Courtesy 3NT vs. Serious 3NT

[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♠.

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.

You were almost certainly ahead of me.

 

I am not really even sure where I got this from.

 

I know I had read Ruben's ideas on the Useful Space Principle many years ago and had several ideas about using this general idea some from others some, my own (although quite possibly used by others) - kickback, 1♥ 2♠ artificial raise, 2♥ 2♠ artificial enquiry, serious and frivolous 3♠ etc etc

 

The enquiries over 1♥ and 2♥ I have played for well over 10 years firstly with my wife. Many of the others were ideas that I had in my notebook (which was sadly stolen from my car) since in my main serious partnership until 2001 was based on fairly plain symmetric relay and were not put into practice until I established a serious natural based partnership in 2002. I am not sure when I first read about serious 3NT but I am pretty sure I would have immediately seen the advantage and consistency for me of using 3♠ over hearts and I am even less sure about when I read about frivolous 3NT. I have a vague recollection of thinking about serious and frivolous at the same time and deciding to give one a temporary trial - we tried serious first and then changed to frivolous. I think at the same time we tried Last Train which we have since abandoned.

[Finch]

The reason I asked is I'm trying to determine the genesis of this agreement.

As I mentioned, I was introduced to this by my (then fairly new) partner sometime in the early nineties as a convention called Rodwell.

 

I imagine it's been invented multiple times, like many other popular treatments.

[kenrexford]

[interesting and good analysis]

I find the idea of tweaking serious/frivolous very interesting. I sort of do the same thing with LTTC (LTTC if by Serious person only, otherwise cue).

 

That said, some weak-hand auctions actually work better if the known weak hand can use serious 3NT.

 

An example might help. Suppose spades are trumps. 4♥ might be LTTC. Maybe. But, suppose that the strong hand needs info about partner's minors.

 

Suppose further that Responder could have either, both, or no minor Kings.

 

If Responder cues 4♣, he will not be able to cue 4♦, barring an insufficient bid by the opponents in a slam sequence, or an equally-dubious double of 4♣.

 

As suggested before, a "Serious 3NT" can be a tactical call. Here, it would strongly imply touching cues (clubs and diamonds, or diamonds and hearts). Frivolous does not easily help this situation, at least as I understand it.

 

Of course, a cue could promise two controls and a 3NT call promise "just one." But, after a 4♣ "I got another," how do you find out where? You might get into some sort of asking-bid options or paradox two-way LTTC or something bizarre like that, I imagine.

[Finch]

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.

Compared to many other things that are worth discussing, this should be fairly low on the priority list. However, when it does come up it is useful, mainly because it stops you playing at the 5-level unnecessarily.

 

Last week we had the following hands to bid

 

AQ9xxxx

x

9

AJxx

 

K10x

Jx

AQ10xx

K10x

 

we bid

1S - 2D

2S - 3S

4C - 4D

4H - 5C

6S

 

2D = game forcing

2S = 6+ spades

3S = not particularly a slam try, only very unsuitable hands would bid 4S in case opener has lots extra

4C = serious slam try, first round club control

4D = first round diamond control

4H = first round heart control (he lied)

 

At this point South has the benefit of knowing that partner has a serious slam try - opposite the AQ of spades and the rounded aces slam has at least some play, so she is worth another move. Not playing a method of this form it's much harder, as South is concerned that North is only bidding in case she has a slam try.

 

5C = second round club control

6S = OK, if partner is prepared to go past 4S we should have play

 

Maybe not the best advertisement for the method, because 6S is not cold, but you want to be there (and it made an overtrick on a club lead).

 

Without playing a method of this form, I think this slam is virtually unbiddable without risking being in a dodgy five-level spot with other hands.

[kenrexford]

[example deal]

This seems like a counter-intuitive example.

 

Why is South making the decisions rather than North?

 

If North can bid 4♣ because of his serious interest, wouldn't it be better for North to bid 3NT to show serious interest and have South bid the club control? Sure, if North makes a non-serious 4♣ cue, then South has a problem. But, if the hand is serious, North won't do that.

 

The end result of this example is that you have the hand whose relevant assets are the club King, the spade King, a fit, and the diamond Ace, with nothing else really contextually interesting, making the decisions rather than the person with 7-4 pattern..

[JanM]

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

We play frivolous 3NT (because we don't want to give the opponent a cue bid to double in auctions where both of us are minimum - sometimes the opening lead will determine whether game makes when both hands are minimum, it's rarely going to be vital when one hand has a serious slam try.

 

I think that the times when we get the most value out of frivolous 3NT (and they come up pretty often) are the ones where we make a serious slam try. An opening bid has such a wide range of strength, and so does 2/1, so sometimes it's difficult to know whether to risk the 5 level to investigate slam. It's a lot easier if you can show extra values below game. That way if the 3M bidder has a dead minimum, we can still stop in game (if the cue bidder hadn't already shown extra, s/he might be tempted to bid again even when the 3M bidder didn't cooperate), and when the 3M bidder has a little extra we can explore slam.

 

We've been using 3♠ over 3♥ as a cue bid that doesn't say anything about strength (leaving 3NT as frivolous for the 3♥ bidder), with 3NT frivolous showing a hand that isn't horrible for slam but doesn't have a spade control. I don't know whether that is better or worse than 3♠ as frivolous and 3NT as a serious spade cue bid, but it's an alternative.