[pescetom]

I noticed today that after a sequence such as:
1♠ (p) 2♣ (2♦) ?
the opener's call of pass/double/cue and any modifications to other calls are undiscussed.
What are the expert recommendations here, given that without interference 2N would be 12-14, 3♣/♦ would be natural with extras, 2♠ would be 5+ and 3♠ 6+ solid or equivalent.
Thanks.

[EDIT: should have added that the 2♣ GF is semi-artificial (may not be clubs) whereas the other GF 2/1 responses guarantee 5 cards always.]

[paulg]

Without discussion with an expert partner, I would expect double to be penalties and pass to show nothing specific to say. The other bids retain their normal meaning given that you could pass rather than bid.

[DavidKok]

There are lots of different options here. The overcall (and only a single step too!) has given your partnership much more bidding space than before. It is up to your partnership to decide whether you want to keep things simple, or try to make optimal use of the available space, or something in between. Generally these overcalls are rare (because they are very risky after our side has claimed ~24+ HCP, and usually help declarer more than they help the defenders).

I think the very simplest agreement you could make (but far from best) is

• Double = 'stolen bid' = I was going to bid 2♦ = penalty, showing 4(+).
  
• Anything else = as before.
  
• Pass = 'Partner I am so sorry I opened' - minimum that got worse on the auction.

Personally I prefer to try to exploit the available space more. The rule is "Look at your hand, if you have something important to say, say it. If not, pass." This becomes

• Pass = any generic minimum, usually balanced (I think it is even better to play this as any balanced hand).
  
• Double = Takeout (but you can play penalties if you prefer) - redundant on this auction, but important to show heart shortness if they overcall 2♥, as an example.
  
• 2♥ = Nat, 4(+) hearts, but we are allowed to take a view with e.g. a soft 5=4=3=1 and pass.
  
• 2♠ = 6(+).
  
• 2NT = 18+ balanced (12-14 passes or bids T/O with 5=3=2=3).
  
• 3♣ = 5(+) (but my 2♣ is artificial). If 2♣ promises at least 4 then bidding this on 4 is also fine, though it probably only comes up if you are 5=2=2=4 or 5=1=3=4.

Having established a game force, your goal should be to get to the best game. Usually that means 3NT, 4♠ or 4♥. So I think, having already shown spades, you should either show extra spades, show hearts, show extreme shape or get out of the way.

I would not at all be surprised to learn that better players than me use tools like pass/double inversions or artificiality to double the number of sequences starting after the overcall.

[LBengtsson]

pescetom, on 2022-April-21, 15:01, said:

I noticed today that after a sequence such as:
1♠ (p) 2♣ (2♦) ?
the opener's call of pass/double/cue and any modifications to other calls are undiscussed.
What are the expert recommendations here, given that without interference 2N would be 12-14, 3♣/♦ would be natural with extras, 2♠ would be 5+ and 3♠ 6+ solid or equivalent.
Thanks.

This is a very good question because players do not think that the 2/1 GF sequence will be overcalled by the 4th player often. But it happens. I think it needs partnership discussion and agreement, especially given if the overcall is made at white vs. red. Any bid made by 4th player could be real suit or more lead directional with partial suit (5+).

The example given by pescetom is more easy to counter as it is only 2♦. Every sequence where the 4th player bids here from 2♦ upwards needs to be discussed, especially if the 4th player makes a bid at the 3 level. I would be happy to jam a 2/1 auction at white/red with 3♦ with 6421 shape and ♦KQJT9x, maybe even ♦KJT9xx and take my chance that pre-empting the opps. works well as the space 2/1 gives to find the right contract, be it game or slam, is effectively lost.

[Cyberyeti]

Does it matter if 2♣ was F1 or FG ?

We are out of step with mainstream thinking, in all these 3 suits bid auctions, we play X="4 of unbid suit" bidding the suit shows 5 which really helps partner when he holds 3 particularly if they raise.

