Weakish raise after overcall

[benlessard]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxxxxhxxdjxxckj9x]133|100|[/hv]

 

1♥ by west

 

2♣ by north partner

 

pass

 

your bid ?

 

if you bid 3♣ you might reach an unmakable game and if you pass opponent will compete much more easily.

 

Me and my pard decided that 3♣ bids will be constructive and the cuebid will be a weakish raise or a limit +. Partner will rebid 3♣ with a minimum hands and will bid anything below 3♣ to show extra and cuebidder will return to 3♣ with the weakish hand and continue with the limit.

 

Of course if the opponent keep bidding there will be some nasty guesswork to do.

 

Good idea or we are heading for trouble ?

 

 

I know the cuebid with a courtesy raise 4-6 pts doesnt have a big preemptive effect but raising is still better then passing.

 

And the frequency of having a limit or better isnt that great compared to the lowly range (3-9 pts) so maybe to put the emphasis on the low range could be more important then the limit+

[jdonn]

Not a good idea. For one thing the cuebid is anti-preemptive, since it's safer for them to double it than to rebid the suit if you pass. For another that means when you cuebid partner can't do anything descriptive. Like 1♠ 2♣ p 2♠ he is forced to rebid 2NT with any max? And responder is forced to choose a new suit on any limit raise? No useful information will be exchanged. I would throw this convention to the birds, and on weak raises like you give just decide at the moment between pass, 3♣, and 4♣.

[benlessard]

The cue-bid isnt anti-preemptive.

 

1♠ --2♣--pass--2♠. The X should show a full 2♠ bid. It may seem safer for them but in reality the risk is the same. If I pass and LHO bid 2♠ we wont be able to play 2♠ X (since we are fitted)

 

IMHO he shoulnt X without a full 2♠ bid since hes inviting partner to raise. So that why the double doesnt bother me at all.

 

 

 

1♠ --2♣--pass -pass

 

opener can reopen with a X, bid 2♦,2♥ these bid arent available if you cuebid.

 

 

1♠--2♦--pass --2♠

opener can X to show a 2♠ bid but cant bid 2♥ or make a balancing X

 

1♠--2♦ --pass--pass

 

here opener can reopen with a X bid 2♥ or 2♠.

 

 

Like 1♠ 2♣ p 2♠ he is forced to rebid 2NT with any max? And responder is forced to choose a new suit on any limit raise? No useful information will be exchanged.

 

responder will bid a stopper.

 

 

 

Well the same can be said for 1♠--2♣--pass--2♠--???

 

2nt should show a stopper 3club any minimum hands 3♦,3♥ a stopper.

 

In my variant the overcaller with extras wait for responder to bid a stopper or to return to the suit. In standard he will make the first move by bidding a stopper himself. The only bid we lose is a natural 2nt by the overcaller.

 

This again doesnt bother me at all.

 

The real problems IMHO is when opener bid a new suit. (shouldnt be so frequent but ...)

 

1♥--2♦--pass--2♥

3♣-- ???

 

now partner has no clue if im weak or limit +

 

1♠--2♣--pass--2♠

3♠ -- ???

 

 

once again partner is in the dark.

[Halo]

If three clubs is definitely weak, I'll bid that. It may help West to evaluate his chances, but there you go.

[ArtK78]

Sorry - I misread the original problem. So I removed my post.

 

I would like to bid 3 FINAL CLUBS, but we are not playing adjective bridge. So I am forced to pass. 3 clubs is too much on this hand.

[jtfanclub]

The cue-bid isnt anti-preemptive.

 

1♠ --2♣--pass--2♠. The X should show a full 2♠ bid. It may seem safer for them but in reality the risk is the same. If I pass and LHO bid 2♠ we wont be able to play 2♠ X (since we are fitted)

 

IMHO he shoulnt X without a full 2♠ bid since hes inviting partner to raise. So that why the double doesnt bother me at all.

But I can use:

 

1♠ 2♣ P 2♠

Dbl

 

To show a 2♠ call, and

 

1♠ 2♣ P 2♠

Pas 3♣ P P

Dbl

 

To show a penalty X.

