BPO-002B

[mike777]

3NT serious.

I do not like to play the serious 3nt convention after interference for 2 reasons:

1) In a contested auction partner might be force to raise with less than the normal number of trumps because there is no other convenient action.

2) 3NT might be the best contract when your side finds out that a side suit is not splitting well.

 

This may not be standard and neither may be major issue on this example but prefer to keep the rules clear after interference.

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=a&s=sakq76hkj73dat8ck]133|100|Scoring: IMP

BPO-002B

S----------W----------N----------E

1♠…………….2♥…………..3♥……….Pass

? Your bid

[/hv]

 

I knew this was a good hand, that would generate a lot of possible bids, but I had no idea how much disagreement this hand would generate in the responses. In addition, it points out a possible hole in our “BBO Advanced system”, in that some panelist did not consider the implications of bidding or not bidding 3NT as it relates to “serious 3NT”. Thus, it is not clear if the panel considered this a possible serious 3NT type hand or not, of if they considered the “optional” serious 3NT as listed in the notes on BBO advance as not part of the system. Or if serious NT only applies to non-competitive auctions. So one thing our regular users should do is help us decide if the panelist should play or should not play serious 3NT as part of BBO advanced. Be sure to address this issue when you reply to this thread.

 

Roland, however, correctly (imho) identified the implication of bidding 3NT to show slam interest, and the problem with this hand, with wasted KJxx of heart and heart bid behind you, how serious should you be? Walddk’s finally went with a “serious 3NT” reply, explaining “3NT. Partner showed limit or better with 4+ spades, so it's touch and go whether I have serious slam interest or not. The hand is obviously not as good as before the 2♥ overcall (AQ sitting over me), but I may be able to get enough hearts away on partner's clubs, or, alternatively, partner may have a heart control himself (singleton). My hope is to get 4♣ now, and after 4♦ by me I will know if partner has that control or not. If he hasn't, I will pass 4♠, because the danger of a heart ruff is now imminent. If partner cue bids 4♦ instead of 4♣, I will sign off. Then slam is too far away whether he has a heart control or not. The panel will be divided here. 3NT and 4♣. I don't think 4♣ is wrong by any means.” I am not so sure of this. If 3nt is serious, isn't 4♥ last train? I find it hard to believe parnter will have enough to show extra value with last train (or course if he does, we have no problems).

 

Fluffy also chose to use serious 3NT, but read a lot into the fact that partner ibid 3♥ instead or 4♥, explaining, “3NT, note that partner didn't splinter, and chances of slam will be that he has a ♥ honor, finding the ♥Q is impossible, but after serious 3NT we will side step the ♥ control to see if he's got the ace.” I agree that your partner is not going to cue-bid the heart queen, but I am not so certain partner can’t be short in ♥’s. The shorter he is in hearts, the less he needs to make the make a limit or better raise cue-bid. With west overcalling a vulnerable 2♥ with a broken suit, and you yourself looking at 20 hcp, I think the odds are very good that your partner is using heart shortness as part of the values he is using for his bid.

 

Gabor knew that 3NT was serious 3NT, but he evaluated the hand, as strong as it is superficially, not be worth a serious 3NT. So he uses what he calls a not-so-serious 4♣ cue-bid. His reply was (ng) “4♣. 3H is invite+ in spades, so 3NT would be Serious. Slam has some chance (maybe 30-35%) despite “wrong” ♥KJ, but my singleton ♣King can be golden card and good spades compensate this drawback. I know, there is some danger (heart ruff or lack of 2 Aces), but it’s worth a try, because 5 level is relative safety. 4C cuebid here is not so “serious”, means mild slam interest with first or second round control in clubs.”

 

Roland may have gotten the bid right on this hand (serious 3NT), but his prediction about the panel choosing between 3NT and 4♣ was wrong. Jlall however eliminated 3NT because he clearly was not playing this optional part of the system. But he did choose 4♣ as predicted by Roland, explaining his 4♣ bid this way. “4♣, Good problem. I would usually bid 3N with a hand type such as this, but that doesn't suggest anything extra so I can't. I also usually would not cue bid a stiff king as my first slam try, but here I would love to hear a 4♦ cue bid from partner. I can't drive to slam opposite what could just be a limit raise, especially with my wasted heart cards.” Reisig also was not thinking 3NT would be serious 3NT, bidding “4♣ - depends on cue bid style. 3N can be used as a ♣ cue but just not the ace.”

