[Zelandakh]

JLOGIC, on 2014-February-21, 17:13, said:

You act like serious has no gain. Typically the serious bidder will be more able to take control/sign off opposite the right controls, so leaving room for partner to cuebid clubs is much more likely to be beneficial when you have serious.

This is why I think Frivolous + DCBs/Asking Bids is the best combination. You do not give away information on a declined slam try and can still obtain any piece of information you want when Serious.

[kenrexford]

The point of the post was for discussion, only. That said, as an aside, the particular partner I had would have taken 3NT as natural, something with wasted values in spades (maybe KQ109?). This does not necessarily further any discussion, but I thought I would mention it.

[dustinst22]

bluecalm, on 2014-February-21, 16:18, said:

Why would 3N be serious ?
It should be non-serious as you don't want to exchange information when you don't need it, so cue-bid = serious, 3nt = non-serious is just way better agreement.

Eric Rodwell answered why he prefers serious 3NT here: http://bridgewinners...l-eric-rodwell/

I'm going to make the assumption that if Rodwell thinks it's better than non-serious, that non-serious probably isn't a "way better agreement" as you put it.

Quote

"I prefer Serious 3NT because, assuming that I make (at any point) the cheapest applicable bid, is that I save the most space with the strong hands. I am not too concerned about some cuebid helping them beat me in game when I was trying for slam.

Suppose I have Club control and partner just bid 3 Spades. If I have a weaker hand, why not Cuebid 4C to show my non-serious C control? I want partner to be in control in most such cases. Similarly, if I am Serious, especially if I lack a C control, why would I not want to hear partner (over my Serious 3NT) Cuebid 4C? If I have to bid 4D to deny a C control, partner is “seriously” hampered if he has to guess whether to go past game to show it?

NonSerious 3NT seems to be more popular than Serious 3NT but I have never understood why."

That said, Justin made an interesting point I think regarding MP versus IMPs. Maybe we aren't concerned in IMPs about giving away information with a cue bid when looking for slam, but in MP's where every trick is critical it becomes more damaging.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I'm going to make the assumption that if Rodwell thinks it's better than non-serious, that non-serious probably isn't a "way better agreement" as you put it.

I think he is wrong. He used C control argument:

Quote

If I have to bid 4D to deny a C control, partner is “seriously” hampered if he has to guess whether to go past game to show it?

Which is solved by agreement I mentioned (that 4H is C cue after 4D) which is used by Italian/Bulgarian and now most young Polish pairs as well.
While it's nice that you aren't too concerned about opponents beating you in game when you are serious it may well happen that you are both minimum and gave them information for free:

1S - 2C
2S - 3S
4D* - 4S

*-non serious cuebid which you make when playing serious 3NT
Both sides are minimum, the information was given for free to opponents.

So yeah, I think he is just wrong here.

[Zelandakh]

dustinst22, on 2014-March-03, 18:40, said:

Eric Rodwell answered why he prefers serious 3NT here: http://bridgewinners...l-eric-rodwell/

As I mentuioned before the specific point he makes here is addressed by switching to DCBs/Asking Bids to go with your Frivolous 3X+1. It surprises me that this set-up is not used by more players. I suspect that has more to do with history and tradition than merit.

[bluecalm]

Quote

As I mentuioned before the specific point he makes here is addressed by switching to DCBs/Asking Bids to go with your Frivolous 3X+1. It surprises me that this set-up is not used by more players. I suspect that has more to do with history and tradition than merit.

While it looks sensible I see one potential problem:
Let's say we are playing cuebids:
1S - 2C
2S - 3S

1)
4C* - 4D
4H
*-serious cue-bid


2)
4D - 4H*
4S
*-clubs control

Both those sequences mean: "I am serious but I need some extras from you as well".
Now let's say we play negative cuebids and lack heart control:

3)
4H* - ???
*-lack of H control

Here you don't have space to say: "I am serious but I don't have slam force: which you usually have playing cuebids so you need to go beyond game to find one or the other.
Maybe I am not getting the convention though as it's first time I see it

[Zelandakh]

The idea of Serious is that the 5 level is safe providing we do not have 2 fast losers in a suit. That is particularly true for me in that I generally try to arrive at the point of 3M with at least one hand limited; a much sounder policy than having an extra sequence for an "in-between" hand and hoping it comes up. As a ganeral rule though, if we need extra help to go to the 5 level then we should probably have started with Frivolous in the first place.

