Courtesy 3NT vs. Serious 3NT

[lexlogan]

Serious 3NT vs. Courtesy 3NT

 

In Fred Gitelman's lectures on Improving 2/1 GF, he advocates a popular expert treatment, Serious 3NT: when a major suit has been agreed at the three level, such as 1S-2D-2S-3S, a 3NT bid by either player shows serious slam interest and demands cue-bidding from partner. A player who cue-bids directly, skipping over 3NT, does so in case partner has slam interest, but denies serious slam interest himself.

 

This has always seemed odd to me: either way, we give out additional information that may assist the opponents. Why not cue-bid when you're strong, and bid 3NT when you aren't, leaving room for partner to cue-bid? I've been teaching this approach (which I call Courtesy 3NT) to my partners for some time, but honestly, they mostly bash into RKCB or some slam so I can't claim much actual experience. Anyone else tried this approach?

[glen]

Sure - for example in my 2002 Victory notes (Victory link) it was called partly serious 3NT, with the direct cuebid showing serious interest. It worked fine, and others have tried this approach as well.

[inquiry]

I can highly recommend the link Glen gave. In addition, this topic has been discussed many times in this forum... see for instance...

 

Using 3N as non-serious, What happens to 3S?

 

Either way is fine. One consideration is when you agree in hearts with 3♥. Do you reverse the meaning of 3♠ and 3NT... (rather playing seriouis or "frivilous" 3NT).

[Cascade]

We play "frivolous 3NT" when spades have been agreed and "frivolous 3♠" when hearts have been agreed. In the later case 3NT is a spade cue with serious slam interest.

 

This is all context dependent. From a limited hand a frivolous 3♠/NT just shows a minimum and a "serious" cue a maximum. From a more wide ranging hand frivolous 3♠/NT shows a little slam interest and a cue serious cue really shows serious slam interest. This seems to work well for us.

 

I like "frivolous" rather than "serious" 3♠/NT as this means you give less information to the opponents when you give up on slam exploration quickly.

[pclayton]

Wayne, how long have you been playing Frivolous 3♠ (hearts)?

[jdonn]

I also play Friv 3S over 3H with Justin and Kevin and others, (and I know Justin and Kevin now play that together). I think its clearly better that step 1 is the friv step, and is a natural extension to friv 3N

[Cascade]

Wayne, how long have you been playing Frivolous 3♠ (hearts)?

I can't remember exactly. Probably about 3-4 years. We have only been playing together for about 6 years so it is less than that and we were certainly playing it in the New Zealand trials in early 2006.

 

We flirted with serious 3NT before hand. At that time we also played serious 3♠.

[Finch]

In my 2/1 partnership I've been playing a convention for over 15 years that I'm told is called Rodwell, which is similar to the 'frivolous' 3NT you describe. We play that

 

IF spades are explicitly agreed in an uncontested 2/1 auction where both players are unlimited and we are at 3S in the auction THEN

a 4-level cue bid shows first round control and a serious slam try, while 3NT shows either extra values with no first round control to cue, or a first round control without any extra values. Over 3NT, 4C 'asks' and the other hand cues 4 red suit, or bids 4S with either the ace of clubs or extra values with no cue (if you work this through, if the 4C-bidder can almost always work out whether you are safe at the 5-level or off two aces).

 

IF hearts are agreed and we are at 3H, THEN

3NT is a spade cue bid (any strength), while 3S takes the place of 3NT above. 3NT asks similarly, but this time there is no ambiguity in the reply.

This does not apply to the auction 1S - 2H - 3H - 3S which agrees sapdes (3NT is now artificial as above).

 

If a major has been agreed below 3 of the major, then 3NT immediately is natural (for example, for us 1S - 2D - 2H (artificial) - 2NT (3 spades) - 3NT is a contract suggestion; but 1S - 2D - 2H - 2NT - 3D - 3S - 3NT is Rodwell); similarly in the one auction where we agree spades at the 2-level 1S - 2C - 2D (artificial) - 2S, a jump to 3NT (which would be very rare) would be a contract suggestion showing a horrible 5332 with soft values which regretted opening.

