New Major Advances

[kenrexford]

1♣-1♥-P-1♠.

 

Q: What are the length requirements for the 1♠ advance? Does the expected length "change" if the overcall had been 1♦ instead?

 

If known, please provide "authorities" for your position. I was moderator for a discussion between two partners on this issue, and I would hate to report back without a bibliography. LOL

[pbleighton]

With no authority whatsoever, I play that an advance at the one level shows 4, and an advance at the two level shows 5.

 

Peter

[pclayton]

I'd rarely have 4, but I suppose its barely possible with something like: AKJx, x, Qxxx, xxxx. 1♠ should also always be forcing, except by a passed hand, on the theory that you don't have a big need to play exactly 1♠.

 

I don't see the difference between a 1♠ after a 1♦ or 1♥ overcall. I suppose a 1♦ overcall should be relatively stronger than a 1♥ overcall, so maybe 1♠ could be slightly weaker after a 1♦ overcall.

[keylime]

My view is that 1♠ shows only 4+ in suit. That's my view only - no authorities to mention.

 

I do agree with Phil, that it's forcing.

[Cascade]

I have no authorities either ...

 

If 1♠ shows five then how do you find your four-four spade fit.

 

Double by overcaller if he has both majors you say?

 

That might be ok with 4-5 in the majors (sometimes) but surely not with 4-6 and it is possibly worse if the overcall is 1♦ which could easily be based on a 4153 or 1453 hand etc.

 

I guess this reasoning is my authority - 1♠ shows four or more.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

matter of partnership agreements,

I used to play that 1S showed 5 and

was nonforcing but constructive.

 

If you need a reference: Ron Klinger.

If the partner to an overcaller bids a new

suit, the quality of the new suit is at least

as good as the overcalled suit.

 

My partner asked me to change to the

style, that 1S promises only 4 and that

1S is forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Keep in mind, that the requirements for

a Michales Cue will play a role here, if you play

the Michaels Cue as 5-4 with continuos range,

the guy who overcalled 1H denied in effect a 4 card

spade suit.

[han]

I play it as only 4+ and forcing.

 

As for Phil's "logic":

 

1♠ should also always be forcing, except by a passed hand, on the theory that you don't have a big need to play exactly 1♠.

 

In my opinion this argument is worthless. There is a definite advantage for playing 1S as non-forcing: when overcaller raises (and perhaps also when she bids 1NT) she must have a sound overcall. If she can have a 7-count as well as a 13-count then she makes life quite hard on partner. If you can pass 1S with less than a light opener then your other calls become more descriptive. Given that the modern style is to overcall with a very wide range of hands (and to respond 1S with fairly mediocre hands), it seems to me that this issue not as clear as Phil thinks it is.

 

But as I said, I do play 1S as forcing here. I like to play that the cue promises support (or rather, Rubens advances), as well as support jump shifts in competition. This doesn't mesh well with 1S being non-forcing imo.

[hotShot]

This is a matter where information about other available bids are required.

 

Usually bidding a new suit implies that there is no fit in partners suit (if you don't have agreed otherwise).

 

So i think it is a good rule to have at least as many cards in the suit you bid, as your partner promissed in his suit. You should be shorter in partners suit, than the average you can expect him to have in your suit.

[Finch]

The only 'authorities' I have seen play 1S as natural, non-forcing.

However because I play sound overcalls, I play 1S as natural, forcing and promising 5+ spades.

 

It is possible to construct a hand on which I would bid 1S with only 4, but I still expect the overcaller to consider 3-card support sufficient.

[pclayton]

I play it as only 4+ and forcing.

 

As for Phil's "logic":

 

1♠ should also always be forcing, except by a passed hand, on the theory that you don't have a big need to play exactly 1♠.

 

In my opinion this argument is worthless. There is a definite advantage for playing 1S as non-forcing: when overcaller raises (and perhaps also when she bids 1NT) she must have a sound overcall. If she can have a 7-count as well as a 13-count then she makes life quite hard on partner. If you can pass 1S with less than a light opener then your other calls become more descriptive. Given that the modern style is to overcall with a very wide range of hands (and to respond 1S with fairly mediocre hands), it seems to me that this issue not as clear as Phil thinks it is.

 

But as I said, I do play 1S as forcing here. I like to play that the cue promises support (or rather, Rubens advances), as well as support jump shifts in competition. This doesn't mesh well with 1S being non-forcing imo.

I guess I'm forced to respond since my logic has been called into question.

 

My main premise was, "Why do you want to play exactly 1♠". Your argument doesn't address this; it just points out the convenience of having 1♠ as non-forcing to cater to a light overcall. Han, it is curious that you choose to defend a treatment (1♠ as NF) you don't play yourself.

 

Looking at it through just the overcaller's point of view, I would agree . Overcaller can pass with a minimum and tolerance and raise with extras. Seems simple enough. Wow - why not try that after an opening bid? Opener can pass responder's new suit with a minimum, or try something else with extras. I've played such a system with a guy that likes lite openers. Yes I hated it.

