Which is better and why?

[jdeegan]

:P I am trying to learn the serious or non-serious 3NT. Which one is better?

[Fluffy]

I have never played either, so my opinion is not to be really considered. However I always though non-serious is better, because when it matters the most: you stay in game, you leak less info about controls.

[inquiry]

Not sure whtich is better, but I prefer non-serious 3NT, and on a related subject, I prefer to reverse the meaning of the good/bad 2NT (bid directly with weaker hand, go through 2NT with the better hand). Maybe I just like to be difficult for my parnters who play these normally with others.

 

 

[lalldonn]

Definitely non-serious. Hide your hand when you don't have extras.

[Zelandakh]

Not only does Frivolous have an advantage in terms of information leakage when partner is not interested in slam, it is also an advantage in some (rare) extensions to the idea that you can play such as agreeing a minor in clear slam auctions. What makes even more sense imho is Frivolous X+1; that is 3NT with spades agreed, 3♠ with hearts agreed, etc. This follows the traditional logic in slam bidding - first find out if we have enough strength/tricks for slam, then whether we are missing side suit controls and finally if we have enough key cards. Frivolous is a tool for making the first decision, so it should come before any control-showing bids (second decision).

[gnasher]

Another advantage of non-serious 3NT is that it's less likely to preempt a club cue-bid. For example, we want to avoid the situation where we have agreed spades and the first cue-bid is diamonds, because now we have control of two suits to worry about but only one bid left below game. You're more likely to have a diamond control but no club control when you have non-serious values than when you have serious values.

 

The main advantage of Serious 3NT is that there's no temptation to give it a silly name.

[lesh]

:P I am trying to learn the serious or non-serious 3NT. Which one is better?

 

I think non-serious 3nt because you can limit your hand and dont overbid. It is important, however, to discuss what is the limit of the non-serious bid so that pd would know what to expect when you go 3nt or 4x.

 

It might be also a good idea to vary the non-serious 3nt with serious. For example, when one of the hands has shown a minimum hand and the other, which is unlimitted, bids 3nt it should be clearer that you look for ♣ cubid rather than using it as a non-serious because you will just bid 4M for example and end the action. :)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

snip

What makes even more sense imho is Frivolous X+1; that is 3NT with spades agreed, 3♠ with hearts agreed, etc.

Zel :

With ♥ agreed and you bid 3S! ( Frivolous , but says nothing about a ♠-Ctrl ) , then if partner still has slam aspirations and shows it with 3NT! or 4C , but he has no ♠-Ctrl, how can you show that you actually have a ♠-Ctrl below game ??

 

[ Maybe 4D! ( Last Train ) will show it ?? ] .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EDIT: Alternatively, what if you make the 3S - Ctrl cue ( but says nothing about Serious ) ,

if you then continue with a Ctrl-cue even after partner bids 3NT! ( Frivolous ), then you have shown that you were "Serious" .

Edited February 21, 2013 by TWO4BRIDGE

[jdeegan]

:P Thanks all, and I'm serious about that.

[Mbodell]

Zel :

With ♥ agreed and you bid 3S! ( Frivolous , but says nothing about a ♠-Ctrl ) , then if partner still has slam aspirations and shows it with 3NT! or 4C , but he has no ♠-Ctrl, how can you show that you actually have a ♠-Ctrl below game ??

 

[ Maybe 4D! ( Last Train ) will show it ?? ] .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EDIT: Alternatively, what if you make the 3S - Ctrl cue ( but says nothing about Serious ) ,

if you then continue with a Ctrl-cue even after partner bids 3NT! ( Frivolous ), then you have shown that you were "Serious" .

 

I think the easiest mapping when 3♠ is artificial frivolous is for 3nt to be a spade cue. So if partner bids 3nt over the frivolous 3♠ it shows serious interest and the spade control. For simplicity I usually do what you describe in the alternative where a 3 level spade cue is natural but neither promises or denies extras, and 3nt stays frivolous. I think this arrangement is less optimal from a "perfect system" point of view, but is easy to remember and will lead to less disasters than confusion over the 3♠ artificial call.

