[Douglas43]

I'm with the 4NT bidders. Over 4 of a suit, wanting to bid 4NT to play seems like a low-frequency occurrence compared to having a two-suiter

[pescetom]

 mikeh, on 2022-February-24, 17:07, said:

Here, 4N could logically be played as natural. Say we held AQ Ax Kx AKQxxxx sure, that's a rare holding but if we held that would we not very much want 4N to be natural? Wouldn't we be tempted to argue that 'logically, what else could it be?' After all, with both majors we double or bid 5D or bid a major. With primary clubs, we bid clubs. And some of us, with clubs and a side 5 card major, bid 5C then 5M if need be. Since those are surely at least plausible ways of dealing with those hands, isn't it 'logical' that 4N is to play?

Fair point and I agree that one should not throw undiscussed strange bids at partner except as a last resort (I have one partner who takes sadistic pleasure in doubling where nobody except perhaps himself could be certain of the meaning). I hadn't contemplated the alternative of 5♣ then 5♥ if necessary, which does leave some room for 4NT natural over 4♦ (although I doubt Jeff Reubens would be enthusiastic).

What swayed my judgement here was an incident the previous evening, when RHO opened 4♥ and with 6-5 minors I bid 4NT, undiscussed with my occasional partner. He is a good player but suffers from aphasia and can get seriously confused in unfamiliar situations, so I was already regretting my choice before it hit the table. He flinched but bid 5♣ in tempo, which went down 1 for a good MP score. So I guess my thinking was "if it worked here it would work anywhere" - but of course the two situations are not really the same.

[helene_t]

 pescetom, on 2022-February-25, 11:14, said:

What swayed my judgement here was an incident the previous evening, when RHO opened 4♥ and with 6-5 minors I bid 4NT, undiscussed with my occasional partner.

4NT over 4M is pretty universally minors, but over 4m it is not so obvious.