 

In particular, this only applies when both players are unlimited. The benefit is preventing unnecessary excursions to the 5-level as the non-3NT-bidder can show a real slam try at the 4-level. (By agreement, we don't use it in 2C auctions such as 2C - 2S - 3S as we're forced to the 5-level anyway.) If either player has limited their hand 3NT is natural in context as part of the 'normal' patterning out approach e.g. 1H - 1S - 2C - 2D - 2H - 3H - 3NT is just natural in context - 2C was non-forcing, and opener could have done something more dramatic over 2D with significant extras. It also doesn't apply after, say, 1S - 2C - 2NT - 3S, where (in our methods) 2NT defined opener's hand as 15-19 5=3=3=2.

 

 

(funnily enough Rodwell is credited with inventing the Serious 3NT rather than this version)

[fred]

(funnily enough Rodwell is credited with inventing the Serious 3NT rather than this version)

Rodwell did invent Serious 3NT though it would probably be more accurate to say that he claims to have developed this idea independently (and I believe him).

 

Rodwell was the person that told me about Serious 3NT at a time in which the convention was young and not widespread (mid 1980s). Before I wrote the articles in question I asked him for permission. Obviously he said OK.

 

I don't know if he deserves credit for the variations or not. I do know that he has thought about the variations. I do not know if nowadays he uses the original or one of the variations.

 

I agree with some of the other posters that there are compelling arguments that the variations are superior to the original, at least in theory.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[MFA]

I play non-serious 3NT too.

 

Also, I play what we in Denmark call Fairway splinters. When partner has offered a limit raise to 3M, 4x is a splinter and 3NT slamtry w/o splinters.

 

1♣-1♠, 3♠: 4x splinter, 3NT slamtry without.

 

Same in:

 

1♠-3♦ (bergen raise)

1NT-2♥, 3♠

etc.

 

When the strength is so narrowly defined, there is not so much need for distinguishing between good/bad slam tries.

[cnszsun]

We play "frivolous 3NT" when spades have been agreed and "frivolous 3♠" when hearts have been agreed.  In the later case 3NT is a spade cue with serious slam interest.

For people who play 3S as frivolous when hearts are agreed, does it still apply in the following sequence?

1♠-2♥

3♥-3♠

[Free]

I prefer frivolous for various reasons (see http://freebridge.blogspot.com/2006/08/ser...erious-3nt.html)

[Cascade]

We play "frivolous 3NT" when spades have been agreed and "frivolous 3♠" when hearts have been agreed.  In the later case 3NT is a spade cue with serious slam interest.

For people who play 3S as frivolous when hearts are agreed, does it still apply in the following sequence?

1♠-2♥

3♥-3♠

"Frivolous 3♠" applies for us on this auction.

 

We have a blanket agreement that once one major has been agreed we cannot agree the other major - maybe we can get back to the other major at the slam level. This may not always be best on choice of game auctions but has other advantages in slam bidding and not giving away information about the double fit to the opponents.

[pclayton]

We play "frivolous 3NT" when spades have been agreed and "frivolous 3♠" when hearts have been agreed.  In the later case 3NT is a spade cue with serious slam interest.

For people who play 3S as frivolous when hearts are agreed, does it still apply in the following sequence?

1♠-2♥

3♥-3♠

This sequence is a death trap unless you've specifically discussed it in advance.

 

Matt and I play:

 

3♠ = 'real' support and spades are assumed as trump. This is especially vital since we play Kickback.

 

3N = Frivolous slam try with hearts agreed.

[pclayton]

Wayne, how long have you been playing Frivolous 3♠ (hearts)?

I can't remember exactly. Probably about 3-4 years. We have only been playing together for about 6 years so it is less than that and we were certainly playing it in the New Zealand trials in early 2006.

 

We flirted with serious 3NT before hand. At that time we also played serious 3♠.

