[rbforster]

The opponents open 1♦, partner overcalls 2♣ and you hold what you judge to be a game forcing hand with 5/5 majors. For example, maybe something like this:

(1♦)-2♣-(P)-?

---

(add some more honors if your partner overcalls 2♣ with light values)

Since you don't know which game to play, you want to make a forcing bid. Annoyingly, it seems the only forcing bids are some number of diamonds (new suits would be non-forcing constructive).

Part 1: What's your call?

2♦ - generic forcing bid, might not be club support
3♦ - is this really a mixed raise when it forces to the 4 level?
4♦ - this is a splinter for clubs, right?

Feel free to correct my guesses if you think the normal interpretation of these bids is wrong, or if I've overlooked other good options.

Part 2: When partner makes a 2♦ cuebid showing a wide range of good hands (possibly including the one from Part 1), how do you bid your game going single suiter in clubs? I take it a direct 5♣ bid could be embarrassing opposite the hand above on some bad breaks.

[MFA]

I'm not used to these methods. I play transfer responses, and if not (nonregular partner) then a new suit after a 2-level overcall is F1.

But as you describe it, I suppose I have to bid 2♦, then spades, then hearts.

[jdonn]

Part 1: Agree with MFA, 2♦ then spades then hearts is essentially compelled.
Part 2: I think 3♦ by partner should clearly mean 'game going single suiter in clubs'. Sort of like a more standard auction 1♥ (2♠) 2NT where I think 3♥ is nonforcing and 3♠ is specifically a forcing 3♥ bid, at least as I prefer it.

[rbforster]

Thanks for the replies. I suppose transfer advances simplify this auction if you have good agreements.

Rob F, on Jan 16 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

2♦ - generic forcing bid, might not be club support
3♦ - is this really a mixed raise when it forces to the 4 level?
4♦ - this is a splinter for clubs, right?

So do people really play 3♦ here as a mixed raise? I'm much more used to seeing the mixed raise as a fitting raise to the 3 level in partner's major, but I wasn't sure if that was still applicable when partner's suit was lower ranking than the opponents.

(1♦)-2♣
(1♥)-2♣ or 2♦
(1♠)-2♣ or 2♦ or 2♥

Is mixed raise still the standard interpretation of the jump cuebid in the above auctions? I guess part of me was wondering if a "michaels" use of the jump cue might be more useful when partner's overcall was at the 2 level (instead of at the 1 level where a mixed raise makes more sense).

[MFA]

I play them all as mixed raises.

I suppose that a very good case could be made for treating 3♦ in your auction as 5-5 majors, not GF.

[helene_t]

Maybe 3♦ should be a splinter. Otherwise a mixed raise. I don't care for 3♦ as majors. 2♦ then spades then hearts will do.

Transfer advances may wrongside the contract when you have a diamond honour to protect.

[whereagles]

I would simply bid 2♠. There's a good chance pard will bid 3♣ over this, after which my 3♥ should clear up the issue.

[skjaeran]

Playing transfer advances this is an easy 2♥.
Oh, I don't (why??)!
Then I'll bid 2♠.

[jdonn]

The original poster made it clear with his comment "add some more honors if your partner overcalls 2♣ with light values" that he wants the assumption to be we have enough for game. So then how can a nonforcing action be possible?

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Jan 17 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

The original poster made it clear with his comment "add some more honors if your partner overcalls 2♣ with light values" that he wants the assumption to be we have enough for game. So then how can a nonforcing action be possible?

I'm willing to risk pard passing 2♠ in order to make sure we get to the right strain. As Al Roth would say: "If I can get past this round..."

[awm]

I've always played that new suits are forcing over partner's two-level overcall.

The reason is that a two-level overcall is invariably a pretty good suit and a pretty good hand. There's no need to "rescue" partner from a bad spot as you might have to do after some lousy one level overcall (especially when opponents haven't even doubled). And even if you play "non-forcing constructive" advances over one-level overcalls, overcaller should always bid again with a real opening hand and a two-level overcall should be a real opening hand.

