Everything must mean something, right?

[Badmonster]

If the bidding went:

 

1nt p 2♥ p 3♦ (super accept for spades) 3nt

 

What would that 3nt mean for those who do not play serious? I didn't have this auction or see this auction, I was watching a table where the bidding went (opps passing throughout) :

1nt 2♥ 3♦ 4♣ and no one at the table could tell me what 3nt might have meant. But you'd think there'd be some use for it.

 

 

Also, are you less likely to super accept when you're 4333?

[cherdano]

Natural, to play.

[bestguru]

Natural, to play.

 

serious question even though it sounds like I'm being sarcastic:

 

When would you want to play 3nt with a 9+ spade fit?

 

I can't think of a time, but it would make a great self psyche control

[Cascade]

Natural, to play.

 

serious question even though it sounds like I'm being sarcastic:

 

When would you want to play 3nt with a 9+ spade fit?

 

I can't think of a time, but it would make a great self psyche control

There are a number of conditions that make NTs better than a nine-card major fit:

 

1. Extra values

 

2. No Trump type stoppers - a preponderance of Queens and Jacks

 

3. Tens in side suits

 

4. Very balanced distribution

[Echognome]

I had this discussion earlier. I had argued that with a 9 card fit it's too difficult to know when it's right to play in 3NT instead, so argued that it must be serious (or frivolous) 3NT.

 

However, one might play it to mean any of:

 

1. Serious 3NT or Frivolous 3NT

 

2. 5332 shape, choice of games

 

3. Good trumps

[whereagles]

If you haven't agreed anything specific, 3NT it must be natural, thus offering a choice of contracts.

[helene_t]

There was a shocking article in a recent issue of Bridge World. Someone in Dunedin had made some computer simulations that showed that you should usually just bid 3NT if partner opens 1NT, especially at matchpoints. If that's correct then choice of game makes perfect sense.

[han]

In a perfect world, every auction should have a meaning. In practice, no partnership has defined every possible auction, there are just too many. If you don't usually play serious 3NT or something like that, then I would assume that 3NT is natural, even without discussion.

[MickyB]

There was a shocking article in a recent issue of Bridge World. Someone in Dunedin had made some computer simulations that showed that you should usually just bid 3NT if partner opens 1NT, especially at matchpoints. If that's correct then choice of game makes perfect sense.

It wasn't "especially" at matchpoints, it was only at matchpoints IMO - all the IMPs related findings were not too shocking (e.g. don't use Stayman with a 4333).

 

I think the article reached this conclusion because most of hands had extra values, so often there was the same number of tricks in both strains. Of course, with a long suit and a lot of points this number will often be 12, and without bidding out your hand you will struggle to evaluate slam potential.

[cherdano]

In a perfect world, every auction should have a meaning. In practice, no partnership has defined every possible auction, there are just too many. If you don't usually play serious 3NT or something like that, then I would assume that 3NT is natural, even without discussion.

By default I would assume natural even if playing serious 3NT. We had this discussion here recently somewhere, I still think that given opener's hand is so well defined, the extra step of 3N to explore slam suitability is of almost no gain. On the other hand, it's not so rare 3N is better than 4M even with a 5-4 fit (assuming two balanced hands).

 

Arend

[Badmonster]

By default I would assume natural even if playing serious 3NT.

This is distressing. I realize as one's bidding vocabulary expands there's more room for subtlety, but if we're playing serious 3nt I'd assume that once we find a fit 3n is always serious. If not I'm going to be called upon to make inferences.

[cherdano]

By default I would assume natural even if playing serious 3NT.

This is distressing. I realize as one's bidding vocabulary expands there's more room for subtlety, but if we're playing serious 3nt I'd assume that once we find a fit 3n is always serious. If not I'm going to be called upon to make inferences.

Serious 3N is to find out about strength in a game forcing auction when both partners are wide-ranging. So when I discuss 3N with s.o. in detail, I always suggest we play it when

1. we have found a major suit fit,

2. we are in a GF auction, and

3. neither partner is limited.

 

Arend

[david_c]

There was a shocking article in a recent issue of Bridge World. Someone in Dunedin had made some computer simulations that showed that you should usually just bid 3NT if partner opens 1NT, especially at matchpoints.

I don't agree that the article showed that B)

 

But it's certainly true that 3NT is often the correct place to play even when you have a big major fit. I would assume 3NT was natural here.

[jdonn]

Richard Pavlicek has written about that 3NT bid. I'm not saying this is standard, but it seems like a good agreement.