The reason I asked is I'm trying to determine the genesis of this agreement. I don't know if Fred remembers but I emailed him with this suggestion back in late 2000 / early 2001. The auction that I thought was very confusing was specifically:

 

1♥ - 2♣

2♥ - 3♥

3♠

 

The original suggestion playing Serious (or Frivolous - it doesn't matter) is that 3♠ is a cue with no information about whether or not Opener has a strong hand. It is a cue, since it is 'above' 3 of our trump suit, but it is non-specific as to strength since it is below the Serious try.

 

I'm not claiming authorship, because to me using 3♠ in heart auctions to show a level of slam interest segues nicely off the 3N concept for spades, just the same as using 4♠ as key-card for hearts is an optimal agreement. I'm just wondering if anyone thought of it before me.

[mike777]

I wonder just how often this stuff really comes up and is needed as opposed to just cuebidding.

 

I just like being able to bid 3nt to try and force partner to cue clubs when I need help in that suit.

 

What hands are you posters so worried about that frivolous is so important on? Partner bidding 3 of our major is a slam try yes? He is not broke.

 

Perhaps I am just too used to responder very often having the better hand on this auction and opener having assumed junk. If opener has a good hand, I am more worried about missing a grand than playing in game.

[cherdano]

Wayne, how long have you been playing Frivolous 3♠ (hearts)?

I can't remember exactly. Probably about 3-4 years. We have only been playing together for about 6 years so it is less than that and we were certainly playing it in the New Zealand trials in early 2006.

 

We flirted with serious 3NT before hand. At that time we also played serious 3♠.

The reason I asked is I'm trying to determine the genesis of this agreement. I don't know if Fred remembers but I emailed him with this suggestion back in late 2000 / early 2001. The auction that I thought was very confusing was specifically:

 

1♥ - 2♣

2♥ - 3♥

3♠

 

The original suggestion playing Serious (or Frivolous - it doesn't matter) is that 3♠ is a cue with no information about whether or not Opener has a strong hand. It is a cue, since it is 'above' 3 of our trump suit, but it is non-specific as to strength since it is below the Serious try.

 

I'm not claiming authorship, because to me using 3♠ in heart auctions to show a level of slam interest segues nicely off the 3N concept for spades, just the same as using 4♠ as key-card for hearts is an optimal agreement. I'm just wondering if anyone thought of it before me.

Yes, many have thought of this.

[fred]

I wonder just how often this stuff really comes up and is needed as opposed to just cuebidding.

 

I just like being able to bid 3nt to try and force partner to cue clubs when I need help in that suit.

 

What hands are you posters so worried about that frivolous is so important on? Partner bidding 3 of our major is a slam try yes? He is not broke.

 

Perhaps I am just too used to responder very often having the better hand on this auction and opener having assumed junk. If opener has a good hand, I am more worried about missing a grand than playing in game.

 

Many play responder's (non-jump) 3 of a major is not specific with respect to strength - it might be a slam try and it might not be a slam try.

 

It will also usually be the case in 2/1 that opener has not limited his hand yet by the time the bidding reaches this point.

 

If you play that way it is important to have a way for at least one of the players to say "I have extra values" below the level of game.

 

Both serious and frivilous 3NT are attempts to solve this problem. I do think it is possible for an established partnership in which both playrs have excellent judgment and 3NT means "please cuebid clubs" to do OK in practice, but I think they would do even better if instead they utilized 3NT to specify range.

 

You are correct that there is less of a case for using 3NT as serious or frivilous if responder's 3 of a major is always a slam try.

 

How often does a hand come up in which you need this? My guess would be about once per week of full time bridge. I could be way off.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

As I understand it, the "standard" in 2/1 is fast arrival, so in each of:

 

1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥

 

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♥

 

The final 3♥ bid shows extras because a minimum hand would bid 4♥. The problem with this method is not really showing/denying extras -- one partner or the other will either show or deny extras in a clear way by the choice to use fast arrival or not.

