[WasWinM]

---

As far as I know, a 2/1 doesn't guarantee 3 Aces or that a 5-level contract is safe.

[akwoo]

If you're playing serious in this situation, it should promise at least something like 4 control points, counting Q of trump as 1, and counting voids and singletons if you've got enough trump. It's clear that AKSV are what count here, and therefore that's what serious/non-serious should be based on.

[mike777]

 WasWinM, on 2026-September-08, 12:08, said:

---

As far as I know, a 2/1 doesn't guarantee 3 Aces or that a 5-level contract is safe.

Fortunately not a gf hand

As I mentioned a very rare auction, so not going to spend more time on it.
--------------

Again don't get all these serious/non posts on this convention. Another example where not needed

t🕵️

[WasWinM]

mike777, on 2026-September-08, 13:05, said:

Fortunately not a gf hand

As I mentioned a very rare auction, so not going to spend more time on it.
--------------

Again don't get all these serious/non posts on this convention. Another example where not needed

t🕵️

Your concept of GF is rather conservative, or your opening hands are really light.

[jillybean]

WasWinM, on 2026-September-08, 11:41, said:

I'm late to this thread but I really do not like 1S-3S. I'm in the 1-4 group. Over 2D, I don't bid 3S then, either, as that to me is solid suit. I simply bid 1234 spades unless partner gives me an earlier reason to get more excited.

KQJ987542, sure I am missing the Ace but I still call this a solid suit

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 14:02, said:

KQJ987542, sure I am missing the Ace but I still call this a solid suit

Then you don’t know what the term means.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 14:02, said:

KQJ987542, sure I am missing the Ace but I still call this a solid suit

I prefer the term self-sustaining which I define as a suit quality of at least ten with max 1 loser.

[jillybean]

Whatever the "correct" term is, I consider this suit sufficient to force trump after a 2♦ response.

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2026-September-08, 11:46, said:

Three spades is not a request for control bidding, it is a demand. Granted this is a very rare auction.

It is a rare auction, but the same semantic (and not only) issue arises in the frequent auction 1S-2m/H;something-3S (at least for those of us who do not play Jacoby 2NT) and others like 1H-1S;1N-3H (at least playing XYZ) or 2C-2D; 3S.
These auctions (for me at least) are GF, impose trumps and request control-bidding.
To what extent they oblige control-bidding rather than 3NT or fast arrival and what 3NT means (natural, non-serious, waiting, disallowed) is a question of partnership agreements for each case.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 09:43, said:

---

Assuming you agreed 4NT as RKCB 1403 here, then 5♦ = 0/3

[jillybean]

---

5♦ 30

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-September-08, 16:16, said:

It is a rare auction, but the same semantic (and not only) issue arises in the frequent auction 1S-2m/H;something-3S (at least for those of us who do not play Jacoby 2NT) and others like 1H-1S;1N-3H (at least playing XYZ) or 2C-2D; 3S.
These auctions (for me at least) are GF, impose trumps and request control-bidding.
To what extent they oblige control-bidding rather than 3NT or fast arrival and what 3NT means (natural, non-serious, waiting, disallowed) is a question of partnership agreements for each case.

A specific example would help.
If I understand your post they all seem to demand control showing and set trump.

Granted, if I understand your post, all three examples are rare.

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 16:05, said:

Whatever the "correct" term is, I consider this suit sufficient to force trump after a 2♦ response.

It kind of makes a difference between a 1-loser suit and a no-loser suit, as the trump ace is rarely not cashed against a Grand Slam.

[DavidKok]

I like 1♠ followed by 3♠. For me this sets trumps. It does not show a solid suit (a 3NT rebid would, but I strive not to use that unless I don't mind partner passing).

[pescetom]

 mike777, on 2026-September-08, 17:01, said:

A specific example would help.
If I understand your post they all seem to demand control showing and set trump.

Granted, if I understand your post, all three examples are rare.

As I outlined, I think there is a concrete possibility of different agreements about what 3NT and 4M mean and imply in the respective situations.

Too far OT here, we can follow it up in a specific discussion if things get (predictably) quiet.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2026-September-09, 00:21, said:

I like 1♠ followed by 3♠. For me this sets trumps. It does not show a solid suit (a 3NT rebid would, but I strive not to use that unless I don't mind partner passing).

Thanks. So everyone is in the same boat here at least.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 16:49, said:

---

5♦ 30

West will pass, of course.

Could you explain your choice of 5♠?

[pescetom]

 akwoo, on 2026-September-08, 13:04, said:

If you're playing serious in this situation, it should promise at least something like 4 control points, counting Q of trump as 1, and counting voids and singletons if you've got enough trump. It's clear that AKSV are what count here, and therefore that's what serious/non-serious should be based on.

It's an interesting point of discussion whether this should be hard wired to a specific level of control points, or whether this should just be one factor to consider in a subjective judgement. I tend towards the latter position, there are many other factors in play (in primis trumps quality, but also knowledge of both hands and hypotheses of play, even the suit hearts vs spades).

But in any case it's somewhat academic given the usual predominance of trumps quality in the decision. Although I guess you could exclude that from the Serious decision altogether and make it purely a preview of controls.

If I was designing a system rather than playing one common to other national players, I would consider making 3NT in a control sequence about keycard parity and 4NT about trumps Q.

[mw64ahw]

pescetom, on 2026-September-09, 02:56, said:

It's an interesting point of discussion whether this should be hard wired to a specific level of control points, or whether this should just be one factor to consider in a subjective judgement. I tend towards the latter position, there are many other factors in play (in primis trumps quality, but also knowledge of both hands and hypotheses of play, even the suit hearts vs spades).

But in any case it's somewhat academic given the usual predominance of trumps quality in the decision. Although I guess you could exclude that from the Serious decision altogether and make it purely a preview of controls.

If I was designing a system rather than playing one common to other national players, I would consider making 3NT in a control sequence about keycard parity and 4NT about trumps Q.

I currently use 3N to show a deficit in expected trump honours, but I like the idea of control points, which for me would show I guess below expected.