Weak 3NT vs Serious 3NT

[mishovnbg]

Three Notrump as a Weak Slam Try*

by Kit Woolsey

* A similar method is played by Eric Rodwell in his partnership with Jeff Meckstroth, and has been popularized as "Serious Three Notrump." In that method, the bids have a reverse meaning: three notrump is a serious slam try, and a cuebid is a weak try. Perhaps the method proposed by Woolsey could be labeled: "Non-Serious Three Notrump."

 

A common problem that troubles experts as well as average players is as follows:

 

Once a trump suit has been established and a game force has been created, just how much extra strength should a player have to make that first cuebid on the road to slam?

 

I have seen several expert pairs miss excellent slams or get too high because their methods are unable to handle this problem. Let's look at a typical case. Playing two over one as a game force, West holds:

 

S AKJxx H Axx D xx C Jxx

 

West East

1 S 2 D

2 S 3 S

?

 

Now what? Is this minimum West hand worth a four-heart cuebid, even assuming East's three-spade call shows some slam interest, as many pairs play? If West fails to cuebid four hearts, reasoning that he has a minimum opening, he may find his partner holding:

S QTx H xx D AKJxxx C KQ

 

East will certainly not move over a four-spade call. From his point of view partner likely has no side aces and the defense could have three cashing tricks if West's hand is:

S AKJxxx H QJx D Qx C Jx

 

That East hand opposite the first West hand produces a pretty good play for slam.

On the other hand, suppose West tries a four-heart cuebid. Suppose East holds something like:

 

S xxx H Kx D AKJxx C Axx

 

Because West could be considerably stronger for his four-heart cuebid, it would be hard to imagine that East would not drive to at least the five-level and quite possibly to a slam. On this pair of hands, even five spades is in quite a bit of jeopardy.

How can this problem be solved?

What we would like is for West to be able to make a bid that shows some slam interest without really being a slam try. If we decide to forget about playing in three notrump when we have an established eight-card major-suit fit, three notrump can be used for just that purpose. Not only does West convey his approximate strength, but the whole four-level is left open for further cuebidding without taking the partnership above game. Furthermore, if West does cuebid instead of bidding three notrump, East knows that West is really making a slam try rather than just cooperating, and East can bid accordingly.

 

Let's see how this structure would work on my above examples:

West                   East
S  A K J x x            S  Q 10 x
H  A x x                H  x x
D  x x                  D  A K J x x x
C  J x x                C  K Q

1 S                    2 D

2 S                    3 S

3 NT (some interest)   4 D (I'm interested,
                           tell me more)

4 H (normal cuebid)    4 NT (that's what I
                               needed)

5 C (0 or 3 keycards)  6 S

pass 

 

 

West                   East
S A K J x x            S x x x
H A x x                H K x
D x x                  D A K J x x
C J x x                C A x x

1 S                    2 D

2 S                    3 S

3 NT (some interest)   4 C (cuebid, also
                            interested)

4 H (normal cuebid)    4 S (I've made my try,
                           it's up to you)

pass (I'm out of gas) 

 

 

If West were somewhat stronger, with a hand like:

 

S AKQxx H Axx D Qx C xxx,

he would cuebid an immediate four hearts rather than start with three

notrump. Note that this hand is a favorite to make a grand slam opposite

the second East hand, while the original hand is in jeopardy at the

five-level, which illustrates just how important it is to distinguish

between a real slam try and a hand that is just cooperating.

 

What if our trump suit is hearts? It is unwieldy to make three notrump the

general interest bid, for we no longer have room to cuebid spades below the

four-heart safety level. The solution is to make three spades the general

interest bid. Three notrump by either partner is a spade cuebid, of course.

This way, we have all the room we need.

 

Under what conditions should we play this treatment?

Any time we have established a game force with an eight-card major-suit

fit and the last bid was three of the major, it is reasonable to use the

general interest bid.

 

Also, consider auctions such as this:

Opener Responder

1 H 2 C

3 H

 

The jump establishes hearts as trumps, so it might not be a bad idea to

play three spades here as the mild slam try. The exact rules for when these

methods apply must be determined by each partnership. Whatever the rules

are, use of this treatment should make your slam bidding much smoother.

 

 

Who is the winer in your opinion? Misho

[Flame]

Im trying to think which one is better.

