[nick_s]

1C (1S) X (4S)
4N

Our opponents had a bidding disagreement about this sequence. One thought it was RKCB agreeing hearts, the other thought it was 4-6 or so in the minors.

Partner and I would have had exactly the same disagreement had the board been rotated.

Anyone care to offer any guidance?

[spotlight7]

Hi:

Two places to play 'or' a slam try if the highest suit is rebid after your choice.

Regards,
Robert

[hanp]

What Robert said, not RKC please.

[andy_h]

2 places to play. When the opponents preempt very high it's more important to find the right strain than to guess it. Game before slam.

[whereagles]

Agree to the interpretation of 6-4, but this is one situation I would prefer to have clear agreements about, instead of meta-rules.

[paulg]

andy_h, on Apr 27 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

2 places to play. When the opponents preempt very high it's more important to find the right strain than to guess it. Game before slam.

This is my clear agreement. And guiding principle. And meta-rule.

[nick_s]

Consensus seems very clear.
Thanks for putting me straight.

[DinDIP]

nick_s, on Apr 26 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

1C (1S) X (4S)
4N

Our opponents had a bidding disagreement about this sequence.  One thought it was RKCB agreeing hearts, the other thought it was 4-6 or so in the minors.

In my partnerships 4N is for takeout over their 4M and, when bid over their 4S, specifically promises hearts. To understand why, consider what action responder should take if 4N could be either clubs with shorter diamonds or shorter hearts. With a shape like 3=6=2=2 responder clearly wants to bid 5H if O has H but 5C if O has C and D. As 5H would be a disaster if O has C and D, per force, responder must choose between the minors, thus never reaching 5H even when it is best. The only way to resolve this is to agree that 4N promises specific suits. For general application, it is best to agree that it promises the highest-ranking unbid suit (see below).

There is a price for such an agreement: when you hold C and D and can't bid 4N because it promises H you are forced to guess. P? 5C? 5D? 5N? None are satisfactory.

Note that the same argument applies to autions like
(4S) 4N
This is commonly played as any two-suiter but it is much better to agree that it promises the highest-ranking unbid suit (i.e. H). Again, consider advancer's 3=6=2=2. If O might have C and D then you must guess a minor. If he has H and the minor you choose then you play in your 5-2 fit instead of your 5-6 fit!

Personally, I consider this argument overwhelmingly persuasive but not everyone agrees: I note that Meckwell, as well as many other top-line pairs, still play
(4S) 4N
as showing any two-suiter.

Note that this agreement can be extended to other NT bids that are used as takeout: many good players wisely treat 2N in auctions like
(1S) 2C (2S) P
(P) 2N
as takeout. Again, it makes sense for it to show one red suit. For consistency and because game in hearts is possible (albeit uncommon once partner has passed) whereas game in diamonds is very unlikely, it makes sense for it to show H.

David

[mike777]

nick_s, on Apr 26 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

1C (1S) X (4S)
4N

Our opponents had a bidding disagreement about this sequence.  One thought it was RKCB agreeing hearts, the other thought it was 4-6 or so in the minors.

Partner and I would have had exactly the same disagreement had the board been rotated.

Anyone care to offer any guidance?

nonexpert response.

long clubs with at least 4d.......

if partner has 4h and not 4d he will correct over your d rebid.....