[kenberg]

This worked fine, but I have questions. The setting is a casual game online, so parner and I have no close agreements. But pretend you are playing with someone with whom you do have agreements. Scoring is imps. I'm South.

---

What happened was that I bid 2♠, partner raised to 3, I bid 4. So what's the problem (other than the 4-1 trump split, which is not the fault of the bidding)?

For my 2♠ I would like to have better spades and, really, I would like to have worse hearts. I have always thought of the 2♠ as "Trust me, spades are trump". At the time I had to select my call, choosing spades as trump is a bit unilateral.

For me, and I think for most, a 1♠ bid would be constructive but not forcing.

A slight complication is that the 1♦ was a Precision 1♦ so that perhaps 2♦ would be a natural call. Undiscussed.

Anyway, we got to the sensible 4♠ contract that goes down on the 4-1 split, but I am curious as to how others handle this situation.I suppose 2♠ could show a hand with good spades and heart tolerance, if the six-deuce counts as tolerance. I have never played that way, but it coould be useful here.

[ahydra]

My partner and I have the agreement that an advance of an overcall is F1 by an unpassed hand. Hence we'd continue 1S; 2H (what else)-3S; 4S.

Admittedly that's not much better than your auction. The problem is what to do with the South hand, which has a lot of extras but, as you mentioned, not really the right shape to commit to spades as trumps. Perhaps 3D to ask for a stop and over the 3S reply from North, raise to 4?

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2014-February-20, 08:15, said:

For me, and I think for most, a 1♠ bid would be constructive but not forcing.

I imagine this is a regional thing. Most people I know (outside of BBF) play it as forcing. I think 2♦ should still be a cue bid (raise) even when the opening is nebulous. How about an auction of (1♦) - 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT - 2♦; 2♠ - 4♠?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we play fit jumps, i.e. 2S would show spades and a heart fit, but due to level,
heart tolerance would be ok as well (say Hx).

Playing 1S in the given seq. as forcing is quite popular, but so is playing 1S
as nonforcing, it depends a lot on your overcall style.

If you dont play fit jumps, ... playing jumps shifts to the 2 level as inv. makes
sense, inv. single suiter with a major are hard to bid, but are important, but the seq.
where this applies are rare (*), so I am not sure, I would ever want to add this to the
agreement set.

(*) Bidding 2M as non jump, would already show inv. strength and a single suiter.

Maybe: make it bidding a new suit on the 2 level showes a single suiter with inv. strength,
and I would buy it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArtK78]

I am probably old fashioned when it comes to sequences like this one. 1♠ would be constructive but not forcing, so I would have to bid 2♦. 2♦ is still a cue bid. I would then bid spades naturally and forcing at my next turn to act. Getting to 4♠ should not be a problem.

Only if you have a misunderstanding can you avoid getting to the obvious and unsuccessful 4♠ contract.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2014-February-20, 09:03, said:

I am probably old fashioned when it comes to sequences like this one. 1♠ would be constructive but not forcing, so I would have to bid 2♦. 2♦ is still a cue bid. I would then bid spades naturally and forcing at my next turn to act. Getting to 4♠ should not be a problem.

Only if you have a misunderstanding can you avoid getting to the obvious and unsuccessful 4♠ contract.

I am as old fashioned and old as Art, but still use 1S as constructive but not forcing, 2S as game forcing, and 2D as unequivocally heart support inv+.

2S might contain 2 cards in hearts, but Overcaller will only find out if she holds 6 hearts herself. We would have the same auction as Ken, but wouldn't have had the same doubts/second thoughts about it.

[phil_20686]

The people who play 1s as NF are probably the same people who don't overcall on xx KQJxx xxxx xx, which is really the only time you would want to pass......

Just play 1S as forcing, makes everything easier. 2S here should be NF. A Chance to squeeze opener out of the auction when he has a good hand, and show partner your 8-11HCP with 6 spades at the same time.

[kenberg]

phil_20686, on 2014-February-21, 04:42, said:

The people who play 1s as NF are probably the same people who don't overcall on xx KQJxx xxxx xx, which is really the only time you would want to pass......

Just play 1S as forcing, makes everything easier. 2S here should be NF. A Chance to squeeze opener out of the auction when he has a good hand, and show partner your 8-11HCP with 6 spades at the same time.

Perhaps, but in The Complete Book of Overcalls, Mike Lawrence begins Chapter Seven with "By my way of thinkiing, it should be easy to decide whether a new suit should be forcing or nonforcing". He goes with nonforcing. More precisely, he goes with nonforcing after a one level overcall.

I assume there are books by experts advising forcing, my point is that the nonforcing folks are not necessarily just a bunch of unimaginative weirdos.

The usual reason given for NF is that it allows us to come in safely at a low level. I agree, but there is another reason that appeals to me: Suppose, with a different hand than the one I described, the auction begins 1♦-1♥-(Pass)-1♠ -Pass.If 1♠ was nonforing then, when partner does something other than pass, I can make some inferences. If he was forced to not pass, then I have to allow for the possibility his hand was suitable for a pass but system does not allow it.