I also do not agree with your meaning for auction 2 in that the Serious hand might also be needing a heart control so this is ambiguous. Similarly on #1, what do you do with a hand that would prefer partner to take control? Or that wants to have a pure cue auction without asking for key cards? One other sequence that is lost in #1 is that a direct 4♠ shows a non-Serious hand without a control to cue. Playing Frivolous this can either be used for a bust or it can show a hand with controls in all suits that requires extra help.

Just your example illustrates why this extra benefit is actually less useful than it might seem. Let us say we have a serious hand with controls in the minors but not hearts. Playing Standard+Frivolous we start 4♣. If partner does indeed continue 4♦ then we are well placed. We have 2 bids available and one shows lack of a heart control so the other can be used as a general slam try. But what if partner instead continues 4♥, which after all is more likely? Well now we no longer have the extra step we need to guess. In other words we could not rely on this when we chose 4♣ so some of the hands that might have benefited are going to have to bid 3NT instead.

Now look at a different case - we are Serious and have controls in all suits but would like to find out about partner's holding in a side suit before taking control. Playing Standard+Frivolous we can either start 4♣ and hope or bid the suit below knowing that partner will sign off anyway without a club control. And we can never find out about clubs. Playing DCBs+Frivolous you simply bid the suit you are interested in.

As I suggested earlier, my belief is that the strength issue is easier to sort out by better system design and therefore we should use the most effective control methods when we feel we have reached that stage. As an example, in my system the in-between Opener hand might have the equivalent auction:

1♠ - 1NT; 2♠ - 3♠ and now 4♥ gives the message of being good for slam within the context of having shown ~14-17 and a 1-suited hand. 1NT here was a relay of course and Responder has alternative slam routes if that was not the information they needed. With a stronger hand Opener would have started 1♣ and a weaker hand would have rebid 2♣.

"Well that is fine for a strong club system," I hear you say, "but useless for 2/1." I beg to differ. We could pull the same trick in 2/1 if we wanted to. It is only that not many choose to do it. Not to mention that once you start along that route you go to a place that looks a lot like Ken's world or you migrate to a full relay system. The majority of bridge players are ready for neither of these things.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-04, 10:29, said:

The idea of Serious is that the 5 level is safe providing we do not have 2 fast losers in a suit. That is particularly true for me in that I generally try to arrive at the point of 3M with at least one hand limited; a much sounder policy than having an extra sequence for an "in-between" hand and hoping it comes up.

We find that quite frequently in a 2/1 auction we arrive at 3M suit agreement with neither hand limited.

1S-2D
3D-3S, for instance has limited neither hand.

We only use the serious/non-serious distinction when neither hand is yet limited. If one or the other has in-fact established an upper limit, anything partner does beside just bidding game is serious.

I don't claim our method is standard or best, but I do claim posters who debate serious/non-serious are often on different pages.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-04, 10:54, said:

We find that quite frequently in a 2/1 auction we arrive at 3M suit agreement with neither hand limited.

It is a weakness of 2/1 that tends to get glossed over. For an Opener's hand of ♠+♦ opposite a GF hand, I can bid:

1♠ - 1NT; 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT = min with 5+♠s, 5+♦s (and higher responses show exactly 4 diamonds)
1♠ - 1NT; 2NT = extras with 5+♠s, 5+♦s (and higher responses show exactly 4 diamonds)
1♣ - <some positive>; <some relay> = 18+

meaning that should Responder choose to set spades as trumps and convert to a natural auction the hand is always limited.

aguahombre, on 2014-March-04, 10:54, said:

We only use the serious/non-serious distinction when neither hand is yet limited. If one or the other has in-fact established an upper limit, anything partner does beside just bidding game is serious.

The problem here is that you effectively have no slam try. My definition of "frivolous" is essentially a slam try (for the unlimited hand) or denying the ability to accept a slam try (for the limited hand). It sounds to me from the above that your definition or "serious" is a slam try or better. The problem I have with that is the same one as I gave above - you just do not know if you can let partner know below 4M whether you were really serious or just making a try. And partner cannot commit beyond 4M even with the last missing control which means that all of the available calls cannot be used to full efficiency. But it is certainly good enough for our level and I often play much simpler methods.

aguahombre, on 2014-March-04, 10:54, said:

I don't claim our method is standard or best, but I do claim posters who debate serious/non-serious are often on different pages.

I think we just proved this and I have also noticed it. In discussions where it seems to matter I have given my definitions and sometimes that does indeed make everything easier to follow.

[jgillispie]

Could, in theory, 4N be a cuebid that shows this kind of hand?