 

Anything that gives an opponent the opportunity to X for both takeout and penalty is anti-preemptive, in my opinion.

 

If I'm going to jam the auction, I want to do it with one call, and give the opponents only one chance to bid further.

[jdonn]

The cue-bid isnt anti-preemptive.

 

1♠ --2♣--pass--2♠. The X should show a full 2♠ bid. It may seem safer for them but in reality the risk is the same. If I pass and LHO bid 2♠ we wont be able to play 2♠ X (since we are fitted)

 

IMHO he shoulnt X without a full 2♠ bid since hes inviting partner to raise.  So that why the double doesnt bother me at all.

I see your point but I can't agree. It is much safer to double a 2♠ bid than to rebid 2♠, as the double doesn't commit you to anything. What you say about him bidding a new suit is duly noted, but then you chose the example with the most room, it wouldn't be an issue after 1♠ (2♥) p p. Besides, you are comparing cuebid to pass, when without this convention you might have just bid 3♣ anyway.

 

Like 1♠ 2♣ p 2♠ he is forced to rebid 2NT with any max? And responder is forced to choose a new suit on any limit raise? No useful information will be exchanged.

 

responder will bid a stopper.

 

 

 

Well the same can be said for 1♠--2♣--pass--2♠--???

 

2nt should show a stopper 3club any minimum hands 3♦,3♥ a stopper.

 

In my variant the overcaller with extras wait for responder to bid a stopper or to return to the suit. In standard he will make the first move by bidding a stopper himself. The only bid we lose is a natural 2nt by the overcaller.

 

This again doesnt bother me at all.

This is because you are playing weird methods by showing stoppers instead of suits. Why can't either player just have another suit to show? On top of that, without this convention overcaller could have bid 2NT on a minimum to describe his hand, which might have been a better contract. That possibility would no longer exist.

 

The real problems IMHO is when opener bid a new suit. (shouldnt be so frequent but ...)

 

1♥--2♦--pass--2♥

3♣-- ???

 

now partner has no clue if im weak or limit +

 

1♠--2♣--pass--2♠

3♠ -- ???

 

 

once again partner is in the dark.

Yes this is probably bigger than either problem I mentioned as well. All in all, it hardly seems worth the trouble.

[benlessard]

This is because you are playing weird methods by showing stoppers instead of suits. Why can't either player just have another suit to show? On top of that, without this convention overcaller could have bid 2NT on a minimum to describe his hand, which might have been a better contract. That possibility would no longer exist.

 

1♠--2♦--pass--2♠ (limit or better)

 

pass--???

 

 

all new suits bid here could show real suit or fragment.

 

This is very standard.

 

Axx

AKx

AKxxxx

x

 

the correct bid is 3♥

 

x

Ax

AQJxxxx

KQx

 

my bid is 3♣

 

a 3 or even 2 level bid after a fit is discovered is more often a stopper or a fragment then a real suit but it could be a real suit.

 

In our case we play raptor so the overcaller shouldnt have a 4 card major but even playing standard this change nothing.

 

as for 2nt i admit that in MP 2nt might be a better contract then 3 in the minors since the stopper will be protected but in IMPs 3 in a suit or a 3nt gamble is better then playing 2nt so the natural 2nt isnt a big loss.

 

 

1♠ 2♣ P 2♠

Dbl

 

To show a 2♠ call, and

 

1♠ 2♣ P 2♠

Pas 3♣ P P

Dbl

 

To show a penalty X.

 

Anything that gives an opponent the opportunity to X for both takeout and penalty is anti-preemptive, in my opinion.

 

I agree that a preemptive bid (like a transfer preempt) that allow the take out and the penalty X is a bad thing but a weakish raise isnt a garbage raise.

