2/1: Overcalls, Showing A New Suit

[gurgistan]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sa943hat94dk54ck6]133|100|Scoring: IMP

West as opener bids 1♠. Partner overcalls 2♦. East passes. I recognise that partner has a 5 card suit and 10 hcp. I have stoppers in all the suits and 14hcp. I think that diamonds will provide the bulk of tricks and I decide to bid 3N. It is passed out.

 

Questions:

 

1. Should I have bid 2♥ or do I need a five card suit for that?

 

2. If I had shown hearts as a new suit, would it be forcing or non-forcing upon partner?

 

3. Was 3N a calculated bid or just a gamble?[/hv]

[Stephen Tu]

Note: You should probably omit the "2/1" tag on most of your posts. "2/1" only directly affects auctions related to 1M-2x and 1M-1nt (forcing). Most of the rest is kind of universal, applies to all systems.

 

1. You need 5 cds to introduce a new suit over partner's overcall.

2. Whether a new suit is forcing depends on agreements. Most common is non-forcing (but constructive, decent hand, not weak). To force you have to cue-bid first. Or maybe jump shift, but that is subject to multiple interpretations.

3. 3nt is OK I suppose, but 2s is probably better, partner might bid hearts, if not you can bid 3nt later. The delayed sequence should perhaps imply to partner that he should pull to 5d on some hands.

[kfay]

Firstly, 2♦ should show a considerably better hand than a 5-card suit and 10 HCP at this vulnerability, and usually in general.

 

If you always make crappy 2m overcalls, you will get punished against competent opponents, end of story. Broken suits are bad suits to bid in this position, and hands with a lot of losers are bad to bid in this position. They can punish you easily with the usually obvious balancing double, and frequently will be able to outbid you anyway since majors > minors. Experience will eventually teach that the reward/risk just isn't there.

 

 

Just because you've agreed that overcaller's 2m shows, what I would deem, a relatively short and weak suit doesn't mean that responder's 2M isn't above shortness/weakness as well. If partner has 4 hearts and also diamonds, they will often have doubled. 2♥ here definitely guarantees 5 to me. There comes a point where bidding suits shows more than a 4-bagger... and that point is the 2-level.

 

If you want to look for a heart fit, then I'd recommend that you bid a game-forcing 2♠ on your way to bidding 3NT. That would give you room to investigate. And playing with a partner who might have a POS diamond suit even though we're staring at the K that's probably what I'd bid. We can bid 3NT later, although we've given the defense more knowledge about our hand it probably won't be a big deal.

[bucky]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sa943hat94dk54ck6]133|100|Scoring: IMP

West as opener bids 1♠. Partner overcalls 2♦. East passes. I recognise that partner has a 5 card suit and 10 hcp. I have stoppers in all the suits and 14hcp. I think that diamonds will provide the bulk of tricks and I decide to bid 3N. It is passed out.

 

Questions:

 

1. Should I have bid 2♥ or do I need a five card suit for that?

 

2. If I had shown hearts as a new suit, would it be forcing or non-forcing upon partner?

 

3. Was 3N a calculated bid or just a gamble?[/hv]

1. 2♥ should show 5+.

 

2. Depends on your agreement. You can choose to play it as forcing, sign-off, or constructive. I think the majority in North America play it as constructive but non-forcing.

 

3. Have you thought about consulting partner by bidding 2♠ first (assuming he doesn't take it as natural and pass)?

[Zelandakh]

1. It depends on your style of overcalls and doubles and whether the cue bid is a good raise or a general game force. Standard in America would (I think) be 5+ but that is not true everywhere. If you play a more traditional style of double and use the cue bid as a raise then 4+ actually makes alot of sense.

 

2. For me the default for a new suit over an overcall is forcing. It is a matter of partnership agreement whether new suits are non-forcing or forcing or a mix of the two. Forcing is simplest for players that are learning imho since it mimics the same structure as over an opening bid.

