[johnu]

pescetom, on 2022-October-28, 14:16, said:

In my experience Novice/intermediate are usually desperate to check for Aces and Kings here, Advanced are not. There are reasons why experts deride use of Gerber with two balanced hands. When was the last time in a similar situation you avoided a slam that others bid quantitatively and lost ?

In any case, Novice beginners deserve advice that is appropriate to their level. Quantitative bidding is effective and simple and under used, to be encouraged IMHO.

If the only question is to bid 6NT if you aren't missing 2 aces, then why wouldn't you check for aces? Players are rightly criticized if they don't know whether to bid a slam, and ask for aces because they don't know what else to do. Deciding to only bid 6 if you aren't missing 2 aces is an entirely different situation. You will forever be at the novice/intermediate level if you don't learn how to distinguish the 2 situations.

BTW, I think quantitative Blackwood is perfectly OK.

---

[mikeh]

johnu, on 2022-October-28, 13:39, said:

At the basic level, you frequently won't know whether you have 32 or 33 HCP. Checking for controls when you can (aces in this case) is trivial and not checking when you are missing 2 aces will just make you look silly.

Sure, if you want to remain at the novice/beginner level in evaluating hands then don't bother checking for controls. Looking at old bridge books and world championships from the Goren area, in general, novice/beginners play a much more complicated/artificial system than many of those world champions from the very distant past who played very simple natural systems (and frequently changed partners).

I guess I’m still at the novice/beginner level then. In my partnerships, we often (often is not the same as frequently or mostly…it’s shorthand, here, for ‘more than rarely’) use quantitative bidding once one player shows a strong balanced hand

And we definitely don’t show aces in response to a quantitative 4N. If we do bid a suit at the 5-level, it’s suggesting that maybe we can go to slam in that suit, as opposed to in notrump.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2022-October-28, 18:27, said:

I guess I’m still at the novice/beginner level then. In my partnerships, we often (often is not the same as frequently or mostly…it’s shorthand, here, for ‘more than rarely’) use quantitative bidding once one player shows a strong balanced hand

And we definitely don’t show aces in response to a quantitative 4N. If we do bid a suit at the 5-level, it’s suggesting that maybe we can go to slam in that suit, as opposed to in notrump.

Kelsey gave the following rationale for treating quantitative 4NT as non-forcing Blackwood: "Acceptance" shouldn't be a matter of how many extra jacks you have. Opener should want to accept with a minimum made of of aces and kings, plus queens accompanied with a higher honor. But that could leave two aces missing. So with a control-rich hand that is not a numerical maximum, opener should make the aces reply. And then partner signs off at 5NT if aces are missing.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2022-October-28, 18:27, said:

I guess I’m still at the novice/beginner level then. In my partnerships, we often (often is not the same as frequently or mostly…it’s shorthand, here, for ‘more than rarely’) use quantitative bidding once one player shows a strong balanced hand

And we definitely don’t show aces in response to a quantitative 4N. If we do bid a suit at the 5-level, it’s suggesting that maybe we can go to slam in that suit, as opposed to in notrump.

Kelsey gave the following rationale for treating quantitative 4NT as non-forcing Blackwood: "Acceptance" shouldn't be a matter of how many extra jacks you have. Opener should want to accept with a minimum made of of aces and kings, plus queens accompanying a higher honor. But that could leave two aces missing. So with a control-rich hand that is not a numerical maximum, opener should make the aces reply. And then partner signs off at 5NT if aces are missing.

[mikeh]

I’m well aware of the rationale behind responding to a quantitative 4N as if it were simple Blackwood. I merely happen to think that such is a sub-optimal usage

I’ve played a fair amount of bridge, including at least 6 world championship events, I’ve never regretted not playing that method. The one time it would have been useful was at a sectional tournament in 1986. Playing with a partner I’d never played with before, we had a quantitative auction where in fact I had shown 22-24 but had, iirc, 27. So when partner bid 4N quantitative I bid 7N😀

The good news was the opening leader didn’t have the missing ace. The also good news was that his partner didn’t double. The bad news was that I didn’t have 13 tricks.

My LHO, much older than I was, gently told me that we’d have avoided this terrible result had I shown my Aces

We won 3 imps when the auction was duplicated at the other table, when my teammate doubled with his Ace.

Other than that, I’ve never over-reached to a slam off two quick tricks.

The point about wanting to hold aces and kings when deciding whether to invite is valid. Of course it applies to the inviter as well. No good player treats high cards according to a strict version of the 4321 count. I’ve written many times on how I evaluate hands, and I’m lucky enough usually to be playing with peers who, I’m sure, use very similar valuation principles.

[sfi]

johnu, on 2022-October-28, 17:42, said:

BTW, I think quantitative Blackwood is perfectly OK.