 

"Opener could hardly prefer to play in notrump after a superacceptance, so I use 3 NT as a slam try with no singleton or void; hence, bidding a new suit is a splinter."

[barmar]

I assume the 3♦ bid says something specific about ♦, a common agreement being a worthless doubleton. So perhaps 3NT could indicate that responder has this suit well stopped, and 3NT is still a possibility.

 

But it seems like it would have to be quite a suit for there not to be a benefit to ruffing one or two of them in the short trump hand, like AKQ tight.

[pclayton]

In my partnership, Serious 3N (or frivoulous) is off whenever one of us bids a natural 1N or 2N.

 

And we play a natural 2N to a 1 of a major opening, so this comes up a lot.

[Echognome]

I think the major difference is that we've found a 9 card major fit here. I think you'd be hard pressed to be confident it was right to play in NT rather than in the major. Perhaps at MPs it might be right to try to thread the needle, but at IMPs, I just don't see it.

 

I can understand 1M - 2NT - 3M - 3NT as to play, but then we haven't agreed a 9 card fit.

 

If I am 4333 and partner is 5332 that is the greatest compelling reason to play in NT. But I STILL don't know if it is correct. So to me, playing 3NT as natural choice of games is a wasted bid. Pavlicek's alternative of suits being splinters and 3NT being the slam try without shortness (5332, 5422, 6322, or 7222) makes a lot of sense to me.

[jdonn]

I think the major difference is that we've found a 9 card major fit here. I think you'd be hard pressed to be confident it was right to play in NT rather than in the major. Perhaps at MPs it might be right to try to thread the needle, but at IMPs, I just don't see it.

 

I can understand 1M - 2NT - 3M - 3NT as to play, but then we haven't agreed a 9 card fit.

 

If I am 4333 and partner is 5332 that is the greatest compelling reason to play in NT. But I STILL don't know if it is correct. So to me, playing 3NT as natural choice of games is a wasted bid. Pavlicek's alternative of suits being splinters and 3NT being the slam try without shortness (5332, 5422, 6322, or 7222) makes a lot of sense to me.

I suppose if you were really getting into it you would probably want to do a 3♠/3NT switch when the suit is hearts.

 

1NT 2♦ 3♥

3♠: Generic slam try probably without shortness, asks for cuebidding.

3NT/4♣/4♦: Slam try with shortness in spades/clubs/diamonds.

 

That way you don't bypass spades on the cuebidding auctions.

 

I utilize this principle on many many auctions when hearts are trumps. For example, on any 'serious 3NT' auction when hearts are trumps I use 3♠ as the 'serious 3NT' bid and 3NT as a spade cuebid.

 

I know, sorry, this doesn't belong in the beginner-intermediate forum. I just can't help myself.

[pclayton]

I like strict rules for certain conventions like Serious 3N.

 

Other of the less understood calls are Good/Bad 2N, Exclusion BW, etc.. A disaster using one of these toys can frequently be the difference between making the overalls and missing them in a 2 session event, or winning and losing a match.

 

I'm never going to get killed if I'm missing Serious 3N after an auction like 1N - 2 transfer - super accept - cuebid - 3N as being 'serious'. The 1N opener has severely boxed his hand twice, and its hard to see why we need to have opener demonstrate he's serious about slam (again).

 

The need for responder to use serious is also reduced, as in 1N - transfer - supperaccept - 3N. As stated, Opener has really boxed his hand, and responder should not be trying to pass captaincy back, which is exactly what Serious 3N (and the less-serious 'cue bidding') purport to do.

 

I'd much rather have a hard and fast rule about Serious 3N, stick to it, than try to optimize every conceivable auction where it might come up, even if I lose a little effectiveness.

[luis]

Diamond FIT !

 

I think that if opener bids 3♦ as a super-acceptance it is because he has diamonds, so 3NT is the only way to show we have a double fit and the 4-4 or 5-4 diamond fit might be better than the 5-4 spade fit. Now RKCB is 6 aces RKCB since we have two fits.

 

Luis

[pclayton]

Diamond FIT !

 

I think that if opener bids 3♦ as a super-acceptance it is because he has diamonds, so 3NT is the only way to show we have a double fit and the 4-4 or 5-4 diamond fit might be better than the 5-4 spade fit. Now RKCB is 6 aces RKCB since we have two fits.

 

Luis

Luis - then what pray-tell would 4♦ be? A non-serious slam try with the double fit?

 

I swear, this game is getting too tough for me. ;) :)