 

The problem with "fast arrival" is that when partner has a big hand the jump to 4♥ takes away all his space. He may have a hand that still has slam possibilities and is unsuited to bidding keycard, in which case he's just stuck.

 

The point of serious/courtesy 3NT bids is to be able to show the lousy hand (fast-arrival type hand) without jumping the bidding. Playing these methods, the 3♥ bid in the auctions above could be based on a minimum hand or a hand with extras. This conserves space in the situation where the first player to raise has a minimum, but partner has a big hand and wants to cuebid, while still letting you avoid looking hard for slam if both partners are minimum.

 

Of course, this leaves the question of what does it mean if you do jump to 4♥ in auctions like the above? I know some players who use it to show a "really atrocious hand" (so there are three levels of distinction: fast arrival, non-serious or courtesy slam try, and serious slam try) but this method still fixes partner in certain cases. It seems better to use the jump to 4♥ to show a very specific hand type, for example fairly minimum with cards concentrated in the two suits bid and no outside first or second round controls. This gives partner a good "picture" of your hand (thus called a "picture jump") and partner usually can get the decision of whether to bid past game right.

[paulg]

How often does a hand come up in which you need this? My guess would be about once per week of full time bridge. I could be way off.

Having spent the last two evenings in the partnership bidding room, it seems to come up about one hand in ten when you are dealing randomly with a minimum of 26 HCP between the hands.

[lexlogan]

Thanks for the feedback. Looks like several posters agree that it makes sense to avoid cue-bidding on hands where neither partner has extra values.

 

I do play that, with hearts agreed, a 3S cue-bid (with appropriate control*) is automatic without respect to strength. Fred's discussion on Serious 3NT takes the same approach -- it's the one cue-bid that lies above three of a major and below 3NT. Skipping it to bid 3NT, 4C, or 4D all deny appropriate control of spades. For those who use spades artificially over hearts in other sequences (1H-2S some sort of raise, 1H-3S some unspecified splinter, etc.) I'd asume inverting 3S and 3NT makes sense. I dislike bidding spades artificially so I prefer to keep 3NT as the courtesy slam try with hearts agreed.

 

For those who prefer Non-Serious 3NT, don't you think calling it Frivolous is apt to discourage it's use?

 

*That's another topic, but for me a cue-bid normally promises the Ace, or the King with some other key card that cannot be conveniently cue-bid. This will generally be the Ace or King of trumps or the Ace of a suit partner has already cue-bid. I don't like cue-bidding shortages since the evaluation of many holdings is vastly different between a high card and a shortage.

[kenrexford]

Frivolous 3NT (3♠) seems to have the merit of less disclosure when the partnership can "quantitative bash" sign-off.

 

Serious 3NT suffers from higher disclosure when it might not mater, but it seems to gain when the hands are, in fact, slammish. The tactical suggestion of bidding 3NT to get under clubs is one example of a simple principle. It is usually better to give maximal info from the holder of the weaker hand to the holder of the stronger hand.

 

Thus, the decision on which to use seems to be a cost-benefit analysis. Frivolous has fewer costs but fewer benefits; serious has greater benefits but greater costs.

[Cascade]

Frivolous 3NT (3♠) seems to have the merit of less disclosure when the partnership can "quantitative bash" sign-off.

 

Serious 3NT suffers from higher disclosure when it might not mater, but it seems to gain when the hands are, in fact, slammish. The tactical suggestion of bidding 3NT to get under clubs is one example of a simple principle. It is usually better to give maximal info from the holder of the weaker hand to the holder of the stronger hand.

 

Thus, the decision on which to use seems to be a cost-benefit analysis. Frivolous has fewer costs but fewer benefits; serious has greater benefits but greater costs.

Its not always the stronger hand that gets to bid serious/frivolous 3NT (3♠).

 

2♣ 2♠

3♠ ?

 

We would play frivolous 3NT on this auction.

 

Similarly

 

1♣ 1♥

3♥ ?

