[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Mar 22 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

As to "A", having a natural, quantiative 4NT is key on a lot of auction where your other choice is a very heavy 3NT. Imagine if you will,

1S - 2H
3D - ?

If you don't have a natural 4NT to show extra values, clubs under control, and a willingness to go further, you will bid 3NT with a lot hands and rack up 490's and 690's rather than you slams. If you don't fit but are too strong for a quantitative 4NT, you can find a different forcing bid.

My instinct would have been that 4NT was Blackwood in support of Diamonds. Presumably you would bid 4D first here, then as that would clearly be forcing, and hope that 4N remains available next time (or that partner does not go and Blackwood on you, on a less suitable hand for the action). But I see that a natural 4NT has merit here, AND it is consistent with a simple rule (test B_), AND the blackwood hand type is at least biddable (test C_). I rather like it.

inquiry, on Mar 22 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

As to "B" simplier rules are not best. How much simplier is a rule that 4NT is always blackwood? That doesn't make it best. So you should just forgo the "simplier" rules and try to find a set that works logically for yourself.

Simplicity is relative. Going back to my original post, it was always going to be a trade-off, with a balance to be struck. Excessive simplicity does I agree distort that balance. Excessive complexity has a downside also.

inquiry, on Mar 22 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

As t o "C" there is some problem if you do not have a forcing raise (minor and major) available, and if you are not playing 2/1 GF. An example, I use the rule that IF a Forcing major raise was available, then 4NT is never Blackwood. This means, for instance, that 1H-4NT is not blackwood because I have jacoby 2NT available. Likewise, 1S-2D-2H-4NT is not blackwood becasue 2S, 3S, and 3H are all forcing and can be bid first. If 2D was not game force, then a raise to 3H would not be forcing. If you play that, then and only then, might you decide to use 4NT as "blackwood for hearts". Why? Because 3H is not forcing and 4H would be sign-offish. But playing 2/1 GF, there is no need for the immediate jump to 4NT with heart support.

I think that there is generally a problem on misfitting hands, even in 2/1. In your examples you conveniently have a trump fit that you can express below game, and I agree that while that condition holds, the problem is much reduced. One problem with 2/1 is that there is no upper limit to the 2/1 responder. Whilst the bid is I acknowledge game forcing, that does not really show anything very special. With a real powerhouse it can still be hard to get it off your chest, as you might have done in days of yore when playing strong jump shifts. And on such hands you might have no intention of playing in NT at all, ie when responder has a self supporting suit or identifies a lack of guard opposite his singleton, so an invitational 4NT then does not enter the list of options. Even the 2/1 players have the same problems as the rest of us if responder's suit is higher ranking than opener's leading to an auction that starts with a forcing 1/1 response that could be on potentially as little as a 6 count. Responder then has to continue making forcing noises via new suits until ultimately he gets across the fact that he has a GF hand, but even that does not express the extras in reserve, and by then you are likely to be up to the level of 3NT and rather running out of alternatives.

Misfitting hands should be devalued, of course, and tend (but only tend, mind) to be appropriate for NT denomination, as well as frequently qualifying for an occasion when Quant is more useful than Black, but even then there can arise hands when you know that you should be in slam if the controls are there. If responder is balanced he would have to be so strong that the hands become so infrequent that there is not much point in catering for it. But if responder has a self-supporting suit that requires no primary support from opener then it may not be so obvious.

No-one forces us to play weak jump shifts, of course.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Mar 22 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

1H-4NT is quantitiative, even 1S-2H-4NT is quantitative (in 2/1 context) as you have a forcing raise (3H) available.

This logic is great in theory, but it's just not what happens in the real world unless you have it very firmly agreed with partner.

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Mar 22 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 22 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

1H-4NT is quantitiative, even 1S-2H-4NT is quantitative (in 2/1 context) as you have a forcing raise (3H) available.

This logic is great in theory, but it's just not what happens in the real world unless you have it very firmly agreed with partner.

