Raising an overcall

[Dave Flower]

It has occurred to me that it would be useful to use two bids for single raise of an overcall:

Partner's suit: Single raise including the ace or king of partner's suit

Cue bid: Single raise otherwise

The thinking behind this is that it helps partner to decide whether to lead the suit, and is particularly applicable to match-pointed pairs

Comments please.

David Flower

[ais523]

Post by Dave Flower
It has occurred to me that it would be useful to use two bids for
Partner's suit: Single raise including the ace or king of partner's suit
Cue bid: Single raise otherwise
The thinking behind this is that it helps partner to decide whether to
lead the suit, and is particularly applicable to match-pointed pairs
Comments please.

There are popular systems with something similar to this already. For
example, in Acol, a bid of the partner's suit is a nonconstructive raise
that's simply trying to gain control of the contract / pre-empt the
opponents / sacrifice, and a cue bid is a constructive raise with
something like 10 or 11 points backing it. The main benefit of the
distinction is to let the partner know whether or not they should
consider game if the opponents stop competing. (When I play Acol, I'm
willing to do the nonconstructive raise with any hand that has a fit for
my partner's suit, even if it has no honours at all.)

Your version, which draws a distinction based on honour strength in the
suit rather than on suitability for game, seems like it would be most
useful when you're suspecting the opponents will win the contract. As
such, it probably makes the most sense when you're a passed hand
already or when you're playing intermediate jump overcalls but your
partner made a simple overcall (thus denying an intermediate hand);
these are situations in which winning the contract constructively are
unlikely, so you may as well make the best use of your two raises as
different sorts of nonconstructive bids.

I agree that this division of the raise seems more useful at matchpoints
than at IMPs (where finding a making game is more important and getting
the right number of tricks in a partscore less so).

It's also worth pointing out that minimum notrumps, and/or 2NT, may also
be available for conventional bids in this situation. So you could
perhaps put two nonconstructive raises onto the direct raise and the
cuebid, and use 2NT for a constructive raise.

[p***@atero.se]

Many of my friends use Rubens advances, described in the Useful Space Principle some 40 years ago. Some use the Bertheau - Cullin extension:
1S - (2C) - p - (2D = hearts)
(2H = diamonds)

Regards,
Petter

[ais523]

Post by p***@atero.se
Many of my friends use Rubens advances, described in the Useful Space
1S - (2C) - p - (2D = hearts)
(2H = diamonds)

Now I'm wondering if it might make sense to use a form of full
transfers as advances, e.g.

(1C), 1D, (-), ?

1H = spades
1S = balanced with stopper
1N = hearts
(i.e. transfer to opponent's suit = the suit above your partner's)
2C = diamond support, with some sort of relevant values
2D = diamond support, purely based on length

In both Rubens advances and this system, you actually have three ways
available to support the partner's suit (direct bid, transfer then pass
a transfer completion, transfer then bid again). Transfer + another bid
is clearly the strongest option, so the other two could reasonably be
used for two different sorts of weaker raise (perhaps a direct bid of
the partner's suit shows pure length and nothing more, whereas the
transfer+pass shows some sort of honour fit but not necessarily much
strength).

One advantage of this structure is that it works the same way regardless
of which suits are involved, which may help make it easier to remember.

[Co Wiersma]

Post by ais523

Post by p***@atero.se
Many of my friends use Rubens advances, described in the Useful Space
1S - (2C) - p - (2D = hearts)
(2H = diamonds)

Now I'm wondering if it might make sense to use a form of full
transfers as advances, e.g.
(1C), 1D, (-), ?
1H = spades
1S = balanced with stopper
1N = hearts
(i.e. transfer to opponent's suit = the suit above your partner's)
2C = diamond support, with some sort of relevant values
2D = diamond support, purely based on length
In both Rubens advances and this system, you actually have three ways
available to support the partner's suit (direct bid, transfer then pass
a transfer completion, transfer then bid again). Transfer + another bid
is clearly the strongest option, so the other two could reasonably be
used for two different sorts of weaker raise (perhaps a direct bid of
the partner's suit shows pure length and nothing more, whereas the
transfer+pass shows some sort of honour fit but not necessarily much
strength).
One advantage of this structure is that it works the same way regardless
of which suits are involved, which may help make it easier to remember.

