A Christmas problem

[wackojack]

At game all you have;
  K64
  4
  AJ9754
  A82

RHO opens 1  and you overcall 1  .  The bidding proceeded:
1 - (1 ) -p - (1 );
dbl - (?)
The double by RHO looks like it is showing a 4 card heart suit.  I reject the 2 additional options of pass and redouble given to me. Redouble I believe should be showing a doubleton top honour in spades and not 3.  Partner's 1 bid could I believe be any number of spades from 4 upwards, but at this stage more likely 5+ spades than 4, so I think a simple raise to 2  most accurately shows my hand rather than rebidding diamonds. The bidding continues:
1 - (1 ) -p - (1 );
dbl - (2 ) - p - (3 );
pass -(?)

Now that partner has supported diamonds and most likely 3 card support,  there is a strong suggestion that partner has only 4 spades, because with diamond support partner could have made
 an initial fit jump to 2  with 5+spades and diamond support.  Another question is whether or not 3  is forcing and to what level.  The easy answer is that it has to be forcing since the non forcing way of playing in diamonds would be to raise immediately to 3  .  Forcing to what level though?  Why would partner first bid 1  ?  Could it be that she did not want to rule out 3NT?  Partner's distribution is most likely 4432.  and so could be looking for me to bid 3NT with a club stop because she knows that you know that she has 4 hearts and therefore a likely stop in that suit.  So with that in mind what should be my next bid?  I will take the options in order of  rank and not in order of preference:

3 : I initially reject this because it suggests a heart stop looking for 3NT if partner has a club stop. Although if she knows that I know she has 4 hearts, then would 3  not just be a waiting bid saying nothing about hearts?  So perhaps after all this could be the best bid.
3  : Would this passable or forcing?  I think it should be forcing at imp scoring since I am taking out of what seems a perfectly reasonable contract of 3  .  If so how many spades am I promising? It must be 4.  So on this basis I should reject 3  . 
4  :  Is this showing a control and forcing to game and leaving it to partner to choose 4  or 5  ?
4  :  Is this saying pass if you are min or is it a game force looking for a slam if partner is max?
4  :  It is not certain that partner only has 4 spades and even then the Moysian fit having to make 1 fewer, tricks in 4  than 5  game in diamonds may be just right. 
5  :  Obviously to play.  If in doubt just bid the game you think will make? 

I wont tell you yet which bid I made.  Yet.
   
 

[kenberg]

After I raise spades, it is hard to believe that partner would then return to diamonds unless he intended it as forcing or at least as highly encouraging But I confess I am not sure.

A more basic issue. As I usually play, the 1 call opposite my overcall was not forcing. How do the two of you play it?

Now here is another possible inference. I agree that opener probably has four hearts for his double. This makes it unlikely that LHO has five of them. He would reason, after my 2 , that his initial pass over 1 already showed he had very little strength. and with a five card heart suit he would, I think, bid 3 trusting that his partner would remember his earlier pass and not get too excited. If we agree with that, then nobody at the table has five hearts, I have one heart, so everyone else has exactly four hearts.

In a non-competitive auction the fact that partner has four hearts would mean that the 1 call showed five. But that does not apply here. With a strong four card spade suit she might well bid 1 .   

These are just a few thoughts, I am less than  confident I understand the auction. I think at the table I would bid 4 , allowing partner to bid 4 if she wishes, which I will pass. But that's mostly because I don't play the 1 call as forcing.  If the 1 was forcing, and so might be on quite a bit of strength, I might bid 3 figuring that if partner now bids 3 I will then  bid 4 .

[wackojack]

A more basic issue. As I usually play, the 1 call opposite my overcall was not forcing. How do the two of you play it?

Although I don't know this for certain my guess is that everybody this side of the Atlantic plays it as forcing.  Frankly I am amazed that 1 could ever be considered as non - forcing.  Perhaps I am missing something, because I see that BWS plays this as non-forcing.  My reasoning why this bid should be forcing is: 
1.  If it is to be non-forcing, then the only occasion for making this bid would you want 1 to be a better contract than 1  and 1  is the highest making contract And this is practically never. How often would 1  be passed out for a bad result when 1 passed out leads to a good result?
2. When as advancer, you do have a major suit after partner overcalls 1  and this has the potential to play for game or at least outbid the opponents, then what are your options if 1 is not forcing?  2 ? That only suggests diamond support.  2  ?  Waste of space if you are strong and risks getting too high if you are not strong.

Nevertheless playing 1  as forcing does of course mean that if you are not strong then your hand needs to have diamond tolerance.  A decent doubleton would suffice. 

