[Valardent]

What is the standard meaning of 4NT in the following sequence?

Imps
What is 4NT for?

---

Do you have any agreement about such sequences?

I'll post both hands later on.

[helene_t]

RKC for the last bid suit, in general. But ... here it is unlikely that we have a spade fit, and 3♠ sounds more like a notrump probe. If we use 4NT as RKC for clubs in other situations, I would take it that way. If we never use 4NT for clubs, I would take it as RKC for hearts.

[mich-b]

Usually "RKCB for the last suit" is a rule that works well enough , but serious partnerships may agree that in a "strong and constructive" auction, when the bidding has reached the 3 level, and no fit was found (and perhaps there is a way to "strongly agree" the last bid suit , like 4♦ here) then 4NT is natural and invitational to slam.

[Valardent]

mich-b, on 2011-December-05, 03:54, said:

Usually "RKCB for the last suit" is a rule that works well enough , but serious partnerships may agree that in a "strong and constructive" auction, when the bidding has reached the 3 level, and no fit was found (and perhaps there is a way to "strongly agree" the last bid suit , like 4♦ here) then 4NT is natural and invitational to slam.

This is more or less what I preach p to agree upon. So with
♠QJ8x ♥10 ♦A9x ♣KQ109x (X instead of 3♣ is more flexible but one looses the ♣suit)

I decided to pass.

Fortunately, RHO opp did not find the ♦K lead, p holding :

♠AKx ♥KQJ98xx ♦Q ♣xx

[Flameous]

I would assume here that we can't be playing in spades. (Opener didn't bid them and responder didn't use negative X)
Thus if I were really on the same page with partner, I'd assume 4♦ to be slammish with hearts and 4♣ slammish with clubs.
This leaves 4NT as natural.
However I wouldn't be surprised if it was taken as RKC for hearts.

[Mbodell]

Was 3♣ game forcing? If not was 3♥ forcing? If 3♥ was forcing then natural slam try sounds right to me. If 3♥ was not forcing then it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[whereagles]

I have a meta-rule that RKCB is for the last suit bid, except if bidder already showed a 6+ card suit, in which case that's the trump suit. Here it would be hearts. Without agreement I'd take it to be spades.

[JLOGIC]

3S is not even natural imo. It is a normal bid with no diamond stopper and no heart fit.

[Free]

Natural with extras

[lowerline]

Valardent, on 2011-December-05, 04:19, said:

This is more or less what I preach p to agree upon. So with
♠QJ8x ♥10 ♦A9x ♣KQ109x (X instead of 3♣ is more flexible but one looses the ♣suit)

I decided to pass.

Fortunately, RHO opp did not find the ♦K lead, p holding :

♠AKx ♥KQJ98xx ♦Q ♣xx

Why didn't you double with that hand?

Steven

[Valardent]

lowerline, on 2011-December-09, 02:33, said:

Why didn't you double with that hand?

Steven

Hi Steven,

Since I decided to force to game (which is not that clear), 3♣ was an alternative.

There are certainly pro- and contre- for both options and a debate would be interesting.

Facing this kind of choice, to make a natural bid giving you a chance to bid out your shape or make a take out double, I much prefer the 1st option if most of the possible subsequent sequences are "copable".

Bidding 3♠ on 3♥ (which I think denies 4♠) should not promise 4♠ but should not deny it either, giving p a chance to bid 3NT.

Had p bid 3♦, 3♠ followed by 3NT would also show some tolerance for 3NT (in both cases, right-siding it).

On a X, p's most frequent response would be 2♥. Now what? 3♣ does not force, so 3♦ is the only choice. If p can't bid NT, choosing between 3NT (should be out of picture), 4M and 5♣ won't be easy.