Oh, I understand that precisely. I have always advocated that on BBO if you pick-up partner bids 4NT, it is BLACKWOOD, the rules I just layed out be damned. I can find such post if you like, but experience shows that is how most treat it. Of course, if you have a decent partner, this might not be the case.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Mar 22 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 22 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 22 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

1H-4NT is quantitiative, even 1S-2H-4NT is quantitative (in 2/1 context) as you have a forcing raise (3H) available.

This logic is great in theory, but it's just not what happens in the real world unless you have it very firmly agreed with partner.

Oh, I understand that precisely. I have always advocated that on BBO if you pick-up partner bids 4NT, it is BLACKWOOD, the rules I just layed out be damned. I can find such post if you like, but experience shows that is how most treat it. Of course, if you have a decent partner, this might not be the case.

(I didn't mean to imply that you weren't aware of this.)

Actually, I would also think this rule does not hold with decent partners without discussion either. (2S)-3H-(P)-4N. Of course you have 3S as a forcing raise, but if I would have to guess the meaning by an unknown expert partner, I would bet on RKCB for hearts. 2S (3H) 4N. Even more clearly RKCB.

I think it's a lot easier to agree to this rule than to stick with it...

[keylime]

My 4NT agreements:

1. In comp, 2 places to play. When pard overcalled a suit tho, it's an 2 way bid: either a good raise to five of pard's suit, or takeout oriented (analogous to G/B 2NT). This came up recently (I sprung one on Larry).

2. If no suit is agreed on before 3NT, it's quant. seeking direction. Can be passed.

3. If one suit is agreed on, then ace asking.

4. If TWO suits agreed on, normally is asking about the 4-4 fit first, then the first 5-3 fit if applicable.

5. 1NT - 2R - 2M - 4NT = quantitative. Normally go through Texas to get to keycard but some play it the other way around. Important to discuss.


There are many more but wanted to give the gist of it.

[inquiry]

The two auction mentioned above...

Auction one.
(2S)-3H-(P)-4N.

This is clearly quantitative of sorts. If I wanted to use blackwood, I would start with 3♠ then 4NT. See rule about forcing raise.

Auction two.
2S (3H) 4N.

It was suggested that this one was "even more clearly RKCB". Well, maybe. I would say that 2H - (3S) - 4NT is RKCB for hearts, as you have no possible forcing raise available. on the 2S-(3H)-4NT there are three reasonable options. RKCB as you suggest. Takeout for either minor, or quantitative. We could run through the options. A forcing raise is available (4H's), so one could reasonable argue that this is natural and quantititative, and that is how I would play it. The idea is that good spades are needed for slam and that responder has source of tricks in one or more minors. The third option, both minors, seems unnecessary to me as you can bid 4♦ (forcing) and then 5♣ if necessary. There is also the possibility of double of three hearts for takeout, but after a preempt, that double should not be takeout -- it should be either CARDS or penalty as you see fit.

[cherdano]

Here is another one:
1H (3S) 4N. According to Justin's or Dwayne's rules above, it is minors. According to Ben's rule, it can't be RKCB.

I would think it is RKCB. With minors, you can just start bidding them with 4♦. With a RKCB-hand, you can't bid 4♠ and still RKCB later. I suppose you can bid 4♠ and hope partner will bid RKCB...
Probably Ben's rule makes sense if we reformulate it as "4N is never RKCB if we have a forcing raise below 4 of our suit available".

I think it is impossible to find rules that are
- easy
- intuitive (in all cases where we have a clear guess about the meaning when just thinking 3 seconds about it, it should agree with this guess)
- not clearly suboptimal.

Arend

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Mar 22 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

Here is another one:
1H (3S) 4N. According to Justin's or Dwayne's rules above, it is minors. According to Ben's rule, it can't be RKCB.

I would think it is RKCB. With minors, you can just start bidding them with 4♦. With a RKCB-hand, you can't bid 4♠ and still RKCB later. I suppose you can bid 4♠ and hope partner will bid RKCB...

