[patroclo]

Is there a convention to reply 5 nt to quantitative 4 nt showing a good hand with an ace for knowing if 2 aces are missing.
And 5c or 5d showing minor to decide to play slam in a minor ?

[Cyberyeti]

Assuming no suits bid ie 2N-4N there are at least 2 schemes of responses:

1: If intending to accept, give a blackwood response just to confirm you aren't missing 2 aces

2: 5 of a suit says I have 5 of these but not quite enough to accept, consider P/5N/6suit. We use 5N as midrange and putting the decision back to responder. 6 suit is permissible as an accept with a decent 5 card suit which partner can pass or even raise if particularly suitable.

[Zelandakh]

3. Pass with any minimum; bid 5 of your lowest 4 card suit with a 4432 maximum, or 6 of a 5 card suit with 5332 maximum; bid 6NT with a maximum 4333; bid 5NT with 5♦4♣ and a maximum.

Or more generally:
Pass with any minimum; bid 5 of any suit with extra length with a maximum, or 6 of a very good suit and maximum; bid 6NT with a maximum and nothing else to say; bid 5NT with a maximum and 2 places within the context of the auction.

[gwnn]

I hate playing 5NT as many of the hands on the borderline are '4 or 6NT' hands (or even 3 or 6NT hands but we can't help that). So when in doubt, just pick one of pass and 6NT. 5NT is then acceptance with 4-4 minors or 5-4 even as Zel says above.

5M should probably be a 5-card suit and an acceptance as 6M is a good contract to play in MP's (often it makes an overtrick) and then to keep things simple you should probably keep 5m also as an acceptance.

[aguahombre]

I like Csaba the Hut's ideas. What I don't like is giving pard the opportunity to make the final mistake and getting it thrown back on me. Attempts by opener to suggest suit play are especially wise when we have been quanted after 2NT, because we could have some offbeat distributions.

[HeartA]

What is the meaning of 4♠ over 2NT opening? If we remove 4 level transfer, there would be more room for exploring 4-4 fit at 4 level.

[aguahombre]

HeartA, on 2013-July-05, 14:12, said:

What is the meaning of 4♠ over 2NT opening? If we remove 4 level transfer, there would be more room for exploring 4-4 fit at 4 level.

It is probably an idle bid for nearly everyone, but I guess it shouldn't be. How about someone donating a quantitative scheme with a good use for 4S as part of it.

All I can think of would be 4S as a quant inviting Opener to do something along Gwnn's lines, and 4N not inviting the exploration unless Opener has a 6-bagger.

[Siegmund]

I actually played this with one partner, some years ago -- rebids after 1NT-4S were 4NT with a minimum, otherwise 4-card suits up the line. It was supposed to help us get to 6 of a minor more often. It never quite seemed like a satisfactory solution -- the hands where we could make 6 of a minor but not 6NT were the hands we were stopping in 4NT anyway! -- and we never invested any effort in something better.

[Zelandakh]

HeartA, on 2013-July-05, 14:12, said:

What is the meaning of 4♠ over 2NT opening? If we remove 4 level transfer, there would be more room for exploring 4-4 fit at 4 level.

I play it as a Baron range ask, which frees up the 4NT response for a club transfer (and similarly 5♣ for a diamond transfer). Over 4♠, Opener bids 4NT with a minimum or shows something about their shape with a maximum (as per the previous post). In effect, this is just a continuation of the Texas transfers so is not difficult to remember. An alternative with a nod to Cyberyeti's 5NT continuation is for 4NT to be a minimum raise and 4♠ to be a better raise to 4NT. This is obviously better than committing the partnership to 5NT to show "mid-range".

[gnasher]

I'm surprised that anyone can afford to not use 2NT-4♠ for some purpose.

[Siegmund]

Quote

I'm surprised that anyone can afford to not use 2NT-4♠ for some purpose.

More a matter of lots of people who can't afford to use brain cells to remember a meaning for 2NT-4S, I would think.

