[Fluffy]

♠-
♥AQ9xxxx
♦Q10xx
♣Qx

1♠-2♥
3♥-??

2♥ wasn't GF, but 3♥ is (althou doesn't promise extras).


If you think this is not enough to make a move, add something in trumps till it is, is there a smart bid fo this kind of hands?

[whereagles]

How come 3♥ is GF if it doesn't promise extras? I don't get it.

Anyway, now I bid 4♥. No help in pard's suit and minor suit junk is what I have. If pard can make a slam opposite this, he can make a move himself.

[gnasher]

Quote

is there a smart bid fo this kind of hands

You could bid a non-serious 3NT, then sign off in 4♥.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2011-August-28, 16:17, said:

You could bid a non-serious 3NT, then sign off in 4♥.

This is where I don't understand the use of "non-serious" 3NT. Let's assume for a moment that 4m is a courtesy cue on this auction..a decent, but not mountainous 2/1 bid which wanted to be in game the whole time.

That leaves 3NT and 4H for the other two possibilities --very weak or very strong for the previous action. Why should we want to take up more space with the good one and stall cheaply with the bad one?

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-28, 16:38, said:

This is where I don't understand the use of "non-serious" 3NT. Let's assume for a moment that 4m is a courtesy cue on this auction..

This assumption is hardly going to help you understand "non-serious" 3NT, as it means you aren't playing it.

[Cyberyeti]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-28, 16:46, said:

This assumption is hardly going to help you understand "non-serious" 3NT, as it means you aren't playing it.

I think what he's saying is that he can't see why anybody would ever play this as serious 3N is more efficient, as you want to keep it low on the good hand.

How about actually explaining the logic rather than just making a snide remark.

Also am I the only person that wants a natural 3N on this sequence to bid with x, xxxxx, AKJ, KJ10x.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-28, 16:38, said:

This is where I don't understand the use of "non-serious" 3NT. Let's assume for a moment that 4m is a courtesy cue on this auction..a decent, but not mountainous 2/1 bid which wanted to be in game the whole time.

That leaves 3NT and 4H for the other two possibilities --very weak or very strong for the previous action. Why should we want to take up more space with the good one and stall cheaply with the bad one?

Playing non-serious 3NT, you use 3NT when you would have made a courtesy cue-bid. A cue-bid shows significant extras, and a raise to game shows a bad hand in context.

Compared with serious 3NT, the benefits are:
- When neither player has extras, you avoid giving away information.
- You can use a non-serious 3NT on a mild slam try without a convenient cue-bid (like the one in the original post).
- You rarely have a space-consuming sequence like [spades agreed]- 3♠-4♥, because a serious slam try won't usually have to skip two cue-bids.
- You can sometimes use non-serious 3NT on a hand where you plan to drive the five- or six-level, and finding out about partner's suitability allows you to judge the correct level.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-August-28, 17:01, said:

Also am I the only person that wants a natural 3N on this sequence to bid with x, xxxxx, AKJ, KJ10x.

If we had an unlimited supply of bids available to us, I might use one of them to show that. As we don't, I prefer to use it for something which is more frequent and more likely to gain when it comes up.

[JLOGIC]

I would non serious if possible, otherwise I would bid 4H. I have 2 extra trumps, so despite being minimum in HCP, I have a lot of playing strength.

[aguahombre]

Thanks, Gnasher. That clears up how non-serious is used and why it is chosen by many over serious.

[JLOGIC]

Side note, if you play this as a straight cuebidding auction including 3S (showing a top spade honor rather than a double fit), it is more efficient to play 3S as the non serious slam try, and 3N by both side as spade cuebids.

[aguahombre]

Just one more question: I have heard the term "frivolous" used to describe 3NT in these situations. Is that a third method where 3NT is the worst?

[JLOGIC]

friv = non serious

[gnasher]

"Frivolous" is just a misdescription, because it implies that the 3NT bid is pointless.

[han]

Only a very literal mind would consider frivolous a misnomer. Dictionaries give "characterized by lack of seriousness" and "not serious" among their descriptions of frivolous. As such, I think it is not a bad name for this convention, and sounds better than non-serious.

I'd definitely bid it on this hand. Playing serious 3NT I'd bid 4D. Not having any agreements I'd bid 4H, but I don't like to play bridge without agreements.

[Free]

While we're at it, I also prefer to swap 3♠ and 3NT. This way you don't need to cuebid ♠ if you don't want to (here it's less relevant, but it is in other situations with a ♥ fit). I would frivolous 3♠/3NT. Extra bonus points in this auction is when we bid 3♠ frivolous and partner cuebids a minor suit -> no lost ♠ values W00T!

[whereagles]

swapping 3S/3NT is rather obvious

less important playing frivolous, as it's less likely the squandering of bidding space is relevant.

[gnasher]

han, on 2011-August-29, 05:15, said:

Only a very literal mind would consider frivolous a misnomer. Dictionaries give "characterized by lack of seriousness" and "not serious" among their descriptions of frivolous. As such, I think it is not a bad name for this convention, and sounds better than non-serious.

Are those quotes in any way selective? I notice that Webster's has "characterized by lack of seriousness or sense", and Collins has "not serious or sensible in content, attitude, or behaviour; silly". Both of these definitions come much closer to the normal meaning of "frivolous" than the ones you have quoted.

[aguahombre]

It is interesting that "non-serious", so well thought out and eloquently explained here, should have another name which labels it silly.

We might not have yet switched from "serious", but it will not be a frivolous decision when we do.

[VM1973]

I tend to agree with the definition of frivolous as meaning meritless, silly, nonsensical in context and further note that the Latin word it's drawn from means trifling or worthless.