[Siegmund]

---

Solid 2/1 partner, but you've never discussed anything special about overcalls and advances. What shape and strength do you expect from partner for this sequence, and what do you do now?

[Zelandakh]

Partner's 1NT shows ~9-12 and with 5 good hearts they would usually prefer 2♥, so we can guess they either have 5 bad hearts or 4 good ones. Since taking out 2♣ without heart length or a spade fit would be risky, we can assume that partner has 2 spades, probably Hx, and moreover that their club values are not overly great. So I guess something like ♠Ax ♥KQJx ♦xxxx ♣Jxx would be reasonable, although with most (pick-up) partners I would be more inclined to think they made a mistake with their 1NT advance and were now trying to correct it.

[Jinksy]

I would expect his 1N to be similar to a 1N response to an opening bid (values-wise I roughly agree with Zel, though I would expect a slightly lower bottom end), so not necessarily balanced or with a club stop. Given that, his X would have been takeout (with ELC available), so I expect 5♥s here.

If I couldn't bid 2♦ before, 3♦ can't be natural now, so IMO is a game try in hearts. That sounds about right for my hand, so that's what I'll bid.

[ggwhiz]

In my partnership that's a 5-card heart suit, double would be takeout in front of the 2♣ bidder.

Scratchy club stopper, (Qxx?) and nowhere near an 11 count. Bothering to bid 1nt instead of 2♥ the first time tempers my ambitions a LOT and I'm expecting 3♣ and 3♥ will likely both be down 1.

I'll change my mind if it's passed around to partner and they double to show a max for the previous bidding but game is odds against.

[helene_t]

Maybe partner plays a direct 2♥ as forcing so this shows a weaker hand. In that case he could have six hearts.

Or maybe he plays a direct 2♥ as nonforcing in which case he is trying to show five hearts and spade tollerance, while a direct 2♥ would have been six hearts without spade tolerance.

I think I chicken out. Normally I would raise with this good heart support but our club holding is very strong given the circumstances and we may well suffer a club ruff in 3♥. 8-card fits for both pairs is likely so 3♣ could be par according to the LOTT.

I don't want to compete but I might consider a game try. So if I want to bid I improvise a 3♦ game try and hope that partner understands that this shows a heart fit since otherwise I would have bid diamonds before.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2015-October-07, 03:52, said:

Maybe partner plays a direct 2♥ as forcing so this shows a weaker hand. In that case he could have six hearts.

I think it is worth pointing out to any lurkers watching that this would ordinarily be bad bidding even though it is common practise amongst low intermediates. This is what I think is most likely too but in this forum I think we should assume partner has not misbid initially and try to find something reasonable within that context.

[Jinksy]

Zelandakh, on 2015-October-07, 04:53, said:

I think it is worth pointing out to any lurkers watching that this would ordinarily be bad bidding even though it is common practise amongst low intermediates. This is what I think is most likely too but in this forum I think we should assume partner has not misbid initially and try to find something reasonable within that context.

Count me in among the low intermediates. I just read a piece ine Bridge World Magazine where a high class player (Kit Woolsey, I think) seemed to be advocating it. It might not be the optimal approach, but on what grounds do you call it a misbid?

[Zelandakh]

Because the traditional meaning for a 1NT advance of an overcall does not have a lower bottom end than for a 2♥ advance. This is quite different from responding to a 1♠ opening where most hands too weak for a 2 over 1 need to respond 1NT. This is the part that often gets confused and what I would expect to be going on with a pick up.

[Siegmund]

I felt quite confident partner was going to be 2533 with ♣Qxx, or 2542 with ♣Ax. It's not a sequence I can remember actually happening at my table before.

Partner turned out to think that 1NT advances were like 1NT responses, of course. Which HAS happened to me, twice in the past month. I wonder if someone in my area is teaching it that way.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2015-October-07, 09:52, said:

Because the traditional meaning for a 1NT advance of an overcall does not have a lower bottom end than for a 2♥ advance. This is quite different from responding to a 1♠ opening where most hands too weak for a 2 over 1 need to respond 1NT. This is the part that often gets confused and what I would expect to be going on with a pick up.

But doesn't "traditional" mean nonforcing? I said that this interpretation was possible if 2♥ would be forcing.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2015-October-08, 01:14, said:

But doesn't "traditional" mean nonforcing? I said that this interpretation was possible if 2♥ would be forcing.

That might be a regional thing. For me the classic method is forcing but I have read here often enough that others learned that differently.

Siegmund's post indicates that the expected situation was occurring. This is what I would play for with a pick-up; but I think the question is much more interesting (and difficult really) opposite a partner you can trust.

[Siegmund]

The partner in question DID have the "NF Constructive" box checked on the ACBL convention card for new suits after overcalls, so I don't think there was any GOOD reason for what happened... but a lot of people hand you cards and ask you to play them with knowing what is on their own cards, it seems.

Traditional means nonforcing in the SA and Acol worlds. I am curious what part of the world it means forcing.

[the_clown]

Partner has a competitive hand with 6(5)♥s. With an invitational hand he would have bid a direct 3♥ or doubled for t/o and then bid ♥s.

Now I would just compete to 3♥s

[P_Marlowe]

3H