[Zelandakh]

Don, 3♠ as a control cue and 3NT Frivolous is the "normal" way that I am arguing against. As Mbodell writes, you can simple reverse these so that 3♠ is Frivolous and 3NT is the spade cue. As you may know, I combine this with denial cues/asking bids, so that after 3♥ agreeing hearts:

 

(if 3♥ bidder is limited)

3♠ = slam try

3NT = serious spade ask

4m = serious ask in m

4♥ = sign off

 

(if 3♥ bidder is unlimited)

3♠ = would decline a slam try

3NT = would accept a slam try, no spade control

4♣ = would accept a slam try, spade control, no club control

4♦ = would accept a slam try, spade control, club control, no diamond control

4♥ = would accept a slam try, controls in all side suits

 

And yes, Mobodell is right, this takes a little getting used to since sometimes 4♥ is the weakest action and sometimes it is the strongest.

 

At some point, I am hoping to have enough time/energy to write an article about extending this concept to minor suit and two-suited auctions, which is an area that does not seem to have a great deal of literature devoted to it. I think there are some useful gains to be had there, albeit that these opportunities are comparatively rare in natural methods. Obviously every pair has to weight up the balance between "better" methods and complexity though. Also, it only takes one time where the opps double a Frivolous 3♠ and find their 4♠ sac over 4♥ for it to show a loss over a Frivolous 3NT (if there is not a corresponding hand over a 3♠ frivolous cue) where we come out ahead.

[Codo]

I think non-serious 3nt because you can limit your hand and dont overbid. It is important, however, to discuss what is the limit of the non-serious bid so that pd would know what to expect when you go 3nt or 4x.

 

It might be also a good idea to vary the non-serious 3nt with serious. For example, when one of the hands has shown a minimum hand and the other, which is unlimitted, bids 3nt it should be clearer that you look for ♣ cubid rather than using it as a non-serious because you will just bid 4M for example and end the action. :)

 

 

I agreed with all the input from others but not with this one:

I would not mix it and there is a too easy way to ask for club control so that you need to violate your system.

 

 

 

But besides this: Despite the theoretical disadvantage of serious 3 NT compared to frivolous: I cannot remember a single hand, where they took an extra trick just because I used a control bid in a "nonserious" auction.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I think non-serious 3nt because you can limit your hand and dont overbid. It is important, however, to discuss what is the limit of the non-serious bid so that pd would know what to expect when you go 3nt or 4x.

 

It might be also a good idea to vary the non-serious 3nt with serious. For example, when one of the hands has shown a minimum hand and the other, which is unlimitted, bids 3nt it should be clearer that you look for ♣ cubid rather than using it as a non-serious because you will just bid 4M for example and end the action. :)

 

I agreed with all the input from others but not with this one:

I would not mix it and there is a too easy way to ask for club control so that you need to violate your system.

 

 

When playing Frivolous 3NT:

Isn't lesh saying that when one hand has limited and the other unlimited hand bids 3NT, there is no reason to bid a Frivolous-3NT when he would just bid 4M to play. Thus, he suggests that the 3NT is essentially "asking" for a 4C Ctrl , since you "never have 3NT 'to play' when playing Serious/non-Serious 3NT "

[fromageGB]

When playing Frivolous 3NT:

Isn't lesh saying that when one hand has limited and the other unlimited hand bids 3NT, there is no reason to bid a Frivolous-3NT when he would just bid 4M to play. Thus, he suggests that the 3NT is essentially "asking" for a 4C Ctrl , since you "never have 3NT 'to play' when playing Serious/non-Serious 3NT "

In fact it is better than that. Say spades are trumps. When you are playing the normal "bid the suit shows a control" method, you can change to a one-under denial cue bid in all suits, not just clubs. For example, 4♦ necessarily shows both clubs and diamonds, but wants partner to show a control in hearts. Often in this situation the serious hand is open in only one of the suits, and this enables a missing control to be found "naturally" in any suit. It can also be useful where you have controls in all suits, but would really like to know of one in partner's hand to bolster, say, your Axx, before you commit to ace asking.

