What does this mean?

[Apollo81]

The auction (1♣)-1♥-(1♠)-2♠ shows a strong heart raise, one that would GF opposite an opener but not necessarily opposite an overcall. Does the same apply if the overcall is in diamonds?

[Gerben42]

If the first auction in your system shows a strong ♥ raise, then the 2nd one shows a strong diamond raise. The logic must be universal.

 

BTW I play both as natural and the suit that is bid behind me is the forcing raise. Just a matter of agreement, really.

[Phil]

I play 2♣ is a 3 card raise and 2♥ is a 4 card raise.

[kenrexford]

I think the "logic" from the "parallel" offered so far is extremely wrong. It seems wildly different to bid naturally after RHO has show a four-card suit (which would be natural in standard practice had partner not overcalled) and overcalling in that same suit when RHO has shown a five-card suit.

 

IMO, 2♥ in this sequence should be natural. I see the consistency as one for the auction where partner does not overcall 1♦. 1♣-P-1♥-2♥ is natural, so 1♣-1♦-1♥-2♥ should be natural.

 

Of course, if this auction is discussed and an alternative is adopted, then fine. But, I would expect that the default should be natural.

[gnasher]

Yes, it means the same in both auctions. After either overcall we might need to evaluate game prospects, judge how to deal with competition, judge whether to save, etc. Using a cue bid to differentiate between different types of raise helps with all of these, regardless of what the overcall was.

[hanp]

I think natural (hearts) is better.

 

In the first auction I would prefer natural if 1S shows only 4. (and 1S after a negative double should definitely be natural.)

[rogerclee]

I thought 2♥ natural was normal in this auction.

[skjaeran]

I thought 2♥ natural was normal in this auction.

I don't think I've discussed this sequence, but to me it's comparable to (1♣) p (1♥) 2♥, which is natural to me.

 

So I'd definitely take it as natural.

[paulhar]

I play 2♣ is a 3 card raise and 2♥ is a 4 card raise.

So do I.

[awm]

Diamond raise. Our rules say that once partner has bid a suit, cuebids of opposing suits can't really be natural.

 

Best? Who knows. But better to have a simple rule that applies everywhere and won't be screwed up than to have different rules depending on what partner's suit is or whether opposing bids shows four or five in length.

[whereagles]

I have it defined as natural with my pet pard, and wouldn't dream of bidding any such stuff with an occasional pard.

 

So I guess no problem for me :)

[Codo]

With an unknown expert I had taken this as a diamond raise.

 

With my pet partner it would show a strong hand without a fit and asking for a stopper.

[brianshark]

With the agreement that the 2♠ bid above shows a heart raise, I would assume it's the same for the other auction.

 

Without any agreement, I would have assumed it is natural on the basis that bidding responder's suit should be natural if you have a cue-bid available of opener's suit which you can use as the artificial raise.

 

I know a lot of people play 2 different ways to raise, but without this agreement you have to remember that advancer also knew you had no agreement about two different cue-bids, so I doubt he would have risked an ambiguous forcing-raise-type-bid if he could have cue-bid opener's suit as a clear cut forcing-raise-type-bid. So I would assume that his bid shows the hand he has no other obvious bid to show... natural.

[kfay]

I play 2♣ is a 3 card raise and 2♥ is a 4 card raise.

One of my partners and I also play this but I don't really care between that and natural.

 

I'd be surprised if natural wasn't standard.

[jeffford76]

What's double here? I assume most people are using it for spades with diamond tolerance. But if you're playing the old-fashioned way where double is penalty, then this is pretty clearly a diamond raise.

[Codo]

Without any agreement, I would have assumed it is natural on the basis that bidding responder's suit should be natural if you have a cue-bid available of opener's suit which you can use as the artificial raise.

Where is the sense to take the overcall of a mostly always 5 card suit as natural and the overcall of a 3+ card suit as an artifical raise?

 

There is of course one (big ) reason: Major rules. But in competetive bidding like here, a nice minor fit isn't the worst thing on this planet either.

[quiddity]

Where is the sense to take the overcall of a mostly always 5 card suit as natural and the overcall of a 3+ card suit as an artifical raise?

I play this as natural. There are several reasons:

1. As you said, major rules.

2. Who says 1H here is "mostly always a 5 card suit"?

3. You're more likely interested in playing a suit which has been bid in front of you, as opposed to one that was bid behind you.

4. 2♣ keeps the bidding lower. Maybe the opps will let you play in 2♦.

[Apollo81]

Interesting that after a few days there is no real consensus on the meaning of this auction.

[skjaeran]

Interesting that after a few days there is no real consensus on the meaning of this auction.

Actually, I'd be more surprised if there WAS a real consensus.

[H_KARLUK]

Reminds me :

"Altfor nært er lite kjært" ( too near is little dear). - Nenche Wang

-- In loving memory of a perfect Lady. No worries Kaare Ivar, I'm pretty sure she's still with us B)

[Phil]

Interesting that after a few days there is no real consensus on the meaning of this auction.

Congratulations, that means its a good problem :(

[dake50]

What is NOT in P,X,1S,1N,2C,2D alternatives? I suspect an advance cue --to get blogs.