 

Fred, on the other hand chose to cue-bid his ♦Ace with 4♦. I am a little confused by Fred’s choice, if playing serious 3NT this denies slam interest, if not playing serious 3NT, BBO-advance cue-bids first or second round controls up the line so it would seem to me that 4♣ would be the correct cue-bid. Perhaps he follows Justin’s “usual” rule of not starting cue-bidding with a stiff King.”

 

Or maybe Fred was thinking along the same lines as awm, who considered the question if 3NT was natural or serious, choosing, “4♦. An interesting question whether "serious" 3NT is on here; the notes aren't clear about this, and my feeling is that it's much better to use 3NT in this auction as an offer to play. In fact if this same hand were somewhat weaker it would be an excellent case for 3NT, but as-is we are too likely to miss slam. I'd cue 4♦ instead of 4♣ because a singleton (or ace) in hearts is likely to be key to finding a good slam here. If partner signs off in 4♠ (no heart cue) I am passing.” I think awm has a good plan except for one problem. Playing serious 3NT, you play “LTTC” as well, so that over 4♦ cue-bid, a 4♥ bid by his partner would show a ♣ control, and be neutral on holding a heart control. So if not playing LTTC, there would be sound logic for this 4♦ bid.

 

Cascade clearly didn’t think of 3NT as Serious, as he calls his 4♣ cue-bid a serious slam try. “ 4♣ I expect I am going to end in 4♠ but with so many extra values I need to make one try for slam. We may regret playing 4♠ when we go off on heart ruffs but if I bid a practical 3NT now then partner will never play me for this many values and there is no law against her having the ♥A and ♦KQ for example. The exact slam try you make will depend on your methods. (if we cue-bid Aces then you better change this to 4♦).” We can solve the cue-bid issue, we cue-bid first or second round controls up the line. The question of what 3NT would be (serious or not) is still open for argument/discussion. We should solve this question before the next poll.

 

Phicro took a unique view on this hand (relative to BBO-advanced). His choice was “ 3♠ : in my opinion, partner’s 3♥ was GF showing 4 card support. 3♠ is encouraging, 4♣ would show a fit and 3NT bad trumps.” I think if 3♥ was game force, 3♠ is probably the best continuation. The problem is, the panel seems to take 3♥ as limit raise or better, so that 3♠ would be passable in BBO-Advanced.

 

Luis and Ritong may or may not have considered the implication of a serious 3NT, because they were so extremely serious about slam, and went immediately to blackwood. Luis: “4NT; This one should be easy, pd shows 3 spades and an invitational hand or better, with our hand it should be a good idea to check for keycards and then place the contract in 5 or 6 spades or invite 7 if pd has 3. I don't think other bids will show a 20 counter.” While, ritong, said “4nt, my part has all his stuff in minors ; I understand that he did not splinter, but is it correct with a void ? I’ll decide later that he is not 5233 and that we have 12 tricks in no trump if he does not show a void.”

 

Take a look at these votes!!!! We have some work here to fix the system.

 

VOTES  Panel  Score

4♣        4      100

3NT       2       70

4♦        2      50

4NT        2      30

4♠        0      20

3♠        1      10

[HeartA]

I casted my votes a few hours ago and was told it was too late. :(. I swear I didn't read any of the comments. :)

[awm]

Some interesting thoughts here. I should mention the following quote from BBO advanced:

 

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

 

Cue-bidding and Serious 3NT

We are said to be in a cue-bidding auction if we are known to have an eight+ card major suit fit, game forcing values and the bidding is below four of our major. There are a few exceptions:

1m 1M

3M

 

1M 2m

3M

 

2? 2?

3M

In the first example we are not forced to game but all structures (including serious 3NT) are on. In the second and third examples we are not known to have an eight+ card fit but opener has shown a suit that needs no fit.

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

 

Since most play 3♥ in the auction given as a limit raise or better, we are not known to have game-forcing values. The auction 1♠-3♠ (limit raise) is NOT a game forcing auction, nor is it mentioned among the exceptions. So there's no particular reason to think serious 3NT will be on here.

 

In fact it is often right to play 3NT with a 5-3 major fit. The critical point of decision will often be length/strength in the opponents suit. We don't want to see ace-and-a-ruff lead. It seems quite reasonable that 3NT would be a suggestion to play there.