No. My rule is IF there is a forcing raise available it can not be RKCB. On 1H (3S) what forcing raise is available below game? There isn't one. So on this auction, 1H (3S) 4NT would be RKCB. For example, see the discussion I had on 2H (3S) 4NT in the post immediately before your post I quote here. My rule is certainly internally consistent on this view.

You could argue that this is a competitive auction, and 4NT should show the minors, but again, that would not be the case here (nor probably for Justin either). After 1H-(3S) you can DOUBLE to show the minors or (just as in my post just before yours) bid 4♦ then 5♣.

Quote

Probably Ben's rule makes sense if we reformulate it as "4N is never RKCB if we have a forcing raise below 4 of our suit available".

I think your "reformulation" of "Ben's rule" is what I already stated the rule is. And, rather than take credit for this, it has been around a long time. I had heard it before I ever read Kantar's RKCB book, but it is stated in that book So if you are going to make a rule out of it, to be fair, it is just one that I use, not one that I invented.

Quote

I think it is impossible to find rules that are
- easy
- intuitive (in all cases where we have a clear guess about the meaning when just thinking 3 seconds about it, it should agree with this guess)
- not clearly suboptimal.

Funny, I have never found the rules I use to be hard, so I think they are easy. As for Intuitive -- if you have rules, they don't have to be intuitive, they are simply what they are. Finally what is suboptimal anyway? No method would be ideal on all hands and all auctions. But even though that is true, there must be an "optimal strategy" of some sort, even if it will never be perfect. I think a strategy that allows you the most variety in options (to be able to use the bid as natural to play, blackwood, two suited, and quantatitive) is the best. This is why if there is a forcing raise available, there is never a need to use 4NT as RKCB, you can use the forcing raise and then bid. That is also why even in some competitive auctions, it is not best to use it as minors, because in that case you can bid one minor (if that bid is forcing) then bid the other. Also, part of the optimization is never allows a limited hand to use 4NT as RKCB. The "limited hand" is anyone that has bid a descriptive NT, or made a limiting raise.

Such rules gives you the greatest flexibilty (aka, optimal) strategy in my mind, although you can probably find hands were you would like for 4NT to mean something other than what it does by these (or any other) rules.

[1eyedjack]

Sorry folks, another situation relevant to this old thread, with quite a few questions arising:
Uncontested auction starts:
1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 3♣
3♠ - 4N

1: Meaning of 4N here?

My thoughts, running from the previous posts in this thread, are:

2: I think we can dismiss RKCB in ♦. Responder had opportunities to support ♦in a GF capacity below game and chose not to do so (via 4♦ instead of 3♣)

3: Incidentally, would 4♦ instead of 4N, ie AFTER 3♣ have been a cue bid with ♠ as trumps, or would that set ♦ as trumps? My feeling is that it would be a cue bid with ♠, given previous opportunity to bid 4♦ instead of 3♣ if wishing to set ♦ as trumps.

4: Perhaps we can dismiss the 4N in this auction as non-forcing invitation, as he might have made such a bid on the previous round instead of 3♣.

5: That seems to leave RKCB in ♠. But so far opener has not yet cooperated in any slam try, nor am I convinced that a ♠ fit has been agreed. Might opener not bid this way with ♠Kx and ♣xx?

6: How would responder have planned the auction with a 4♠-3♥-2♦-4♣ shape 18 count? Most players use an immediate 2N response as showing 4 card ♥ support, so they would presumably start with a simple change of suit. Playing 2/1 would you start with 2♣ rather than 1♠ in order to establish a GF auction? You know you have a ♥ fit, and starting with 1♠ leaves you with something of a shortage of GF ♥ raises, UNLESS you go through 4th suit, as in the auction at the head of this post. But in the example auction, opener's rebid over 4th suit seems to deny you an opportunity to agree ♥ in a forcing manner.