We play weak no trump, so pass is a little different, if I played strong, pass would be the weak NT.

[paulg]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-April-22, 00:31, said:

Does it matter if 2♣ was F1 or FG ?

In the context of the question in a 2/1 environment, I don't think it matters in the sense that we should be in a forcing to 3♣ situation.

Most weak no trump players that I know play double as a strong no trump.

[helene_t]

We want overcaller on lead so it's better not to bid hearts or notrumps naturally here. So for example
pass=balanced
dbl=penalty
2♥=6+spades
2♠=four hearts
2NT= five hearts

I am not sure if it's a good idea to use 2NT to show 5-5 in the majors - it keeps the risk of wrongsiding a notrump contract low, but when it is wrongsided it could be really bad, say when responder has xx-xx-Kx-AKQJxxx

[ali quarg]

Not too much change from my approach without interference where
2♦ Min - Pass now shows this hand.
--2♥ by responder then asks opener to shape out as per 2NT onwards below
--etc. ♣ orientated bids
X 4+♦ Min
2♥ - 4♥ Min+
2♠ 4+♦ Int+
2NT 6+♠ Int+ unbalanced
3♣ 4+♣ Int+
3♦ 6+♠ Int+ semi-balanced or Str balanced
3♥ 55 Majors Int+
3♠ Int+ self-sustaining suit

[jdiana]

Not an expert but if 2/1 is GF (as we play) then the opponents don't "turn off" our GF by overcalling. Therefore, in our simple 2/1 system, pass by opener is forcing. In this example, if opener would have rebid 2♦ or perhaps rebid 2NT but lacks a ♦ stopper, then he can pass but responder is expected to bid again. A double by opener is for penalty; a cuebid shows support for responder's suit and slam interest. Other bids are natural and still GF. I agree that this doesn't seem to come up very often.

[helene_t]

jdiana, on 2022-April-22, 06:25, said:

Not an expert but if 2/1 is GF (as we play) then the opponents don't "turn off" our GF by overcalling.
[....]
if opener would have rebid 2♦ or perhaps rebid 2NT but lacks a ♦ stopper, then he can pass but responder is expected to bid again.

Yes, indeed. GF is GF and is never turned off.

Maybe one could make an exception for the situation where they double our 3NT and we escape to 4m.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2022-April-21, 15:01, said:

I noticed today that after a sequence such as:
1♠ (p) 2♣ (2♦) ?
the opener's call of pass/double/cue and any modifications to other calls are undiscussed.
What are the expert recommendations here, given that without interference 2N would be 12-14, 3♣/♦ would be natural with extras, 2♠ would be 5+ and 3♠ 6+ solid or equivalent.
Thanks.

I am surprised that no one mentioned the most important opportunity given by the intervention: To deny a good holding in the suit opened.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2022-April-22, 09:06, said:

I am surprised that no one mentioned the most important opportunity given by the intervention: To deny a good holding in the suit opened.

Or to show a hand that would have had to rebid the opening suit with 5 cards, or to ask for some degree of stop in opponent's suit - the possibilities are numerous.

I forgot to add that our 2♣ GF does not guarantee clubs, whereas the other 2/1 responses always promise 5 cards.

Of course the rules have to be general enough to work in other 2/1 situations where the interference is not so benign, I chose this situation as an example just because it both cropped up during play and was rich in possibilities.

Much food for thought already, thanks all: lets see if others still have things to add before I attempt to digest.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2022-April-22, 09:48, said:

Or to show a hand that would have had to rebid the opening suit with 5 cards, or to ask for some degree of stop in opponent's suit - the possibilities are numerous.

I forgot to add that our 2♣ GF does not guarantee clubs, whereas the other 2/1 responses always promise 5 cards.

Of course the rules have to be general enough to work in other 2/1 situations where the interference is not so benign, I chose this situation as an example just because it both cropped up during play and was rich in possibilities.