 

As for "Last Train to Clarksville," this is mentioned nowhere in the BBO advanced notes. Assuming that "most people who play serious 3NT play it, so we must be playing it" even though it's quite artificial and unmentioned, seems rather presumptuous to me.

[mike777]

As for "Last Train to Clarksville," this is mentioned nowhere in the BBO advanced notes. Assuming that "most people who play serious 3NT play it, so we must be playing it" even though it's quite artificial and unmentioned, seems rather presumptuous to me.

Ok, since "Last Train to Clarksville", Sgt. Peppers, that record..."White", and CREAM, where my first records bought..I feel very qualified to discuss this.

 

As I discussed before, 3nt may be needed as natural.

 

"I'm a believer" and a Daydream believer but hey hey people say we.....

Ya, I saw them and love them.....

 

Side note I see Ginger and Jack just got together with Eric in England..I'm so glad...I'm glad, I'm glad...Please come to USA..my white room with....

[Double !]

enough Monkeeing around...

 

lol I always thought it was "daydream believer"......I better look for my greatest hits album.

[Elianna]

"Daydream Believer" by the Monkees.

 

I guess that I'm old enough to know this one. :)

[Double !]

Admit Nothing!

[mike777]

Admit Nothing!

Yes!

[HeartA]

I voted for 4NT. My ♥ control, CK and DA (plus solid S) are all good cards.

[flytoox]

I voted for 4NT. My ♥ control, CK and DA (plus solid S) are all good cards.

No, no, 4N is a bad choice. Too unilateral. Opp may lead HA and give his pd a heart ruff. This is very likely in the sequence.

[Gerben42]

I have no idea where Clarksville is and why one should take the last train there. I know that it must have to do with a song I never heard of, possibly from a band I never heard of, from a time that I wasn't born yet.

 

But I do know that it is a bad idea to miss the last train. You'll have to wait for the first train and that can be a while.

[luke warm]

Side note I see Ginger and Jack just got together with Eric in England..I'm so glad...I'm glad, I'm glad...Please come to USA..my white room with....

yayus... probably the best drummer, guitarist, bassist of the time (or any time) together in one group

 

re: serious 3nt in this auction... i'm coming around to the view that when it's murky, 3nt should be an offer to play... just not sure how to define 'murky'

 

edit: i just read mike's post about serious 3nt not being "on" in a contested auction... i think that's a good idea, there are times when 3nt is where you want to be, even with a fit... maybe we can talk about that in bbo 2/1?

[P_Marlowe]

I just want to voice a slight complain, that 3S receives a point,

however 4S receive none, because if 3S is passable, following

the systems,

... at least I thought, that I did read that ...,

bidding 3S will miss game, while 4S does not.

 

Needlessly to say, that I did vote for 4S, maybe as the only

one. :unsure:

 

I agree that a cue bid is better than 4S, altough it wont

acomplish a lot, because you have lots of wasted values in

hearts, and if we assume the 2H bidder is not a lunatic, he will

have values outside hearts => giving will hold a minimum for

his call, so that slam will only make, if partner holds perfect

cards. Searching wont hurt, so it should be done.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[flytoox]

I just want to voice a slight complain, that 3S receives a point,

however 4S receive none, because if 3S is passable, following

the systems,

... at least I thought, that I did read that ...,

bidding 3S will miss game, while 4S does not.

 

Needlessly to say, that I did vote for 4S, maybe as the only

one. :unsure:

 

I agree that a cue bid is better than 4S, altough it wont

acomplish a lot, because you have lots of wasted values in

hearts, and if we assume the 2H bidder is not a lunatic, he will

have values outside hearts => giving will hold a minimum for

his call, so that slam will only make, if partner holds perfect

cards. Searching wont hurt, so it should be done.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Hehe, comfort. 4S is actually quite sensible. This hand is a trap. Too many wasted cards. Though I bid 3N, I bid it to play, not to show any slam interest.

 

My opinion is any bid showing slam interest overestimate the hand. If pd cannot make any move. I will be happy with 4S. On a bad day, you cannot even make 4S.

[inquiry]

I just want to voice a slight complain, that 3S receives a point,

however 4S receive none, because if 3S is passable, following

the systems,

... at least I thought, that I did read that ...,

bidding 3S will miss game, while 4S does not.

