[jillybean]

1♣:1♠
1N:2♦* gf artificial does not promise 5♠
2♠:3N

I've just started playing Serious 3N, do you play it here?

[gwnn]

no. responder was looking for 4 hearts.

[rogerclee]

My strong advice is that if you think serious 3N could possibly be on in this sequence, you should stop playing this convention and take some time to discuss exactly when it's on and when it's not.

[Hanoi5]

gwnn, on 2011-June-03, 15:56, said:

no. responder was looking for 4 hearts.

Can responder be looking for a heart 4-4 fit with 5♠ and 4♥? Why would a/he want to play NT with 5-4 in the Majors? Im not saying 3NT is/isn't serious (I don't play that and barely know what it means) I just think that sequence doesn't make sense (unless it is offering 3NT as the final contract even though there is a fit in spades).

[qwery_hi]

IMO, serious/non-serious 3NT should be on when we have a 9 card major fit, e.g. 1N-2D-3H-3N*.. or playing 2/1 if one of the partners shows a stronger than GF hand with an 8 card major fit, e.g. 1S-2D-2H-3S-3N*. When undiscussed, 3NT serious/non-serious is off.

rogerclee, on 2011-June-03, 16:10, said:

My strong advice is that if you think serious 3N could possibly be on in this sequence, you should stop playing this convention and take some time to discuss exactly when it's on and when it's not.

[kenrexford]

Responder has only four spades with quantitative values. This is a superior sequence to simply raising 1NT to 4NT, because you end up a level lower if Opener declines and because you have space to explore more if Opener accepts.

Responder does not have four hearts, because then he would have a fifth spade (and be happy by this call) or would have responded 1♥ earlier.

Serious 3NT does not make sense when you skip to get there before agreeing a fit. That said, I like 2NT here to agree spades (rather than 3♠) because it gives us lots of space. 3♠ instead of 2NT then has some special meaning.

[jillybean]

If I had wanted to play in NT I had 2N available, we don't play 2N as agreeing ♠'s so hoped 3N would be S3N here.

My hand was AQT85, A5, AJT53, 6 and S3N seemed to be the best way to find out
if partner had a club control. Why should S3N only be once we've foound a 9 card fit?

[qwery_hi]

jillybean, on 2011-June-03, 18:07, said:

Why should S3N only be once we've found a 9 card fit?

First, I don't know if serious 3NT is better or non-serious 3NT. So when I say serious 3NT, substitute non-serious if that's your cuppa.

That's a good question, and from what I understand, serious/non-serious 3NT is a tool to make slam exploration more methodical. From what I've seen , this slam exploration is mainly for major suit slams, maybe it's used for minor suit slams but I don't know about that.

Now to explore for a major suit slam, we need to be sure we're playing in the major suit. Hence the 9 card fit or the 8 card fit with extra values. so when a fit is found at the 3 level, and one of the partners is unlimited, then serious 3NT gives us a way to explore slam without unambiguity about strength.

re the 8 card fit, one of my partners thinks 3NT should still be an offer to play, but I like serious/non-serious 3NT in all cases where we're found a 8 card major fit at the 3 level and one of the partners is unlimited.

[kuhchung]

To clarify Roger's point, Serious 3NT is useful when both partners are unlimited in a game forcing auction. In this auction, opener has shown 12-14 balanced, so there is no need for Serious 3NT.

Edit: I forgot to mention of course that it should be clear what major is trumps.

[gwnn]

Jillybean, I'm sorry but I don't understand, you already have a club control.

Hanoi, I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking, of course if responder was looking for 4 hearts he'd already have 5 spades.

Anyway, serious 3NT applies when you found your major fit on the 3 level. Here there's two issues:
-we don't yet have a fit.
-we're not on the three level.

In conclusion I'm not 100% sure what I'd take it at the table. Ken's suggestion of quantitative makes most sense to me, but in practice I'd always pass it in practice.

[aguahombre]

disregard whatever I wrote and deleted.

You play two-way NMF, apparently. And that blows the logic of my alleged input.

This particular hand would be simpler to work out with regular old NMF, since the 2S bid would have already shown a weak opener with 3 spades, and then 3S could have been the "serious" call by inference (Responder would have passed or bid 4 Sp without slam interest.).

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-June-03, 19:47

[kenrexford]

jillybean, on 2011-June-03, 18:07, said:

If I had wanted to play in NT I had 2N available, we don't play 2N as agreeing ♠'s so hoped 3N would be S3N here.

My hand was AQT85, A5, AJT53, 6 and S3N seemed to be the best way to find out
if partner had a club control. Why should S3N only be once we've foound a 9 card fit?

You may see now, then, how wondefully useful the much more common spade agreement 2NT is than the "just natural with slam interest" option. That way, you'd have lots of space to find out about a club control, or even two club controls.