It seems to me that after a two-level overcall, a situation like this one where you almost surely have game and need to worry about strain is much more common than a hand where you have less than game values and no fit but somehow feel compelled to bid.

So if not playing transfer advances, it's 2♠ (forcing) for me.

I don't normally play 3♦ here as a mixed raise. I admit that I've not discussed it in most partnerships, but I'd take it as a splinter in support of clubs based on general principles (if a non-jump in a suit is forcing and guarantees a good hand, then a jump is normally splinter, much like a jump-reverse is a splinter for most folks). With a "mixed raise" I bid 3♣.

[han]

awm, on Jan 17 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

I've always played that new suits are forcing over partner's two-level overcall.

The reason is that a two-level overcall is invariably a pretty good suit and a pretty good hand. There's no need to "rescue" partner from a bad spot as you might have to do after some lousy one level overcall (especially when opponents haven't even doubled). And even if you play "non-forcing constructive" advances over one-level overcalls, overcaller should always bid again with a real opening hand and a two-level overcall should be a real opening hand.

It seems to me that after a two-level overcall, a situation like this one where you almost surely have game and need to worry about strain is much more common than a hand where you have less than game values and no fit but somehow feel compelled to bid.

Why is a gameforcing hand more common than a constructive hand with a good spade suit after LHO has opened the bidding and partner invariably has a good hand?

Are you just willing to pass with something like AQJxxx Qxx xxx x and hope that you don't have game, or do you force to game with that hand?

Doesn't playing forcing advances create bigger problems for hands like that than playing NF advances creates for gameforcing hands?

Just because the lower limit of a 2C overcall is quite a bit higher than that of a 1-level overcall doesn't mean that partner can't have a wide range of hands, including some pretty good hands in support of spades.

I think that there is a lot to be said for playing NF advances if one does not want to play transfers.

[han]

awm, on Jan 17 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

I don't normally play 3♦ here as a mixed raise. I admit that I've not discussed it in most partnerships, but I'd take it as a splinter in support of clubs based on general principles (if a non-jump in a suit is forcing and guarantees a good hand, then a jump is normally splinter, much like a jump-reverse is a splinter for most folks). With a "mixed raise" I bid 3♣.

Ditto.

[cherdano]

Even when playing NF advances, I would prefer the cue to promise support. Then I just have to bid 2♠ with this hand type and pray.

[awm]

Say partner opens 1♠. Couldn't I have a hand like:

♠x ♥xx ♦AQJxxx ♣Qxxx

Wouldn't I like to be able to make a constructive and non-forcing 2♦ bid on such a hand? Playing standard methods, I'm very unlikely to be able to get out below 3♦ on this hand. Maybe we should switch to playing all new suits by responder non-forcing, and jump shift or something to show the good hands?

The point isn't that "non-forcing constructive" hands don't exist.

The point is that it's a tradeoff.

The better partner's minimum hand is, the more common game-forcing hands will be relative to the "non-forcing" type hands. The better partner's minimum suit is, the less you need to bid on poor hands to "improve the partial" or "suggest an alternate strain." Using non-forcing direct responses potentially makes the game-forcing hands very hard to bid, so whichever treatment you choose (barring transfers and the like) you are going to have some pretty serious issues with the other hand type.

Pretty much everyone plays forcing new-suit responses to opening bids. Comparatively, the two-level overcall promises a better suit, at least an equivalent hand, and has a lower upper-end. There is an increasing tendency to double or make some artificial call with a good fit for an unbid major, making this unlikely for the overcall as well. It seems to make only more sense to play forcing new-suit responses here.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Jan 17 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 17 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

I've always played that new suits are forcing over partner's two-level overcall.

The reason is that a two-level overcall is invariably a pretty good suit and a pretty good hand. There's no need to "rescue" partner from a bad spot as you might have to do after some lousy one level overcall (especially when opponents haven't even doubled). And even if you play "non-forcing constructive" advances over one-level overcalls, overcaller should always bid again with a real opening hand and a two-level overcall should be a real opening hand.