This not forcing thing at the 1 level reminds me of Poco's comments on one hand where he said he played 1 as non forcing in the unopposed sequence 1  -1 -1 .  In my original Acol playing days I remember players used to force with 2  on about 17+ points.  Now I see no merit in this at all and you would only rebid 2 if you wanted to force to game.  Nowdays I believe that very few, if any tournament Acol players would play a rebid of 1  as non forcing.   

[kenberg]

Let's say that for the purposes of this problem the 1 is forcing. And the bid of 1 would also have been forcing. Partner, who most likely has four hearts, did not bid 1 . Do we know what conclusions can be drawn from this? At partner's first turn, he had not yet heard the X from opener.   

As you can gather, I am trying to decide whether I can reason that partner must have five spades on the grounds that with 4-4 in the majors he would have bid 1 .  Or maybe not.

I'll say more about why 1M is often played as non-forcing later, but for this problem I will assume that it was forcing.

[kenberg]

The usual argument for playing that a new suit by advancer in response to an overcall is non-forcing is this:
When partner opens he is showing more than an average hand, the opponents have not yet shown any values, so there is a fair chance our side has enough values for game. The new suit forcing allows exploration. Otoh, when they have opened the bidding and we have enough to enter the bidding, often "enough to enter the bidding" will not develop into enough to bid game. Often we are wanting to compete at the partscore level and/or suggest a lead to partner. Moreover, one level  overcalls are often made on maybe ten points along with a good five card suit and so overcaller might be really strapped in finding a continuation after a forcing bid from his partner.

These thoughts are my phrasing of what Mike Lawrence says in his book Overcalls. I would add one more point that I have not seen in print.
Suppose after a 1 overcall and a 1 by advancer that overcaller bids again. If the 1 was forcing, overcaller had to bid again. If the 1 was nt forcing but overcaller still bids again, then we can perhaps make an inference from the fact that he was allowed to pass but chose not to.  Thus, if  he raises 1 to 2 !She presumably has decent support, or something more than the minimum needed for his 1 overcall, or some extra shape, or something. With a 3=3=2=5=3 shape, an uninspiring 10 count and xxx in spades, he could have passed. Also he could have passed if his spades were Qx but he had no good rebid with, say, a 2=3=5=3 shape.

Anyway, I think yes, playing the 1 as non-forcing is very standard at anything from the club level to high level competition.  It's not quite so clear when he overcall is at the 2 level: 1H -2C-Pass-2S by advancer. I would have to look around a bit before I could say how this is usually played by advanced pairs. But at the one level, I would say non-forcing is very common at clubs and at national events.

When the 1 is played as forcing I might bid 3 over 3 in your auction. There is a danger that partner, with her four hearts,will raise to 4 but then when I correct to 4 that should clarify the situation. I hope!

[Masse24]

I agree that the double by opener is showing four hearts. Should be longer clubs. A hand strong enough to compete further. As far as a redouble by overcaller showing a doubleton top honor, I’ve never heard of that. Maybe you’re thinking of a Rosenkranz Redouble? If so, I believe it’s used only by advancer.

Initially, partner’s 1 advance can show any number of spades, but will often be five-plus. One reason for this is that the 1 overcall promises a minimum of five, so yes, you’re trying to improve the contract. Since a 1 advance is not forcing, if you don’t have support it’s often best to just pass.

As far as the auction Poco discussed: 1 – 1 – 1 is non-forcing because opener has limited his hand. Opener’s 1 rebid shows no more than 17 HCP (or a bad 18). Keep in mind that this means that a 1 rebid is wide-ranging, from about 11 to 17 or so. If opener has a balanced 15-17, he opens 1NT. If opener has a balanced 18-19, he rebids 2NT (even with a four-card major). If opener has an unbalanced hand, worth a jump to 2 , he shows a good 18+ (a jump-shift). Note: the jump makes 2 a jump-shift, it is not a reverse. While one may quibble about the ranges I’ve listed, they are within a point of being spot on in Standard American or 2/1 bidding using a strong notrump. Also, since the 1 rebid limits opener's hand to 17 or so, why would you want responder to be "forced" to bid again with say KJxx - xxxx - Jxxxx - --? Will a one-level suit rebid by opener often be passed by responder? No. But since opener has limited his hand, and responder can do the math, it's responder who gets to choose whether to go on. In other words . . . 1 is not forcing. 
 
