Jump to content

Issue with Frivolous 3S / 3N


Recommended Posts

Say you agree that 3 is non-serious when hearts are trump and 3N is non-serious when spades are agreed. This applies to auctions like a 2/1 and some XYZ sequences where one or both partners can have substantially undisclosed values.

 

How do you handle continuations after: 1 - 2 - 3 - 3?

 

What is 3N? (It should not be to play, but could it be non-serious for spades?). Do cue bids agree hearts, or spades or is it unclear?

 

To make things more complicated, we play Kickback.

 

I suppose 6 ace keycard is a possible solution, but I'm trying to deal with the basic continuations after the 1 - 2 - 3 - 3 start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I don't play serious/frivolous but I play something vaguely similar (I'm told it's called Rodwell).

 

We've specifically agreed on this auction: 1S - 2H - 3H -3S that 3S shows 3-card spade support. Trumps are agreed as hearts, for cue-bidding, RKCB etc purposes, but either hand - although it will usually be opener - can convert slam-level heart contracts to spades.

 

Over 3S,

 

3NT by opener = artificial (I guess 'frivolous' in your terminology)

4C/4D cue bids, in principle hearts agreed

4H = horrible hand, sign-off

4S = sign-off, embarrassed about heart suppport

4NT = RKCB in hearts

 

We don't play kickback, so don't have that problem

 

This may not be entirely optimal, but at least we can remember it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you just have to bite the bullet and give something up.

 

We give up getting back to spades below the six-level after 1 2; 3. This may not be optimal but makes it easy to define our continuations:

 

...

3 Frivolous for hearts

3NT Spade Cue

4/ Cues

4 to play

4 RKCB

 

Similarly after a frivolous 3 ...

 

3NT Spade Cue

4/ Cues

4 to play

4 RKCB

 

Another idea that we use in other auctions where there is ambiguity for hearts and spades is general cue-bids. Say we are at 3 without prior explicit agreement of hearts or spades then we use 4 and 4 as 'good' 4 and 4 bids respectively. They do not show or deny any specific controls.

 

On the auctual sequence you are discussing if you are willing to give up playing in 3NT (which you probably are) then you have an extra bid available. You might consider giving up frivolous 3NT in favour of making it explicit which suit you would like to agree. Maybe:

 

3NT - agrees hearts

4/ - cues for spades

 

or the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

hearts is set as trumps, a spade cue will

usually show a to honor, i.e. whatever

your spade cue is, it will not show 3 cards,

unless you specifically agree.

 

This means 3S is frivolous and 3NT is the

spade cue, ... an agreement I am sure to

forget, hopefully I I dont forget this auction,

in case we discuss to using 3S as frivoluos /

serious for hearts.

 

3NT in the sequence

 

1S - 2H

3H - 3S

3NT - ...

 

is a spade cue, showing add. strength and demands

further cue bids, i.e. 4H would deny 1st / 2nd round

control in clubs and diamonds (no shortage, no Ace,

no King), an information, which will make Ace asking

quite often obsolete.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I don't play serious/frivolous but I play something vaguely similar (I'm told it's called Rodwell).

 

We've specifically agreed on this auction: 1S - 2H - 3H -3S that 3S shows 3-card spade support. Trumps are agreed as hearts, for cue-bidding, RKCB etc purposes, but either hand - although it will usually be opener - can convert slam-level heart contracts to spades.

 

Over 3S,

 

3NT by opener = artificial (I guess 'frivolous' in your terminology)

4C/4D cue bids, in principle hearts agreed

4H = horrible hand, sign-off

4S = sign-off, embarrassed about heart suppport

4NT = RKCB in hearts

 

We don't play kickback, so don't have that problem

 

This may not be entirely optimal, but at least we can remember it.

Thanks Frances - this is really what I'm after. I like the idea that hearts is tacitly agreed, but either can convert to spades.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree that 3 promises only 3 trump. Wouldn't you make a 2/1 with something like AQxx, KQJxx, xx, xx?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I favor similar agreements (Kickback RKC when hearts agreed, Frivolous 3N with kickback when hearts agreed). I have default rules for these:

1) Kickback RKC when hearts agreed applies when hearts have been explicitly agreed and spades is not a logical alternative trump. If spades is a logical alternative (either partner has previously made a natural spade bid) then 4N is RKC (still 0314 - no 1430 ever).

2) Similar for Kickback Frivolous 3N - only applies when hearts have been explicitly agreed and spades have not been bid naturally by either partner. If spades are a logical alternative trump suit then 3S is support and 3N is Frivolous 3N.

3) Specific auctions may be exempted from these rules when carefully documented and agreed (has not happened yet).

 

Other agreements are certainly possible (and might be superior). These are simple enough that memory failure is expected to be minimal (important factor for those like myself that may suffer from oldstimers disease).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have 1-2-3-3 as natural, agreeing both suits, then you cannot cuebid showing heart trump quality or spade trump quality. It seems really bad to not be able to make cuebids in either of your suits.

 

Adding in frivolous or serious might allow inferences of good general trumps/bad general trumps, trumps being both majors. But, with each person having 0-6 top cards in the majors, that's quite a blunt knife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have 1-2-3-3 as natural, agreeing both suits, then you cannot cuebid showing heart trump quality or spade trump quality. It seems really bad to not be able to make cuebids in either of your suits.

 

Adding in frivolous or serious might allow inferences of good general trumps/bad general trumps, trumps being both majors. But, with each person having 0-6 top cards in the majors, that's quite a blunt knife.

Perhaps it will be better to rephrase my last statement:

This agreement is not intended to be optimal (and almost certainly is not), it is intended that it be clear exactly what the agreement is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...