[jillybean]

I am always having misunderstandings with this bid, I dread seeing it or using it with casual partners.


These are the rules I use for Q4nt

It is quantitative if:

1. As a direct raise of NT 1N:4N
2. After any response to stayman 1N:2C 2S:4N
3. After a transfer and jump 1N:2H 2S:4N

This was this auction,

2♣:2♥
3N:4N

I bid 4N thinking I was bidding Q4nt, partner responded with Aces.
Does this auction come under rule1 or something else?

[han]

Yes, comes under rule 1.

I must admit I have never seen the auction 2C-2H-3NT before (with 2H natural). I hope my partners won't ever bid 3NT in that auction.

[whereagles]

With casual players, just assume it's old blackie. Unless you have strict rules as to what 4NT is, it's better to assume blackwood.

[FrancesHinden]

han, on Apr 28 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

Yes, comes under rule 1.

I must admit I have never seen the auction 2C-2H-3NT before (with 2H natural). I hope my partners won't ever bid 3NT in that auction.

Ditto

[Vilgan]

This is like 100% no doubt about it quant. Problem with a lot of newer people is they learn blackwood and then try to use it or respond to it too much. Sounds like your partner was one of these.

If your partner has trouble figuring it out, an easier rule for a while might be that 4 NT is never straight blackwood. Its either quant or possibly keycard. 3 NT though after a positive response is also a very wretched bid.

[PedroG]

Hi,

I had more or less the same problem, when I registered a rule that I think is correct if not please correct me...

4NT is quantitative when partner has made a NT bid that limit his hand to a 3 HCP diference...

http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/ncherni...tions.html#q4nt

Pedro

[han]

That rule is too restrictive. The NT bid doesn't even have to be "natural" in the sense that it shows a balanced hand.

For example, 1S - 2D - 3C - 3NT- 4NT is quantitative. 3NT doesn't show a 3-card point range or even a balanced hand. 4NT here just says "very strong hand, please move to slam if you have extra values".

More advanced partnerships will play quantitative 4NT bids even if neither partner has bid NT yet. Let's see if I can construct an auction:

1H - 1S
2D - 3C*
4NT

3C is fourth suit GF and 4NT show a very maximum hand with a club stopper, perhaps xx AQJxx AJxx AQ.

[jillybean]

I learned Q4nt as 'bid slam if you are at the top of the range' Playing 15-17 NT
that would mean bid on with a good 16 - 17, pass with 15, simple.

After an auction 1S - 2D - 3C - 3NT- 4NT is partner expect to set the contract or cue ? I guess this is all depends on partnership agreements.

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Apr 28 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

I learned Q4nt as 'bid slam if you are at the top of the range' Playing 15-17 NT
that would mean bid on with a good 16 - 17, pass with 15, simple.

After an auction 1S - 2D - 3C - 3NT- 4NT is partner expect to set the contract or cue ? I guess this is all depends on partnership agreements.

5-level bids are natural slam tries, not cuebids.

[mikeh]

Many, many years ago I had an auction that began with 2♣, with a positive, gf waiting 2♦ response. I bid a (forcing and unlimited) 2N, partner bid 4N and I, with my 28 hcp, bid 7N.

Unfortunately, our combined 36 hcp was lacking a crucial Ace. RHO, on taking the Ace at an early stage kindly told me that I could avoid such disasters by answering the quantitative 4N as if it were blackwood.

That was and remains reasonable advice (the other option, which I think is better if no suits have yet been shown, is to bid suits).

So don't assume that your ace-showing partner did not understand that your bid was quantitative... he may have been 'accepting' but taking out insurance.

My story had a happy ending, at least for my team.. the auction was duplicated at the other table, except that our teammate, holding the Ace, doubled.. win 3.

Another story was Joey Silver playing with Alan Graves in the Canadian Team trials... Joey bid 4N. Each opp asked, with screens in play, so that each of Joey and Alan got to describe the 4N. Joey said that he wasn't sure what it was supposed to be systemically and that he was pretty sure Alan didn't know either. Alan said that it was undiscussed and that he figured Joey was hoping he'd guess right.

