Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
serious or frivolous
72 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Newlands
Nov 2, 2011, 1:57:15 AM11/2/11
to
Both serious and frivolous 3NT rate a mention in bridge writing
and conversation. Serious has some historic imperative as it
seems to have preceded frivolous; frivolous users aver it gives away
less when the other hand decides to just sign off in game.
Is this the totality of the difference between them or is
there more to it?
Which is more used in your neck of the woods?
Is it common, when hearts are the agreed suit, to switch the
meanings of 3S and 3NT?
doug
and conversation. Serious has some historic imperative as it
seems to have preceded frivolous; frivolous users aver it gives away
less when the other hand decides to just sign off in game.
Is this the totality of the difference between them or is
there more to it?
Which is more used in your neck of the woods?
Is it common, when hearts are the agreed suit, to switch the
meanings of 3S and 3NT?
doug
Andrew
Nov 2, 2011, 1:11:39 PM11/2/11
to
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
wrote:
1S-2D
2S-3S
?
Suppose opener has a frivolous try but his cheapest cue would be 4H.
* Playing Serious 3NT, he is forced to cramp the auction.
* Playing Frivolous 3NT, he can bid 3NT and allow his partner to cue
4C/D to cooperate.
> Which is more used in your neck of the woods?
Don't know.
> Is it common, when hearts are the agreed suit, to switch the
> meanings of 3S and 3NT?
No.
wrote:
> Both serious and frivolous 3NT rate a mention in bridge writing
> and conversation. Serious has some historic imperative as it
> seems to have preceded frivolous; frivolous users aver it gives away
> less when the other hand decides to just sign off in game.
>
> Is this the totality of the difference between them or is
> there more to it?
There is one other minor advantage to frivolous.
> and conversation. Serious has some historic imperative as it
> seems to have preceded frivolous; frivolous users aver it gives away
> less when the other hand decides to just sign off in game.
>
> Is this the totality of the difference between them or is
> there more to it?
1S-2D
2S-3S
?
Suppose opener has a frivolous try but his cheapest cue would be 4H.
* Playing Serious 3NT, he is forced to cramp the auction.
* Playing Frivolous 3NT, he can bid 3NT and allow his partner to cue
4C/D to cooperate.
> Which is more used in your neck of the woods?
> Is it common, when hearts are the agreed suit, to switch the
> meanings of 3S and 3NT?
paul
Nov 2, 2011, 5:55:36 PM11/2/11
to
On Nov 2, 1:57 am, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I call it "Courtesy 3NT"; as in, doing partner the courtesy of leaving
him so bidding room when he's not limited. I haven't encountered
Serious 3NT at our club, surprisingly. With hearts agreed, I recommend
3S as a neutral cue-bid, neither promising nor denying extras; partner
can proceed with a Courtesy 3NT or a Serious cue-bid.
wrote:
him so bidding room when he's not limited. I haven't encountered
Serious 3NT at our club, surprisingly. With hearts agreed, I recommend
3S as a neutral cue-bid, neither promising nor denying extras; partner
can proceed with a Courtesy 3NT or a Serious cue-bid.
Gerben Dirksen
Nov 3, 2011, 5:30:53 AM11/3/11
to
On Nov 2, 6:57 am, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
wrote:
are leaving control of the auction to partner. On the other hand if
you bid a serious 3NT, you are unlimited and by cuebidding non-
seriously you are leaving control of the auction to partner. This may
have some impact on last train auctions, although when I tried to
construct an example I failed...
> Which is more used in your neck of the woods?
Frivolous is more common with experts here.
> Is it common, when hearts are the agreed suit, to switch the
> meanings of 3S and 3NT?
Yes.
Gerben
wrote:
> Both serious and frivolous 3NT rate a mention in bridge writing
> and conversation. Serious has some historic imperative as it
> seems to have preceded frivolous; frivolous users aver it gives away
> less when the other hand decides to just sign off in game.
>
> Is this the totality of the difference between them or is
> there more to it?
When you have made a frivolous 3NT, you have limited your hand so you
> and conversation. Serious has some historic imperative as it
> seems to have preceded frivolous; frivolous users aver it gives away
> less when the other hand decides to just sign off in game.
>
> Is this the totality of the difference between them or is
> there more to it?
are leaving control of the auction to partner. On the other hand if
you bid a serious 3NT, you are unlimited and by cuebidding non-
seriously you are leaving control of the auction to partner. This may
have some impact on last train auctions, although when I tried to
construct an example I failed...
> Which is more used in your neck of the woods?
