If your partner is any good 4NT is safe as quant, even though some responses here are very confused.
When you have a 2-suiter 3M is better as two-suiter. When you a single suiter with shortness it is better as shortness.
Gallup Poll
#21
Posted 2010-November-16, 10:28
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#23
Posted 2010-November-16, 13:27
han, on 2010-November-16, 10:28, said:
If your partner is any good 4NT is safe as quant, even though some responses here are very confused.
I guess "good" is relative.
han said:
When you have a 2-suiter 3M is better as two-suiter. When you a single suiter with shortness it is better as shortness.
I'll bite, single suiter is when I take the 3♠ card with my left hand, and second suit is when I use my right hand?
"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." MikeH
#24
Posted 2010-November-16, 15:31
The quants are clearly outvoting me but I don't get it. I should look at my diamond holding and bid 6 if I have the Jack and pass if I have the ten?
If 4NT is passable rather than ace asking, I would think it would be something such as: Please look at your cards and see if you have help in the black suits. If you do, and if you have an ace in the reds, please bid it. If you have a lot of minor honor stuff in the reds, maybe NT is right. If your red suits are shaking we may want to play this game in a suit, you choose.
Perhaps this might be called "extended quantitative".
I voted blackwood because I cannot imagine that my points in red quacks matter in deciding on slam. But I think I like the extended quant interpretation, aka invitational, best.
If 4NT is passable rather than ace asking, I would think it would be something such as: Please look at your cards and see if you have help in the black suits. If you do, and if you have an ace in the reds, please bid it. If you have a lot of minor honor stuff in the reds, maybe NT is right. If your red suits are shaking we may want to play this game in a suit, you choose.
Perhaps this might be called "extended quantitative".
I voted blackwood because I cannot imagine that my points in red quacks matter in deciding on slam. But I think I like the extended quant interpretation, aka invitational, best.
Ken
#25
Posted 2010-November-16, 16:01
any quantitative bid asks "in the context of the auction so far, I think we might have slam. do you think we have slam?"
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#26
Posted 2010-November-16, 16:39
If you wanna show shortness for slam you can bid it at the 4 level.
I think those advocating this cannot be quantitative have a narrow mind, when we bid 2NT all we knew is partner had 3+ clubs, now we have to make a decision knowing 4 spades, 5 clubs and around 18-19 HCP, we have a lot to reevaluate.
I think those advocating this cannot be quantitative have a narrow mind, when we bid 2NT all we knew is partner had 3+ clubs, now we have to make a decision knowing 4 spades, 5 clubs and around 18-19 HCP, we have a lot to reevaluate.
#27
Posted 2010-November-16, 19:41
6 ace Black. I disagree that a 2 point range means it can't be quant (what is 1C P 1S P 2NT P 4NT?) but since opener has shown a big 2 suiter it's more likely that he/she needs controls rather than general strength. I think this is clear cut.