[barmar]

The auction starts (2♥) 2♠ (P), and I hold ♠Q86 ♥Q96 ♦AQ3 ♣KT85. It's 13 HCP, but really bad -- square shape, wasted Q in LHO's suit, only 3 card support for partner, so I'd like to invite rather than force to game. If the auction had started on the 1 level, I could cue bid 2♥ as a limit raise. But in the actual situation, what are my options? 3♠ is a constructive raise, I don't think my hand is that bad; but 3♥ is a game forcing cue bid. I eventually decided on the overbid, and partner bid game with ♠AKJ74 ♥AT8 ♦86 ♣972. Even without the 5-0 trump break she ran into, it would have been difficult.

It was MP and unfavorable vulnerability, maybe I should have taken the low road. But should the cue bid really be game forcing, so we have no way to invite?

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2012-December-27, 08:58, said:

The auction starts (2♥) 2♠ (P), and I hold ♠Q86 ♥Q96 ♦AQ3 ♣KT85. It's 13 HCP, but really bad -- square shape, wasted Q in LHO's suit, only 3 card support for partner, so I'd like to invite rather than force to game. If the auction had started on the 1 level, I could cue bid 2♥ as a limit raise. But in the actual situation, what are my options? 3♠ is a constructive raise, I don't think my hand is that bad; but 3♥ is a game forcing cue bid. I eventually decided on the overbid, and partner bid game with ♠AKJ74 ♥AT8 ♦86 ♣972. Even without the 5-0 trump break she ran into, it would have been difficult.

It was MP and unfavorable vulnerability, maybe I should have taken the low road. But should the cue bid really be game forcing, so we have no way to invite?

I would bid game.

A direct call over a preempt should be sound. I know that a lot of players on these fora like to get into the auction light, but this should not be the case over a preempt.

In any event, all of your cards should be working with the exception of the ♥Q. I expect that 4♠ will have play. It is reasonable to assume that partner has no more than a 7 loser hand for his overcall, and we have 4 cards - the ♠Q, the ♦A and ♦Q, and the ♣K, covering 4 of his losers.

[mikeh]

Art is correct in his view of the overcall. I would go further and suggest that your partner needs the equivalent of a 1♠opener. You would always force to game opposite an opener, and I wouldn't let the heart Q put you off. For one thing, partner is allowed to hold, say, Kx in hearts, or shortness.

[TylerE]

Auto 4♠ for me. Invite not on the radar.

[mycroft]

I have to admit that that's not an overcall to me, and with your hand I would have passed out 2♥. Given that, I agree with the rest that game is fine (in fact, that's *why* I overcall sound, so that problems like this are less of problems). Having said that, if 3♥ is "unspecified GF", it's both too restrained and too broad for my tastes. I like it as "limit+" just like 2♥ over 1♥-1♠-p. I realize it's harder to get to 3NT on no fit, but I get to handle the "I have extras" from both sides, *and* the "I have *lots of* extras" from overcaller (how strong do you have to be to be able to double-and-bid-spades over a diamond jump? how strong do you have to be to be able to double-and-bid-diamonds after a *spade* jump?)

OTOH, there's a reason I direct...

[lalldonn]

Since when is 3♥ game forcing?

Here you should bid 3♥ p 3♠ p 3NT, bridge is easy.

[RunemPard]

I would rather play 3♥ as a stopper ask, or a hand with a fit and slam interest. At teams...partner having a control in hearts would be gold on this hand for 3NT. Even at matchpoints our hand is NT oriented and partner is allowed to have heart values, even more so if the opponents are very aggressive with preempts.

Another reason why every CC should have a section to describe preempting styles. The question "how aggressive are your preempts" just doesn't work at the table...

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on 2012-December-27, 08:58, said:

3♠ is a constructive raise, I don't think my hand is that bad; but 3♥ is a game forcing cue bid. I eventually decided on the overbid,

It was MP and unfavorable vulnerability, maybe I should have taken the low road. But should the cue bid really be game forcing, so we have no way to invite?

You seem to be tieing yourself into somewhat unnecessary knots here. You think your hand is too good for a 'constructive' raise to 3♠ but not strong enough to bid game. Surely there aren't that many hands that are really between the two calls?
If you play 3♥ as game forcing (which isn't compulsory), then you have two ways to invite: 3♠ and 2NT.

However, there's no real need to play 3♥ as game forcing. I play it as forcing to 3♠ only, and in theory it shows spade support (but it might be some 2344 without a heart stop on a bad day). As three of a new suit is forcing, you don't seem to be short of ways to bid strong hands compared to playing it stronger.

On this hand, I'd either bid 2NT over 2♠, if I don't want to force game, or bid 3♥ then 3NT over 3♠ offering a choice of 3NT and 4♠. It's hardly a surprise that 3NT is the best game.

[FM75]

Do you play lebensohl? If so, this auction might be a nice place for it.

Lots of choices. Immediate raise, delayed raise, immediate cue bid, delayed cue bid, immediate to 3N, delayed to 3N. And you can do most of the same with clubs and diamonds.

