[TWO4BRIDGE]

Edit the EDIT: See post # 11 ( NOT post # 7 ) for actual hands and bids .

( 1C ) - 1D - ( p ) - 1H = could be 4 or must be at least 5 cards ?

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2012-April-15, 12:02

[mikeh]

I think that this is an area where there are two schools of thought.

In my neck of the woods, I think all the good players play this as showing 5+cards...it may seem strange, but I have not discussed this issue with any of my regular partners over the past 30 years....but none of them nor any of my 'occasional' partners has ever done this on a 4 card suit, and I don't recall any good opp ever doing so either.

As for what is best in theory, my view is that 5 is superior.

If the bid is not even forcing, then 5+ seems clearly correct, since partner will often want to be able to pass with a doubleton, and no good rebid, so we'd like to avoid the 4-2 fits if we can.

I like the bid as forcing one round. Now, one could argue that this is analogous to a major suit response to an opening bid and thus one can play it as a 4 card suit. Howeve, the analogy breaks down when one considers overcaller's rebid options compared to opener's rebid options.

After 1♦ [P] 1♠ [P], opener's 1N says nothing about stoppers and merely describes shape and degree of fit for spades and point range.

After [1♣] 1♦ [P] 1♠ [P], overcaller's rebids have significantly different meanings.

So my view is that using the advance of 1M as 5+ makes more sense.

However, it is always tempting to try to rationalize that what one has done for decades must be better than an alternative one has never tried. So I would recommend careful reading of any arguments advanced by the advocates of the 4+ approach.

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think the argument for 5 is based on overcaller's rebid options (if playing 1rf), compared to a 1♦ opener. You could still play 1nt was relatively meaningless with regards to stoppers and get away with it a ton, you're only at 1, responder might have a stopper, opener's suit is often 4- length, opener might have rebid clubs with good 6+. I think it has substantially more to do with opener's shape restrictions, due to availability of takeout double. Now overcaller is never going to be some 2443, 3442, (43)51, 4441, 4450 like they could be after a diamond opening. You only have to worry about 2452, 1453 type shapes, and in a very large number of these hands responder has stuck in a 1♠ call before advancer can speak, and in some of these conceivably overcaller might have overcalled on a chunky 4 bagger instead of in diamonds. So the relative rarity of a 4-4 fit favors catering to 5-3 fits.

I think also that the situation is somewhat different if the overcall is 1♥ rather than 1♦. Then, possibility of 4-5 in the majors is greater, since with 4531, most will overcall 1h, hoping someone can double a club raise to get the spades in if there is no heart fit, whereas with 4351 most would double catering to finding a high scoring major fit in preference to overcalling in diamonds. Also, interference is less likely since responder requires a stronger hand to bid 2♣ freely over 1♥, than he would to bid 1♥ freely over a diamond overcall which is quite frequent. There is perhaps a stronger case for playing 1♠ as 4+ length over 1♥ overcall. Since I don't usually have that agreement, 1♠ still 5+, my tendency is to abuse Michaels occasionally with 45 in the majors, holding chunky spades.

[the hog]

Incorrect post. edited.

[daveharty]

 the hog, on 2012-April-13, 18:03, said:

I think playing it as 4 cards is far superior. That way the X can be used to show both Majors.

I think you missed a pass...the 1H bid was made by advancer, not responder. I think it's still illegal to double partner's bid, although there have been several times I've wanted to do it lately.

[the hog]

 daveharty, on 2012-April-13, 21:22, said:

I think you missed a pass...the 1H bid was made by advancer, not responder. I think it's still illegal to double partner's bid, although there have been several times I've wanted to do it lately.

You are right Dave. Thanks

[TWO4BRIDGE]

A friend had sent me the problem.
These were the actual hands for Overcaller and Advancer.
At first glance it seems Overcaller should have made a DBL.

Overcaller: AKx KTxx Qxxxx x

Advancer: Qx Axxx AKxxx Jx

Well, you may think that all ended well, BUT Advancer did NOT make the 1H bid.... thinking 5 cards were needed.
Instead a 3C!-stop-ask was made... looking for 3NT:

( 1C ) - 1D - ( p ) - 3C!
( p ) - 3D - passout

4H and 5D made 11 tricks.

[Antrax]

Do you think this is a good example of a 1♦ overcall for the N/B forum?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 Antrax, on 2012-April-15, 07:17, said:

Do you think this is a good example of a 1♦ overcall for the N/B forum?

The initial question was.

[Stephen Tu]

-On this hand overcaller should double. But swap the two hands, if advancer's hand is first to act it's not right to double with only qx in spades.

-It seems to me with hands these strong, you should be able to find 4h even not starting with double and not starting with 1h advance. Why cannot overcaller bid H after a 2c or 3c cue bid, depending on how defined. (why choose 3c instead of 2c?) The usual problem with miss 4-4 is miss 2h partial with weaker hands, and without big diamond fit also, advance is 1nt (if weak and have double fit, opp will be bidding for sure their spade). Not when hands are so strong. With hand such as 2452 opposite 3424 or 4423 something. Bigger problem at MP than IMP.

-what sort of bidding judgment is going on here? What's the minimum for the 1d overcall? Overcaller has a moose if advancer has diamond fit + hand strong enough to force 3nt but *asking* for club stopper. He is presumably weak in clubs, you have stiff facing not much wastage, so presumably there is play for 5d even if assumed 4h not playable. Can't bid NF 3d IMO.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Well, I got the hands reversed in post # 7 ) . It should be:

Overcaller: Qx Axxx AKxxx Jx

Advancer: AKx KTxx Qxxxx x

( 1C ) - 1D - ( p ) - 3C! ( stop-ask for 3NT )
( p ) - 3D - passout

Overcaller didn't have a T/O DBL-- hence, the 1D overcall-- but Advancer thought 5 cards ♥ was needed for a 1H advance.