> Is it common, when hearts are the agreed suit, to switch the
> meanings of 3S and 3NT?
Gerben
Andrew
Nov 3, 2011, 2:19:34 PM11/3/11
to
On Nov 3, 2:30 am, Gerben Dirksen <gerbe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 6:57 am, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Both serious and frivolous 3NT rate a mention in bridge writing
> > and conversation. Serious has some historic imperative as it
> > seems to have preceded frivolous; frivolous users aver it gives away
> > less when the other hand decides to just sign off in game.
>
> > Is this the totality of the difference between them or is
> > there more to it?
>
> When you have made a frivolous 3NT, you have limited your hand so you
> are leaving control of the auction to partner. On the other hand if
> you bid a serious 3NT, you are unlimited and by cuebidding non-
> seriously you are leaving control of the auction to partner. This may
> have some impact on last train auctions, although when I tried to
> construct an example I failed...
1S-2D
> On Nov 2, 6:57 am, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Both serious and frivolous 3NT rate a mention in bridge writing
> > and conversation. Serious has some historic imperative as it
> > seems to have preceded frivolous; frivolous users aver it gives away
> > less when the other hand decides to just sign off in game.
>
> > Is this the totality of the difference between them or is
> > there more to it?
>
> When you have made a frivolous 3NT, you have limited your hand so you
> are leaving control of the auction to partner. On the other hand if
> you bid a serious 3NT, you are unlimited and by cuebidding non-
> seriously you are leaving control of the auction to partner. This may
> have some impact on last train auctions, although when I tried to
> construct an example I failed...
2S-3S
4H-?
4H = frivolous cuebid.
If responder has slam interest, he is endplayed into cooperating at
the 5-level. If the auction subsequently stalls, you are now in 5S.
1S-2D
2S-3S
3NT-?
3NT = Frivolous slam try
Responder can now cue 4m to cooperate and opener can still cue 4H. The
auction can stall and finish in 4S.
Fred.
Nov 3, 2011, 2:39:58 PM11/3/11
to
I read the frivolus 4H as saying that slam needs extras
plus at least one of a first round club control or a
first round diamond control.
Lacking 2 of the above, what is the problem with 4S?
Holding the extras and one of the controls, how often is
the five level going to go wrong?
I'm not saying that there isn't an advantage here, but
I'd think it would take only a small advantage in the
serious variant to offset it. So, I'd think it would
take a much wider examination of the bids to make a
definitive choice.
Fred.
plus at least one of a first round club control or a
first round diamond control.
Lacking 2 of the above, what is the problem with 4S?
Holding the extras and one of the controls, how often is
the five level going to go wrong?
I'm not saying that there isn't an advantage here, but
I'd think it would take only a small advantage in the
serious variant to offset it. So, I'd think it would
take a much wider examination of the bids to make a
definitive choice.
Fred.
Fred.
Nov 3, 2011, 2:45:54 PM11/3/11
to
The conversation has left me wondering if there
aren't more grades than serious and frivolous.
I think i've seen a couple of references to
frivolous "slam try".
aren't more grades than serious and frivolous.
I think i've seen a couple of references to
frivolous "slam try".
Charles Brenner
Nov 3, 2011, 4:01:25 PM11/3/11
to
The obvious argument which I see favoring 3NT as the weaker
("frivolous") slam probe (and this may be Andrew's point; I am not
sure) is that a strong hand probably has several controls include one
cheap one to cue bid, whereas a weak hand is more likely to lack
control in the cheapest suit. The frivolous approach therefore
conserves a lot of bidding space with a hand like AKQxx, AKx, x, xxxx:
1S 2D
2S 3S
3NT frivolous leaves 4C for partner to bid, whereas if you had to bid
4H the bidding would be cramped.
As against that, slam is always more likely when you have max values
(serious slam try values), then when you are marginal. So even though
the serious 3NT method saves on average less space, it may save space
at more important times.
An alternative approach, which I invented many years before the advent
of serious/non-serious 3NT, is in effect to use 3NT just to save
space. Playing an Italian cuebidding method -- bid 1st and 2nd round
controls indifferently below game level, but above game level bid a
2nd round control only if the 1st round control is known to be held --
we bid 3NT when interested in a 2nd round club control from partner.
The logic is that 4C is the only chance the partnership will have to
show a 2nd round control, so you don't want to preempt the partnership
from having the opportunity to bid it. Works quite well.
1S ... 3S then
cue bid 4C = probably 2nd round control exactly; could also have 1st.
cue bid 4D/H = 2 club losers
3NT - probably 1st round club control but not 2nd.
