BBO Discussion Forums: keycard or quant? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

keycard or quant? what is "standard" and what do you play?

Poll: in your understanding of standard, is 4NT quantitative or keycard? (12 member(s) have cast votes)

in your understanding of standard, is 4NT quantitative or keycard?

  1. Keycard (9 votes [75.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 75.00%

  2. Quant (3 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   matmat 

  • ded
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,459
  • Joined: 2005-August-11
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2007-October-20, 13:47

1♣-1♥
2NT-3♦*
3♥-4NT

3♦ is just checkback.


what is the "standard" treatment and what structure do you use here?
0

#2 User is offline   BillHiggin 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 499
  • Joined: 2007-February-03

Posted 2007-October-20, 13:53

1♣ 1♥
2N 4N
Would have been quantitative. Partner did not do that. He asked about our major holding and then made a gleeful noise when we admitted to 3 card support for his suit. His values are unbounded. Ours are tightly limited. He wants to know about keycards and there is no ambiguity about that.
You must know the rules well - so that you may break them wisely!
0

#3 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2007-October-20, 13:55

i'm pretty sure i'd take it as rkb for the reasons he stated
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#4 User is offline   ralph23 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 2007-July-11

Posted 2007-October-20, 14:02

RKC for ♥, unless you play kickback.
♣♦♥♠ Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that other philosophers are all jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. H.L. Mencken. ♣♦♥♠
0

#5 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2007-October-20, 15:15

BillHiggin, on Oct 20 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

1♣ 1♥
2N 4N
Would have been quantitative.

I don't see why you need a quantitative 4NT when opener showed 18-19 exactly, but ok you can play it as that :(
0

#6 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,394
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Odense, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2007-October-20, 15:21

Did 3♥ deny a 4-card spades? In that case it is quantitative. Responder has 4-4 in the majors.

Otherwise it cannot be quantitative so it must be something else, presumably RKC.

My rule is that it is quantitative unless it can't be.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#7 User is offline   BillHiggin 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 499
  • Joined: 2007-February-03

Posted 2007-October-20, 16:15

whereagles, on Oct 20 2007, 04:15 PM, said:

BillHiggin, on Oct 20 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

1♣ 1♥
2N 4N 
Would have been quantitative.

I don't see why you need a quantitative 4NT when opener showed 18-19 exactly, but ok you can play it as that :(

I agree that there is little need for quantitative when opener's range is so well defined. The actual range definition was not given and some (rare) use 18-20. My point is that while you just might want one way to bid 4N quantitative that you certainly do not need more than one. I will not even accept Helene's exception - over 3♥, a 3♠ bid would be forcing so responder could bid that and then bid 4N over opener's 3N. The possibility of responder actually having interest in spades is why I would not apply kickback without partnership discussion (and then if we agreed that 4♠ was kickback, 4N would be ERKC with a ♠ void - which is not an impossibility).
You must know the rules well - so that you may break them wisely!
0

#8 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2007-October-20, 16:37

I really can't see this as quantitative. I don't know where the assumption that the 3♥ bid denies four spades comes from either.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users