[DanG4503]

Again Ben's 4NT quantitative response..

---

In my opinion Ben's response @ 4NT is a clear - "PASS".
This ambiguity with 4NT (quantitative) - 5X (RKGB response) has to be corrected!!!
Fortunately there was no queen in Ben's hand but if it was, which queen?

Dan G.

[HardVector]

I'm confused. The 4n bid is not quantitative. The 1n opening bid is limited, and their partner bid 3n, signing off in game, stating that slam is NOT on the table. Opener now bidding 4n is some kind of punt stating that they lied by opening 1n, so responder gave keycards stating that they have no idea where opener is going.

The first rule that I tell people when I teach opening nt, is that once you open 1n or 2n, your PARTNER is in charge of the auction. They say, you do, end of discussion.

[pescetom]

HardVector, on 2025-December-21, 14:45, said:

I'm confused. The 4n bid is not quantitative. The 1n opening bid is limited, and their partner bid 3n, signing off in game, stating that slam is NOT on the table. Opener now bidding 4n is some kind of punt stating that they lied by opening 1n, so responder gave keycards stating that they have no idea where opener is going.

The 4N bid is quantitative, but says "I underbid, you guess how much".
Which is no excuse for the RKCB drivel or the fact the keycards explanation does not specify trumps.

HardVector, on 2025-December-21, 14:45, said:

The first rule that I tell people when I teach opening nt, is that once you open 1n or 2n, your PARTNER is in charge of the auction. They say, you do, end of discussion.

Only up to a point. A good strong NT subsystem has Responder describing his hand (in transfer when possible) and a dialogue to decide the right contract.

[johnu]

4NT is one of those impossible bids that are totally non-systemic. Basically, there is no system when South makes an impossible 4NT bid. Congratulations, you broke Ben.

[pescetom]

My system when partner makes a non-systemic bid is "Pass".
Might not go down well with paying clients, admittedly.

[Huibertus]

4NT means: "I misclicked, either when I bid 1NT or now when I bid 4NT. If you can't figure it out, you are a bad bridge player."

[HardVector]

pescetom, on 2025-December-22, 03:21, said:

My system when partner makes a non-systemic bid is "Pass".
Might not go down well with paying clients, admittedly.

Interesting. The first thing that my expert mentor taught me when I was learning, was that unusual bids that I wasn't sure of the meaning of were always forcing.

[DanG4503]

The raised problem is not with a particular card layout but with the bidding explanations since (we were told) Ben is using GIB bidding explanations!
So in similar situations is "4NT quantitative" question or should should we avoid it altogether ?

Thanks for replays, Dan

[pescetom]

HardVector, on 2025-December-22, 11:17, said:

Interesting. The first thing that my expert mentor taught me when I was learning, was that unusual bids that I wasn't sure of the meaning of were always forcing.

That leads to a style of bidding (and mentoring) which I think is unproductive at best. Learners need to recognise things they were already taught and make the appropriate bid, not get the idea that it is normal to wing it without being able to explain the auction and let partner mastermind to the best score (if the Director doesn't take it away for misleading explanation, causing yet more discomfort to beginner).
I try not to surprise a diligent learner with an unknown convention when mentoring and I apologise if I do. Instead I'll say at the end of the hand "do you think it would have been useful if I had had a way to show you both my 5 card suits on the first round?", and if there is a gleam of interest then we are ready for Michaels.

It's not that different with a regular partner either, except that we are on the same footing. Its still useful to have a bottom to remind us that something needs discussion on board 17. About the only situation I will bid on and hope is when we are in a serious tournament where the result matters more than clarity of agreements.

Probably not mainstream thinking, agreed.