[Knurdler]

We know that 1N 4N or 2N 4N is a quantitative bid asking opener to bid 6 if max and pass if min.
I believe the idea is to end up in 6N if we have 33 points, because with 33 we cannot be missing 2 aces.

Question 1: What I have never grasped is why the total point target is 33 and not 34? 33 leaves 7 for the opponents, which could be and an ace and a king.

Question 2: when is 4N quantitative? What I can find says:
1. after a natural NT opening – I am happy with that.
2. After a natural NT reply eg 1D 3N 4N – sounds reasonable
3. If the bidding started NT and a suit has not been agreed – sounds reasonable
4. What about after openers NT rebid eg 1m 1M 1N 4N or 1m 1M 2N 4N? (Just in case it is relevant, we do play checkback).

Question 3: if 1 of us knows we have 33 or more combined points and 4NT is quantitative, how do we check how many aces we have? Yesterday partner opened 1C with 21 and I replied 3N showing 13 to 15 with no 4cm (a bid we rarely use). He bid 6N. With 4 aces and 4 kings, we made 13. Putting aside that he might have opened 2C, how would he ask me about aces?

I have read the 2025 Topic by WTRCLR.

Thanks

[DavidKok]

To the point: I play quantitative NT in many situations. Instead I list when 4NT is Blackwood.
Many players, in my experience especially weaker players, love love love bidding 4NT to use their ace asking gadget. In my opinion this is a terrible habit.

On the example auction I think the 3NT bid is very unwelcome. You are preempting partner and taking away almost all bidding space. No wonder there's compromises after! Even if your bid shows exactly 3=3=3=4 13-15 I think it's a system flaw.

Slam bidding relies heavily on hand evaluation and exchanging information. If you want to improve your slam bidding, look for the bid that consumed your bidding space. Usually that's the reason you couldn't explore something later. If you try to change your 4NT information without addressing the earlier jump you're not really moving the needle.

[pescetom]

I would add that the 33 target is not written in stone (it can be quite right to call 6NT with less, but knowledge about running suits) and not so much about missing precisely A and K in different suits but in assuring that sufficient control is present overall to lose only one trick.
As a corollary, it is not particularly important to know the number of Aces (except when holding exactly 32 and feeling pessimistic) nor is holding all four any good reason to prefer 6NT to 4NT.
Far too many people ask Aces as a way to "decide" when unsure whether they have enough for slam or not (perhaps even sacrificing a quantitative enquiry to do so). Often they then make a seat of pants decision after the predictable discovery that one Ace is missing.

[Zelandakh]

Since this is N/B I think it's best to keep it simple. 4NT is quantitative if:
1. Partner made a natural NT call and we are unlimited
2. We have a way of making a forcing raise and quantitative makes sense
3. any specific situations you agree with your partner

As for 33hcp, the reason for this has nothing to do with aces. Rather 32-33 points has proven to be the break-even point for slam being a good bet between 2 balanced hands from experience and simulation. Even if the missing 7 points are an Ace and a King, the chances of them being in the same suit are low and of being specifically in Opening Leader's hand even lower. This often gives Declarer practical chances of rounding up 12 tricks in the other 3 suits before the opponents can take their 2, even when Double Dummy analysis says the slam is bad.

Finally, the number of aces you hold in NT auctions is usually less important than your general strength. If the key piece of information you need before bidding slam is in fact the number of aces, the simple way of doing this is by setting a suit as trumps and only then using some variety of Blackwood. Notice the point here though - you need to answer the specific question "Are we missing 2 aces?" or, with slightly more advanced methods "Do we hold specific cards for a grand slam?". You do not use Blackwood (with the specific exception of Conditional Key Card Blackwood, an advanced convention) for finding out whether you hold enough strength for slam. For that, there are much better options available.

[mycroft]

I like "simple". It's always better than "confusion". I will suggest a different simple. 4NT is quantitative if:

• after an "Opening NT sequence" (that is, open 1 or 2NT, or 2♣-then-NT);
  
• or "last bid is a natural NT"; AND
  
• no agreed, guaranteed 8+card Major fit.

Add "no agreed, guaranteed 8+card minor fit" if you do not have another ace-asking call over an agreed minor (minorwood, redwood, etc.) There are exceptions where 4NT quantitative is better (1♦-2♦ Limit+; 2NT-4NT (you can make a forcing rebid if you want to "agree" diamonds), for instance), but for start, "simple" over "confusion".

I dislike Gerber as all know. But if you *need* an ace-ask in these auctions, 4♣ is ace-asking if and only if 4NT is quantitative.

The big holes in this are "Stayman has shown me we have an 8-card fit, but you don't know that" and "I've Jacoby-transferred (so 5 cards, with 6 you Texas-and-4NT, Keycard because 3.) and want to keycard for the suit whether you have a fit or not". Both require an "alarm bell" rebid to break "quantitative". Again, keep that in the back of your head and ignore it until you trip over it enough to annoy, only then go looking for a solution that won't confuse.

I have nothing against Zel's set of rules; these are just the ones we teach over here. Not only are they easy enough to remember, they work well enough even at the Open game level that you can "keep it simple" until you're pushing for National Championships.

[mike777]

 Knurdler, on 2026-April-05, 03:47, said:

We know that 1N 4N or 2N 4N is a quantitative bid asking opener to bid 6 if max and pass if min.
I believe the idea is to end up in 6N if we have 33 points, because with 33 we cannot be missing 2 aces.

Question 1: What I have never grasped is why the total point target is 33 and not 34? 33 leaves 7 for the opponents, which could be and an ace and a king.

