Join Bridge Winners
4NT after partner has denied any Ace or King

Among the many methods of responding to a strong, artificial 2 opening, the most popular in my area seems to be 2 denying an Ace or King; some allow a 2 response on two Queens. This avoids the need for a "wandering" negative on the next round: 3 over 2 or 2, but 3 over 3 and either 3 or no defined negative over opener's 3 rebid. The obvious disadvantage comes when opener has not quite game forcing values with long hearts; but opener knows that going in and can choose to open 1, open 2 and rebid 2NT, or open 2 and force to game anyway.

So take a look at Board 2 from Friday morning's Common Game: https://tcgcloud.bridgefinesse.com/Results/20200207Rank.html

North
Q94
2
Q7
QJ86542
South
A
AJ10864
A3
AK109
W
N
E
S
P
2
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
?

North debated giving an immediate 3 positive but it would be no surprise if opener overbid expecting better controls. South, having perhaps overbid with 2 and the game-forcing 3, settled for 5. North chose not to gamble on four key cards. Five clubs, making seven.

Afterwards, it occurred to me that opener has no need for an "asking" 4NT -- the known answer will be zero, and if you play "1430", it may well be above your last making contract. 4NT natural is a possibility, but opener's choice of 3 rather than 2NT or 3NT makes that somewhat unlikely, though perhaps opener was short in clubs.

If 4NT is any sort of slam move, it must logically promise at least four Key cards. And so that's the point here -- if you play a method where responder's lack of key cards is already known, opener's slam try should be telling, not asking.

2-2; 3-4; 4NT "I have at least four Key cards for clubs"-6 . Does anyone have such an agreement?

26 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top