Basically its both the same, but still there is one resson i can think of that make the not serious 3nt supiriour. this is because when you are strong you are more lackly to give a comfortable cue bid in the 4 level, you are more likely to hold a control in club and diamond then when you are weaker, now when you play non serious, your partner will be stronger (or else he will just bid game) and he will have a confortable 4c/4d.

cant think of other ressons for either side.

I wonder what fred has to say about this since in his 2/1 article he use serious 3NT.

one more thing to know, there are other ways to use the 3nt bid, my partner and i use it as turbo, which is to distinguage between odd/even keycard. 3nt can also be use as a counter cue bid for example after 1h- 3h- 3s - 3nt would show a control in spade. or as just a non convetian cue bid avaliable with good hand. or as showing good trumps.

[inquiry]

Ok, let me first address the issue of which is better, serious 3NT or weak 3NT. I think playing either is better than playing neither. But unlike FLAME, I believe the hand with serious slam interest should be the one to cue-bid 3NT. The reason being with serious slam interest, his hand is the one most likely suited to be able to make a logical go/no go decision based upon cue-bid offered up by his partner. That is, 3NT both notifies teh other partner that slam is possible (as would a direct cue bid), but also leaves maximum room to allow the weaker partner to show where his controls are. And this is the important point. IF the slam interested hand needs to hear something like a club-cue bid, the only way to find that out is give the weaker hand maximum room to show where his values are located.

 

Now for small specific, Misho gave the following hand and auction.

[hv=w=sakjxxhaxxdxxcjxx&e=sqtxhxxdakjxxxckq]266|100|1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3N 4♦

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

pass [/hv]

 

Well, I disagree with a whole host of bids here. 3NT as serious 3NT (with the context of a 2♠ rebid), if fine. As EAST, however, I would have bid 4♣, not 4♦. I agree with Fred and others that controls (1st or 2nd round) should be bid up the line here. In addition, 4♣ gets a chance to here if you partner has the ♦Q (which cna be cue-bid normally). If I was west, looking at no ♣ control over 4♦ cue bid, I would quickly retreat to 4♠, not cue-bid 4♥, Second, on the auction given, I would treat 4♥ not as "normal cue-bid", but rather as "last train to clarksville" promising a ♣ control, and neutral on hearts. Of course, if I had ♥ and ♣ control and EXTRA values above minimum slam try, I could use blackwood over 4♦. I would suggest the following auction with these pair of hands.

 

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

Pass

 

3♠ = hand not suited for "picture bid of 4♠", nor descriptive jump to 4♦ or a splinter 4♥ or 4♣

 

4♥ = LTTC, showing inability to cue-bid 4♣ or 4♦, not enough for serious 3NT, but at least some mild slam interest (or else, simply bid 4♠ instead of 4♥).

 

4NT - partner must have good ♠ and a ♥ control for the 4♥ LTTC bid. The hand partner actually holds is a reasonable minimum for this bid. With the second responder hand Misho showed (see below)

 

[hv=w=sakjxxhaxxdxxcjxx&e=sqtxhxxdakjxxxckq]266|100|1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3N 4♦

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

pass [/hv]

 

Stopping in 4♠ over the 4♥ rebid is easy. Where wil the source of tricks be?

 

Ben

[luis]

I've never liked "Serious" 3NT so I think the non-serious approach is really better. If you do have slam interest you can always cuebid when your pd also shows interest. I think that 3NT to show a hand that can't cuebid but has "some" interest is a very good approach.

 

Thanks Misho!

 

Luis

[Flame]

Ben you gave a good example for the resson i gave before.

look at your bid

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

Pass

your cue bid processing was very weak regarding the amount of imformation extanged, now lets see this with non serious 3nt

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3NT 4♣

4♥

more information passed in the process.

now lets take the K of club from responder and put it in opener's hand

the bidding with serious 3NT:

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3NT 4♦

4♥ = LTTC doesnt say anything about the heart suit just about the club suit

 

an with non serious 3NT

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

4♣ 4♦

4♥ = since we already bid the club controll we dont have to spare 4H to show it.

[inquiry]

Ben you gave a good example for the resson i gave before.

look at your bid

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

Pass

your cue bid processing was very weak regarding the amount of imformation extanged, now lets see this with non serious 3nt

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3NT 4♣

4♥

more information passed in the process.

now lets take the K of club from responder and put it in opener's hand

the bidding with serious 3NT:

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3NT 4♦

4♥ = LTTC doesnt say anything about the heart suit just about the club suit

 

an with non serious 3NT

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

4♣ 4♦

4♥ = since we already bid the club controll we dont have to spare 4H to show it.