But, if your sole interest is in a natural way to find out about a club control, why not bid the much more obvious 3♠? This seems GF, since 2♦ already established a GF. Now, partner still can cue a club control, but he might also show serious interest.

[Mbodell]

jillybean, on 2011-June-03, 18:07, said:

If I had wanted to play in NT I had 2N available, we don't play 2N as agreeing ♠'s so hoped 3N would be S3N here.

My hand was AQT85, A5, AJT53, 6 and S3N seemed to be the best way to find out
if partner had a club control. Why should S3N only be once we've foound a 9 card fit?

On this hand why not bid 3♦ over 1nt? Assuming you play 2-way you already have 2♣ to cover diamond sign offs and invitational diamond hands so 3♦ ought to show 55 or better in the pointed and slam curious. Now partner can bid 3♠ to agree spades, 3nt to suggest nt, or anything else as a cue in support of diamonds. Now over 1♣-1♠-1nt-3♦-3♠ you'd be free to make a serious 3nt bid if you wanted (although you probably have a non-serious hand in the context of a slam curious 55, but it is close, so you could make the non-serious 3nt bid or else bid a 4♦ cue if you play S3nt).

[helene_t]

Serious 3NT doesn't apply since we haven't found a fit yet. OK, this is just semantics, since one could play 3NT here as some sort of slam try for spades.

I would take it as choice of game with a 5332. With a small doubleton in a red suit, opener corrects to 4♠.

Something else: I think serious 3NT should only be on when both partners have a wide range. For example
1♠-2♣
2♥-3♠
3NT*

In you auction, opener has limited her hand with 1NT so she must cooperate with a cuebid by responder. No need to refuse to cooperate to show a non-slammish hand since she already showed a non-slamish hand. OK this is not quite true, some balanced 12-14 hands are more slammish than others.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

in the given seq. responder has 3S av. to show serious slam interest,
so you dont need 3NT as a bid to show SI.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

rogerclee, on 2011-June-03, 16:10, said:

My strong advice is that if you think serious 3N could possibly be on in this sequence, you should stop playing this convention and take some time to discuss exactly when it's on and when it's not.

This is the extent of my understanding of S3N,

"After 8+ card major suit fit has been established below 3N, 3NT is a serious slam try and therefore forcing. Typically partner will cue bid a control, or show a good five card secondary source of tricks. A return by partner to 4M suggests limited interest in slam or a minimum hand."

Hence the question and why we (I !) need more work here.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on 2011-June-04, 05:20, said:

Serious 3NT doesn't apply since we haven't found a fit yet. OK, this is just semantics, since one could play 3NT here as some sort of slam try for spades.

I would take it as choice of game with a 5332. With a small doubleton in a red suit, opener corrects to 4♠.

Something else: I think serious 3NT should only be on when both partners have a wide range. For example
1♠-2♣
2♥-3♠
3NT*

In this auction we would be cueing after 3♠ so like the original auction, perhaps S3N is not needed at all.

Edit, actualy in this auction I don't know what 3♠ is, we would start cue bidding after 1♠:2♣ 2♥:2♠

[helene_t]

This is how serious 3NT works:
blah-blah
blah-3♠
?

Now opener can have a hand that wants to be in slam if responder can cue a specific suit, even if responder has an otherwise unsuitable hand. In other word, opener can have a hand with which he wants to insist on cuebidding.

But he can also have a hand with which he only wants to be in slam if responder has a really suitable hand. Now he could convey that message by signing off in 4♠, but then it would be a pity if all responder needs for slam is for opener to have control in a specific suit, which he may or may not have.

If opener had to cue with both of the two hand types mentioned, responder would not know if he is supposed to cooperate or not if he holds a minimum.

Serious 3NT helps here. Bypassing 3NT says "I am cuebidding just in case that is all you need for slam. Do not cooperate if you need more than that". While bidding 3NT says "you must cooperate if you can".

[helene_t]

jillybean, on 2011-June-04, 09:46, said:

In this auction we would be cueing after 3♠ so like the original auction, perhaps S3N is not needed at all.

Edit, actualy in this auction I don't know what 3♠ is, we would start cue bidding after 1♠:2♣ 2♥:2♠

Yeah maybe that was a bad example.

Take
1♠-2♥
3♣-3♠
?

Here both partners have a wide range so you need some way of distinguishing between serious and non-serious hands.

[Phil]

By the way Jilly, add to your rules that S3N is never a jump.I think you should also strongly consider not using it when one partner bids a natural NT along the way. For instance does:

1♠ - 2♦
2N - 3♠
3N

sound like a 'serious' call to you?

And why are you playing serious anyway? I think of the pairs that play either serious or non-serious that non-serious is definitely more common, and a lot of those that play serious just haven't learned non-serious or bothered to switch. I've played both, and non serious is a lot more effective, as is playing non serious 3♠ when we have agreed hearts.