It seems to me that after a two-level overcall, a situation like this one where you almost surely have game and need to worry about strain is much more common than a hand where you have less than game values and no fit but somehow feel compelled to bid.

Why is a gameforcing hand more common than a constructive hand with a good spade suit after LHO has opened the bidding and partner invariably has a good hand?

Are you just willing to pass with something like AQJxxx Qxx xxx x and hope that you don't have game, or do you force to game with that hand?

Doesn't playing forcing advances create bigger problems for hands like that than playing NF advances creates for gameforcing hands?

Just because the lower limit of a 2C overcall is quite a bit higher than that of a 1-level overcall doesn't mean that partner can't have a wide range of hands, including some pretty good hands in support of spades.

I think that there is a lot to be said for playing NF advances if one does not want to play transfers.

I doubt Adam plays 2♠ as game-forcing. I do agree that it should be forcing however.

With something like AQJxxx Qxx xx xx I would bid a forcing 2♠ and pass pard's next call. I can tolerate the 3 level with this hand opposite my 2 level overcalls.

The flip-side is AKJxxx Axx xx xx. I presume you'd cue and then bid 3♠? That will work well if we can convince our opponents to pass throughout, but they are rarely that accommodating.

[han]

awm, on Jan 17 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

The point is that it's a tradeoff.

I agree, but I thought your arguments were flawed. Especially the point that the hands where you really prefer the forcing 2S are more common than the hands where you really prefer the non-forcing 2S. The situation is not the same as over a 1S opener because now already 2 other hands have shown strength.

Phil is right, I was arguing against gameforcing which was silly. But I think the same argument holds against forcing 2S. Make the hand a little weaker and you'd be less comfortable bidding 2S. And even with this hand you'd much prefer if partner was allowed to pass 2S, as it may very well be the last making contract.

Something just occurred to me. Maybe it is possible to combine forcing and non-forcing advances here by playing transfers. What do you think?

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Jan 17 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 17 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

The point is that it's a tradeoff.

I agree, but I thought your arguments were flawed. Especially the point that the hands where you really prefer the forcing 2S are more common than the hands where you really prefer the non-forcing 2S. The situation is not the same as over a 1S opener because now already 2 other hands have shown strength.

Phil is right, I was arguing against gameforcing which was silly. But I think the same argument holds against forcing 2S. Make the hand a little weaker and you'd be less comfortable bidding 2S. And even with this hand you'd much prefer if partner was allowed to pass 2S, as it may very well be the last making contract.

Something just occurred to me. Maybe it is possible to combine forcing and non-forcing advances here by playing transfers. What do you think?

Don't you read the whole thread, Han? There's already a couple of voices for transfer advances.

[awm]

Certainly transfers are a fine agreement, and I do like them myself. But they are not without their weaknesses.

In this particular auction, when not playing transfers you can find a side 4-4 major fit by cuebidding 2♦ on a good raise, then having partner name a major. Playing transfers, your good raise is 2♠ and partner can't introduce a side major suit below the three-level.

There is also the question in auctions like (1♠)-2♣, where most people playing transfers (rubens advances) start them at the cuebid, so you still need to know whether 2♥ is forcing or not forcing.

[han]

skaeran, on Jan 17 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jan 17 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 17 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

The point is that it's a tradeoff.

I agree, but I thought your arguments were flawed. Especially the point that the hands where you really prefer the forcing 2S are more common than the hands where you really prefer the non-forcing 2S. The situation is not the same as over a 1S opener because now already 2 other hands have shown strength.

Phil is right, I was arguing against gameforcing which was silly. But I think the same argument holds against forcing 2S. Make the hand a little weaker and you'd be less comfortable bidding 2S. And even with this hand you'd much prefer if partner was allowed to pass 2S, as it may very well be the last making contract.

Something just occurred to me. Maybe it is possible to combine forcing and non-forcing advances here by playing transfers. What do you think?

Don't you read the whole thread, Han? There's already a couple of voices for transfer advances.

Hehe, I bet you got the joke.