[smerriman]

Initially brought up by helene_t in the GIB forum, after having created a couple of bidding polls I have found myself a little stumped as to how these auctions should go.

---

A couple of people suggested rebidding a somewhat artificial 2♦ instead of 2♥, but the large majority continued with a forcing 2♥.

Over 2♥, there seems to be no option but 2♠ (confirmed by a poll). Presumably North would also be forced to bid this with this shape and even less HCP (if not 2♠, then what)?

So in this auction it seems 2♥ and 2♠ could both be a minimum hand.

a) Now what?

b) If South held a slightly stronger hand with spade stopper (say, a 3451 14-15 count), are they required to jump to 3NT on the third round, given 2NT would be non-forcing? This would seem to cause a nightmare if North was stronger and had slam interest in hearts, where they would have also bid 2♠. Or can South never bid 2♥ with a spade stopper? Or do you just play 2♠ as game-forcing and concede that you'll play in an occasional 12 vs 10?

And what if opener were stronger - do they have to start with 2♠ on the previous round to avoid all this ambiguity?

Continuations after 2♣ seem complex.

[helene_t]

To preempt Cyberyeti's response, the obvious solution is to play weak NT Or to open 1♥ with the South hand.

Anyway, South can now only bid 3♣, and if neither partner has shown extras so far, North will pass it.

Personally, I would prefer to play 2♥ as GF so I would probably rebid 3♣ with the South hand.

It is a bit different if opener's suit has already been bypassed:

1♣-(1♠)-2♦-(pass)

Here opener would probably have to bid 2♥ with 2425 or 3415 and no spade stopper, so I would take 2♥ as showing 4-5 rounded suits and say nothing about strength.

But apparently the polls show that I am in a minority so I shouldn't assume this with a random partner.

[DavidKok]

I think standard does particularly poorly on these hands. For what it's worth, in all versions of standard 2♠ would be GF for me (and 2♥ would not be), so I have an even bigger problem. North has to rebid 3♣, yikes.

I would open the South hand 1♣, which solves the problem (North won't bid 2♣ with that hand), but this is not standard. Modern expert standard is to use transfers over the 1♠ overcall though, which solves the issue. 1♦-(1♠)-1NT*(transfer)-(P); 2♣ (minimum)-a.p.

1♦-(2♣) and 1♦-(P)-2♣ are notorious weak points of standard systems, and it is no surprise that 1♦-(1M)-2♣ is even worse. This is one of the areas where introducing a convention can gain a lot.

[mikeh]

 DavidKok, on 2022-February-21, 04:22, said:

I think standard does particularly poorly on these hands. For what it's worth, in all versions of standard 2♠ would be GF for me (and 2♥ would not be), so I have an even bigger problem. North has to rebid 3♣, yikes.

I would open the South hand 1♣, which solves the problem (North won't bid 2♣ with that hand), but this is not standard. Modern expert standard is to use transfers over the 1♠ overcall though, which solves the issue. 1♦-(1♠)-1NT*(transfer)-(P); 2♣ (minimum)-a.p.

1♦-(2♣) and 1♦-(P)-2♣ are notorious weak points of standard systems, and it is no surprise that 1♦-(1M)-2♣ is even worse. This is one of the areas where introducing a convention can gain a lot.

While I’m a huge believer in transfers in as many places as possible, I don’t think that transfers over 1S are ‘expert standard’.

Transfers over 1m (1H) are common, but even there I’d not call them expert standard. Transfers over 1S are theoretically less sound than over 1H, since 1N is very useful as natural over the former and is available even with transfers in use over the latter.

Personally, after 1D (1S) 2C (P) I’d play much the same as if there had been no overcall, other than that we’re not now in a gf at present.

However, as with David, we open 1C as south: 1D promises 5 or, if 4, an unbalanced hand (4441 or an uncomfortable 1345/3145.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

lets remove the 1S overcall, and make 2C forcing for one round, what would we bid?
We would bid 2NT, showing a bal. hand without primary club support.
2H would show an unbal. hand, depending on your agreement with add. values.

I have a bal. hand, but given the overcall, I cant bid NT missing the spade stopper,
hence I would go with 2S, asking for a stopper, and if he has more than min.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

 P_Marlowe, on 2022-February-21, 06:27, said:

Hi,

lets remove the 1S overcall, and make 2C forcing for one round, what would we bid?
We would bid 2NT, showing a bal. hand without primary club support.
2H would show an unbal. hand, depending on your agreement with add. values.

I have a bal. hand, but given the overcall, I cant bid NT missing the spade stopper,
hence I would go with 2S, asking for a stopper, and if he has more than min.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Most would play 1D (1S) 2C (p) 2S as establishing a gf. While your intended use would work well on this hand, if partner understood what you meant, I think it’s more likely, in real life, to cause a disaster.

[LBengtsson]

I like range 8-11 for free bid, and for it to be a non-force. South knows that North does not have 4♥ or ♠stop most of the time. (There will be some hands that do not fit but no bidding is perfect.) Yes, North has good 11 points but some hands do not fit well. This is an example.

[P_Marlowe]

 mikeh, on 2022-February-21, 10:26, said:

Most would play 1D (1S) 2C (p) 2S as establishing a gf. While your intended use would work well on this hand, if partner understood what you meant, I think it’s more likely, in real life, to cause a disaster.

It is certainly true, that 2S sounds like a gf, not like a waiting bid.
Add to this the fact, that I have not played new suit as forcing for a long time, in Germany lots of peoble like NF.
...
The thing is, that I dont think C promises more than 4+, so I dont like raising.
You may convince me, that 2D is fine.

[Gilithin]

Surely from a purely theoretical point of view, it makes more sense for Opener's Rebid of 2♠ to be potentially a Weak NT without a stop then to have Responder's Rebid of 2♠ not be a game force? Not only does this avoid much ambiguity, it is also much closer to the undisturbed auction meaning that is very easy to remember. I am honestly not too sure why Uwe's solution has received only criticism here. Finally, if you are playing the method where a 4441 hand rebids a forcing 2♦ over a 2♣ response (without intervention), it seems a really simple extension to allow a forcing 2♦ rebid on this type of hand. It just seems to me so much simpler to use your existing system (without an overcall) and amend it than to try and create something completely different that ends up creating more ambiguity rather than removing it.