[mike777]

1) in pick up partnership 4nt=bw rkc for spades
2) in reg partnership....4nt= rkc for spades

wtp?

whatever gain you have playing 4nt to mean something else....I give up. Repeat I give up whatever gain you play 4nt non bw here.

[1eyedjack]

mike777, on Apr 10 2007, 08:26 AM, said:

1) in pick up partnership 4nt=bw rkc for spades
2) in reg partnership....4nt= rkc for spades

wtp?

whatever gain you have playing 4nt to mean something else....I give up. Repeat I give up whatever gain you play 4nt non bw here.

I may accept that there is no problem when you have addressed point numbered 6 in my post.

Having said that, the primary purpose of this entire thread was to identify the logical process that leads to the conclusion that 4NT is or, as the case may be, is not B/W (with whatever suit agreement) in any particular case without having to learn each case (of a population of doubtless thousands of sequences) by rote. If you say that it is rkc for Spades "Because it IS", then this is not really very helpful.

[mike777]

1eyedjack, on Apr 10 2007, 02:34 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 10 2007, 08:26 AM, said:

1) in pick up partnership 4nt=bw rkc for spades
2) in reg partnership....4nt= rkc for spades

wtp?

whatever gain you have playing 4nt to mean something else....I give up. Repeat I give up whatever gain you play 4nt non bw here.

I may accept that there is no problem when you have addressed point numbered 6 in my post.

Having said that, the primary purpose of this entire thread was to identify the logical process that leads to the conclusion that 4NT is or, as the case may be, is not B/W (with whatever suit agreement) in any particular case without having to learn each case (of a population of doubtless thousands of sequences) by rote. If you say that it is rkc for Spades "Because it IS", then this is not really very helpful.

ok pard has agreed spades yes? what is bw if not 4nt? Ya this sounds really stupid simple but even playing Kickback(me)...how do I rkc?...ya i give up a natural
4nt..I agree.


If you want to bitch about 4sf esp this 4sf auction ok ok ok..I agree....4sf sucks esp this auction.....but I bid it and I live with it. I give up natural 4nt.

[mike777]

6: How would responder have planned the auction with a 4♠-3♥-2♦-4♣ shape 18 count? Most players use an immediate 2N response as showing 4 card ♥ support, so they would presumably start with a simple change of suit. Playing 2/1 would you start with 2♣ rather than 1♠ in order to establish


With this hand I start .......2clubs...game force(100%)...not one spade....next question?

1) give partner a junky 11 hcp she should rebid 2s with 5H and 4s, next question?
2) with a really really great 4 clubs and sucky 4s partner rebids 3c with 11 hcp...next question?

[P_Marlowe]

#1 RKCB for spades
#2 agreed, you have 4D to set as trumps
#3 responder could have bid 4D direct instead
of bidding 3C
#4 he can bid 3NT, which is stronger than 3NT
direct (3NT in this seq. should show 15-17/18)
#5 depends, but in my partnership the answer is
No, he has 3D, 3H as answer the default being
3H
#6 4th suit forcing followed by 3H, we have a fit,
and I will set the suit

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 10 2007, 09:02 AM, said:

#6 4th suit forcing followed by 3H, we have a fit,
and I will set the suit

Thanks Marlowe (and Mike777)
Just one problem with the above: 3H is an insufficient bid

[FrancesHinden]

This is a horrible sequence, because unless you play 1H - 1S - 2D - 3H as forcing* you have no easy way to agree any of hearts, spades or diamonds as trumps in a forcing manner over 2D. (It's such a horrible sequence that I have agreed to play specifically 1H - 1S - 2D - 4C as a 3-card slam try in hearts)

On your particular auction, my 4NT rules would say that 4NT is natural, because you haven't agreed a suit.

*(playing SF or F 1NT response to 1H you can bid 1NT on your 3-card invitational heart raise and hence play 3H as forcing here, but not in standard methods, or at least not in standard UK methods!)