 

Needlessly to say, that I did vote for 4S, maybe as the only

one. :unsure:

 

I agree that a cue bid is better than 4S, altough it wont

acomplish a lot, because you have lots of wasted values in

hearts, and if we assume the 2H bidder is not a lunatic, he will

have values outside hearts => giving will hold a minimum for

his call, so that slam will only make, if partner holds perfect

cards. Searching wont hurt, so it should be done.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

It was an oversight, 4 is better than 3... so has been adjusted

[luis]

I just want to voice a slight complain, that 3S receives a point,

however 4S receive none, because if 3S is passable, following

the systems,

... at least I thought, that I did read that ...,

bidding 3S will miss game, while 4S does not.

 

Needlessly to say, that I did vote for 4S, maybe as the only

one.  :unsure:

 

I agree that a cue bid is better than 4S, altough it wont

acomplish a lot, because you have lots of wasted values in

hearts, and if we assume the 2H bidder is not a lunatic, he will

have values outside hearts => giving will hold a minimum for

his call, so that slam will only make, if partner holds perfect

cards. Searching wont hurt, so it should be done.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

It was an oversight, 4 is better than 3... so has been adjusted

I strongly think 4♠ deserves a negative score, 3♠ is better even if non forcing since if pd passes with nothing you missed a game and not a slam, in 4♠ pd will pass every single time you have a slam.

3♠ may gamble on pd following up and thus have better room to find about slam.

4♠ is not bridge.

 

Just my opinion.

[HeartA]

Hehe, comfort. 4S is actually quite sensible. This hand is a trap. Too many wasted cards. Though I bid 3N, I bid it to play, not to show any slam interest.

 

My opinion is any bid showing slam interest overestimate the hand. If pd cannot make any move. I will be happy with 4S. On a bad day, you cannot even make 4S.

Too many wasted cards? How many? Even ♥K was not really a waste, it's a second control if pd had xx. I only see ♥J was wasted.

[P_Marlowe]

Hehe, comfort. 4S is actually quite sensible. This hand is a trap. Too many wasted cards. Though I bid 3N, I bid it to play, not to show any slam interest.

 

My opinion is any bid showing slam interest overestimate the hand. If pd cannot make any move. I will be happy with 4S. On a bad day, you cannot even make 4S.

Too many wasted cards? How many? Even ♥K was not really a waste, it's a second control if pd had xx. I only see ♥J was wasted.

Well, it is wasted, given the bad suit quality, the overcall

is likely based on a 6 card, so the defence goes heart to Ace,

heart back ruff, -1.

Or Ace of heart, heart continued, I am to lazy to look it up, who is on lead.

 

The heart values are wasted.

You can get exited, if you hold xxxx in heart, because now

you know, that if partner holds a controll, it will be singleton.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I just want to voice a slight complain, that 3S receives a point,

however 4S receive none, because if 3S is passable, following

the systems,

... at least I thought, that I did read that ...,

bidding 3S will miss game, while 4S does not.

 

Needlessly to say, that I did vote for 4S, maybe as the only

one.  :unsure:

 

I agree that a cue bid is better than 4S, altough it wont

acomplish a lot, because you have lots of wasted values in

hearts, and if we assume the 2H bidder is not a lunatic, he will

have values outside hearts => giving will hold a minimum for

his call, so that slam will only make, if partner holds perfect

cards. Searching wont hurt, so it should be done.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

It was an oversight, 4 is better than 3... so has been adjusted

I strongly think 4♠ deserves a negative score, 3♠ is better even if non forcing since if pd passes with nothing you missed a game and not a slam, in 4♠ pd will pass every single time you have a slam.

3♠ may gamble on pd following up and thus have better room to find about slam.

4♠ is not bridge.

 

Just my opinion.

Well if you regular miss slams, who are around 60%, than you wont loose

as much, as when you are regular missing games who are better than 50%.

 

I suppose, it is a matter of style, I assume, but games come first, after that

comes going plus, and only in third place comes bidding slams.

 

There was some observation about Hamman:

Given his superior card play, people wondered, how seldom he reaches bad

slam in contrast to bad games.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Agree with 3NT or 4C (depending on partnership agreement, they seem to be the same bid, so deserve the same score imo). I think that 4S is awful. This hand has some major flaws, but we do have a very good hand, even after all the substractions.

[JLOGIC]

3N is clearly natural here, not serious or non serious, unless 3H is specifically showing 4+ card support.