Back to your auction. I think your inferences about shape around the table to be pretty good. But my partner having 4-4 in the majors would be highly unlikely. You don’t bid your suits in reverse order with both majors if 4-4. It’s. just. not. done. So partner should have five spades for the 1 advance. Ken also mentioned his confusion about why partner would bid 1 with 4-4 majors. I agree, I do not see a reason for it other than maybe if the hearts were 5432, which looks a lot like a three card suit! 

As far as what I bid next?

Because none of my partner’s calls were forcing, pass would cross my mind. But partner is now showing some sort of delayed support (another reason why 1 must show 5+) with invitational values. I probably bid 4 to show the extra diamond and, hopefully, deny four spades.

[kenberg]

The auction
1 - 1 - Pass - 1
X
has interesting features.
The Pass means that third hand either lacks four hearts or lacks the values to bid 1 over the 1 .  Back in Goren's day, 1 would show extra values. I think most people would now think that if they have four hearts now would be the time to let partner know about it. Maybe they would pass with four hearts and a flat 6 count, I probably would, but usually they will get that bid in with little not much beyond what would be expected for 1 - Pass -  .

So I guess the X should say something like "Well, if you have four hearts and lacked the values to bid 1 my hand is strong enough so that you should still be ok in 2 , and if you don't have four hearts I sure hope you have four clubs or maybe a diamond stop so you can bid 1NT which might be ok. Mostly I think the X had better show extra values, that first round Pass by partner when the bids of 1 , 1 , and 1NT were all available is  ominous. If opener is minimal and responder lacks the values to bid over the overcall, we might better conclude that this is the opponent's hand and just let them have it. Notice that the X by opener helps the opponent's when 1 is played as forcing (I don't play it as forcing, but it was played as forcing here). Why does it help? If opener passes, overcaller presumably still bids 2 . But what can the spade bidder make of this? He forced his partner to bid something. After opener doubles, the 2 bid is voluntary. He could just pass and then, if the auction comes back to him at the 2 level, then bid 2 to show a hand willing to play 2 but lacking enthusiasm. So  the immediate 2 shows both support and some enthusiasm. Modest enthusiasm, but enthusiasm.

[wackojack]

Initially, partner’s 1 advance can show any number of spades, but will often be five-plus. One reason for this is that the 1 overcall promises a minimum of five, so yes, you’re trying to improve the contract. Since a 1 advance is not forcing, if you don’t have support it’s often best to just pass.

1 - (1 ) -p - (1 )
Why I think 1  should be forcing:
With the proviso that the 1  advance shows tolerance for diamonds when it is limited in strength.  Then the implications of it being passable has to be when:
1  is the only making contract OR we are vul and the opponents can make +110 or +120 in a part score and we would go off by 2 tricks in 2  and only 1 trick in 1  .

No doubt such hands exist, but must be so rare that they would be a struggle to construct.

What is more a jump to 2 to force is wasteful and takes away the fit jump meaning. 
 
Moving on to  1 - (1 ) -p - (1 ); dbl - (rdbl)
Opener's double presumably shows 4 hearts although this assumption may not be entirely reliable.  So in the absence of any direct agreement, what might partner sensibly make of a redouble? 3 possibilities:
1. Assume support redouble showing 3 card spade support still holds when partner overcalls. 
2. Assume Rosenkranz redouble applies also to overcaller when the take out double is made by opener.  (Thus showing  Kx or  Ax).
3. Redouble has no agreed or implied meaning, so don't use it.   

Thus if I did use redouble when partner knows that I know that she is most unlikely to have only 4 spades because she would bid hearts before spades with 4 each.  This appears to be a minefield of 2nd guessing so to be safe I took option 3 and did not redouble and raised to 2  which would appear to show 3 or 4 card support.   

Nevertheless my partner has since e mailed: Quote It's easy. After double by your rho you redouble to show 3S ( support doubles on for overcalls )

Be that as it may, after passing, I next had to decide what to bid when the auction next came around:
1 - (1 ) -p - (1 );
dbl - (2 ) - p - (3 );
pass -(?)
I will leave this for another post.
 

[kenberg]

An amusement:

Today at the bridge I asked partner what he thought when the auction begins
1 - 1 - Pass - 1 .
He figured 1 is forcing but agreed to play it as non-forcing.
The boards arrived, Lho was the dealer and opened 1 . Partner put down a 1 bid, Rho passed, I put down a 1 S bid. Everyone chuckled a bit. But the story does not have a completely happy ending.  Partner, with a 2=3=3=5 shape, the spades being xx,  retreaded to 2 . It makes, but so does 2 and this was matchpoints.

