[paulsim]

Hi,

1NT 2S
3C 4NT?

Playing 4-Ways transfer or just 2S as club transfer.

Nothing more about agreed

What is supposed to be the default meaning?

Quantitative or ace asking?

Thanks all

Kind Regards,
PaulS

[helene_t]

I would think quanti, just like after a major suit transfer. No reason why it would be different.

[P_Marlowe]

RKCB, but two question come to mind:

If you want to go quantitative, why use xfer? Focusing on club values?

On the other hand, what is wrong with raising 3C to 4C?

On reflection, quatitative makes more sense, but I needed to reflect, so
RKCB it is.

[DavidKok]

Any new suit bid would have been an advance cue for clubs, establishing interest in 6♣ opposite opener's transfer accept. In my partnership 4NT is never key cards if there was a way to confirm the trump suit with a forcing bid at a lower level. So this would be quantitative.

[mw64ahw]

Is 3♣ is a super-accept or not?

[paulsim]

Assuming we dont know if 3c is super accept.

Im aware there are better sequences to ask for aces or just invite, but you are at the table with a pick up parner.

What should I think 4NT is from general knowledge?

[DavidKok]

A mistake.

[steve2005]

Kickback (4♦) or Minorwood (4♣) would be a better Keycard asking bid in terms of bidding space.

[pescetom]

steve2005, on 2022-February-17, 07:15, said:

Kickback (4♦) or Minorwood (4♣) would be a better Keycard asking bid in terms of bidding space.

Yes, but neither is a good idea to bid with a pickup partner.
Minorwood is a minority treatment here (and not great IMO).
Kickback is fine, but it is far from obvious partner will assume that meaning (and even if he does, it is far from obvious he would assume the same meaning for 4♥ after a diamonds transfer).

You can't be certain if the initial transfer completion was a like or dislike, come to that. This stuff is not really standardised and most people's minor suit slam bidding is a SNAFU anyway. The bottom line is probably that with a pickup partner you should just jump to minor slam whenever it looks likely.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2022-February-17, 04:13, said:

Any new suit bid would have been an advance cue for clubs

I think for most regular partnerships it would explicitly be a splinter: in any case such (minor) divergences are inevitable between partnerships, just emphasising that playing with a pickup partner and no open book makes it guesswork or little better in less frequent situations like this.

[mikeh]

paulsim, on 2022-February-17, 05:07, said:

Assuming we dont know if 3c is super accept.

Im aware there are better sequences to ask for aces or just invite, but you are at the table with a pick up parner.

What should I think 4NT is from general knowledge?

Depends on your estimate of your partner’s skill/knowledge level,is, and what you think he thinks yours is.

For many novice or intermediate players they have never met a 4N bid that wasn’t asking for aces or keycards

For all experts, 4N is quantitative… ok, one should rarely say ‘all’ but this has to be close.

For inbetweeners , flip a coin, but I’d go with quantitative because if you go keycard and it wasn’t, partner’s opinion of and trust in you will be diminished while if it keycard, you now know which group he is in (or thought you were in)

[paulsim]

Ty all

It's clear that better methods and discussion os needed. But I wondered if there wad a standard meaning.

Mainly, my concern is this, a part from anywood would be better.

If jacoby transfer and 4NT is Quantative, or should be because fit is not established

If texas transfer and 4Nt is RKC because the suit is 6+, the fit is assumed established

If minor transfer and 3NT is kind of invitation to slam

Then after minor transfer and 4NT, someone could argue that fit is implicity established, so it is ace asking.

Apart from 4nt is not a good tool to ask for aces when it is a minor

What would be the focus with:

1nt 2p
3c 3n slam invitational

1nt 2p
3c 4n slam invitational

Maybe suit quality? Mild interest? Perfect hand? Controls?

What do you think shoud be the main factors if both sequences are fine to have on the book?

[DavidKok]

Since transfers to a minor have an extra step below the suit bid, it is common to use that to split opener's hand by suitability for the minor suit in some way. With such an agreement a quantitative slam try asks more about quality of the points (aces and kings are good, quacks are not) than the strength. That being said, 4NT is almost a ridiculous bid to explore slam if you already have information about opener's strength, regardless of meaning.

As I understand the auction, the meaning of the bids are as follows:
1NT-2♠; 2NT (positive)-3NT: compels opener to pass, no slam aspirations.
1NT-2♠; 3♣-3NT: in my partnership this also compels opener to pass, responder was apparently looking for good support for a thin slam. Other pairs might play this as a choice of games between 3NT and 5♣.
1NT-2♠; 2NT (positive)-4NT: does not exist, we don't jump two levels on constructive auctions. If you put a gun to my head I'll venture that it is a NF quantitative slam try where responder needs to find partner with a perfect maximum without being interested in the number of keycards - say, good four-card support and all quacks working.
1NT-2♠; 3♣-4NT: a quantitative slam try with a good club suit.

[fromageGB]

Obviously ace asking. If it was quantitative, what was the point of the transfer?