We also played serious 4NT. Of course I realize that no player today
will give up his beloved Blackwood.
Charles
Andrew
Nov 4, 2011, 1:35:27 AM11/4/11
to
On Nov 3, 11:39 am, "Fred." <ghrno-goo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I read the frivolus 4H as saying that slam needs extras
> plus at least one of a first round club control or a
> first round diamond control.
>
> Lacking 2 of the above, what is the problem with 4S?
> Holding the extras and one of the controls, how often is
> the five level going to go wrong?
Not often, but given the choice of declaring 4M or 5M, 4M is always a
> plus at least one of a first round club control or a
> first round diamond control.
>
> Lacking 2 of the above, what is the problem with 4S?
> Holding the extras and one of the controls, how often is
> the five level going to go wrong?
better spot.
> I'm not saying that there isn't an advantage here, but
> I'd think it would take only a small advantage in the
> serious variant to offset it.
additional plus only.
Andrew
Fred.
Nov 4, 2011, 9:50:21 AM11/4/11
to
Sorry. I lost track of the thread.
Fred.
Fred.
Steve Willner
Nov 6, 2011, 10:12:39 PM11/6/11
to
On 11/3/2011 5:30 AM, Gerben Dirksen wrote:
> When you have made a frivolous 3NT, you have limited your hand so you
> are leaving control of the auction to partner.
On seeing the above, it occurred to me that if frivolous 3NT is forcing,
> When you have made a frivolous 3NT, you have limited your hand so you
> are leaving control of the auction to partner.
you can bundle some very strong hands into it in addition to the normal,
moderate ones. Say partner bids 3S. Then 5H immediately could be
exclusion BW, while 3NT then 5H over partner's signoff could be a
control ask or something. If partner doesn't sign off, and you had the
strong version, you're off to the races. I'm not sure what "extra
meaning" is most useful, but having two sequences to get to the same
level seems useful.
I've never seen this suggested before, so perhaps it's a bad idea. But
I don't think it will work at all if 3NT is serious.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Paul Hightower
Nov 7, 2011, 12:30:06 AM11/7/11
to
"Steve Willner" <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote in message
news:j97iba$gno$1...@dont-email.me...
say you open 1S, partner bids 3S invitational, and you hold AKxxx Axx Axx
Ax. Perhaps 6S is straightforward enough, or 4NT then 5NT, but 3NT
(Courtesy, and forcing) followed by 4NT over partner's certain sign-off
would give a perfect picture. 3NT followed by 5 of something could show a
similar hand, substituing a void for an Ace: AKxxx -- Axxx Axxx or such.
news:j97iba$gno$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 11/3/2011 5:30 AM, Gerben Dirksen wrote:
>> When you have made a frivolous 3NT, you have limited your hand so you
>> are leaving control of the auction to partner.
>
> On seeing the above, it occurred to me that if frivolous 3NT is forcing,
> you can bundle some very strong hands into it in addition to the normal,
> moderate ones. Say partner bids 3S. Then 5H immediately could be
> exclusion BW, while 3NT then 5H over partner's signoff could be a control
> ask or something. If partner doesn't sign off, and you had the strong
> version, you're off to the races. I'm not sure what "extra meaning" is
> most useful, but having two sequences to get to the same level seems
> useful.
>
> I've never seen this suggested before, so perhaps it's a bad idea. But I
> don't think it will work at all if 3NT is serious.
Interesting idea. One possibility is the sort of hand that is all key cards:
>> When you have made a frivolous 3NT, you have limited your hand so you
>> are leaving control of the auction to partner.
>
> On seeing the above, it occurred to me that if frivolous 3NT is forcing,
> you can bundle some very strong hands into it in addition to the normal,
> moderate ones. Say partner bids 3S. Then 5H immediately could be
> exclusion BW, while 3NT then 5H over partner's signoff could be a control
> ask or something. If partner doesn't sign off, and you had the strong
> version, you're off to the races. I'm not sure what "extra meaning" is
> most useful, but having two sequences to get to the same level seems
> useful.
>
> I've never seen this suggested before, so perhaps it's a bad idea. But I
> don't think it will work at all if 3NT is serious.
say you open 1S, partner bids 3S invitational, and you hold AKxxx Axx Axx
Ax. Perhaps 6S is straightforward enough, or 4NT then 5NT, but 3NT
(Courtesy, and forcing) followed by 4NT over partner's certain sign-off
would give a perfect picture. 3NT followed by 5 of something could show a
similar hand, substituing a void for an Ace: AKxxx -- Axxx Axxx or such.
0 new messages