encouraged.

BWS doesn't mention quantitative 4NT and 5NT bids at all. I guess these are considered "just bridge", not conventional agreements.

[Lurpoa]

barmar, on 2011-June-06, 00:31, said:

No, because it says that the 4NT bid is "clearly forcing". When would 4NT clearly be forcing? When you've already agreed on a suit. So you'll end up in 5 or 6 of your suit, depending on whether partner is encouraged.

BWS doesn't mention quantitative 4NT and 5NT bids at all. I guess these are considered "just bridge", not conventional agreements.

Yes, I think you have a good point there. It is really how I would like to play it, but have (had) difficulty in finding the justification in the BWS2001standard.
But indeed it is all in the interpretation of "clearly forcing" (and what is "just "good" bridge").

And indeed I agree that it is only sound to initiate a Blackwood or RKCB if a suit is agreed.

Besides BWS2001 is very specific:

QUOTE
After opener’s one-notrump rebid:

(a) responder’s rebid ofthe cheapest two of an unbid minor is artificial, forcing, andpromising at least game-invitational strength (opener’s prioritiesover such a bid are: show three-card fit for responder’s originalsuit, show four-card length in the unbid major, show a minimum withthe cheapest other bid, show a maximum descriptively with anythingelse; responder’s next bid is forcing unless it is two of hisoriginal suit, two notrump, or a raise to three of the major just bidby opener);

(b) responder’s rebid ofthree of the cheapest unbid minor is weak.

© four clubs is Gerber.

UNQUOTE
SO YES, 4NT is Quanti when you play BWS2001. :

[fromageGB]

barmar, on 2011-June-02, 15:12, said:

A natural NT bid followed by 4NT is practically always quantitative.

Quantitative over 1NT, but I think 4NT over 2NT has other and better uses - particularly if your 2NT bids have 2 point ranges.

[Lurpoa]

♥


Mr Glen Ashton on his blog is giving some very easy, short and to-the- point advices on how to interprete 4NTbids: http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/2008/09/when-is-4nt-q-uant-itative-i-received.html.


I think this can be usefull for any partnership to set their defaults.

I have not (yet) checked them versus BWS2001 defaults, but I guess they can be used to solve the "clearly forcing" definition



♥

[gnasher]

Lurpoa, on 2011-June-07, 10:36, said:

Mr Glen Ashton on his blog is giving some very easy, short and to-the- point advices on how to interprete 4NTbids: http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/2008/09/when-is-4nt-q-uant-itative-i-received.html.

I disagree with three of his six rules.