LTTC and non-serious 3NT

[gnasher]

1S - 2D

2H - 3H

3S - ?

 

3NT with us, would have been a slam try in spades. Problem is, pard wanted to sign off in 3NT because they held x KJ9x KQJxx KQxx, and couldn't. After 4C hit the table we couldn't pull the brakes. We landed in 5H down one when opener showed up with AQxxxx A8xx x Ax, with the queen guarded and the A♦ lead to disallow the diamond pitch. The other table landed at a comfortable 4♥ playing standard methods.

I assume responder had x KJ9x KQJxx KQx.

 

It seems a bit extreme to blame Serious 3NT for whatever debacle occurred. I don't think I'd cue bid 4♣ with responder's hand, wouldn't go past 4♥ with opener's hand, and would be disappointed to go down in 5♥. What was the distribution that caused this contract to fail?

[keylime]

Hand corrected to show the 3 card club fragment.

 

My point is that I think this treatment may need so many limitations and conditions that for most pairs, it shouldn't be used without a lot of discussion.

 

I'd be curious to see how many pages of notes, or, amount of practice, to get this convention understood properly.

[kenrexford]

Although this has been repeated over and over, it is probably worth mentioning again in the context of this discussion. Whatever you and partner decide to play, one thing seems clear. One huge failure in slam sequences (and in many sequences) is in using too many tools without discussion of the impact of using those tools and the nuances from those tools. Whatever you decide, discuss as many sequences as possible, to make sure that you and partner are on the same page definitionally, nuance-wise, and theoretically. If the agreements are not the best, but at least consistently applied between you and partner, you are way ahead of great theory applied inconsistently.

 

I believe that some form of 3NT as a catcher call is powerful, but only if understood and applied along these terms. The ser/non-ser debate is less important IMO than making sure you understand each other as to when the tool you elect to use is used. LTTC adds, but again only if you know what it means in your partnership and when to use it.

 

For my part, when I set out to develop an idea as to a consistent, developed cuebidding apporach, I operated with these principles in mind. My ideas were discussed with one of my main partners, and we do not play the full concept exactly. Many tweaks were adopted, because they suited partner more. But, the end product was as developed.

 

When I shared my work with others, the main purpose was to show many who have tools like mine but never think about integrating them logically that a well-though full discussion with partner is very possible, that powerful nuances and individual treatments can very much be established and developed and understood, and that simply wiriting "Serious 3NT" and "LTTC" on the back of the CC is way too little discussion. I hoped that people would be inspired to develop partnership cuebidding to a comparable level, whether with the same conclusions in many areas or completely different conclusions, but always developed conclusions.

 

Fred's work may to him be in retrospect not exactly what he would write today. However, his work inspired a lot of us to think more deeply about why these tools are used and what they mean and how much potential exists in these tools. For that work, I for one am grateful. Far from "foolish," Fred, I think you propelled thought far beyond where it had been and really contributed to the evolution of bidding theory. Your end product does not have to be the ultimate end product to be of incomparable importance to the theory of the game.

 

Take the formality question. I think formal definitions and structures are extremely important for theory. If you try to create a useful cloud out of a messy cloud, you end up with a messy cloud. If, however, you start with a strict structure, you can then understand better the pros and cons of a consistent approach and better have a real tool to tweak logically.

 

It is like anything else. The person who violates the rules best is often the one who knows the rules best.