Much food for thought already, thanks all: lets see if others still have things to add before I attempt to digest.

Having to rebid AKJTx is no burden at all. The trouble is having to rebid Q5432.

Seems to me that rebidding the suit over the intervention should show a good five-card suit or a fair (at least) 6+ suit. Q65432 should also not be voluntarily rebid. The criterion should be probably only one loser facing small doubleton.

Carl

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2022-April-22, 12:25, said:

Having to rebid AKJTx is no burden at all. The trouble is having to rebid Q5432.

Seems to me that rebidding the suit over the intervention should show a good five-card suit or a fair (at least) 6+ suit. Q65432 should also not be voluntarily rebid. The criterion should be probably only one loser facing small doubleton.

Plus, having to rebid Q5432 is double trouble because the likely reason for doing so is that we have a decent minor but insufficient strength to bid it at 3 level. Removing this extra strength requirement after interference might be useful, as being free to bid a minor would also reduce the need for an explicit stopper ask call. Just thinking out loud here however.

[pescetom]

Ok, some thoughts after reading all replies again.

jdiana, on 2022-April-22, 06:25, said:

Not an expert but if 2/1 is GF (as we play) then the opponents don't "turn off" our GF by overcalling. Therefore, in our simple 2/1 system, pass by opener is forcing. In this example, if opener would have rebid 2♦ or perhaps rebid 2NT but lacks a ♦ stopper, then he can pass but responder is expected to bid again. A double by opener is for penalty; a cuebid shows support for responder's suit and slam interest. Other bids are natural and still GF. I agree that this doesn't seem to come up very often.

That all makes sense and yes, the GF is unconditional with or without interference (I was taking it for granted but should not have done). So not only will responder bid again after a pass but he can bid in economy and therefore a jump to 3♠ (if overcall permits) still shows a good raise and requests a control-bid (no Jacoby 2NT here). So the system is already quite robust when overcalled at low level, it's mainly a question of giving meaning to the additional calls.

helene_t, on 2022-April-22, 02:22, said:

We want overcaller on lead so it's better not to bid hearts or notrumps naturally here. So for example
pass=balanced
dbl=penalty
2♥=6+spades
2♠=four hearts
2NT= five hearts

I'm with you that an expert would want to transfer with hearts, even if a fit is relatively infrequent here.
I can also see that we want the bad guy on lead if responder has a stop in his suit, but if opener has the stop doesn't it make sense for him to bid NT naturally all the same? Probably I'm missing something here.

DavidKok, on 2022-April-21, 15:51, said:

There are lots of different options here. The overcall (and only a single step too!) has given your partnership much more bidding space than before. It is up to your partnership to decide whether you want to keep things simple, or try to make optimal use of the available space, or something in between. Generally these overcalls are rare (because they are very risky after our side has claimed ~24+ HCP, and usually help declarer more than they help the defenders).

I think the very simplest agreement you could make (but far from best) is

• Double = 'stolen bid' = I was going to bid 2♦ = penalty, showing 4(+).
  
• Anything else = as before.
  
• Pass = 'Partner I am so sorry I opened' - minimum that got worse on the auction.

Personally I prefer to try to exploit the available space more. The rule is "Look at your hand, if you have something important to say, say it. If not, pass." This becomes

• Pass = any generic minimum, usually balanced (I think it is even better to play this as any balanced hand).
  
• Double = Takeout (but you can play penalties if you prefer) - redundant on this auction, but important to show heart shortness if they overcall 2♥, as an example.
  
• 2♥ = Nat, 4(+) hearts, but we are allowed to take a view with e.g. a soft 5=4=3=1 and pass.
  
• 2♠ = 6(+).
  
• 2NT = 18+ balanced (12-14 passes or bids T/O with 5=3=2=3).
  
