[kgr]

Has anyone 'translated' Fred's article about LTTC to non-serious 3NT.
I wonder how the given examples can be best played if using non-serious 3NT instead of serious 3NT.
Thanks,
Koen

[JLOL]

Non serious 3N is better because on hands where it's just a game deal no cuebidding happens (3N, signoff). Serious 3N leads to cuebidding sometimes when you aren't even that close to slam which could cause a killing lead or lead directing double to beat game.

[helene_t]

I suppose non-serious 3NT would be used after we have found a major suit fit and committed to game, i.e. promised each other at most 14 LT. We need 12 LT for slam so I suppose one could play:
4M: we have (assuming p has the maximum LT) 14 LT.
cue: we have (assuming p has the maximum LT) 12 or 12.5 LT
3NT: we have (assuming p has the maximum LT) 13 or 13.5 LT

Something like that?

Lol, I keep confusing Losing Trick Count with Last Train To Clarkville.

[kenrexford]

JLOL, on Apr 8 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

Non serious 3N is better because on hands where it's just a game deal no cuebidding happens (3N, signoff). Serious 3N leads to cuebidding sometimes when you aren't even that close to slam which could cause a killing lead or lead directing double to beat game.

Justin, I would have expected a better answer than this from you.

Non-serious 3NT is motivated in large part by this advantage, but it suffers from a disadvantage of being somewhat less utile in slam-pursuit sequences. Thus, there is a balancing of maximizing disclosure when you need it against minimizing disclosure when you do not need it.

Rather than saying X is better than Y because X is better when such-and-such occurs, I would have expected you to be a tad more complete in saying that the benefits of X, when they occur, are or seem to be more important or of higher value than the benefits of Y when such-and-such occurs.

The short version of the benefit of serious 3NT is that it tends to result in the stronger hand, the more often the captain hand, gaining information and the weaker hand more often describing, and it allows LTTC to have the most effect as to who describes and who gains info. That benefit of serious 3NT may well be outweighed by the benefit of non-disclosure in non-serious 3NT, or it may not. I think it is a really close call. But, there are two legitimate sides to the debate.

[jdonn]

JLOL, on Apr 8 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

Non serious 3N is better because on hands where it's just a game deal no cuebidding happens (3N, signoff). Serious 3N leads to cuebidding sometimes when you aren't even that close to slam which could cause a killing lead or lead directing double to beat game.

Exactly what I would have said.

[cherdanno]

In another shocking development on BBF, Jlall and Kenrexford disagree on the importance of
- subtle gains in slam auctions versus
- giving away information in frequent game auctions where neither partner has promised extra values.

I thought I would never see the day when something like that happens.

[Phil]

Non-serious is now the standard I think. Fred's article, while excellent, is at least 10 years old.

That being said, there are plenty of auctions where Serious 3N makes some sense. But by and large, non-serious works better.

Speaking of that article, I've never, EVER seen anyone play lackwood. My head still spins when I read about it

[rogerclee]

Phil, on Apr 8 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

That being said, there are plenty of auctions where Serious 3N makes some sense. But by and large, non-serious works better.

Out of interest I would like to know where, in your opinion, serious 3N is better than non-serious 3N.

[JLOL]

kenrexford, on Apr 8 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

JLOL, on Apr 8 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

Non serious 3N is better because on hands where it's just a game deal no cuebidding happens (3N, signoff). Serious 3N leads to cuebidding sometimes when you aren't even that close to slam which could cause a killing lead or lead directing double to beat game.

Justin, I would have expected a better answer than this from you.

meh I don't think it's my duty to point out every argument for every side of the argument. You're the lawyer I thought you'd agree!

I think non serious 3N is better because of what I said, and I obviously don't think it's very close given my post. If you think it's close you're welcome to say so and explain why but then we go to orlams post

If I had to post every argument and everything about the argument I would have noted that 3S should be used as the serious/non serious over hearts.

But yes, I pretty much could always make a better or more thorough post.

[mike777]

As a nonexpert I use serious 3nt but agree it comes up seldom. Very often I am looking for a club cue.

As a nonexpert....LTTC is one of my all all time fav songs...but I never use it in bridge.

My guess based on the literature is that this is a very rare, winning bid.

[Phil]

rogerclee, on Apr 8 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 8 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

That being said, there are plenty of auctions where Serious 3N makes some sense. But by and large, non-serious works better.