Since both Joey and Alan are multiple national champions, and Joey won a silver in the BB in 95, you can see that 4N is a pitfall for all levels of players.

[jillybean]

Mike,
If I was holding a 28 hcp hand opposite a partner bidding 4nt, 7nt would seem like an underbid

The "standard" responses to Q4nt as I know them are:
* pass with a minimum
* 6NT with a maximum

Are there more?

ps Ive heard of 5nt as the 'passing the buck response'

[kenrexford]

jillybean2, on Apr 28 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

Mike,
If I was holding a 28 hcp hand opposite a partner bidding 4nt, 7nt would seem like an underbid

The "standard" responses to Q4nt as I know them are:
* pass with a minimum
* 6NT with a maximum

Are there more?

It depends.

Sometimes you want to do the "insurance" thing. That might mean answering Aces. It might mean RKCB. For instance, consider 1NT-P-2♦-P-2♥-P-4NT. IMO, Opener can answer RKCB for heart if he has a fit. That seems logical to me.

In other situations, 4NT is meant as a descriptive, natural bid, where natural suit bidding might be appropriate. For instance, consider 1NT-P-4NT. It seems to make sense to introduce minor suits naturally in some fashion. For instance, Opener might bid 4-card minors up-the-line, or rebid 5-card minor (4♣...5♣), or jump into six-card minors.

You could have any number of agreements here. If starting up a discussion of "what next," then my suggestion is to pick one style, whether "natural" or "non-forcing blackwood," maybe with the addition, if you go with the later, of "obvious focus optional RKCB." Once you have a default, start checking off exceptions where you have agreed to go the other way.

[han]

jillybean2, on Apr 28 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

Mike,
If I was holding a 28 hcp hand opposite a partner bidding 4nt,  7nt would seem like an underbid 

2NT showed 22+ HCP, so you "only" have 6 points extra. Another way to look at it is that partner would drive to slam with 11 HCP, so you have at most 36 HCP together.

[ArtK78]

Just thought that I would throw in a wrinkle, so that we can have more disaster stories in the future.

In any auction in which 4NT is quantitative, and 4♠ cannot be natural, you have two ways to invite 6NT. 4♠ should be a weaker invite (bid 6NT if you have a maximum) and 4NT should be a stronger invite (bid 6NT unless you have a minimum).

That eliminates the need for the "pass the buck" 5NT bid mentioned in one post above (5NT has to be the ugliest contract in bridge).

Examples of this would be:

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 4♠ (4NT would be quantitative, and since the partnership plays both Jacoby and Texas transfers along with Smolen, 4♠ should not be natural).

1NT - 4♠ (again, 4NT would be quantitative, and, playing transfers, 4♠ should not be natural).

Obviously, if your partnership allows for 4♠ to be natural on any of these types of auctions, you cannot adopt this refinement.

[han]

I have never heard of Art's treatment, so I would never assume it without discussion. By that I don't mean to say it is bad (nor that it is good).

I believe 1NT-4S = "quantitative with both minors" is fairly standard, and in convoluted auctions a non-natural 4S is likely a cuebid for the last bid suit.

[jdonn]

han, on Apr 28 2008, 11:07 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 28 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

Mike,
If I was holding a 28 hcp hand opposite a partner bidding 4nt,  7nt would seem like an underbid 

2NT showed 22+ HCP, so you "only" have 6 points extra. Another way to look at it is that partner would drive to slam with 11 HCP, so you have at most 36 HCP together.

Don't you mean at most 38?

[ArtK78]

han, on Apr 29 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

I have never heard of Art's treatment, so I would never assume it without discussion. By that I don't mean to say it is bad (nor that it is good).

I believe 1NT-4S = "quantitative with both minors" is fairly standard, and in convoluted auctions a non-natural 4S is likely a cuebid for the last bid suit.

I believe I found this treatment written up in a short article in The Bridge World, but I can't quite place it. I know that I discussed this treatment with Matt Granovetter in an e-mail, and he wrote it up on his website.

I never meant to suggest that the "double-barrelled" quantitative raise was standard by any means. It is far from intuitive.