[Thranduil]

I'm holding ♠KQT8xxx ♥KJ ♦Qxx ♣xx and partner opens 2NT, showing 20-22 balanced in BBO's 2/1 system. If course I am interested in playing a slam in spades with this hand, maybe even in NT. So I transfer to spades with 3♥ and partner follows with 3♠. But what next? I'd like to bid Blackwood (I know that risks getting to a slam with AK missing; with regular face-to-face partnerships of course we've worked out how to bid here), but in BBO's 2/1 system 4NT is defined as quantitative in that situation. And any new suit is defined as showing a 2-suiter. So, how should I continue? Just hope that partner agrees that quantitative is nonsensical here and understands 4NT as Blackwood?

[mycroft]

Start with 4♥ Texas Transfer rather than 3♥.

Standard (and I'm reasonably certain robot 2/1) says that 3-level transfer then 4NT is quantitative with 5 cards in the transfer suit; 4-level transfer then 4NT is Keycard Blackwood (with 6 cards in the suit at least).

Both of those meanings are very useful; having both is one of the three reasons why people play Jacoby and Texas transfers over NT. If you don't yet, you should probably look into it.

[pescetom]

I can't imagine any Standard that defines a new suit after 3-level Jacoby as natural, though. It's particularly odd as GiB 2/1 is loaded with Splinters, even where they make a lot less sense than they would here.

[P_Marlowe]

 Thranduil, on 2024-August-17, 07:06, said:

Just hope that partner agrees that quantitative is nonsensical here and understands 4NT as Blackwood?

Quantitative is not nonsensical, especially, if 2NT showes 20-22, you can discuss the merrits of quant. 4NT,
if 2NT howes 20-21, you will find friends on both side of this discussion, but with 20-22 quant. is sensibale.

It is quite common to play the combo xfer / high xfer to deal with this type of seq.
xfer followed by bidding game is usually played as a slamd invite, without slam interest (or with a slam force),
you use the high transfer.

[pescetom]

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-August-17, 11:35, said:

It is quite common to play the combo xfer / high xfer to deal with this type of seq.
xfer followed by bidding game is usually played as a slamd invite, without slam interest (or with a slam force),
you use the high transfer.

Some top level Italians invert this over 2NT, such that the low road then game is a sign-off and the high road invites continuation.
I never figured out the logic for playing it differently to 1NT, when I found the courage to say so I was told bluntly to "ask Lorenzo" (Lauria)

[Thranduil]

Thanks for the explanations!

Quote

Quantitative is not nonsensical, especially, if 2NT showes 20-22, you can discuss the merrits of quant. 4NT,
if 2NT howes 20-21, you will find friends on both side of this discussion, but with 20-22 quant. is sensibale.

Was a bit harsh here; but I usually would either directly bid a quantitative 4NT if I was interested in an NT game, or use other means including 4NT blackwood to investigate a suit slam. Taking the transfer detour gives information to the opponents they don't need to have and allows them to double the transfer for lead. When would you consider bidding a quantitative NT after an xfer?

[smerriman]

 Thranduil, on 2024-August-17, 13:33, said:

When would you consider bidding a quantitative NT after an xfer?

When you want to play in 6M when he has 3 card support (and accepts the invitation).

[DavidKok]

Quantitative bidding does not mean we are bound for a notrump contract. There is plenty of room between 4NT and 6♣ to investigate one or both minor suits, for example.

[johnu]

 pescetom, on 2024-August-17, 09:39, said:

I can't imagine any Standard that defines a new suit after 3-level Jacoby as natural, though. It's particularly odd as GiB 2/1 is loaded with Splinters, even where they make a lot less sense than they would here.

If a new suit after Jacoby isn't natural, how would you find a fit in a 2nd suit?

[johnu]

 DavidKok, on 2024-August-17, 15:08, said:

Quantitative bidding does not mean we are bound for a notrump contract. There is plenty of room between 4NT and 6♣ to investigate one or both minor suits, for example.

I think you would agree that while you could investigate a contract in a brand new suit past a quantitative 4NT, it's not a great auction as you are pretty much flying blind.

No way to check for aces (unless there's some special bidding tools available), no way to check for suit quality (probably very damaging to your chances if missing the queen of trumps), is 6NT actually better than a minor suit fit, what about the major suit?

There's a lot to do in a short amount of space, and a partnership misunderstanding could be fatal.

[DavidKok]

I do not agree, sorry. I find quantitative slam tries a valuable tool, and the focus on asking aces in particular often misguided.

[nullve]

 Thranduil, on 2024-August-17, 07:06, said:

partner opens 2NT, showing 20-22 balanced in BBO's 2/1 system

No, 20-21.

[mycroft]

As I said in my first reply, 2NT-3♥; 3♠-4NT is quantitative with 5 (exactly) spades. Partner is expected to bid 6♠ if they are accepting the invitation with 3+ spades (and opener might upgrade their 2NT opener because of the 9-card fit, provided they have the aces) or 6NT without 3 card support. Partner is also expected to correct to 5♠ with a hand that will not accept the invitation, but has spade support.

