[lexlogan]

Thanks for the feedback. Looks like several posters agree that it makes sense to avoid cue-bidding on hands where neither partner has extra values.

I do play that, with hearts agreed, a 3S cue-bid (with appropriate control*) is automatic without respect to strength. Fred's discussion on Serious 3NT takes the same approach -- it's the one cue-bid that lies above three of a major and below 3NT. Skipping it to bid 3NT, 4C, or 4D all deny appropriate control of spades. For those who use spades artificially over hearts in other sequences (1H-2S some sort of raise, 1H-3S some unspecified splinter, etc.) I'd asume inverting 3S and 3NT makes sense. I dislike bidding spades artificially so I prefer to keep 3NT as the courtesy slam try with hearts agreed.

For those who prefer Non-Serious 3NT, don't you think calling it Frivolous is apt to discourage it's use?

*That's another topic, but for me a cue-bid normally promises the Ace, or the King with some other key card that cannot be conveniently cue-bid. This will generally be the Ace or King of trumps or the Ace of a suit partner has already cue-bid. I don't like cue-bidding shortages since the evaluation of many holdings is vastly different between a high card and a shortage.

[kenrexford]

Frivolous 3NT (3♠) seems to have the merit of less disclosure when the partnership can "quantitative bash" sign-off.

Serious 3NT suffers from higher disclosure when it might not mater, but it seems to gain when the hands are, in fact, slammish. The tactical suggestion of bidding 3NT to get under clubs is one example of a simple principle. It is usually better to give maximal info from the holder of the weaker hand to the holder of the stronger hand.

Thus, the decision on which to use seems to be a cost-benefit analysis. Frivolous has fewer costs but fewer benefits; serious has greater benefits but greater costs.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Jan 12 2008, 09:24 AM, said:

Frivolous 3NT (3♠) seems to have the merit of less disclosure when the partnership can "quantitative bash" sign-off.

Serious 3NT suffers from higher disclosure when it might not mater, but it seems to gain when the hands are, in fact, slammish. The tactical suggestion of bidding 3NT to get under clubs is one example of a simple principle. It is usually better to give maximal info from the holder of the weaker hand to the holder of the stronger hand.

Thus, the decision on which to use seems to be a cost-benefit analysis. Frivolous has fewer costs but fewer benefits; serious has greater benefits but greater costs.

Its not always the stronger hand that gets to bid serious/frivolous 3NT (3♠).

2♣ 2♠
3♠ ?

We would play frivolous 3NT on this auction.

Similarly

1♣ 1♥
3♥ ?

We might make a slam try on this auction with the expectation that responder has a weaker hand with some distribution. Frivolous 3♠ would apply for us.

In the first auction a 3NT bid would show a hand that was not broke but was not close to underwriting a slam opposite a minimum 2♣. And a serious cue-bid would show a hand that could make a slam opposite a reasonable minimum 2♣ opening.

In the second auction a frivolous 3♠ would show a hand that could see a slam opposite a good maximum 3♥ raise and a serious cue (including 3NT = spade cue) would show a hand that might make slam opposite any 3♥ with fitting cards and sufficient controls.

After a frivolous 3NT (3♠) we use our discretion about whether to cue. Over a serious cue we are obliged to cue below 4Major and very strongly encouraged to cue (or RKCB) above 4Major unless we know there is a suit without a control - our cues show first or second round control so bypassing denies a control (except shortage in partner's long suit).

I can't see how frivolous 3NT (3♠) gives up space compared with serious 3NT (3♠) - it seems like swings and round-abouts to me.

If there really is some technical advantage of this nature then maybe the optimal solution is serious 3NT (3♠) by the (presumed) stronger hand and frivolous 3NT (3♠) by the (presumed) weaker hand. But I am not convinced yet.

[Cascade]

awm, on Jan 12 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

As I understand it, the "standard" in 2/1 is fast arrival, so in each of:

1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥

1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♥

The final 3♥ bid shows extras because a minimum hand would bid 4♥. The problem with this method is not really showing/denying extras -- one partner or the other will either show or deny extras in a clear way by the choice to use fast arrival or not.

The problem with "fast arrival" is that when partner has a big hand the jump to 4♥ takes away all his space. He may have a hand that still has slam possibilities and is unsuited to bidding keycard, in which case he's just stuck.

The point of serious/courtesy 3NT bids is to be able to show the lousy hand (fast-arrival type hand) without jumping the bidding. Playing these methods, the 3♥ bid in the auctions above could be based on a minimum hand or a hand with extras. This conserves space in the situation where the first player to raise has a minimum, but partner has a big hand and wants to cuebid, while still letting you avoid looking hard for slam if both partners are minimum.

Of course, this leaves the question of what does it mean if you do jump to 4♥ in auctions like the above? I know some players who use it to show a "really atrocious hand" (so there are three levels of distinction: fast arrival, non-serious or courtesy slam try, and serious slam try) but this method still fixes partner in certain cases. It seems better to use the jump to 4♥ to show a very specific hand type, for example fairly minimum with cards concentrated in the two suits bid and no outside first or second round controls. This gives partner a good "picture" of your hand (thus called a "picture jump") and partner usually can get the decision of whether to bid past game right.

General principles suggest that a jump like this should be very specific. The more bidding space you consume in a constructive auction the more specific your hand should be.

Using the jump to show some non-descript minimum just seems completely wrong to me.

This is one of my pet hates with standard Jacoby 2NT.

1Maj 2NT
4Maj - some minimum without a shortage.

I normally don't play 2/1 but I can see the same problems in the auctions you have highlighted.

These jumps when partner is unlimited are slam killers. There are many times when partner only needs one or two specific cards that you could have conveniently shown at a lower level but it is too risky for partner to venture to the five-level.

Fast arrival is just bad and uncooperative when partner is unlimited.

Sometimes I see this with Precision players on the auction

1♣* 1♠**
4♠ - Yuk***

* 16+ any
** GF with five or more spades

*** Actually the worst violation of this principle I have seen was a jump to 6♠ over 1♠.

These players were just way ahead of the field having established a game-force at the one-level then they threw away their advantage with an agricultural leap to game (slam).

[pclayton]

I am a firm believer that if you have something to cue-bid, you punt with frivolous 3N, no matter how atrocious your hand is. By bidding 4 of the major and bypassing frivolous and cue bids, not only you are denying the ability to cue, but you are also inferentially showing better trump.

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Jan 12 2008, 05:43 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 10 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 11 2008, 07:57 PM, said:

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.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Jan 11 2008, 05:43 PM, said:

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]

Cascade, on Jan 11 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

[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.

[FrancesHinden]

mike777, on Jan 11 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

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]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 11 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

[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]

mike777, on Jan 11 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

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.