Well, this is hardly a wonderful example, and barely shows much difference between the two approaches. But let's continue to examine the hands, shall we?

 

First, when the weak hand bids 3NT, it gets the strong hand showing his controls at the four level. In this example, the strong hand can bid 4C. That is good, because it gives a chance to see if the weak hand will cue-bid something. I assume you use 4♥ as a cue-bid not LTTC. Fine, now imagine a hand where the strong hand lacks a ♣ control. Here he as to bid 4♦ over 3NT with slam interest. Alright, now what is the weak hand to do? Without a ♣ control, we all know, the weak hand will signoff in 4♠. With a ♣ control and a ♥ control, we expect the weak hand to 'cue-bid' the ♥ control I guess. But what about if the weak hand has only a club control?

 

Imagine the hand with ♥ and ♣ reversed in both responder and opener's hand.

[hv=w=sakjxxhjxxdxxcaxx&e=sqtxhkqdakjxxxcxx]266|100| Misho's hand with ♥/♣ reversed in both hands[/hv]

 

In this case, the bidding playing "serious 3NT would go

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

4♣ 4♦

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

pass

 

But playing "non-serious", the bidding would be....

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3NT 4♦

?

 

Here, if 4♥ is LTTC, ok, that would show the missing ♣, but what does it say about how "good" a non-serious hand did you have. And if it promises a ♥ control, well then you simply have to bid 4♠. But with "serious 3NT" having shown the ♣ control, in the first auction. Responder is free to use 4♥ as LTTC with any "good" non-serious slam try (as this hand is), and bid 4♠ with yucky minimums.

 

There is another problem with the cue-bid having to be serious. Imagine a hand were the bidding goes...

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - 3♠

?

 

And opener has a minimum hand but a fitting ♣ honor. If he bids the "non-serious" 3NT, he will never get to show his partner the fitting ♣ honor. And it maybe that one fitting card is all responder needs to take control. OVer responders' cue-bid at the four level, there still remains no way to show what maybe the key card. One might argue that this goes the other way if ♦ is the partnership suit (as in this example), but I have found the following "trick" useful. If ♠ the agreed suit, the weaker partner cue-bids a ♣ control, but I need a fitting ♦ honor, I will bid 4♥ rather than cue-bid my own ♦ control. Partner will never bid over 4♠ over this LTTC without a control in ♦'s. This has saved me once or twice, but I don't believe it is "part of" serious 3NT/LTTC normal description.

 

Now some sideby side comparisions of the auctions you gave....

 

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3NT 4♣

4♥

more information passed in the process.

 

I am not so sure what "more" information this auction shows using non-serious auction above. The "strong" hand showed it had a ♣ control, and the weak hand denied a ♦ control and may, or maynot have showed a ♥ control (depending if you are playing LTTC or not). Responder doesn't know about the presences or absences of a ♣ control in opener's hand.

 

On a serioius 3NT auction, the 4♥ bid conveys a lot of information.

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

4♥

 

Here 1) opener lacks serious slam interest (no 3NT) (same as your auction got by bidding 3NT), 2) Opener lacks ♦ or ♣ control (you know he lacks ♦, but nothing about clubs), 3) If you play LTTC, opener is showing with 4p♥ that while he lacks serious slam interest, he must have a slam oriented type of minimum or else he would bid 4♠, or you could play this as showing ♥ACE/king and minimum. Thus 4♥ her can show as much, or maybe more than 4♥ on the auction where opener bid 3NT. I content, the strong hand cue-bidding a ♣ control to the hand without slam interest REALLY ISN"T giving any additional information, because the strong hand will make the slam go/no go decision, and he already knows he has a ♣ control.

 

Now, I will say that either serioius or non-serious 3NT is an improvement over natural, it just is my opinion that serioius 3NT is superior to non-serious.

 

Ben

[Flame]

Ben i didnt say that playing non serious 3nt will always lead to better cue bidding process, what i did say and you just emphsis it, is that a good cue bidding process is one that begin as low as possible, and the process will be better if the first cue bidder will accidently happend to be the one with the club cue bid. this is basicly exactly what you have showed. and like i said when you are strong there is more chance that you hold the club cue then when you are weak.