• 3♣ = 5(+) (but my 2♣ is artificial). If 2♣ promises at least 4 then bidding this on 4 is also fine, though it probably only comes up if you are 5=2=2=4 or 5=1=3=4.

Having established a game force, your goal should be to get to the best game. Usually that means 3NT, 4♠ or 4♥. So I think, having already shown spades, you should either show extra spades, show hearts, show extreme shape or get out of the way.

I would not at all be surprised to learn that better players than me use tools like pass/double inversions or artificiality to double the number of sequences starting after the overcall.

Lots of good sense here, thanks.
Our system is played by many intermediate players so I mainly want to just fill in the gaps here rather than do anything complex or difficult to remember in such a low frequency situation.
The system defaults are definitely pass=nothing to say and double=takeout.
But as you say, the context is unusual with the opponents clearly low on HCP and I think double=penalty might be intuitive and useful here (if anywhere).
So I was thinking along the lines of:

• Pass = none of the following
  
• Double = penalties
  
• 2♥ = Nat, 4(+) hearts (unchanged)
  
• 2♠ = 6(+)
  
• 2NT = 12+ balanced with stopper
  
• 3♣ = 4(+) (unchanged. Our 2♣ is semi-artificial like yours, but it is understood that this "raise" does not fix trumps)

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2022-April-24, 11:48, said:

Our system is played by many intermediate players so I mainly want to just fill in the gaps here rather than do anything complex or difficult to remember in such a low frequency situation.
The system defaults are definitely pass=nothing to say and double=takeout.
But as you say, the context is unusual with the opponents clearly low on HCP and I think double=penalty might be intuitive and useful here (if anywhere).
So I was thinking along the lines of:

• Pass = none of the following
  
• Double = penalties
  
• 2♥ = Nat, 4(+) hearts (unchanged)
  
• 2♠ = 6(+)
  
• 2NT = 12+ balanced with stopper
  
• 3♣ = 4(+) (unchanged. Our 2♣ is semi-artificial like yours, but it is understood that this "raise" does not fix trumps)

I think this is simple and effective, but has two weak points. Firstly the difference between double and 2NT is not clear - do you double with good diamonds, so 2NT implies exactly a single stopper? I would rather pass more often and bid 2NT less often. Secondly the auction 1♠-(P)-2♣*-(2♦); 3♣ is not an economic use of bidding space, even with 2/1 GF. I think it would be easiest to play 'system on', so "If you would have responded 3♣, do so now as well" but slightly better to move some of those hands to pass as well, e.g. the 5=1=3=4 minima can pass then support clubs.

[helene_t]

pescetom, on 2022-April-24, 11:48, said:

I can also see that we want the bad guy on lead if responder has a stop in his suit, but if opener has the stop doesn't it make sense for him to bid NT naturally all the same? Probably I'm missing something here.

It may be relevant for opener to show the stopper, but even if they have one we still prefer the bad guy to be on lead in case both of us have a stopper. And it's more diffult for overcaller to decide whether to lead diamonds or not, sometimes they don't lead the suit even it would have been succesful.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pass is forcing, and for us X would be T/O, traditionally it was pen., but we
switched to T/O for all low level X, this included F/P seq.
2NT would be artificial for us, some form of good / bad, the cue would be
stopper ask.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[akwoo]

This is a takeout double situation for me. I play very few penalty doubles; partner is expected to protect with a double in balancing seat.

Even more true with weak NT - in that case pass shows the strong NT, and weaker unbalanced hands must find a bid.

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2022-April-25, 03:22, said:

It may be relevant for opener to show the stopper, but even if they have one we still prefer the bad guy to be on lead in case both of us have a stopper.

Fair enough, although if we both have a stopper and they have at most 16 HCP then penalty starts to look better than 3NT at most situations of zone.

helene_t, on 2022-April-25, 03:22, said:

And it's more diffult for overcaller to decide whether to lead diamonds or not, sometimes they don't lead the suit even it would have been succesful.

True.