I agree with Mike - there are better uses for responses to an invitational 4NT. My experience is that we gain a fair bit when we find a fit and play the better minor-suit slam on marginal values, and I can't remember the last time I've missed not having an ace-asking bid in these situations. None of my serious partnerships have Gerber either - we use 1NT-4C as hearts so we can choose which side should declare.

For what it's worth, my current preferred treatment over something like 1NT-4NT is that opener can accept and show 5-card suits at the 5-level, 6-card suits at the 6-level, and bid 5NT to ask for 4-card suits up the line.

[johnu]

mikeh, on 2022-October-28, 20:42, said:

I’m well aware of the rationale behind responding to a quantitative 4N as if it were simple Blackwood. I merely happen to think that such is a sub-optimal usage

In a "simple" partnership, what do you suggest is more optimal than responding Blackwood if you are otherwise accepting the invitation (if you are "certain" you aren't missing 2 aces, you can just bid slam), and passing if you are declining the invitation??? So, you are suggesting that it is optimal trying to find a suit fit starting at the 5 level, but then you risk getting to say a 4-4 or 5-3 trump fit with Kxxxx opposite Axx with a certain trump loser. You could try to define suit quality to avoid this, but now you are getting way out of the simple range.

There's also the question of whether a suit slam actually is better than 6NT. Scoring wise, even at IMPs 6NT wins 2 IMPs over a minor suit slam if both make, and at matchpoints a making 6NT is a lot better. Sure, sometimes you can get an extra ruffing trick in a suit contract that makes a suit contract better, or maybe trump control is a key. But a suit contract could go down because you have poor trumps for slam and have to lose an unexpected trick in trumps, or maybe you get a bad trump break, or a ruff. And then there are the results from Rosenkranz's research that the biggest advantage of a suit slam is at the low end of the HCP range, e.g. 31-32 HCP, which will usually happen when opener is at the lower end for a NT opener so more likely to decline an invitational 4NT. And the reason for CONFI was determining if the partnership has 10+ controls, since otherwise, small slam was usually a 50% finesse at best.

So, is quantitative Blackwood sub-optimal? Yes, but it has the big advantage of being simple and easily understood, and doesn't take a lot of partnership discussion.

Is looking for a suit fit at the 5 level optimal? I would say a qualified yes if both partners have excellent judgement, and are on the same page about expected suit quality and hand strength, i.e. exactly when do you pass 4NT, when do you look for a trump fit, and when do you just accept 6NT. If the partner's aren't on the same page, then I would say probably no.

[johnu]

mikeh, on 2022-October-28, 18:27, said:

I guess I’m still at the novice/beginner level then. In my partnerships, we often (often is not the same as frequently or mostly…it’s shorthand, here, for ‘more than rarely’) use quantitative bidding once one player shows a strong balanced hand

That's absolutely not what was suggested. That comment was about what happens after one partner makes a quantitative bid.

The CONFI convention I brought up earlier is both quantitative, finds out about controls, and looks for suit fits without a 3rd round loser.

[DavidKok]

I show extra shape with a positive hand. A response at the 5-level shows extra length in the suit compared to what I've shown thus far (an unbid 4-card suit, or an extra piece in a suit I have already shown) while a response at the 6-level shows even more extra length (for example, a 5-card suit in a balanced hand, or two extra pieces in a suit I have already bid). A 5NT response is pick-a-slam, accepting the slam try but showing doubt about 6NT without having extra length to show - for example suggesting we play in a 5-3 minor suit fit that partner is aware of but discounted. If none of the above apply and I want to accept I bid 6NT. I also use quantitative 4NT on many more auctions than most - as a rule of thumb, most jumps to 4NT are quantitative for me.

My sympathies mikeh, suggesting to people that they overuse their scientific ace asking gadgets never goes well, especially in light of the subforum.

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2022-October-28, 17:42, said:

If the only question is to bid 6NT if you aren't missing 2 aces, then why wouldn't you check for aces?

Primarily because I do not believe that the frequency of being off 2 aces with 32 HCP justifies worrying about it (just how frequent do you think this is? My playing experience and mathematical instinct both say very low indeed).
But also because the risks inherent in a check (lead directing double opportunities, agreement forgets, miscounts) although small still exceed the possible advantages, at a level of bidding where a mistake or over-cautious decision may cost the tournament.
And this at any level of play, let alone Novice/Beginner.

johnu, on 2022-October-29, 02:57, said:

The CONFI convention I brought up earlier is both quantitative, finds out about controls, and looks for suit fits without a 3rd round loser.

Your argument that we should check controls to ensure we are not off an A and K makes more sense to me, both because of a higher frequency than two Aces (even if still low) and the K finesse risk. But I am still not convinced one should stay out of such slams, even at MP. It would be interesting to analyse some homogeneous database (say Bermuda Bowl, although they are better at bringing home 6NT than most) and see what the statistics say, if anyone is up to that (simulations based upon double dummy would be of limited use here, and BBO turned off the trick calculating Dealer anyway).

