[gwnn]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

gwnn, on Oct 25 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

would N really really pass south's simple trnf completion?

wouldn't S also bid 2♥ on

AKxxx
Kxx
xxx
qx

?

erm, no thats a normal 3H bid.

won't the superaccept take us too high sometimes?

[awm]

So the problem with Rubens advances (which is not really a problem, just some people abuse them) is that there are three types of hands where you want to bid over partner's overcall:

(1) GF hands
(2) Hands where you have hope of game opposite a "real" hand from partner
(3) Hands where you just want to bail out of partner's suit into your long suit

If you play natural advances (not transfer) then your options are:

Advances forcing. Easy to handle type (1). On type (2) you are okay but will often have to play at the three level when partner has junk. On type (3) you pretty much have to pass and stay fixed.

Advances NF Constructive. Easy to handle type (2). On type (1) you have to make something up, either cue w/o support or bid naturally and risk a pass, or play forcing jump shifts which can be awkward and remove fit jumps. On type (3) you pretty much have to pass and stay fixed, although you can bid and rebid and accept playing at the three level.

Advances Weak. Solves type (3), but you're pretty well fixed on both (1) and (2).

Most people play advances NF constructive in the USA anyway, but advances forcing have some adherents especially among sounder overcallers.

The point is, if you play Rubens transfer advances you can pretty much take your pick of any two of the three possibilities and handle them easily. But you can't really handle all three. The point is that if your transfer includes possibility (3), you basically want partner making a simple accept on all non-fit hands (so you can bail) which makes it impossible to get out on type (2) without forcing the three level (since partner would make a simple accept on hands that make game opposite hand 2). If your transfer includes possibility (2), then you want partner to have the option of breaking the transfer (or super-accepting) when he has something good, which will fix you when you have type (3) but keeps you low when you have (2) opposite trash.

Some people try to play Rubens advances where the transfer includes all three hand types, and this tends to get them in trouble. With that said, it's a great convention when used properly.

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Oct 25 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 26 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

gwnn, on Oct 25 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

would N really really pass south's simple trnf completion?

wouldn't S also bid 2♥ on

AKxxx
Kxx
xxx
qx

?

erm, no thats a normal 3H bid.

won't the superaccept take us too high sometimes?

I don't think so, after all if you overcalled spades and partner bids 2♥ wouldn't you raise in a heartbeat?

[the hog]

The 1S overcall is fine, not "crap" or "junk". I would play change of suit as nf, or better still as a Rubens advance as has already been posted here.

[kenrexford]

The_Hog, on Oct 25 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

The 1S overcall is fine, not "crap" or "junk". I would play change of suit as nf, or better still as a Rubens advance as has already been posted here.

The 1♠ overcall is refuse, flotsam, garbage, waste, crud, fecal matter, and all that. Otherwise, a good call.

[the hog]

kenrexford, on Oct 26 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 25 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

The 1S overcall is fine, not "crap" or "junk". I would play change of suit as nf, or better still as a Rubens advance as has already been posted here.

The 1♠ overcall is refuse, flotsam, garbage, waste, crud, fecal matter, and all that. Otherwise, a good call.

Hmm. Does that mean you don't like it Ken? Would hate to suggest coprophilic tendencies.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Oct 25 2007, 11:29 PM, said:

Hmm. Does that mean you don't like it Ken? Would hate to suggest coprophilic tendencies.

Ewwww you're not the only one.

[cnszsun]

skaeran, on Oct 26 2007, 03:47 AM, said:

vang, on Oct 25 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

methods. play rubens advances.

Agree. Easy stop in 2♥.

Even playing rubens advance, shouldn't north bid once more after 2♦ and 2♥ by south? Transfer and pass will show a weak hand in rubens as i know.

I know some people play advancer's new suit forcing after overcaller's 2 level overcall, but not forcing after 1 level overcall. The reasons are obvious, 1 level overcall may be junk, but 2 level overcall normally much sounder.

[skjaeran]

cnszsun, on Oct 26 2007, 09:27 AM, said:

skaeran, on Oct 26 2007, 03:47 AM, said:

vang, on Oct 25 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

methods. play rubens advances.

Agree. Easy stop in 2♥.

Even playing rubens advance, shouldn't north bid once more after 2♦ and 2♥ by south? Transfer and pass will show a weak hand in rubens as i know.

That really depends on your overcalling style. If partner could have something like the OP south hand or a minimum not much better than that, I think you should pass the 2♥ transfer completion. If your minimum for an overcall is better than that, the ♥T is a great card that should prompt a raise to 3♥.

In addition what you consider a minimum for bidding 2♦ influence your decision over 2♥ from partner. If you can bid it on "rubbish" you can't pass 2♥ with this. If 2♦ promise an invitiational (or close to that) hand you should pass 2♥ with this hand.

[whereagles]

Why play Rubens advances when you have to be inv+ to do so? Doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose of playing it?

I mean.. in that case you could just bid the suits naturally, F1, no?

[skjaeran]

whereagles, on Oct 26 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

Why play Rubens advances when you have to be inv+ to do so? Doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose of playing it?

I mean.. in that case you could just bid the suits naturally, F1, no?

Why ever so?
Playing it inv+ allows you to stop at 2 in your suit when partner doesn't accept your invite. Whereas natF1 doesn't.
Btw, I didn't advocate playing it inv+.

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Oct 26 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

"rubbish"

Missed that one.