[pclayton]

Say you agree that 3♠ is non-serious when hearts are trump and 3N is non-serious when spades are agreed. This applies to auctions like a 2/1 and some XYZ sequences where one or both partners can have substantially undisclosed values.

How do you handle continuations after: 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ - 3♠?

What is 3N? (It should not be to play, but could it be non-serious for spades?). Do cue bids agree hearts, or spades or is it unclear?

To make things more complicated, we play Kickback.

I suppose 6 ace keycard is a possible solution, but I'm trying to deal with the basic continuations after the 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ - 3♠ start.

[helene_t]

I think hearts should be trump here. So 3♠ is frivolous. 3N shows a spade control, whoever bid it.

[FrancesHinden]

OK, I don't play serious/frivolous but I play something vaguely similar (I'm told it's called Rodwell).

We've specifically agreed on this auction: 1S - 2H - 3H -3S that 3S shows 3-card spade support. Trumps are agreed as hearts, for cue-bidding, RKCB etc purposes, but either hand - although it will usually be opener - can convert slam-level heart contracts to spades.

Over 3S,

3NT by opener = artificial (I guess 'frivolous' in your terminology)
4C/4D cue bids, in principle hearts agreed
4H = horrible hand, sign-off
4S = sign-off, embarrassed about heart suppport
4NT = RKCB in hearts

We don't play kickback, so don't have that problem

This may not be entirely optimal, but at least we can remember it.

[Cascade]

I think you just have to bite the bullet and give something up.

We give up getting back to spades below the six-level after 1♠ 2♥; 3♥. This may not be optimal but makes it easy to define our continuations:

...
3♠ Frivolous for hearts
3NT Spade Cue
4♣/♦ Cues
4♥ to play
4♠ RKCB

Similarly after a frivolous 3♠ ...

3NT Spade Cue
4♣/♦ Cues
4♥ to play
4♠ RKCB

Another idea that we use in other auctions where there is ambiguity for hearts and spades is general cue-bids. Say we are at 3♠ without prior explicit agreement of hearts or spades then we use 4♣ and 4♦ as 'good' 4♥ and 4♠ bids respectively. They do not show or deny any specific controls.

On the auctual sequence you are discussing if you are willing to give up playing in 3NT (which you probably are) then you have an extra bid available. You might consider giving up frivolous 3NT in favour of making it explicit which suit you would like to agree. Maybe:

3NT - agrees hearts
4♣/♦ - cues for spades

or the other way around.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

hearts is set as trumps, a spade cue will
usually show a to honor, i.e. whatever
your spade cue is, it will not show 3 cards,
unless you specifically agree.

This means 3S is frivolous and 3NT is the
spade cue, ... an agreement I am sure to
forget, hopefully I I dont forget this auction,
in case we discuss to using 3S as frivoluos /
serious for hearts.

3NT in the sequence

1S - 2H
3H - 3S
3NT - ...

is a spade cue, showing add. strength and demands
further cue bids, i.e. 4H would deny 1st / 2nd round
control in clubs and diamonds (no shortage, no Ace,
no King), an information, which will make Ace asking
quite often obsolete.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2007, 09:21 AM, said:

OK, I don't play serious/frivolous but I play something vaguely similar (I'm told it's called Rodwell).

We've specifically agreed on this auction: 1S - 2H - 3H -3S that 3S shows 3-card spade support. Trumps are agreed as hearts, for cue-bidding, RKCB etc purposes, but either hand - although it will usually be opener - can convert slam-level heart contracts to spades.

Over 3S,

3NT by opener = artificial (I guess 'frivolous' in your terminology)
4C/4D cue bids, in principle hearts agreed
4H = horrible hand, sign-off
4S = sign-off, embarrassed about heart suppport
4NT = RKCB in hearts

We don't play kickback, so don't have that problem

This may not be entirely optimal, but at least we can remember it.

Thanks Frances - this is really what I'm after. I like the idea that hearts is tacitly agreed, but either can convert to spades.

I'm not sure I'd agree that 3♠ promises only 3 trump. Wouldn't you make a 2/1 with something like AQxx, KQJxx, xx, xx?

[BillHiggin]

I favor similar agreements (Kickback RKC when hearts agreed, Frivolous 3N with kickback when hearts agreed). I have default rules for these:
1) Kickback RKC when hearts agreed applies when hearts have been explicitly agreed and spades is not a logical alternative trump. If spades is a logical alternative (either partner has previously made a natural spade bid) then 4N is RKC (still 0314 - no 1430 ever).
2) Similar for Kickback Frivolous 3N - only applies when hearts have been explicitly agreed and spades have not been bid naturally by either partner. If spades are a logical alternative trump suit then 3S is support and 3N is Frivolous 3N.
3) Specific auctions may be exempted from these rules when carefully documented and agreed (has not happened yet).

Other agreements are certainly possible (and might be superior). These are simple enough that memory failure is expected to be minimal (important factor for those like myself that may suffer from oldstimers disease).

[kenrexford]

If you have 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ as natural, agreeing both suits, then you cannot cuebid showing heart trump quality or spade trump quality. It seems really bad to not be able to make cuebids in either of your suits.

Adding in frivolous or serious might allow inferences of good general trumps/bad general trumps, trumps being both majors. But, with each person having 0-6 top cards in the majors, that's quite a blunt knife.

[BillHiggin]

kenrexford, on Jul 9 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

If you have 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ as natural, agreeing both suits, then you cannot cuebid showing heart trump quality or spade trump quality. It seems really bad to not be able to make cuebids in either of your suits.

Adding in frivolous or serious might allow inferences of good general trumps/bad general trumps, trumps being both majors. But, with each person having 0-6 top cards in the majors, that's quite a blunt knife.

Perhaps it will be better to rephrase my last statement:
This agreement is not intended to be optimal (and almost certainly is not), it is intended that it be clear exactly what the agreement is.