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2022-October-31, 11:50, said:

But also because the risks inherent in a check (lead directing double opportunities, agreement forgets, miscounts) although small still exceed the possible advantages, at a level of bidding where a mistake or over-cautious decision may cost the tournament.
And this at any level of play, let alone Novice/Beginner.

In the given sequence 1NT - 4NT, or maybe 2NT - 4NT, the NT bidder is making the response so there are no additional lead directing double opportunities for the defense (and a subsequent 5NT by 4NT bidder should be to play since a grand is off the table after an invitational 4NT). While agreement forgets and miscounts are always possibilities and always in the background, can you really implement a system where you super oversimplify your system mainly based on partner making a mistake or miscounting controls? Where do you draw the line? Maybe if partner makes the same mistake/misbid several times? At some point, you have to trust partner to remember the system and to not misbid. Blackwood isn't exactly rocket science compared to some popular conventions that are much more complicated and hard to remember.

Talking about rocket science, looking for a suit fit starting at the 5 level is rocket science by comparison. When do you pass 4NT and when do you look for a suit fit and when do you just bid 6NT? When do you decide on a suit slam instead of 6NT or stopping below slam? What suits are suitable for bidding at the 5 level? What support is suitable for raising to slam? Yes, it is simplistically easy to say we can bid suits after 4NT and magically arrive at the correct contract.

Keeping in mind that this is the novice/beginner forum. Anybody care to take a crack at explaining the subsequent bidding after 4NT when opener bids a suit besides just trying to find a fit and hoping for the best? And remember this is for novice/beginners whose judgement is still in the development stage and who many forget bids and miscount various things more frequently than better and more experienced players.

[pescetom]

Blackwood isn't rocket science, but is prone to misunderstandings at lower levels. They should trust partner all the same when the convention is necessary but avoid it when the gains are extremely infrequent (still waiting for your idea of frequency) at best.

johnu, on 2022-October-31, 16:56, said:

Talking about rocket science, looking for a suit fit starting at the 5 level is rocket science by comparison. When do you pass 4NT and when do you look for a suit fit and when do you just bid 6NT? When do you decide on a suit slam instead of 6NT or stopping below slam? What suits are suitable for bidding at the 5 level? What support is suitable for raising to slam? Yes, it is simplistically easy to say we can bid suits after 4NT and magically arrive at the correct contract.

Keeping in mind that this is the novice/beginner forum. Anybody care to take a crack at explaining the subsequent bidding after 4NT when opener bids a suit besides just trying to find a fit and hoping for the best? And remember this is for novice/beginners whose judgement is still in the development stage and who many forget bids and miscount various things more frequently than better and more experienced players.

This is a straw man argument as far as my posts are concerned.
I never mentioned or discussed any subsequent bidding that is not purely quantitative (pass or 6NT), nor would I suggest it to Novice beginners.
Once they get past that level it should be natural for a good pair to start discussing what a suit bid would mean and how to continue, but that's for another forum.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2022-November-01, 03:43, said:

This is a straw man argument as far as my posts are concerned.
I never mentioned or discussed any subsequent bidding that is not purely quantitative (pass or 6NT), nor would I suggest it to Novice beginners.
Once they get past that level it should be natural for a good pair to start discussing what a suit bid would mean and how to continue, but that's for another forum.

Sorry, this wasn't so much directed at you as to others who advocated looking for a suit at the 5 level for those in the novice/beginner levels.

[thepossum]

I found this an interesting hand recently, in light of the above conversation.

Sadly I didn't go with my instincts and went Quant

---

We are playing some variant of Acol. You don't have Gerber

Sorry its MPs

[jillybean]

Tricky, I will start with a transfer to spades.

1nt 2♥
2♠ 3♣

[thepossum]

jillybean, on 2022-November-02, 15:20, said:

Tricky, I will start with a transfer to spades.

1nt 2♥
2♠ 3♣

Maybe a decent start. It is MPs though

But I can't really offer advice on how to best bid it

You will get 3S next which means 3-5 spades and maximum

[jillybean]

thepossum, on 2022-November-02, 15:39, said:

You will get 3S next which means 3-5 spades and maximum

Change your system

[nullve]

1N-2♥*
2♠-4N**

* transfer to spades
** quantitative, usually 5♠(332)

[thepossum]

jillybean, on 2022-November-02, 18:39, said:

Change your system

OK what system do you want me to tell you the next bid in
You will get a forcing bid in spades after a weak NT

[thepossum]

nullve, on 2022-November-02, 18:59, said:

1N-2♥*
2♠-4N**

* transfer to spades
** quantitative, usually 5♠(332)

You will probably get a pass with a Quant - depending on your partner and how they value their hand of course They may head to a slam but who knows

You will get two key cards with Blackwood