[Trpltrbl]

I will bid 4♥, with that I am denying any cards in minor suit as well as singleton or void in minor suits. Now pd should have a good idea about your hand. Like I always said and keep on saying, common sense will get you to best spot almost always.

 

Mike B)

[inquiry]

Ben i didnt say that playing non serious 3nt will always lead to better cue bidding process, what i did say and you just emphsis it, is that a good cue bidding process is one that begin as low as possible, and the process will be better if the first cue bidder will accidently happend to be the one with the club cue bid. this is basicly exactly what you have showed. and like i said when you are strong there is more chance that you hold the club cue then when you are weak.

The STRONG hand doesn't have to cue-bid at all. In fact, a negative cue-bid by the strong hand would be better. I don't think what I said supports your position what so ever.

 

In fact the exact opposite is true. If the weak hand will cue-bid above 3NT only when NOT interested in slam, he always has first shot at cue-bidding ♣s, by default. Here is a comparision with the weak hand to bid over 3♠. In both cases, the bidder is "Weak" thus no serious slam interest.

 

Case I. With "non-serious"3NT

 

---- 3♠

3NT

 

Ok, here the strong hand will keep the auction opening, bidding something like 4♣ or 4♦. So the weak hand, THE HAND THAT HAS TO SHOW WHERE HIS CONTROLS ARE, so the strong hand can evaluate where to go. So in fact, when slam is in the offing, your EFFECTIVE cue-bidding starts at least one level higher than it needs to start. Remember, if one hand has slam interest in the face of a non-serious try by the other, the stregth of the hands will be disproportinate. And it is the strong hand that will be trying to judge based upon fitting cards whether or not to continue to slam, not the weak one.

 

If the weak hand "cue-bids" 4♣ or 4♦ instead (when playing serious 3NT), more pertinent information is provided. First, if 4♣ is cue-bid, the cheapest control has been shown at the cheapest level (again, the strong hand showing a control is not useful, other than in the senses to stop if a suit is not controlled at all). If the weaker hand, instead bids 4♦, then two things are shown, first the presences of a ♦ control, and second the absences of a ♣ one. On the auction above, where weak hand bid 3NT, then 4♦ over 4♣, the strong hand knows about the ♦ control alright, but is missing, perhaps the key information about the lack of the ♣ control. This is especially acute problem if ♣ is a long suit in the strong hand (or maybe strong hand has singleton ♣A were the cue-bid by a non-serious partner would be a warning of wasted values.

 

It seems to me that you are too hung up on the concept of the "shared" information by having the stronger hand "cue-bid" his controls to the weaker one. There really is no advantage is this action when there is disproportionate stregnth (as noted above). Having the weak hand locate controls and sharing weak or strong for bidding so far (with LTTC) is a much greater advantage. But I am willing to accept your continued belief that the other way is superior (translate, I will not post a bunch of hands to try to convince you otherwise). Luis, a very good and thoughtful gold star happens to agree with you, and I suspect so does Misho, and of course, M. Miles. So your position must clearly be defensible, but for me, I go with Meckstroth, and Rodwell and Gittelman, so I have strong support for my view as well. That is a great thing about bridge, reasonable people can study a situation and reach exaclty opposite views. May the best views win at the table.

 

Ben

[Flame]

Just one more thing, the LTTC idea isnt a sub idea of the serious 3nt. Its a general cue bidding idea called cue bidding squeeze.

for example 1sp -3sp- 4d- 4h is showing ther club control rather then the heart one

[luke warm]

~snip~

 

Now for small specific, Misho gave the following hand and auction.

[hv=w=sakjxxhaxxdxxcjxx&e=sqtxhxxdakjxxxckq]266|100|1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3N  4♦

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

pass [/hv]

 

~snip~

 

1♠  2♦

2♠  3♠

4♥  4NT

5♣  6♠

Pass

 

3♠ = hand not suited for "picture bid of 4♠", nor descriptive jump to 4♦ or a splinter 4♥ or 4♣

 

4♥ = LTTC, showing inability to cue-bid 4♣ or 4♦, not enough for serious 3NT, but at least some mild slam interest (or else, simply bid 4♠ instead of 4♥). Ben

 

ben, i have a question on the bidding above, especially the lttc bid (4♥)

 

doesn't that say "i still have slam interest but was unable to show ♣ or ♦ controls... if you do have the controls we need in ♣ and ♦, i'd like for you to bid rkc OR lackwood, depending on your hearts"

 

so i guess what i'm asking is, should he bid rkc or 5♠ (lackwood)?