 

I think this arrangement is less optimal from a "perfect system" point of view, but is easy to remember and will lead to less disasters than confusion over the 3♠ artificial call.

 

There isn't any confusion if it is consistent with your system. I play a non-serious 3NT which is 3♠ over 3♥ with 3NT as a serious spade cue, and have never had a problem with that. The rest of the system has 1♥ 3♣ and 1♠ 3♦ as weaker Bergen (ie 3M-2), 1♥ 2♠ is GF 4 card support (ie "jacoby" 2M+1), so therefore 3M+1 = non-serious. It enables all the responses to be the same, whether in hearts or spades, in all your methods.

[Free]

In theory Frivolous is better. You hide the hand when there's the least chance you'll reach slam. You don't give away information needlesly.

 

Like others suggest, when you set ♥ as trumps at 3-level, I prefer 3♠ to be frivolous (3NT shows a ♠ cue). Combined with last train you can easily figure out if there's a missing ♠ cue or not.

[aguahombre]

In fact it is better than that. Say spades are trumps. When you are playing the normal "bid the suit shows a control" method, you can change to a one-under denial cue bid in all suits, not just clubs. For example, 4♦ necessarily shows both clubs and diamonds, but wants partner to show a control in hearts.

This used to be called "scanning", right? Oh, no...that was bypassing the suit(s) controlled and stopping on the one we don't control. We thought about doing that, and decided it had too much baggage.

[PhilKing]

This used to be called "scanning", right?

 

Sweeping, I believe. Scanning is when you ask for cards in a relay chain, missing out a step for each card you are not interested in and partner shows consecutive cards in the chain via steps. Some of us still play spiral scan after low level RKCB as per the Rosencrantz methods.

[fromageGB]

This used to be called "scanning", right? Oh, no...that was bypassing the suit(s) controlled and stopping on the one we don't control. We thought about doing that, and decided it had too much baggage.

No, bypassing others but stopping on the one you don't control is simply called denial cue bids. I like them. My general preference for one-under denial is this, though:

 

When responder has made an unlimited bid, you can be in a mid range where you are too strong for non-serious, but not strong enough to commit to ace asking on your own, if control bidding shows that all suits are guarded. Take a typical 2 over 1 sequence with major suit agreement at 3♥ - both hands are opening values and you have 4 hcp more than you might. If both of you are like this and nobody shows it, you miss slam. But your 16 is not enough to ace ask if responder may be minimum for his bid. 3♠ is non-serious. If you can bid "one-under" a suit where you have a blank, then whatever the suit, if partner bids it, you are home and dry.

 

Say you are xx in diamonds, but have something in the other suits. Over 3♥ you bid 4♣ (serious, showing spades and clubs). Partner obligingly bids 4♦ to show that control. You could of course now bid 4♠ to ask for aces, but you are not really good enough (say scattered values but no solid side suit). You bid 4♥. The fact that you have already shown a serious hand by not bidding 3♠, and the fact that partner knows all the suits are controlled, puts him in a position where he can pass with a minimum hand, but happily ace ask if he has additional values too.

 

Playing straight denial cue bids, I don't think you can do this. (No doubt Zel or some other enthusiast for them will tell me how.)

[Zelandakh]

Playing straight denial cue bids, I don't think you can do this. (No doubt Zel or some other enthusiast for them will tell me how.)

If you are playing

3♠ = Frivolous

3NT = serious, spade control, no club control

4♣ = serious, spade and club controls, no diamond control

4♦ = serious, spade, club and diamond controls (but not enough extras for RKCB)

 

then it seems to me you have a non-frivolous problem on serious hands without a spade control. I assume that you are actually not playing Frivolous 3♠ but rather that you also bid this on these hands too. This is similar to a method played by at least one expert American pair (or was when I saw them on vugraph) except that they do not claim to be playing Frivolous, rather just that they resolve controls before strength. In order to judge your method, I would need to see how your follow-ups to 3♠ work. In principle you do not have enough space to do everything you are claiming here.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I found this in my files under "Serious/non-serious 3NT " .

