[kenberg]

1♣ on my left, partner overcalls 1♦, pass. I bid 1♥ and after a pass on my left. partner calls 2♣. What's it?

1♣ 1♦ Pass 1♥
Pass 2♣


The above is the essence of my question. For those interested in the specific case, I was fourth hand, my shape is 4=7=1=1, I have no great strength and the heart suit, although not hopeless, definitely has holes. The stiffs are spots. I thought, perhaps influenced by me stiff club, that the 2♣ was natural and bid 2♥. Plus 170. Partner had a 2=2=5=4 shape with 15 hcps including Ax of spades, and, I think, Jx of hearts. I have Qxxx in spades, stiff spots, and a rather broken heart suit that I don't clearly remember the details of. We amicably discussed who should have done what. He thought 2♣ showed an undefined good hand, I thought is showed clubs and, by implication, not much in hearts.

[hanp]

I play it as a cue for hearts, not natural.

Must admit I didn't get to reading your entire post, will leave it for later.

[Codo]

Never natural.

I play as undefined strong hand mostly with no fit and no club stopper.

I would guess that a overwhelming majority plays it as fitshowing.

[vuroth]

I suspect that natural is playable, but I think I prefer it to be strong/in support of hearts.

Hands where you might have wished that 2♣ were natural can always rebid 2♦, right?

[Jlall]

Why does it have to include heart support? I would bid 2C with Kx Kx AQJxxx AJx and not think twice about it.

[kenberg]

Well, it appears that I will have to concede that natural is not the expected meaning, and that really was my question. If not natural then I suppose I agree with partner that it is some sort of good hand, with details to follow. Sort of the hand partner had. With my hand I needed some help but not much in hearts and if I had thought 2♣ was a generic good hand I imagine I would have bid 3♥. Maybe 4♥, but the hand was really not very good so 3 seems to be enough. That Jx of hearts was very useful.

[whereagles]

in my book it usually shows a full opening (13+ or thereabouts)

[jdonn]

I have long played it as natural and been happy that way, and had the hand for it come up several times. But everyone else says I am dumb and should play it as a strength showing cuebid. I don't remember ever really wishing I had that available at the table but the example hands are usually convincing. So now my head is just spinning a bit.

[kenberg]

jdonn, on Jan 8 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

I have long played it as natural and been happy that way, and had the hand for it come up several times. But everyone else says I am dumb and should play it as a strength showing cuebid. I don't remember ever really wishing I had that available at the table but the example hands are usually convincing. So now my head is just spinning a bit.

Always glad to hear from a fellow nut. But as you say, it is not the majority view to put it mildly.

On the hand in question, partner noted that he could have avoided the confusion by calling 1NT over the opening ♣ bid. That's true, but I don't really fault him for avoiding NT when 2-2 in the majors, one of them being Jx.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2C is never natural, ... we had this discussion before, bidding their
suit is never to play, unless specifcally discussed and agreed, and
it takes a lot to convince me to play a bid in their suit as natural.

The specific meaning of the bid depends partially on the nature of
the 1H bid, was it forcing?
But it promises ad. strength, asks for further description, given that
you have 7 hearts, I would say you are better than min, so 3H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

The 1H bid was not forcing.

As to natural bids in their suits, I like to play both (1♣)- pass-(1♥)-2♣ and (1♣)- pass-(1♥)-2♥ as natural, a treatment that has quite a bit (Michael Lawrence for example), although not universal, support. This particular partner, the second of these is natural, the first shows diamonds and spades. I am ok with either approach, although I prefer to have them both natural. And of course I play (1♣)-1♦-(pass)-2♣ as a cue, either a big hand or a lr+ with diamonds.

But on the posted auction, I definitely accept that natural is not the expected meaning.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, I know "natural" is out of favor. This discussion has occurred before on these fora. Like Josh, we have not yet --in the years since it appeared as natural in the Hardy books --ever lamented not having this cue available.

There is always an acceptable rebid by an overcaller who has a fit for advancer's new suit, such as raising it to some level. If I had Justin's example, and had really chosen a 1D overcall, I would not be happy at this point, but might try a jump in NT (sort of pretending I had opened the bidding).

[Siegmund]

This is on my list to ask my regular p about it at the club tonight. I can't honestly remember ever having this auction come up.

If it did come up without discussion, I would assume forcing and artificial (maximum for the overcall, expecting to reach game opposite advancer's 8-ish points and 5 hearts.)

I am not entirely convinced its actually needed as forcing and artificial, since I've already not doubled, and I have a wide variety of jump cues, jump raises, jump shifts, etc available if I really like partner's hearts.