84
962
AKQ96
QT4



KJT63
AT8
85
974

[Masse24]

Lho was the dealer and opened 1 . Partner put down a 1 bid, Rho passed, I put down a 1 S bid. Everyone chuckled a bit. But the story does not have a completely happy ending.  Partner, with a 2=3=3=5 shape, the spades being xx,  retreaded to 2 . It makes, but so does 2 and this was matchpoints.

Your partner's understanding of "non-forcing" needs calibrating. With XX, it looks like a clear pass once you advanced 1 .

[kenberg]

Yes, he might have left me in spades. It's a bit of a lucky hand with spades and diamonds both splitting 3-3 an the spade Q being onside as is the J.  Santa was good to me.

For the current discussion, i'll just note that  passing me in 1 was an option. If 1 is forcing then that option does not exist and surely he would not raise my spades on xx. With everything lying so nicely 1NT is also a make. But the spade contract would have been a winning choice.

[wackojack]

So what would happen if 1 was passed?  EW have the balance of points.  I assume West must have a balanced 12-14 and if 12 East has 9, if 14 East has 7.  In a keen MP contest EW might well have competed up to 2  and 2  would become the ultimate contract.   Nevertheless I agree that in this particular layout a forcing 1  might well lead to a less than optimum MP contract for NS.  At imps of course it does not matter.  If that is the only argument for 1  to be non forcing, I rest my case.  How about the forcing 1NT in 2 over 1 being MP unfriendly?  So often 1  -1NT -pass is the optimum contract.

Back to the original hand and what to do after:
1 - (1 ) -p - (1 );
dbl - (2 ) - p - (3 );
pass -(?)

I chose 4  on the basis that partner is showing game interest and possibly even slam.  So a cue bid of 4  should tell me which strain partner favours.  It looks highly likely to me that partner's distribution is 5332.  Although what was nagging at me was that with this distribution partner might have made a fit jump to 2  after my 1  overcall.  Perhaps the 5 card spade suit is poor.  After 4  , partner bid 4  and I passed. 

Partner turned up with:  AQ92,  9532,  KQ3,  75.  My hand again was:
  K64
  4
  AJ9754
  A82
As you can see 4  is a very poor contract and 5  is a good one.  Spades split 4-2 but the opponents misdefended and the 10 tricks were undeservedly made. 

[Masse24]

2 is the call. Not 1 .

Your 4-level decision is predicated on the forcing/non-forcing nature of 1 , and then, what you expect your partner to be be showing.

If non-forcing, I would expect 5+ spades.

Fortunately, in your auction, you both assumed forcing.

[kenberg]

I tried finding something from the UK or the EU or some such about responding to overcalls. I found something in Canada, so at least it's outside the US, but I could not find anything from Jack's side of the Atlantic.

The Canadian site, https://www.hamiltonbridge.com/Articles/RespondingToOvercalls.html, also would treat the 1 as non-forcing. In fact whoever wrote that article says "When you respond in a new suit, your partner will normally pass. " but then s/he goes on to list some cases where partner will bid again. 

The whole subject could use more study. I don't see things the same way that the Canadian site does, "will normally pass" seems overstated to me,  but we are in agreement about the non-forcing nature of the call.

Some written stuff from The Old World could be interesting.

On the club hand I had on Friday the opponents are in deep stuff if they come into the auction after the pass of 1 . We have two seven card fis and two six card fits, so they have two six card fits and two seven card fits, and they don't play well. If they opt for 1NT we can take four spades, five diamonds and the heart A.

[Masse24]

I tried finding something from the UK or the EU or some such about responding to overcalls. I found something in Canada, so at least it's outside the US, but I could not find anything from Jack's side of the Atlantic.

I found this: Standard English Modern Acol. It's a pdf of the Acol system.

In Section C: Defensive Bidding, 1.2.4, on page 21 it states:
To bid a new suit opposite an overcall you need a good suit – six cards or five very good ones; the bid is encouraging but not forcing, so partner may leave you to play in your suit.  At the one level you should have 8 + HCP to bid a new suit, at the two level 10+ HCP.  A change of suit with a jump is forcing. Don’t respond just because you don’t like overcaller’s suit.
But I don't know Acol. And I cannot comment on the accuracy of these system notes. However, it was authored by John Pain, the manager of the EBU Education Department, so should carry some weight.

Using this method, and any other method I've seen here in the U.S., the 1 advance with only four cards would not occur to me.

As with any methods, the key is to be on the same page as partner. My personal preference, if playing a "simple" system is to play new suits by advancer after a one-level overcall as non-forcing. New suits after 2-level overcalls as forcing. This is what I played with my last serious partner several years ago. Someday I'll dive into transfer advances (not recommended for a pickup partnership), but that's another discussion altogether.