[mikeh]

FM75, on 2012-December-27, 15:21, said:

Do you play lebensohl? If so, this auction might be a nice place for it.

Lots of choices. Immediate raise, delayed raise, immediate cue bid, delayed cue bid, immediate to 3N, delayed to 3N. And you can do most of the same with clubs and diamonds.

Youu are describing a form of lebensohl that I doubt is played by anyone. I've been wrong before when I've made that kind of suggestion, so maybe others will tell me that it is a common practice, but my understanding of lebensohl, here, is that it only applies if partner had doubled.

[Fluffy]

I've always played 3♥ as inv+ raise and 3♠ somewhere beyond that, didn't even think there was an alternative!

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-December-27, 10:18, said:

I have to admit that that's not an overcall to me, and with your hand I would have passed out 2♥.

I didn't overcall, partner did.

RunemPard, on 2012-December-27, 12:16, said:

I would rather play 3♥ as a stopper ask, or a hand with a fit and slam interest. At teams...partner having a control in hearts would be gold on this hand for 3NT. Even at matchpoints our hand is NT oriented and partner is allowed to have heart values, even more so if the opponents are very aggressive with preempts.

If it's a stopper ask, then it's also game forcing, since you'll end up in 3NT when overcaller has the stopper.

Fluffy, on 2012-December-27, 20:12, said:

I've always played 3♥ as inv+ raise and 3♠ somewhere beyond that, didn't even think there was an alternative!

In fact, I fudged things when I wrote my original post. When I made the bid, I was actually thinking it was just invitational. But partner obviously interpreted it as GF, since she went to game with an absolute minimum. I then tried to find information on the web talking about followups in this auction, and the only page I could find said that the cue bid is game forcing, so I decided I was wrong.

I think the reason it's supposed to be GF is because of what RunemPard said: if partner has a heart stopper, they'll go past 3♠ and bid 3NT. Should they only do this if they also have a non-minimum? But what if advancer has extras (or a running minor), and really wants to be in 3NT if overcaller has the stopper, regardless of strength?

Well, there's a reason why they invented preempts: it causes problems like these. You can't be as accurate in your bidding when a level has been taken away.

[lalldonn]

Is this bizarro world? 3♥ here isn't game forcing. It never was game forcing. It's an invitational or better raise, or rarely a game force without a stopper. That is totally standard and normal. Playing it as game forcing is from outer space and totally unusual.

[FM75]

mikeh, on 2012-December-27, 15:31, said:

Youu are describing a form of lebensohl that I doubt is played by anyone. I've been wrong before when I've made that kind of suggestion, so maybe others will tell me that it is a common practice, but my understanding of lebensohl, here, is that it only applies if partner had doubled.

What do you care what other people think? (Title of a Feynman book).

I play it this way with my regular partner. That said, I have not seen it suggested anywhere except in the precision system that we use.

What do you give up? A natural 2NT bid.

I am no system expert, but I think a natural 2NT is a really narrow target, especially after a preemptive opening. How does either partner know to stop there? It opens up many options that can be used to describe more narrowly a fairly broad range of hands.


To use it, just agree with partner that in any competitive sequence where the last bid made was at the 2 level, lebensohl is on. Once you have that agreement, what you bid, and what you don't bid both are informative. Yes, you have to decide what the immediate versus delayed bids mean. And if a two level bid is available between the last bid and 2NT, you need to define that as well.

[mikeh]

FM75, on 2012-December-28, 17:23, said:

I am no system expert

[PhilKing]

FM75, on 2012-December-28, 17:23, said:

I am no system expert, but I think a natural 2NT is a really narrow target ...

When bidding natural 2NT, I do not generally stand on my chair and shout "bullseye". Other contracts are still available, and by making a natural call that describes my hand, I allow partner to select or explore for that contract.

By giving up a natural 2NT you screw yourself when you have, of all things, a hand that does not have primary support for partners suit, has a stop (very likely when there is no enemy raise), but not enough for game. And for what? To Lebensohl out to three of a minor? If you wanted to play 2NT natural and forcing, well that I could understand ...

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2012-December-28, 19:05, said:

If you wanted to play 2NT natural and forcing, well that I could understand ...

Transfers might work quite well too.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on 2012-December-29, 03:35, said:

Transfers might work quite well too.

We play transfers after a 2M overcall in some other auctions, but the natural 2NT just seems too useful here.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2012-December-28, 10:08, said:

[to me:] I didn't overcall, partner did.

I knew that and was just unclear on the statement. Partner's hand is not an overcall for me, and with your hand, playing with me, I would have passed out 2♥ rather than balance (but I'd feel really uncomfortable about it). Sorry to be unclear. Given that partner did overcall, I'm not inviting, I'm bidding game. When partner shows that he doesn't have my sound overcalling style, I'll back off a bit maybe, but this is *why* I overcall sound. Yes, I lose here to the people that can get to 2 or 3 spades; but I pay off to those who get to 4 on "partner's allowed to have a hand this time".

I guess I'd just rather lose +100 into +140 than -100 into +200. I also hate it when I preempt and have to play it; and enjoy it when they bid and it's wrong.