[inquiry]

1♠  2♦

2♠  3♠

4♥  4NT

5♣  6♠

Pass

 

ben, i have a question on the bidding above, especially the lttc bid (4♥)

 

doesn't that say "i still have slam interest but was unable to show ♣ or ♦ controls... if you do have the controls we need in ♣ and ♦, i'd like for you to bid rkc OR lackwood, depending on your hearts"

 

so i guess what i'm asking is, should he bid rkc or 5♠ (lackwood)?

No, it doesn't say I have interest is slam. Playing serious 3NT, if you had interest in slam, you would start with 3NT, the "serious 3NT".

 

So what does the suit below your trump suit mean? You can play it as no slam interest and cheapest cue-bid if you want. But I play this specific suit as LTTC. This is sort of a challenge to partner. It says, "partner, I don't have serious slam interest (no 3NT), I don't have a cheaper cue-bid (I didn't bid it), but I have somewhat MORE than a minimum and an offensive type hand within these broad guidelines."

 

You will be surprised how well partner can work this out. The hand held for this bid is either VERY good trumps, or moderately good trumps and the ACE in the LTTC suit. Hardly every anything else. Thus, if your partner is looking at ACE in the LTTC suit and poorish trump support, he will know the trumps are good enough. The hand misho posted is just one of the perfect hands for this 4♥ bid imho. If the hand was, for instance...

 

♠AKQTxx ♥QJx ♦xx ♣Qxx I would also bid 4♥ over 3♠.

 

5♠ would not be lackwood. 5♥ is lackwood. So over 4♥ if partner is worried about lossing two quick ♥ tricks, he bids 5♥, and responder bids 6♠ with second round ♥ control, and shows key cards is step (not counting 5♠ with first round control. HE bids 5♠ with no control in the LTTC suit. IF partner has control of LTTC, he can bid 4NT normal RKCB

 

Ben

[luke warm]

you're right, i had forgotten there was no 3nt immediately... thanks

[Flame]

Ben I can agree with you that if what needed is for the weak hand to show a controll so that the strong hand will know what to do then you are right and serious 3NT is supiriour, however i dont know if thats true, i reffer to cue bid as cooperation by both players, not one saying where is controll and the other one know what to do, for this type of investigation there are asking bids.

Now you may be right, i dont know, but you might consider this approach.

using non serious 3nt, and asking bids.

1sp - 3sp

3nt = non serious

4x asking bid of this suit.

 

this way when you are strong and you usually want to know about one thing in partner hand you will learn more this way then the cue bidding way, while when you are weak you will bid 3nt.

after non serious 3nt there could be two choices either simple cue bidding, or you might think asking bid is better. i would say cue bidding will be better now.

in general cue bidding is good when both hands are strong and have something to say, while asking bids are better when one hand is stronger and can ask about what it's looking for.

what do you think ?

[mikestar]

I find Ben's argument convincing. I also think Kit Woolsey's idea of inverting 3S and 3NT when hearts are agreed is sound--the spade cuebid has the same role wiht hearts agreed as the club cuebid does with spades agreed.

[the hog]

At the risk of adding a slight irrelevancy to the topic, a discussion of when to use Serious/Frivolous 3N is in order.

Partner and I had a hand yesterday:

1C 1S 3S

at which stage pd trotted out Serious. We had a discussion about this afterwards and decided that the 3N bid here is better suited to asking for a singleton. Why? Opener is fairly strictly limited to 15- -17; because of this there is little need for S/F 3NT. S/F should be used when you are suggesting/investigating a slam and both pds are unlimited eg the classic 2/1 auction 1S 2C 2D 3S.

 

As to which one to use, Serious or Frivolous, I doubt whether it matters much.

 

Ron

[Flame]

At the risk of adding a slight irrelevancy to the topic, a discussion of when to use Serious/Frivolous 3N is in order.

Partner and I had a hand yesterday:

1C 1S 3S

at which stage pd trotted out Serious. We had a discussion about this afterwards and decided that the 3N bid here is better suited to asking for a singleton. Why? Opener is fairly strictly limited to 15- -17; because of this there is little need for S/F 3NT. S/F should be used when you are suggesting/investigating a slam and both pds are unlimited eg the classic 2/1 auction 1S 2C 2D 3S.

 

As to which one to use, Serious or Frivolous, I doubt whether it matters much.