At any rate, it is my observation that quite a number of good players play 1♠ as nonforcing. This doesn't mean that it is right, but I think it is not just pairs who come in over 1♦ on xx / KQJxx / xx / xxx. I would only come in on that with a gun to my head, and if I felt I must I think I would close my eyes, offer a prayer, and bid 2♥. And then put a diamond in with my hearts so that I could explain this.


Looking up the views of Lawrence I found this hand:

KQJ87
Q2
42
AJ65


After (1♣)-1♥-Pass he suggests 2♠. So much for my view that the 2♠ sets trump. And he views 2♠ as showing game interest, not as game forcing.

The auction (1m)-1♥-(Pass)-2♠ is not exactly frequent but it happens. This discussion seems to show that there is not widespread agreement on just what it shows.

[aguahombre]

I think "constructive, but NF" is the appropriate full description. A 2S raise of this advance would not be invitational nor would it show any strength at all above one's original 1H overcall. A 1NT continuation would still be made on any hand which would have opened 1H and rebid 1NT/1S.

The 1♠ advance, in other words, is not commonly used as a drop-dead bid.

[kenberg]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-21, 09:44, said:

The 1♠ advance, in other words, is not commonly used as a drop-dead bid.

Agreed. Definitely.

[fromageGB]

In other words, with a random partner, 1♠ or 2♠ could both be absolutely anything, and you have to have agreements with a regular partner. My preferences are natural and forcing beneath opener's suit, transfers from opener's suit to beneath partner's suit, jump bids fit-jumps, but I would be OK with preemptive jumps. Without agreements and a random partner, surely you cannot pass 1♠ if the overcall was a 10 count or so.

[kenberg]

fromageGB, on 2014-February-23, 07:13, said:

In other words, with a random partner, 1♠ or 2♠ could both be absolutely anything, and you have to have agreements with a regular partner. My preferences are natural and forcing beneath opener's suit, transfers from opener's suit to beneath partner's suit, jump bids fit-jumps, but I would be OK with preemptive jumps. Without agreements and a random partner, surely you cannot pass 1♠ if the overcall was a 10 count or so.

Based on the replies, " 1♠ or 2♠ could both be absolutely anything" appears to be about right. Discussions can consider "best usage" or "default usage". Of course people will disagree on "best usage", and my OP asked for these variations, but it also seems that there is no real consensus on the default meaning.

[gszes]

I have a structure similar to yours but my 2s bid
shows at least 5 reasonable (but not solid) spades
and a game force. The key to the GF is that it leaves
room for game exploration when there may be a misfit and
lets p know I need spade help to play spades. With 5
reasonably good spades and a non game forcing hand a simple
1s will suffice since p can pass with any minimum and make
a simple 2s raise with spade support and anything much
above a minimum.

With a game forcing and solid spade suit (max 1 loser
opposite a void <this may be your definition>) is to
either look for a splinter (I can always convert any
heart contract to spades) or just merely bid 4s since
slam is probably a hugely low % if we have no short
minor.

[HighLow21]

...But the patient died? :-) I don't have many opinions on system, but the hand belongs in 4♠ for sure.

[kenberg]

HighLow21, on 2014-February-23, 14:45, said:

...But the patient died? :-) I don't have many opinions on system, but the hand belongs in 4♠ for sure.

Unless the spades are 4-1. I am still looking for a system to handled that.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2014-February-23, 17:43, said:

Unless the spades are 4-1. I am still looking for a system to handled that.

The (Barry) Crane-neck system is your best bet for this.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-24, 03:19, said:

The (Barry) Crane-neck system is your best bet for this.

My X-ray goggles work pretty well.

We play 2♠ as a fit jump also, and play 1♠ forcing, and Phil has it correct, we don't overcall 1♥ on the hand he gives, P or 2♥, 1 is better than that.

[kenberg]

One conclusion, not really a surprise, from these responses is that the overcalling structure best comes as a complete package rather than several separate ideas. Having the 2♠ show either a fit or a tolerance for hearts has merit, but then really 1♠ has to be forcing since I have to have a way to bid the hand I have.

Another observation: I assume that virtually no one would quarrel with my partner's 1♥ overcall. Moreover, that's a very nice Kx of spades she provided. Still, I need 3-2 spades to make this. Now that's good enough odds of course, but partner, the heart bidder, could have had less or could have had lesser spade support.

If we keep it simple, perhaps partner's raise to 3♠ could be made on the lesser hands, passable, and with the actual one she makes an unambiguous 4♠ call? I am not at all second guessing partner here, I'm just talking about what agreements ought to be under the assumption of natural bidding. We want to be in 4♠ and we got to 4♠ but we spoke briefly about it afterward and I am unsure of just what is right. Of course if you think partner's hand is absolutely minimal than this paragraph makes no sense but, while KQJxx and out is too little for my taste, I think modern style is to overcall on somewhat lesser strength than pard has, at least if the suit is strong. At any rate, she certainly did not promise to have the Kx of spades.