 

I play a 2 level response to a one level overcall as non-forcing for the reasons you describe. However, we are one level higher and don't have as much room to effectively explore strains. I play a new suit in response to a 2 level overcall (and higher) as forcing BUPH, since my 2 level overcalls aren't made on cheese.

 

What you ignore is the problem from responder's side. If a 1♥ overcall shows anything from:

 

a) xxx, AQJxx, xxx, xx

b ) Ax, AQJxx, Ax, Qxxx

c) xx, AQJxx, Axxx, xx

 

it is very difficult for responder to effectively bid with:

 

1) KQxxx, xxx, Axx, xx versus

2) KQJxxx, Kx, KJx, xx

 

because responder has to cater to either of opener's overcalls. Playing 1♠ as non-forcing, you have to cue with #2; not an appetizing suggestion. How do you propose getting to the right spot with 'c" opposite "2"? You aren't suggesting a SJS here, are you?

 

Will I occasionally reach the 2 level where the limit is exactly 7 tricks? Of course. But overall in my opinion its better to free up the cue bid for hands with support, especially in case opener chooses to bounce the auction. I've never liked the unassuming cue for these reasons.

 

Ruben's advances do help, and I play them in one partnership, but they aren't a cure-all for these problems. The root cause of the problem is having a overcall show as wide of a range as it does.

 

I'll choose constructive bidding over having the ability to stop on a dime.

[han]

Yes I also play 1S as forcing, yet I can see arguments for playing 1S as non-forcing. You however, said that one *should* play 1S as forcing, and gave an argument that is (in my opinion) quite nonsensical.

 

I'm glad to see Frances confirm that there are indeed good players that play 1S as non-forcing.

[Winstonm]

I do not believe there is a standard accepted norm for these auctions - it seems to be very much an area of partnership agreement.

 

For me, this auction is constructive but non-forcing and virtually denies a fit with partner.

 

As for Phil's problems:

 

What you ignore is the problem from responder's side. If a 1♥ overcall shows anything from:

 

a) xxx, AQJxx, xxx, xx

b ) Ax, AQJxx, Ax, Qxxx

c) xx, AQJxx, Axxx, xx

 

it is very difficult for responder to effectively bid with:

 

1) KQxxx, xxx, Axx, xx versus

2) KQJxxx, Kx, KJx, xx

 

I agree that any defensive bidding is less accurate than offensive bidding due to the wide range of overcalls, but I don't find these two hands to be all that difficult.

With 1 I raise 1H to 2H - we aren't going anywhere unless partner can bid again, are we? And to show the fit immediately allows better competitive choices. On 2 I simply cue bid and then bid spades - I don't believe it is necessary to have the cue bid confirm a fit. When you add fit-showing jumps with 4-card support you end up with a reasonable satisfactory arsenal - the only thing you can't do is respond with weak hands unless it is to preempt.

 

To each his own and Phil is a terrific player so I'd consider his views as well.

 

Winston

[Double !]

I might be reading more into this thread than was intended, but the question of how many spades are needed to respond 1S when P overcalls 1H seems to be the counterpart of the following problem.

 

RHO opens 1C and you something like ♠KJxx, ♥AQTxx, ♦Kx, ♣xx.

Your bid: do you overcall 1♥? or make some other bid. If you choose 1♥, then how do you find your 4-4 spade fit if 1S shows 5+ spades?

 

DHL

[Winstonm]

I might be reading more into this thread than was intended, but the question of how many spades are needed to respond 1S when P overcalls 1H seems to be the counterpart of the following problem.

 

RHO opens 1C and you something like ♠KJxx, ♥AQTxx, ♦Kx, ♣xx.

Your bid: do you overcall 1♥? or make some other bid.  If you choose 1♥, then how do you find your 4-4 spade fit if 1S shows 5+ spades?

 

DHL

IMO, you don't when all you are doing is competing for the partscore or trying to get the opps high enough where you can go plus - this is a harder question at MPs where getting to the right partscore can mean the difference. And to answer the question, I overcall 1H and it doesn't bother me in the least if we happen to miss a 4/4 spade fit if pard only has a 6-8 count. Although I play that 1S should be 5, there are times when no good bid is available and I might bid 1S on 4, but even then that bid would deny 3 hearts, something like AQ9x, xx, xxx, KJxx and it has gone 1D-1H-P-?. Here game is still alive and it behooves me to do something so in this case I'd try 1S on the 4-bagger.

 

In my views, I don't worry about playing 2H instead of 2S or even 1H instead of 2S, but with the hand you show over a raise to 2H I can bid a natural 2S as my partner won't be raising my overcall with weak/borderline hands. I happen to be in the camp of Mike Lawrence (if I remember his advice correctly) where you give up some accuracy in defensive bidding in lieu of more safetly and constructive competitive bidding, meaning 1C-1H-P-2H can be 7-ish to 11 minus. Basically, what I do is play virtually constructive raises of overcalls and raise the top end a bit as our overcalls also have a top end of about 17. This way if you have a full blown opening hand and partner raises you should be reasonably safe at the 3-level so you can risk searching for an alternate major-suit fit.

 

I'm sure other ways work just as well for those that use them - this is just what I grew up with and what I'm comfortable in using.

 

Winston