I do not see the adventage in letting partner play No Trump if you have
the stopper

Co Wiersma

[ais523]

Post by Co Wiersma
I do not see the adventage in letting partner play No Trump if you have
the stopper

[context: 1S/2S advances as a transfer to notrumps]

The main advantage is that you're guaranteed another bid, so you could
then pull a partner's transfer completion to a suit to show a balanced
hand that's happy with notrumps but might play better in a suit
contract.

It also gives a partner with an above-minimum hand the choice of which
hand to play a notrumps contract from (if they break the transfer,
nothing's forcing the transfer break to be in notrumps). It'd be easy
enough to agree something like "transfer break to the opponent's suit =
I'm happy with notrumps, but don't need protection from the lead, so
you play it in case you do".

[Steve Willner]

Post by Dave Flower
Partner's suit: Single raise including the ace or king of partner's suit
Cue bid: Single raise otherwise

If RHO passes, it seems to me your priority has to be clarifying
strength and distribution, not honor holding in the suit.

If RHO doesn't pass, you've just reinvented Rosenkranz doubles/
redoubles. I'm not a fan myself -- my priority continues to be
clarifying strength and distribution -- but they have their merits.

As others have written, transfer advances are helpful, but I don't think
you can accomplish everything.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Dave Flower
Partner's suit: Single raise including the ace or king of partner's suit
Cue bid: Single raise otherwise

If RHO passes, it seems to me your priority has to be clarifying
strength and distribution, not honor holding in the suit.
If RHO doesn't pass, you've just reinvented Rosenkranz doubles/
redoubles. I'm not a fan myself -- my priority continues to be
clarifying strength and distribution -- but they have their merits.
As others have written, transfer advances are helpful, but I don't think
you can accomplish everything.

Surely it is common for overcaller to be on lead with KJ...

Carl

[Steve Willner]

Post by ***@verizon.net
Surely it is common for overcaller to be on lead with KJ...

It can happen, which is why I wrote that Rosenkranz doubles and
redoubles "have their merits." The question is whether that's the best
use of these calls. Play/defend decisions, choosing the right
denomination to play in, choosing the right level, and deciding whether
or not to double if opponents buy the contract are also common.

Rosenkranz would seem to have merit after a preemptive overcall, but I
don't think I've seen that used. Maybe the value of preempting one more
level exceeds the value of the lead direction. This would strengthen
the case for transfer advances after preempts.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Steve Willner

Post by ***@verizon.net
Surely it is common for overcaller to be on lead with KJ...

It can happen, which is why I wrote that Rosenkranz doubles and
redoubles "have their merits." The question is whether that's the best
use of these calls. Play/defend decisions, choosing the right
denomination to play in, choosing the right level, and deciding whether
or not to double if opponents buy the contract are also common.
Rosenkranz would seem to have merit after a preemptive overcall, but I
don't think I've seen that used. Maybe the value of preempting one more
level exceeds the value of the lead direction. This would strengthen
the case for transfer advances after preempts.

Knowing whether or not to lead your suit is surely a critical factor in whether or not to double.

Carl

[Fred.]

Post by Dave Flower
Partner's suit: Single raise including the ace or king of partner's suit
Cue bid: Single raise otherwise
The thinking behind this is that it helps partner to decide whether to lead the suit, and is particularly applicable to match-pointed pairs
Comments please.
David Flower

After partner's 1-level overcall I like playing unassuming cue,
where the cue bid of opener's suit at the 2-level promises a
constructive raise or better. The bottom of this raise is about
a queen less than whatever works for a limit raise given the
partnership's overcall style. Overcaller attempts to sign off
in two of the overcall suit if wishing to stop short of game
facing a limit raise.

This has the advantage of making all of advancer's direct
raises preemptive. This is particularly effective against
opponents who rely heavily on balancing after opposing overcalls.

Fred.

[p***@atero.se]

Unassuming cues are closely related to wait and see bids. Nowadays a very poor strategy. You might see opener make another bid and responder coming to life. Transfers are far better. If there was a Nobel price in bridge bidding, my nominee is Jeff Rubens.