[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]

inquiry, on Apr 14 2004, 08:26 AM, said:

1♠ 2♦
2♠ 3♠
3N 4♦
4♥ 4NT
5♣ 6♠
pass

---

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]

GijsH, on Apr 16 2004, 02:55 PM, said:

inquiry, on Apr 14 2004, 08:26 AM, said:

1♠ 2♦
2♠ 3♠
3N  4♦
4♥ 4NT
5♣ 6♠
pass 

---

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..../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.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I don't believe ♠QTx ♥xx ♦AKJxxx ♣KQ should start 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠, because you aren't really interested in your partner's diamonds (his worse possible holding is three small, and even then you're a favorite not to lose a single trick). With that hand, your primary concern is key cards, and your secondary concern is to avoid a heart lead if the opponents hold ♥K, ♥Q and a spade trick. I think 2NT Jacoby followed by Blackwood should give you all the information you really need. Sure, you won't be able to discover the lack of a heart control, but it isn't obvious to lead a heart when you've got only one of the top two honors and you do not know responder has a source of tricks, which makes a slam with twelve tricks without a control in a side suit neither a good nor a bad proposition. (True, you may end up in a slam missing both a heart control and the ♠J, or even the ♦Q, which now is bad.)
With ♠xxx ♥Kx ♦AKJxx ♣Axx, you probably want feedback about diamonds, which means you'll have to disclose a possible source of tricks, so the bidding should indeed start 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠, but I still don't think opener should have to show his controls, because a 4♣ bid will increase the probability of a heart lead when you don't want it, and a 4♥ bid will increase the probability of a club lead when you don't want it either.

[cwiggins]

I have a question about the 4M signoff regardless whether you are playing Serious or Frivolous.

Playing 2/1 GF, after 1S-2H; 2S 3S, do you ever bid 4S rather than a non-serious cue-bid or a Frivolous 3NT (whichever you are playing)?

For myself, I do and it means that I have a control poor minimum for my previous bidding. E.g. with
Qxx/KQxxx/KQx/xx
I would be 4S with my 2 controls. Partner has to have 3 Aces (or 2 aces and shortness) to think about slam.

But with
Axx/KQxxx/Kxx/xx
I would bid Frivolous 3NT or 4D cue bid.

Does this make sense? Does something else make better sense?

Chris

[Flame]

cwiggins, on Apr 19 2004, 08:29 AM, said:

I have a question about the 4M signoff regardless whether you are playing Serious or Frivolous.

Playing 2/1 GF, after 1S-2H; 2S 3S, do you ever bid 4S rather than a non-serious cue-bid or a Frivolous 3NT (whichever you are playing)?

For myself, I do and it means that I have a control poor minimum for my previous bidding. E.g. with
Qxx/KQxxx/KQx/xx
I would be 4S with my 2 controls. Partner has to have 3 Aces (or 2 aces and shortness) to think about slam.

But with
Axx/KQxxx/Kxx/xx
I would bid Frivolous 3NT or 4D cue bid.

Does this make sense? Does something else make better sense?

Chris

You should switch ♥ and ♠ in the examples.
I'm sure its not right to never bid 4♠
your proposal looks good, but its realy hard to judge how good.
other ideas can be like picture raise having no control outside the two suits, or can be some control showing that will be hard to show after the 3nt, 4♠ could show controls in both club and diamond.