 

3. There is nothing wrong with 3NT which you should have confidence in making after partner's vulnerable overcall. You could also bid 2S, which might be a good diamonds raise or just a general force depending on agreement.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 2H showes a 5 carder

#2 agreement depend, but I prefer NF

#3 3NT was fine, you can assume to have 5 diamond tricks, that will be

the case, if p has AQxxx in diamond, 2 Aces, the King of clubs + the

add. values from p, at the moment we took only AQ in diamonds into

account will provide reasonable play for 2 add. tricks

Holding Axxx in their suit allowes you also to duck spades a long time,

to cut down their communication

For that matter, you should also bid 3NT, if p would have made a weak

jump overcall with 3D, you would now assume, that you get 6-7

diamond tricks.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[andy_h]

Sorry but I hate 3NT (Edit, I mean 3NT). Our hand is full of controls, support for partner's diamonds and there is absolutely no rush to get to 3NT when we can take the slower route. Lots of hands can make slam so that's what I bid.

[Gerben42]

A two-level overcall needs a bit more than 10 HCP and a 5-card suit. It needs to be a good hand. I think bidding 3NT is obvious. Expect to make an overtrick.

[jdonn]

A two-level overcall needs a bit more than 10 HCP and a 5-card suit. It needs to be a good hand. I think bidding 3NT is obvious. Expect to make an overtrick.

I think bidding 3NT is terrible. Why not cuebid first? Not only may you belong in hearts (xx KQxx QJTxxx A) but you could very easily have a slam (x Kx AQJxxxx Axx = grand! Minus heart king = slam) 3NT is not going anywhere.

[hanp]

I think bidding 3NT is terrible. Why not cuebid first?

Same here but I waited until Josh posted it.

[aguahombre]

Note:  You should probably omit the "2/1" tag on most of your posts.  "2/1" only directly affects auctions related to 1M-2x and 1M-1nt (forcing).  Most of the rest is kind of universal, applies to all systems.

 

Yes. Overcalls at the two-level are a whole different meaning for "2/1", and not part of the basic system.

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kwbridge/2over1.htm by Karen Walker provides the basics of 2/1 with links to additions and modifications.

 

http://www.imp-bridge.nl/articles/2over1.htm by Fred is another good source.

 

Both focus on 1M-2m and 1M-1N as being the only true situations applicable to a 2/1 style.

 

Off-topic, I know; but it would be less distracting if the term "2/1" were not used in posts where it doesn't apply.

[bucky]

I think bidding 3NT is terrible. Why not cuebid first? Not only may you belong in hearts (xx KQxx QJTxxx A) but you could very easily have a slam (x Kx AQJxxxx Axx = grand! Minus heart king = slam) 3NT is not going anywhere.

I have a feeling that OP may not want to cuebid to confuse partner. That may be why 2♠ wasn't even in the list of possible bids he gave. I once did it on a similar hand with a random expert partner on BBO, and I was left playing in 2♠.

[ArtK78]

I think bidding 3NT is terrible. Why not cuebid first? Not only may you belong in hearts (xx KQxx QJTxxx A) but you could very easily have a slam (x Kx AQJxxxx Axx = grand! Minus heart king = slam) 3NT is not going anywhere.

I have a feeling that OP may not want to cuebid to confuse partner. That may be why 2♠ wasn't even in the list of possible bids he gave. I once did it on a similar hand with a random expert partner on BBO, and I was left playing in 2♠.

More "random" than "expert" I suspect.

 

Really, bridge is a partnership game. 2♠ is the only reasonable call on these cards playing with anyone you trust.

[jdonn]

I agree if partner passes a cuebid of the opponent's suit then you shouldn't cuebid the opponent's suit. However I don't see what that realization has to do with bridge.

[bucky]

I agree if partner passes a cuebid of the opponent's suit then you shouldn't cuebid the opponent's suit. However I don't see what that realization has to do with bridge.

I agree with you Josh. I was just speculating why OP didn't think of the 2♠ bid, and I was reminded of the experience I had with a BBO-expert. But yes, that doesn't affect what SHOULD have been done.

[gwnn]

nothing to do with 2/1.