 

Ron

I totally agree with you, there are better used to the 3nt when atleast one of the players is limited, even the natural choice of game can work especially at MP.

[inquiry]

Of course, Ron, on an auction like you suggest, where one partner accurately describes his distribution and strength, serious or not serious 3NT is not needed. If the other partner doesn't sign off, it is a slam try of some sort. So 3NT can be either "option to play" or asking for something else, like short suit.

 

Ben

[Flame]

Hey Ben what do you think my suggested method from the previous page, can it work ?

[inquiry]

Hey Ben what do you think my suggested method from the previous page, can it work ?

I think negative cue-bids over non-serious 3NT will work, but I am not certain it is really an improvement. In fact, I also suggested something like this when I said, "The STRONG hand doesn't have to cue-bid at all. In fact, a negative cue-bid by the strong hand would be better."

 

The point being, for instance,

 

3NT (non-serious) 4C <<---- slam try, need control in clubs to continue....

Responses would be signoff = no club control, anything else promises a club control.

 

I guess if a partner wanted to play Frivolous 3NT, I would simply agree and not change the bidding structure, because you will need to codify what other responses when hold a control in the asked suit exist (for example what would 4D or 4H show in the above auction... if controls in those suits, what do you bid without control in either but a control in the asked suit).

 

Ben

[cwiggins]

As I understand Ben's claim, it is that the Frivolous 3NT risks not being able to find out about a critical control. Is there another risk/gain to be considered?

 

I found this in a message in rec.games.bridge dated May 29, 2003: "I corresponded with Fred Gitleman about Serious vs. "Frivolous" (as he

put it) 3NT and he agreed that the combination of serious cue-bids and

non-serious 3NT was technically better: why cue-bid if neither partner

may have slam interest?"

 

George Rosenkranz expressed a related issue: "[Meckwell's] approach seems to increase the risk of a lead directing double by a defender." Godfrey's Angels, p. 112.

 

As understand these, the claim is that cue-bidding when you have no slam interest and partner turns out to also have no interest, has a higher risk than Frivolous 3NT of a double that will result in your game going down (or in matchpoints of the lead that holds you to one less trick than others).

 

BTW, Fred's articles on Improving 2/1 were great. I hope he updates them someday.

 

Chris

[Flame]

Very good point chris, i didnt think about it before, and now i have much more confident that the non serious way is better.

[GijsH]

[hv=w=sakjxxhaxxdxxcjxx&e=sqtxhxxdakjxxxckq]266|100|1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3N 4♦

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

pass [/hv]

Playing Ambra we play a different convention here, called Turbo.

After a major is agreed we play 3NT (or 4NT) to show an even number of keycards and bypassing 3NT an odd number of keycards.

So we would bid:

 

1S 2H

2S 3S

4H 4N

6S p

 

2H: in Ambra 2D and 2H are transposed, but that makes no difference here

2S: 11/16

3S: slam invite with 3card support

4H: bypassing 3NT: odd number of keycards, no C/D control

4N: shows Q of trumps reponder knows opener has AK in S and A in H

6S: nothing to add (5S might be mistaken for having only 1 keycard)

[cwiggins]

[hv=w=sakjxxhaxxdxxcjxx&e=sqtxhxxdakjxxxckq]266|100|1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

3N  4♦

4♥ 4NT

5♣ 6♠

pass [/hv]

Playing Ambra we play a different convention here, called Turbo.

After a major is agreed we play 3NT (or 4NT) to show an even number of keycards and bypassing 3NT an odd number of keycards.

So we would bid:

 

1S 2H

2S 3S

4H 4N

6S p

 

2H: in Ambra 2D and 2H are transposed, but that makes no difference here

2S: 11/16

3S: slam invite with 3card support

4H: bypassing 3NT: odd number of keycards, no C/D control

4N: shows Q of trumps reponder knows opener has AK in S and A in H

6S: nothing to add (5S might be mistaken for having only 1 keycard)

Is there an updated version of Ambra out? The only one I know of is at http://net.supereva.it/dtavoschi/indexENG.htm?p

[Flame]

Gijsh and I play Ambra.

You can find our last version (if Gijsh have updated it) on Gijsh's site.

AMBRA and more

beside that you can find version 1.5 in italian on the italian version of Davide site

AMBRA 1.5 italian

our version is based on those two versions with some changes of ourselfs.

we still change it alot.