 

We might make a slam try on this auction with the expectation that responder has a weaker hand with some distribution. Frivolous 3♠ would apply for us.

 

In the first auction a 3NT bid would show a hand that was not broke but was not close to underwriting a slam opposite a minimum 2♣. And a serious cue-bid would show a hand that could make a slam opposite a reasonable minimum 2♣ opening.

 

In the second auction a frivolous 3♠ would show a hand that could see a slam opposite a good maximum 3♥ raise and a serious cue (including 3NT = spade cue) would show a hand that might make slam opposite any 3♥ with fitting cards and sufficient controls.

 

After a frivolous 3NT (3♠) we use our discretion about whether to cue. Over a serious cue we are obliged to cue below 4Major and very strongly encouraged to cue (or RKCB) above 4Major unless we know there is a suit without a control - our cues show first or second round control so bypassing denies a control (except shortage in partner's long suit).

 

I can't see how frivolous 3NT (3♠) gives up space compared with serious 3NT (3♠) - it seems like swings and round-abouts to me.

 

If there really is some technical advantage of this nature then maybe the optimal solution is serious 3NT (3♠) by the (presumed) stronger hand and frivolous 3NT (3♠) by the (presumed) weaker hand. But I am not convinced yet.

[Cascade]

As I understand it, the "standard" in 2/1 is fast arrival, so in each of:

 

1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥

 

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♥

 

The final 3♥ bid shows extras because a minimum hand would bid 4♥. The problem with this method is not really showing/denying extras -- one partner or the other will either show or deny extras in a clear way by the choice to use fast arrival or not.

 

The problem with "fast arrival" is that when partner has a big hand the jump to 4♥ takes away all his space. He may have a hand that still has slam possibilities and is unsuited to bidding keycard, in which case he's just stuck.

 

The point of serious/courtesy 3NT bids is to be able to show the lousy hand (fast-arrival type hand) without jumping the bidding. Playing these methods, the 3♥ bid in the auctions above could be based on a minimum hand or a hand with extras. This conserves space in the situation where the first player to raise has a minimum, but partner has a big hand and wants to cuebid, while still letting you avoid looking hard for slam if both partners are minimum.

 

Of course, this leaves the question of what does it mean if you do jump to 4♥ in auctions like the above? I know some players who use it to show a "really atrocious hand" (so there are three levels of distinction: fast arrival, non-serious or courtesy slam try, and serious slam try) but this method still fixes partner in certain cases. It seems better to use the jump to 4♥ to show a very specific hand type, for example fairly minimum with cards concentrated in the two suits bid and no outside first or second round controls. This gives partner a good "picture" of your hand (thus called a "picture jump") and partner usually can get the decision of whether to bid past game right.

General principles suggest that a jump like this should be very specific. The more bidding space you consume in a constructive auction the more specific your hand should be.

 

Using the jump to show some non-descript minimum just seems completely wrong to me.

 

This is one of my pet hates with standard Jacoby 2NT.

 

1Maj 2NT

4Maj - some minimum without a shortage.

 

I normally don't play 2/1 but I can see the same problems in the auctions you have highlighted.

 

These jumps when partner is unlimited are slam killers. There are many times when partner only needs one or two specific cards that you could have conveniently shown at a lower level but it is too risky for partner to venture to the five-level.

 

Fast arrival is just bad and uncooperative when partner is unlimited.

 

Sometimes I see this with Precision players on the auction

 

1♣* 1♠**

4♠ - Yuk***

 

* 16+ any

** GF with five or more spades

 

*** Actually the worst violation of this principle I have seen was a jump to 6♠ over 1♠.

 

These players were just way ahead of the field having established a game-force at the one-level then they threw away their advantage with an agricultural leap to game (slam).

[pclayton]

I am a firm believer that if you have something to cue-bid, you punt with frivolous 3N, no matter how atrocious your hand is. By bidding 4 of the major and bypassing frivolous and cue bids, not only you are denying the ability to cue, but you are also inferentially showing better trump.