 

 

xx

jxxx

xxx

kjxx

 

xxx

x

qxxxx

qxxx

 

xxx

xxxx

xxx

KQx

 

xx

xx

axxxx

xxxx

 

 

these hands are probably a pass playing standard ways despite the fact that partner could have a good 18pts for his 2♣ overcall. These hands facing a regular 2♣ overcall wont get doubled in IMPs. In your example the opener has to X in front of the overcaller i dont remember last time i got doubled in a situation like this. (the opener make a penalty X when his partner showed no values and hes in front of the overcaller)

 

 

 

 

I see your point but I can't agree. It is much safer to double a 2♠ bid than to rebid 2♠, as the double doesn't commit you to anything.

 

 

This is an illusion

 

if the bidding goes.

 

1♠ --2♦--pass--pass

???

 

Here a 2♠ could be dangerous.

 

But if the partner of the overcaller has a ♦ fit his side will never be able to punish 2♠.

 

In my method the cue bid show a weakish raise or a limit + so these are hands were the bidding would have gone.

 

1♠--2♣--pass--pass

2♠----X-----pass---????

 

with a weakish raise here + your trumps are in front of the opener i cant see how you can pass the double

 

1♠--2♣--pass--pass

2♠--pass ---pass---????

 

with a weakish raise i dont see how you can X instead of bidding 3♣.

 

so in

 

1♠--2♣--pass--2♠ (weakish raise)

X

 

the X inst safer because we were unable to X 2♠ anyway.

 

so we lose nothing by allowing the double here. They could play lead directing but then the cuebid will preempt more.

 

 

1♠--2♣--pass--pass

2♠

 

now they might compete over 3♣

 

 

1♠--2♣--pass--2♠ (weakish raise)

X -----3♣

 

again they might compete in 3♠

 

1♠--2♣--pass--2♠ (weakish raise)

X (lead directing)

 

here because the X only show nice spades but not 6 its harder for them to compete at 3♠.

 

That is why imho the X should show a real 2♠ bid inviting partner to compete at 3♠ and not a lead directing X

 

 

What you say about him bidding a new suit is duly noted, but then you chose the example with the most room, it wouldn't be an issue after 1♠ (2♥) p p.

 

i agree that

1♠--2♥---pass---2♠ (weakish raise)

 

serve no preemptive effect because the cuebid take no space. In standard here a raise show more strenght because you are more likely to get raised in 4♥ and if the opponent find a fit in a new suit they will play it at the 4 level.

 

i agree 100% there and we wont probably play the gadget there.

 

 

Besides, you are comparing cuebid to pass, when without this convention you might have just bid 3♣ anyway

 

 

Thats the whole point of the gadget. i hate passing with 4 trumps and a little something on the side and when i bid partner often end up in a no-play 3nt.

 

the north south hands

 

were something like this

 

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skqjhkxxdqxcaqxxx&s=sxxxxhxxdjxxckjxx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

defense manage to establish ♥ for down 3 in 3nt.

 

We play raptor so my partner couldnt overcall 1nt and because i knew he didnt have 4♥ I was tempted to bid 3♣ to bury their ♥ fit.

 

passing with some values and 4 trumps support isnt my style and im tired of reaching some very bad 3nt.

[Free]

I don't think it's a good idea at all: you can't put any pressure when you have to.

 

Also, I wonder if you want to play this after any overcall. If the auction would go 1♥-1♠-p-... you're in big trouble. You just want to bid 2♠ most of the time, but if you have to bid 2♥, partner doesn't have any space left to show a max...

[benlessard]

on the 1 level we play cue bid and higher are transfers I know something similar is in Marshall Miles advanced bidding for the 21st century.

 

so

 

 

1♦--1♠--pass--???

 

 

1nt = nat

2♣ = nat

 

since they are before the cue-bid they are natural.

 

2♦ transfer to ♥

 

2♥ single or GF raise

 

2♠ limit.

 

this is by far the best setup imho.

 

 

on the 2 level its a different story and the advantage are less conclusive.

 

 

Not sure i understand what you mean by not putting pressure since all i want is to be able to raise more and to make the distinction between a weakish and a sound raise if that is not putting pressure please come sit at my table you will see :)