The ♥-fit was missed ... 4H made 11 tricks .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I asked a national champion about Advancer making a 1H bid.
He said: " "Shows 5 but you can have 4 in a pinch, just like a direct overcall."

[Zelandakh]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-April-15, 12:00, said:

Overcaller: Qx Axxx AKxxx Jx

Advancer: AKx KTxx Qxxxx x

How about: (1♣) - 1♦ - 2♣; 2♥ - 4♣; 4♥? On the main question I have personally never seen any problems with responding with a 4 card suit at the 1 level providing you have a genuinely constructive hand.

Spoiler

One thing that certainly could change that though would be playing Raptor (this is a conventional way of using a 1NT overcall to show a hand with a 4 card major and 5 card minor) or Equal Level Conversion (an advanced method of using take-out doubles). But that would be getting into a discussion that is highly unsuitable for this forum.

Edit: added spoiler tags to section aimed at OP and unsuitable for general N/B discussion

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-19, 02:28, said:

How about: (1♣) - 1♦ - 2♣; 2♥ - 4♣; 4♥? On the main question I have personally never seen any problems with responding with a 4 card suit at the 1 level providing you have a genuinely constructive hand.

Depends on agreements but (1♣)-1♦-(P)-2♣ agrees diamonds and as such does 2♥ show 4 or just a stop ?

I have no issue being in 5♦ rather than 4♥ here (at IMPs).

The point really for this forum (as well as the question asked) is what's the "box" for the 1♦ overcall ? if you play opening hand plus, then partner cannot let the bidding die in a partscore with the hand he has, if it's 6-14, then you can't.

We tend to respond in most situations to overcalls as if they were opening bids so would bid 1♥ on 4. Our simple overcalls are pretty sound so this fits.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-20, 06:03, said:

We tend to respond in most situations to overcalls as if they were opening bids so would bid 1♥ on 4. Our simple overcalls are pretty sound so this fits.

This is actually the style I prefer to play too, the corrollary of which is making jump overcalls very aggressively. I am not sure too many beginners are comfortable with this though.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-19, 02:28, said:

How about: (1♣) - 1♦ - 2♣; 2♥ - 4♣; 4♥?

2C!-cue ( by Advancer ) makes a lot of sense since at the 2-level you have all of this room "still looking for strain" ( ie. 2C! = good hand, either Diam raise or have a 4 card major or both support and a major ) .

Overcaller's first priority then should be to bid his 4 card Major if he has one.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I think the same should be true for:
( 1D ) - 2C - ( p ) - 2D!

[S2000magic]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-20, 06:03, said:

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-19, 02:28, said:

How about: (1♣) - 1♦ - 2♣; 2♥ - 4♣; 4♥? On the main question I have personally never seen any problems with responding with a 4 card suit at the 1 level providing you have a genuinely constructive hand.

Depends on agreements but (1♣)-1♦-(P)-2♣ agrees diamonds . . . . (emphasis added)

2♣ in this sequence means whatever you and your partner agree it means. While one use of the cuebid is to agree the suit of the overcall (e.g., as a limit raise or better), it isn't the only possible use of the cuebid, and, arguably, isn't the best use of the cuebid. Some would use it to ask overcaller to furhter describe his hand, perhaps mentioning another (4+ card) suit. Such an agreement would work well here.

[Cyberyeti]

 S2000magic, on 2012-April-22, 11:37, said:

2♣ in this sequence means whatever you and your partner agree it means. While one use of the cuebid is to agree the suit of the overcall (e.g., as a limit raise or better), it isn't the only possible use of the cuebid, and, arguably, isn't the best use of the cuebid. Some would use it to ask overcaller to furhter describe his hand, perhaps mentioning another (4+ card) suit. Such an agreement would work well here.

Certainly at N/B level, the UCB as a raise is taught to most people in this country (the club opener is usually 4+ cards over here at N/B level if it matters).

Is that different in the US ? I agree you might agree to play it as something else later, but at N/B ?

[ArtK78]

There is a school of thought that a 1♦ overcall should be sound and advancer should treat it as an opening bid and respond accordingly. The logic behind this is that 1♦ is not a call that obstructs the opponents so it should not be made frivilously.

Clearly, from the posts above, this is not a school of thought that has gained much traction, as the consensus is that a one of a major bid by advancer shows 5 cards. I like to have 5 cards for my one of a major call over the 1♦ overcall, but I will bid a major on 4 good cards.

[S2000magic]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-24, 06:23, said:

Certainly at N/B level, the UCB as a raise is taught to most people in this country (the club opener is usually 4+ cards over here at N/B level if it matters).

Is that different in the US ? I agree you might agree to play it as something else later, but at N/B ?

The ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (4th edition (I have the latest edition, but it's 2,500 miles (4,000 km) away at the moment)), in its article on cuebidding an opponent's suit, in the subsection on cubidding in response to parther's simple overcall (with an intervening pass), describes the "normal" treatment as a strong hand requesting clarification of overcaller's hand. The cuebidder could have a limit raise or better, or could have poor support and be looking for another suit, or could be looking for a stopper for notrump.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 S2000magic, on 2012-April-24, 19:28, said:

The ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (4th edition ) ...... ( snip ) : The cuebidder could have a limit raise or better, or could have poor support and be looking for another suit, or could be looking for a stopper for notrump.

Thanks for finding this.... it is worth repeating... exactly what Zelandakh ( post # 12 ) suggested :

( 1C ) - 1D - ( p ) - 2C! = may be a limit raise, but may instead be looking for a different suit...