Out of interest I would like to know where, in your opinion, serious 3N is better than non-serious 3N.

Well there obviously aren't many (I think Ken has discussed some in the past), but a few examples where Serious could apply are:

1♠ - 3♠
3N

It makes zero sense for 3N to be 'non-serious', since responder is limited. If you want it as shortness asking (MAB), that's fine, or as natural, thats OK too. Still, there's a good argument for a new by opener to be a 'long suit slam try' or a 'help suit slam try' with 3N as 'start cue-bidding, buddy.

1♣ - 1♠
3♠ - 3N

Same idea in essence, although here 3N is probably natural as a COG.

I'll try to think of others, but I seem to recall in the back of my mind that there are some distressed auctions where we've had early trump agreement, and 3N makes sense as rolling, while 4x are fit-type bids.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Apr 9 2009, 06:04 AM, said:

a few examples where Serious could apply are:

1♠ - 3♠
3N

It makes zero sense for 3N to be 'non-serious', since responder is limited. If you want it as shortness asking (MAB), that's fine, or as natural, thats OK too. Still, there's a good argument for a new by opener to be a 'long suit slam try' or a 'help suit slam try' with 3N as 'start cue-bidding, buddy.

1♣ - 1♠
3♠ - 3N

Same idea in essence, although here 3N is probably natural as a COG.

I'll try to think of others, but I seem to recall in the back of my mind that there are some distressed auctions where we've had early trump agreement, and 3N makes sense as rolling, while 4x are fit-type bids.

I don't usually quibble over nomenclature, but I don't think that what you describe here should be called "Serious 3NT". The use of the word "serious" implies that other actions are less serious. That is, 3NT is used to distinguish stronger hands from weaker hands.

If you use 3NT to ask for a cue bid and a new suit to show shape, you're using 3NT to distinguish two different hand types. That's very different.

[OleBerg]

JLOL, on Apr 9 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

Non serious 3N is better because on hands where it's just a game deal no cuebidding happens (3N, signoff). Serious 3N leads to cuebidding sometimes when you aren't even that close to slam which could cause a killing lead or lead directing double to beat game.

Exactly what I have heard a good player say.

[gnasher]

OleBerg, on Apr 9 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

JLOL, on Apr 9 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

  [something]

Exactly what I have heard a good player say.

Probably just coincidence.

[kenrexford]

cherdanno, on Apr 8 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

In another shocking development on BBF, Jlall and Kenrexford disagree on the importance of
- subtle gains in slam auctions versus
- giving away information in frequent game auctions where neither partner has promised extra values.

I thought I would never see the day when something like that happens.

Actually, that is not remotely true. If you read through my post, I do not claim that serious 3NT is better than non-serious 3NT. Rather, what I say is that serious 3NT has some advantages and that non-serious 3NT has other advantages, and that deciding between which to use is a close call made with balancing the respective pros and cons of each approach.

IMO, I think that decision ideally depends on the sequence. If, for exemple, the auction has included a ton of disclosure already, then the non-disclosure aspect is kind of meaningless, because "the damage is done," in a sense. Or, if the sequence has suggested that we already know that slam is seriously in contention, then the more subtle uses of "serious 3NT" as sort of a captaincy grab rather than a pure strength indicator or as a waiting bid or as a catch-all or as a simultaneous double-cue are more useful than a slowdown, because we are not really slowing down anyway.

I think that knowing the pros and cons of each leads to conclusions as to when to use each, if your mind can handle exceptions and not strict consistency, and if it is possible to have some pre-determined rules.

For my part, I use serious 3NT in some sequences and non-serious in others, by agreement. Typically, as an easy example, I use non-serious in minor-oriented sequences. For that matter, I also use a smattering of denial cues in with regular cues, in some situations.

The problem with many of the analses so far illustrates my point well. "Non-serious is better because on hands where it is just a game deal..." Well, in some sequences, you know that it is not "just a game deal" already. Serious 3NT does not lead to cuebidding when you aren't even that close to slam in a negative way for defense assistance if you know from the prior sequence that you ARE close to slam.