Question 2: when is 4N quantitative? What I can find says:
1. after a natural NT opening – I am happy with that.
2. After a natural NT reply eg 1D 3N 4N – sounds reasonable
3. If the bidding started NT and a suit has not been agreed – sounds reasonable
4. What about after openers NT rebid eg 1m 1M 1N 4N or 1m 1M 2N 4N? (Just in case it is relevant, we do play checkback).

Question 3: if 1 of us knows we have 33 or more combined points and 4NT is quantitative, how do we check how many aces we have? Yesterday partner opened 1C with 21 and I replied 3N showing 13 to 15 with no 4cm (a bid we rarely use). He bid 6N. With 4 aces and 4 kings, we made 13. Putting aside that he might have opened 2C, how would he ask me about aces?

I have read the 2025 Topic by WTRCLR.

Thanks

1. Stop worrying about Missing an ace and king. You will bid and make many more slams. Just stop worrying..if anything make the opponents worry about it, not you. Good luck.
2. How do you define quantitative and how do you measure it? This is a deeply serious question. As you play more bridge you will experience different answers to this question. Good luck
3. Stop asking partner and worrying about asking how many aces partner has. Work on hand evaluation and questions one and two. Good luck.

[Knurdler]

Thank you for answers to my questions 1 and 2.

On question 3, I am leaning towards adopting Mycroft’s suggestion that 4C is Gerber because 4NT is quantitative.
May I discuss this a bit more before deciding.
In the case of 1C 3N, I wonder if we need to keep 4C as natural in case opener is weak with long clubs? I suspect probably not, because a weak opener with long clubs should just trust the 3NT bidder and pass.
I have read that a jump in clubs is a normal condition to apply Gerber and in the case of 1C 3N, 4C is not a jump and is natural. In that instance, 5C would be “super Gerber”.
As an aside, assuming we do play Gerber in very limited circumstances, should we play simple Gerber or keycard Gerber (to match our RKCB)?

On the jump to 3NT, all my reading confirms David Kok's view that it is bad practice.
So how should I reply to 1 club with 3334 and 13-15 points?
Do I bid a waiting 1 diamond to see what opener says? If he is also 3334, we have a club fit (in the hand that started this topic, he had 6 clubs).

[mw64ahw]

Knurdler, on 2026-April-07, 04:56, said:

As an aside, assuming we do play Gerber in very limited circumstances, should we play simple Gerber or keycard Gerber (to match our RKCB)?

You can also play min/max Gerber (if it works here) or CRO Gerber (colour, rank, other). I play 3014 CRO, but 1430 Kickback with one partner.

[DavidKok]

I would play 1♣-3NT; 4♣ as a natural slam try.
I would not play Gerber, and especially not focus on different versions of it.
In standard a strong 3=3=3=4 has no response to a 1♣ or 1♦ opening. Each partnership muddles through in their own way. If partner opens 1♣ I think a 1♦ response is a good idea, and it's an even better idea to make it a part of your agreements, but then you'd also have to disclose it.

[pescetom]

Knurdler, on 2026-April-07, 04:56, said:

On question 3, I am leaning towards adopting Mycroft’s suggestion that 4C is Gerber because 4NT is quantitative.
May I discuss this a bit more before deciding.
In the case of 1C 3N, I wonder if we need to keep 4C as natural in case opener is weak with long clubs? I suspect probably not, because a weak opener with long clubs should just trust the 3NT bidder and pass.
I have read that a jump in clubs is a normal condition to apply Gerber and in the case of 1C 3N, 4C is not a jump and is natural. In that instance, 5C would be “super Gerber”.

I think that mycroft's suggestion of "Gerber on when 4NT is quantitative" is inappropriate because you absolutely do need to keep 4C and other bids over 3NT as natural.
In the case of 4C, not to show weakness plus length but to show natural slam interest based on length.
If you really must ask Aces over 3NT then "Super Gerber" is playable and low cost.

[P_Marlowe]

Knurdler, on 2026-April-07, 04:56, said:

Thank you for answers to my questions 1 and 2.
<snip>
In the case of 1C 3N, I wonder if we need to keep 4C as natural in case opener is weak with long clubs? I suspect probably not, because a weak opener with long clubs should just trust the 3NT bidder and pass.

The question is, what hands bid 3NT?
No 4 card major, at most 4 1/2 diamonds, this means, that opener will have at least 2 1/2 clubs,
if you go even further not bypassing 4 diamonds, than opener will have 4+ clubs.
What does this mean: Clubs will be your work suit, responders clubs should fill a lot of holes in
openers long weak suit, if he happens to hold this hand.
Most of the time, opener will have a weak NT (I am assuming a strong NT base system), and a bal.
hand vs a bal. hands, ... the name of the preferred game contract happens to be 3NT.
You also dont run from a game contract to play a partial a level higher.

This means 4C will show SI, if you play it as natural (my preference), or as Ace asking (in this
case conditional makes most sense), take your pick.

And 4NT as an answer to 3NT would be quant, ..., it would show a bal. hand to strong to open 15-17,
too weak to open 2NT => a bal. hand with 18/19. Given that the 3NT response showes 13-15, you need
a way to determine, if you have combined 31 or 34HCP.

One a side note: You can show the Number of Aces as an answer to a quant 4NT, it is not necessary,
but it may be helpful sometimes. Just remember, after a quant 4NT 5NT is to play and NOT asking for
Kings. King Ask is only in play, if a Grand Slam is an option.