 

There was a thread last April by wyman :

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/52314-heart-auctions/page__gopid__627548#entry627548

 

On the subject of when ♥ are trump and after a 3H bid, I concluded that

according to Fred Gitelman ( in 2008 ) [ http://www.forums/topic/23116-21gitleman/bridgebase.com/ ] :

 

- - a 3S bid is a Ctrl-cue whether playing Serious or Not ;

 

- - and by-passing 3S would deny a ♠-Ctrl whether playing Serious or Not .

 

[ It was then pointed out ( by phil ) that Fred's 2/1 article was 20 years old ] .

[fromageGB]

If you are playing

3♠ = Frivolous

3NT = serious, spade control, no club control

4♣ = serious, spade and club controls, no diamond control

4♦ = serious, spade, club and diamond controls (but not enough extras for RKCB)

 

then it seems to me you have a non-frivolous problem on serious hands without a spade control. I assume that you are actually not playing Frivolous 3♠ but rather that you also bid this on these hands too. This is similar to a method played by at least one expert American pair (or was when I saw them on vugraph) except that they do not claim to be playing Frivolous, rather just that they resolve controls before strength. In order to judge your method, I would need to see how your follow-ups to 3♠ work. In principle you do not have enough space to do everything you are claiming here.

No. I do play frivolous 3NT - except I prefer the term non-serious, as that is much more descriptive, a serious hand having additional values.

 

I introduced to the thread the idea of one-under denial cue bids when we were talking about bidding serious opposite a limited hand. There, 4♥ is the non-serious bid, so 3♠ is serious denial in spades, 3NT serious denial in clubs, 4♣ serious denial in diamonds. You can do it in all suits.

 

You are right, when partner is unlimited, there is no room to do everything. As you said, you cannot show a serious hand missing a spade control. 4♦ is an ambiguous bid. It shows either

(a) a serious hand possibly missing a spade control that wants partner to ace ask if he has extras. If he has, and does, then you may be missing a spade control but you have the safety of both hands having extras.

or (b) a super-serious hand (that wants to ace ask opposite a minimum) that is missing a spade control. (If you were not missing a control you would have ace asked immediately.) Non-serious partner of course now bids 4♥ and you ace ask. However, if he has no spade control he knows you don't, so shows no aces.

 

This method does have a danger of perhaps occasionally getting too high when spades are open, but has the advantage of always allowing cooperative ace asking when both sides have extras that are insufficient on their own.

 

With denial cue bids I am sure you have a problem where you are missing the control under the trump suit. Keeping with hearts as trumps, you bid 4♦, and partner is stuck. If he doesn't have it, he has to bid 4♥ and you stop there OK, but if he has it, but in a minimum hand, what does he do? I guess he replies with his ace response as if you were asking, but you have lost the ability to have cooperative ace asking when both sides have extras that are insufficient on their own.

 

Which is better, an unknown spade control but have the facility of cooperative ace asking, or definite knowledge of controls but no cooperative asking?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

♥ agreed as trump.

After 3H ( and using standard Ctrl-cuebids :

 

Mbodell ( post # 10 ) , Free ( post # 15 ) and Zel ( post # 19 ) suggest that

3S! = non-Serious and says nothing about a ♠-Ctrl as long as 3NT! by either partner is Serious AND shows a ♠-Ctrl.

 

Alternatively, it seems that 3S! could be used as Serious as long as 3NT by either partner also shows a ♠-Ctrl :

 

After 3H ( bid neither partner has limited ):

3S! = Serious ( says nothing about ♠-Ctrl )

..... - 3NT! = ♠-Ctrl

..... - 4C = ♣-Ctrl, but denies a ♠-Ctrl

..... - 4D etc

 

3NT! = non-serious, but have ♠-Ctrl

..... - 4C = ♣-Ctrl, slammish

..... - 4D = ♦-Ctrl, no ♣-Ctrl, but slammish

..... - 4H = I'm not serious either

 

4C = non-serious, ♣-Ctrl, but no ♠-Ctrl

..... - 4D = ♦-Ctrl, slammish, don't worry about ♠

........... [ actually, Responder at this point would probably just go 4NT ( RKC ) instead of 4D-cue ] .