Consider 1♠-P-2NT(Jacoby)-P-3♣(short club)-P-3♦(cue)-P-3♠(cue)-P-3NT. You know that you are close to slam. You know that you have already advertised a lot about strength, shape, and controls. You know that you have already given a lot of cues as to lead. And, you know that cuebidding will continue on whether 3NT is serious or non-serious. In that type of sequence, serious makes more sense, because Opener, who has said the most so far, has the most space now available to complete the most-complete picture. That allows Responder, the presumptive captain anyway, to effectively lay down his claim cheaply. Hence, one might easily consider this sequence as one where he partnership might agree that "3NT is Serious in Jacoby 2NT sequences." If 3NT is non-serious in other sequences, great!

[helene_t]

Are Phil's examples good? I thought it should only be used when both partners have a range. In Phil's examples, one partner made a limit bid and the the other partner can decide whether or not we are heading for slam. I think 3NT is better used as a temporizer, for example 3NT denying shortness and a direct due showing shortness, or something else.

Example of (non)serious 3NT when both partners have a wide range:
1♠-2♣
2♥-3♥
3NT

[kgr]

Not really an answer to the original question. Let me rephrase it:
Playing LTTC and non-serious 3NT what are following sequences (First bid sets trump and game force). I gave my proposal for every LTTC. Please comment.
First 2 additional questions:
- From where is the name LTTC coming?
- Maybe it is easiest to agree that if most unlimited partner skipped a control bid then other partner always should indicate it, even without control in LTTC suit?
 
1)
3H-3NT
4D
=> 4D promises Spade control, slem interest opposite min partner, denies C control, but does not say anything about D control
2)
3H-3S
3NT-4D
=> 4D sows slem interest opposite min partner, denies C control, but does not say anything about D control
3)
3H-4C
4D
=> 4D promises Spade control, but does not say anything about D control. Partner has extra's and his 4C bid was mostly asking a S control.
4)
3H-3S
4C-4D
=> 4D sows extra's with or without D control...It should probably promise a D control??
5)
3S-3NT
4D-4H
=> 4H promises Club control, but does not say anything about H control
6)
3S-3NT
4C-4H
=> 4H sows H control
7)
3S-4C
4H
=> 4H denies D control, shows extr's with or without D control???
8)
3S-4D
4H
=> 4H sows C control, I does not promise H control

[kgr]

Nobody uses Non-serious 3NT with LTTC?

[fred]

kgr, on Apr 10 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

Nobody uses Non-serious 3NT with LTTC?

I think the reason you are not getting much feedback is not because of the serious/non-serious issue. I think it is mostly because most people who use LTTC do so in a much less "formal" way than the methods I described in those articles I (foolishly) wrote many years ago.

Even in super-expert circles, my perception of how LTTC is played is:

1) LTTC means nothing more than "I am still interested in slam" (as opposed to showing or denying controls in a specific suit).

2) LTTC is only used if there is one step available below game. For example, if spades are agreed and 4C was the last bid, 4H would be a cuebid in hearts (as opposed to LTTC). 4H as LTTC would only apply with spades agreed if the last bid was 4D.

FWIW this is how my regular partner and I do it. I have no strong feelings as to whether or not this is better or worse than the more formal approach I wrote about. It is also the case that, contrary to the advice I gave in the articles in question, my regular partner and I:

- do not always cuebid any control on a strictly up-the-line basis
- sometimes cuebid at the 5-level

I have never tried non-serious 3NT, but I find the arguments that it is better than serious 3NT to be compelling. Despite this, probably I will not switch with my regular partner because we have played the serious version for a long time and because we are comfortable with it.

I feel strongly that playing methods that you are comfortable with is far more important than playing methods that are optimal.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kgr]

fred, on Apr 10 2009, 05:11 PM, said:

kgr, on Apr 10 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

Nobody uses Non-serious 3NT with LTTC?

.....

Even in super-expert circles, my perception of how LTTC is played is:

1) LTTC means nothing more than "I am still interested in slam" (as opposed to showing or denying controls in a specific suit).

2) LTTC is only used if there is one step available below game. For example, if spades are agreed and 4C was the last bid, 4H would be a cuebid in hearts (as opposed to LTTC). 4H as LTTC would only apply with spades agreed if the last bid was 4D.
.......

Thans a lot for the answer!
 
Do you feel like if partner is rather unlimited and the bidding goes - with 3NT either serious or non-serious :
...
3S-3NT
4D-??
That you always should bid 4H with a C control because that is probably what partner is looking for, or should 4H promise some extra's?