[kgr]

playing SAYC with pickup partner how do you interprete 4NT - quantitative or aces?
1)
1NT-(P)-2♣-(2♥)
P-(P)-4NT
2)
1NT-(P)-2♣-(2♥)
P-(3♥)-4NT
3)
1NT-(2♥)-4NT
(My partner learned me today that this is always ace asking after opps intervention)

[plaur]

Having agreed SAYC I would say quant all 3

[temp3600]

All three quantitative.

[pigpenz]

sort of back to the previous thread on gerber, we could have asked for aces initially with 4♣

[cherdano]

It should be quantitative, but I would expect a pickup partner to mean it as ace asking.

Arend

[inquiry]

none are asking for aces

[EricK]

cherdano, on Jan 22 2006, 06:34 PM, said:

It should be quantitative, but I would expect a pickup partner to mean it as ace asking.

Arend

This makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy though. If he thinks you will read it as Aces he won't bid it when he has a quantitative hand. Nor will you for that matter.

I would read as as quantitative whoever bid it (unless we had a specific agreement that it was Aces, of course). I would rather go wrong by assuming a pick-up partner is a good player than by assuming he doesn't know how to bid. After playing a few hands, I might switch to assuming he can't bid

[cherdano]

EricK, on Jan 22 2006, 09:09 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jan 22 2006, 06:34 PM, said:

It should be quantitative, but I would expect a pickup partner to mean it as ace asking.

Arend

This makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy though. If he thinks you will read it as Aces he won't bid it when he has a quantitative hand. Nor will you for that matter.

I would read as as quantitative whoever bid it (unless we had a specific agreement that it was Aces, of course). I would rather go wrong by assuming a pick-up partner is a good player than by assuming he doesn't know how to bid. After playing a few hands, I might switch to assuming he can't bid

I didn't say I would answer aces I would be willing to stand up for my beliefs by taking it as quantitative. Too bad there is no free-speech IMPs bonus for that...

[kgr]

Jlall, on Jan 22 2006, 11:20 PM, said:

I would answer aces, but all should be quantitative.

I passed. I always try to learn my partner something
btw...I scored a top for 4NT=.
My partner had a diamond void which was my 5 card from A. So if I would have answered 2 aces it would not have learned him a lot.

[Kalvan14]

All of them are quantitative.
I fail to understand how your partner would ask for aces, at 2nd turn, without ever mentioning a suit, and with a void.

[Fluffy]

Last one is minors.

First 2 are Q.

[bearmum]

I think all 3 quantitative

[Gerben42]

Quantitative, not ace asking.

About the last one being minors: What's 3♦ followed by 4♣?

[Al_U_Card]

Seeing as they are uncertainty principle quantized variables (somewhat like Schrodinger's cat they can be both quantitative and ace-asking at the same time, ie whichever one you choose you're likely to be dead....lol)

Does the 4NT bidder show H stops or not?

[Kalvan14]

It the 4NTs are quantitative (as they should be, and as everyone here agrees), it would be very unusual if the 4NTer had not a good stopper in hearts.

I missed the thing about "pick-up partner" at the beginning, though.
Call me chicken, but I will not have the confidence to pass 4NT.