The "but NT scores better at MPs" doesn't apply to these quantitative auctions as much (and even less so at IMPs) because there are no "extras" in this auction (either on an accept or a reject, frankly) - but the number of times the major trump fit plays one trick better wins over the +10 points when both slams make (or 4NT+1 vs 5♠=).

We are willing to give up the information that dummy will drop with 5 spades (and, when in NT, that the spades are 5-2 exactly) (and, rarely, allowing the defence to double for a heart lead) for the advantage of playing in the trump suit when it is right. It pays in the long run.

[P_Marlowe]

Thranduil, on 2024-August-17, 13:33, said:

Thanks for the explanations!



Was a bit harsh here; but I usually would either directly bid a quantitative 4NT if I was interested in an NT game, or use other means including 4NT blackwood to investigate a suit slam. Taking the transfer detour gives information to the opponents they don't need to have and allows them to double the transfer for lead. When would you consider bidding a quantitative NT after an xfer?

It is also quite common to answer Ace asking (if you want, based on the known 5 card suit), if the NT opener accepts the invite.

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2024-August-17, 15:37, said:

If a new suit after Jacoby isn't natural, how would you find a fit in a 2nd suit?

I agree that a new suit natural after Jacoby is a simple and effective agreement over 1NT, so long as it is game forcing: now a a simple raise below game in either suit fixes trumps and invites a control-bid if responder has even mild slam interest (as we could just have bid some game to discourage).
But that pretty much falls to pieces over 2NT, as we are a whole level higher and also opposite 2NT where wrongsiding to play in our secondary minor will likely cost a trick.
To only slightly misquote yourself: I think you would agree that while you could investigate a contract in a brand new minor suit of responder at 4 level (without opener having even denied the probable fit in your primary major suit), it's not a great auction as you are pretty much flying blind.
If you really want responder to show shape at all costs then secondary transfers will allow a more sensible auction, but that is a lot of complication for a low frequency auction where responder's major or NT are usually the right place to be.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2024-August-18, 14:30, said:

But that pretty much falls to pieces over 2NT, as we are a whole level higher and also opposite 2NT where wrongsiding to play in our secondary minor will likely cost a trick.

It's good enough for Bridge World Standard, Kit Woolsey, and many others.. I would hardly say it falls to pieces.

[johnu]

DavidKok, on 2024-August-17, 16:13, said:

I do not agree, sorry. I find quantitative slam tries a valuable tool, and the focus on asking aces in particular often misguided.

Unless in a very serious long term partnership, I would just play optional keycard over the quantitative 4NT if accepting the slam try. This will keep you out of slam missing 2 aces which obviously is not good, or 1 ace and the transfer suit king which will usually make a slam no better than 50%, or missing an ace, and the queen of the transfer suit which means your longest suit is not solid. This is simple, employs a well known set of responses, and should have a very low chance of a partnership misunderstanding.

I'll forego trying to find a new trump fit starting at the 5 level, especially since responder didn't try to find a different trump fit at the 4 level. In theory opener can try to find a new fit at the 6 level by just jumping to that suit over the invitational 4NT.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2024-August-18, 14:30, said:

I agree that a new suit natural after Jacoby is a simple and effective agreement over 1NT, so long as it is game forcing: now a a simple raise below game in either suit fixes trumps and invites a control-bid if responder has even mild slam interest (as we could just have bid some game to discourage).
But that pretty much falls to pieces over 2NT, as we are a whole level higher and also opposite 2NT where wrongsiding to play in our secondary minor will likely cost a trick.
To only slightly misquote yourself: I think you would agree that while you could investigate a contract in a brand new minor suit of responder at 4 level (without opener having even denied the probable fit in your primary major suit), it's not a great auction as you are pretty much flying blind.
If you really want responder to show shape at all costs then secondary transfers will allow a more sensible auction, but that is a lot of complication for a low frequency auction where responder's major or NT are usually the right place to be.

Sometimes responder has a 2 suited hand and playing in a suit contract looks better than NT. As far as wrong siding "will likely cost a trick", that assumes there is a damaging lead, that it will be led, and that good declarer play can't overcome the good lead. Even with a wrong sided lead, a suit contract may still play better than a right sided 6NT.

As far as finding a new suit starting at the 4 level, I'm surprised you didn't comment about DavidKok's post where he suggests looking for a new suit fit starting at the 5 level. What's better, looking for a fit at the 4 level, or the 5 level?

I do agree with you about secondary transfers, but that's a different topic.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-August-18, 15:17, said:

It's good enough for Bridge World Standard, Kit Woolsey, and many others.. I would hardly say it falls to pieces.

BWS is a great resource, but no Bible.
I often disagree with Kit and this is one more occasion. I rarely disagree with Andy Bowles or Frances Hinden and I was comforted to note that the former seemed uncomfortable with the consequences of these natural agreements and the latter had given them up like me.
To each his own I guess.

[smerriman]

No doubt there are alternatives. But if you ran a poll about what was standard (which you said you couldn't imagine this being), I would be shocked if natural wasn't near unanimous.