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sooo, I'm in a "funk" ... I don't know which 3S! is better -- Serious or non-Serious

( using standard Ctrl-cues ) :blink:

[Zelandakh]

With denial cue bids I am sure you have a problem where you are missing the control under the trump suit. Keeping with hearts as trumps, you bid 4♦, and partner is stuck. If he doesn't have it, he has to bid 4♥ and you stop there OK, but if he has it, but in a minimum hand, what does he do? I guess he replies with his ace response as if you were asking, but you have lost the ability to have cooperative ace asking when both sides have extras that are insufficient on their own.

 

Which is better, an unknown spade control but have the facility of cooperative ace asking, or definite knowledge of controls but no cooperative asking?

No, the control under the trump suit is no problem because serious slam interest has already been established by this point. You seem to be using serious in a way that is different from how I use it. For me, serious means that I think we have enough strength/tricks for slam if we are not off 2 cashing tricks. Frivolous means that there may be a slam but I am not going to drive it. Your definition of serious sounds like my definition of frivolous. What you are doing is finding out about controls first, then deciding if there are enough extras for slam. What I am doing is finding out if there are enough extras for slam and only checking for controls if the answer is yes. Both methods do have the advantage over Standard of allowing targeted asks. I think this method has the additional advantage over yours of less information leakage. But I need to see the follow-ups in more detail to be absolutely certain.

 

One thing that is true of my method is that it has been designed primarily under the assumption that one hand will be limited. This is due to the way my methods work. If you play a system where where both hands are often unlimited in slam auctions, then it is quite possible that you want to play methods where more attention given to that aspect. In effect, I use Frivolous as a slam try by the unlimited hand, or as a decline of a slam try by a limited hand. In either case it is the weakest action while still showing slam interest. If the unlimited (control) hand is to bid then:

 

3♠ = Frivolous (slam try)

3NT = serious, spade ask

4m = serious, ask in m

4♥ = sign off

4♠ = RKCB (rare since ask is free)

 

If the limited (showing) hand is to bid then:

 

3♠ = Frivolous (decline of (imagined) slam try)

3NT = accept of slam try, no spade control

4♣ = accept of slam try, spade control, no club control

4♦ = accept of slam try, spade and club controls, no diamond control

4♥ = accept of slam try, controls in all side suits

 

Did I not write this earlier? If you write your method out in a similar way, it is easier to compare. Descriptions can be difficult to follow.

 

Anyway, the method of cue bidding the top of equal controls is one I know of. I have never seen it used in quite the way you are suggesting but I would suggest that knowing whether you are off a cashing ♠AK before committing to the 5 level is quite important. In fact, I would far rather commit to the 5 level on a hand where we know we have extras and all suits controlled than a hand where we might have extras and might have a spade control. If you were seriously worried about the "more extras" issue then I think I would prefer to make 4♠ conditional RKCB. Seems silly to me though - I would prefer just to improve the design of the system before reaching the slam bidding so that we are not guessing at the 4 level.

 

 

@Don, Serious and Frivolous, whether 3M+1, 3NT or 4M-1, all give the same information in the end. The earlier you put the strength question, and the less often you make a control bid when slam is not there, the better from an information leakage point of view. In this respect, Frivolous 3M+1 is best.

 

The second question is between using standard (Roman) control bids and denial cues. Here denial cue bids have the advantage for intermediate players of having consistent rules, whereas Standard cues is quite complicated in some auctions. There is a further advantage of allowing targeted asks on slam force hands before making the drive. Standard can have an advantage on some auctions, especially pure cue auctions, but this generally requires (close to) expert level judgement.

 

Therefore, I suggest Frivolous 3M+1 and denial cues as the best arrangement for good intermediate and advanced pairs that are willing to make the commitment to something like this.

[fromageGB]

... You seem to be using serious in a way that is different from how I use it. For me, serious means that I think we have enough strength/tricks for slam if we are not off 2 cashing tricks. Frivolous means that there may be a slam but I am not going to drive it. Your definition of serious sounds like my definition of frivolous.