[Vampyr]

HeartA, on 2013-July-05, 14:12, said:

What is the meaning of 4♠ over 2NT opening?

We play it as ace-asking (also over 1NT). It has never come up.

For those who use(d) it as Baron -- 2NT-3NT = Baron leaves a lot more room for slam exploration.

[mikl_plkcc]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-15, 19:50, said:

We play it as ace-asking (also over 1NT). It has never come up.

For those who use(d) it as Baron -- 2NT-3NT = Baron leaves a lot more room for slam exploration.

I think it is stupid not using 2NT-3NT as natural. If partner opens 2NT, most frequently you want to play in 3NT.

[Vampyr]

mikl_plkcc, on 2013-July-15, 20:35, said:

I think it is stupid not using 2NT-3NT as natural. If partner opens 2NT, most frequently you want to play in 3NT.

Sure; but is it so important to get there in a single bid?

[mike777]

gnasher, on 2013-July-08, 05:40, said:

I'm surprised that anyone can afford to not use 2NT-4♠ for some purpose.

great point


We use it to promise 4-4 in minors...quantitative....fwiw


Others may have a better use.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-July-08, 05:40, said:

I'm surprised that anyone can afford to not use 2NT-4♠ for some purpose.

I was surprised also, until I realized I was one of them.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-15, 20:38, said:

Sure; but is it so important to get there in a single bid?

Someone (Free?) did some analysis a while back that the possibility of a lead-directing double was enough to make bidding 3NT via a different route a loser. Having multiple (artificial) routes to 3NT (as Frances has posted about) may well offset that. Most of all though, there is a reason why 2NT - 3NT artificial is known as the beer convention. You only have to forget it once to offset some years of the benefit you get from an artificial 3NT. I have played an artificial 3NT response (without forgetting) but I am happy to have found a way to fit it in as natural in my current structure.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-16, 01:28, said:

Someone (Free?) did some analysis a while back that the possibility of a lead-directing double was enough to make bidding 3NT via a different route a loser.

I think I remember this, and I would be interested in seeing the analysis again.

My own experience has been different. My partner and I put our 20-21 hands through Kokish, so we will have mentioned every suit before we get to 2NT. Therefore we don't lose a lot by responder bidding spades again LOL. But anyway we do not seem to have been damaged by the potential for lead-directing doubles.

Quote

Most of all though, there is a reason why 2NT - 3NT artificial is known as the beer convention. You only have to forget it once to offset some years of the benefit you get from an artificial 3NT.

Well, yes and no. I imagine that most times you are still safe in 4NT.

Quote

I have played an artificial 3NT response (without forgetting) but I am happy to have found a way to fit it in as natural in my current structure.

I wish I could do that.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-16, 03:34, said:

My own experience has been different. My partner and I put our 20-21 hands through Kokish, so we will have mentioned every suit before we get to 2NT. Therefore we don't lose a lot by responder bidding spades again LOL. But anyway we do not seem to have been damaged by the potential for lead-directing doubles.

It probably depends on the level you play at. Poor players often forget to make a lead-directing double or their partners do not use the inferences in their OL selection. Well-oiled partnerships might also use the second opportunity to double spades to show one of the remaining suits, hearts say.

Vampyr, on 2013-July-16, 03:34, said:

Well, yes and no. I imagine that most times you are still safe in 4NT.

Only if the subsequent 4NT is natural. The biggest problem comes from 2NT - 3NT - P making 13 tricks though (or with 7m available), assuming that the artificial 3NT response contains slam-going hands.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-16, 03:51, said:

Only if the subsequent 4NT is natural. The biggest problem comes from 2NT - 3NT - P making 13 tricks though (or with 7m available), assuming that the artificial 3NT response contains slam-going hands.

My methods may be crappy, but even I would not play an artificial 3NT that is non-forcing, or deny myself the ability to subside in 4NT.