Yes. Your terms -> my terms compare as you expected.

minimumish -> non-serious

frivolous -> serious

serious -> super-serious

I will keep to my terms in the following, so I will let you make the translation.

 

One thing that is true of my method is that it has been designed primarily under the assumption that one hand will be limited. This is due to the way my methods work. If you play a system where where both hands are often unlimited in slam auctions, then it is quite possible that you want to play methods where more attention given to that aspect.

This is true : we do have sequences where both hands are unlimited, and with (my) serious hand want to express it. For example, after 1♥ 2♠ GF 4 card support we have both sides showing a shortage if there is one, then we are at the 3♥ level and the non-serious/serious comes into play with neither side limited. The majority of bidding sequences are of course limited, but unlimited ones are in there as well. I will go into more detail.

 

Take the case of a limited hand first.

If the known limited hand is about to bid and we are below 3♥, he always bids 3♥. The other hand bids:

3♠ = super-serious denial of spades

3NT = super-serious denial of clubs

4♣ = super-serious denial of diamonds

4♥ = non-serious or just serious. A sign off. (The definition of serious is that the hand needs partner to have extra values, and the limited nature already expressed excludes this.)

4♠ = ace ask, rare because you can always look for an extra control first.

So we have responder bidding the missing control for opener to ace ask, or to deny it by bidding 4♥, after which the super-serious hand can continue anyway if he was just checking for an extra control.

 

If the hand opposite a known limited hand is about to bid when the bidding is at or beneath 3♥, the bids are exactly the same (as if partner had bid 3♥).

 

I think the above scenario is fine. It may have an advantage over yours in that the limited hand does not need to show a control if the other hand is not looking.

 

Take the case of 2 unlimited hands. We are now only in particular circumstances, such as either partner having shown a shortage if there is one after a J2N start. If the shortage is not spades, it is shown beneath the level of 3♥. Your categorisation of the hand into non-serious/serious/super-serious is of course rejudged in the light of partner's shortage. The non-shortage hand now bids:

3♥ = non-serious . . => and a super-serious partner continues as above

3♠ = serious or super-serious, asks for spade control

3NT = serious or super-serious, asks for club control

4♣ = serious or super-serious, asks for diamond control

4♦ = serious, not missing any control - the cooperative bit

4♠ = the rare super-serious straight ace ask with no checks

 

Over the 4♦, partner ace asks if serious, or bids 4♥ if non-serious.

(The 4♦ bid can also be used as a relay for the other hand to ace ask, if he is known to be serious (such as an opener making a serious rebid) and you suspect he will be in a better position to judge whether there are 13 tricks.)

Over the serious or super-serious one-under denial, partner bids the suit to show control (of course he may also choose to take control and ace ask) and when he bids the suit you can then ace ask if super-serious, or bid 4♥ if serious. This is the cooperative bit. Partner knows you must be serious, and can now ace ask if he too is serious. If partner does not have the asked-for control, he signs off in 4♥.

 

If the shortage after the 2M+1 ask is in spades, this is shown by a 3♥ bid. If partner bids this,

(a) you are non-serious

You no longer have the ability to bid 3♥ when non-serious, so have to bid 3♠ as non-serious. Partner can now no longer make a one-under denial in spades, but of course he has control there. His 3NT and 4♣ are serious or super-serious one-under denials as normal. His 4♦ is again serious, not missing any control - the cooperative bit. You are back with the bidding above, and have lost nothing.

 

(b) you are serious or super-serious

3NT = one-under denial, etc, and again you can't deny spades, but partner has control. Again you have full cooperation and nothing lost.

 

If there was a game forcing sequence when one side bids 3♥ to set the suit without having shown spade control, and with both sides unlimited, then the spade control or lack of is unknowable. But there are not too many of these.

[fromageGB]

In fact, I would far rather commit to the 5 level on a hand where we know we have extras and all suits controlled than a hand where we might have extras and might have a spade control.

We would not be in this position, as when we might or might not have a spade control we will be serious opposite serious, or a super-serious. But I agree, it is better not to get there. Such "unlimited opposite unlimited" sequences are rare.