[kfay]

2♥ is non-forcing. Apologies if anyone is offended by that.

---

[whereagles]

If pard were a passed hand, this would be an easy pass/2♠. As it stands, you can try

1. 3♣ + 3♠. The cue in this situation shows a decent opener or better. Followed by 3♠ you finish the description, albeit at a high level.
2. 2NT. This hides the 6th spade but is spot on values (12-14).
3. 2♠. This is an underbid, but can work well.

I think I go for 2.

[Cascade]

whereagles, on 2014-July-01, 01:13, said:

If pard were a passed hand, this would be an easy pass/2♠. As it stands, you can try

1. 3♣ + 3♠. The cue in this situation shows a decent opener or better. Followed by 3♠ you finish the description, albeit at a high level.
2. 2NT. This hides the 6th spade but is spot on values (12-14).
3. 2♠. This is an underbid, but can work well.

I think I go for 2.

I think a free NT rebid by an overcaller shows a better hand than 12-14, more like 14-16 - maybe 1NT could show a little less.

I admit I haven't ever seen much written about this auction though. So you could be right about what is standard.

[helene_t]

Need to know a bit more about our style. If for example my overcall shows ostensibly 7-16 and 2♥ covers the whole semipositive range, it would be something like 9-16. But probably that range is too wide to be playable.

Anyway, I would like to show a bit of extra values while at the same time avoid commiting to a particular strain. 2NT feels wrong with the 6th spade and if we belong in 3NT, probably partner needs to declare. I'll go for 3♣ but it is probably an overbid. This problem may be a good case for playing intermediate jump overcalls.

[akwoo]

I'm assuming 2♥ shows roughly 10-15.

What's the difference between an immediate 3♠ and 3♣ followed by 3♠?

Should it be general strength (i.e. invite with 11-13ish vs game force with 14-16ish) or solidity of the suit?

[MrAce]

Easy 2♠ if 2♥ is NF as advertised. I understand we have 13 beans but I have seen much better beans.

[diana_eva]

2S here as well. We don't have to bid, so this should convey something in the light of 2H being NF.

[mike777]

2s

Assume 2h shows less than an opening hand.

xx..AQxxxx...Kxx....xx

[helene_t]

Yes I think you are right, 2♠ is enough. I am a bit worried if it shows extras or not but in any case, 3♣ (or 2NT) is likely to take us too high.

[ArtK78]

Deleted.

(By the way, the "Delete My Vote" button is one of the greatest advances since the cell phone)

[neilkaz]

diana_eva, on 2014-July-01, 06:59, said:

2S here as well. We don't have to bid, so this should convey something in the light of 2H being NF.

We agree.

[Zelandakh]

diana_eva, on 2014-July-01, 06:59, said:

2S here as well. We don't have to bid, so this should convey something in the light of 2H being NF.

Would you pass with a 5044 hand of less strength than this then? I have never played 2♥ as non-forcing here so perhaps this works out ok - feels strange to me coming from the forcing side though.

[MickyB]

2♠ shows a hand too good to WJO in my book, which seems fine, although raising is tempting too.

[ggwhiz]

akwoo, on 2014-July-01, 02:40, said:

I'm assuming 2♥ shows roughly 10-15.

I suspect you are alone in playing 2♥ as non-forcing but it is extremely unplayable with an upper end >11 and should at least be constructive (8?). If that's not the case, ditch the method.

That makes this a choice between pass and 2♠ which I would bid hoping to catch 2-card support (and maybe game) or play a 6-1 fit instead of 5-2 losing out to playing a 6-1 fit instead of a 6-2 but if partner passes me out here their "constructive" 2♥ bid with a stiff spade is questionable at best.

You might get better answers if you spell out the range/type of hand that bids a non-forcing 2♥. It's very much a minority treatment.

[diana_eva]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-01, 08:50, said:

Would you pass with a 5044 hand of less strength than this then? I have never played 2♥ as non-forcing here so perhaps this works out ok - feels strange to me coming from the forcing side though.

Depends. If i'd make such an overcall I'd probably have a rebid prepared for this situation. But yeah with a dead minimum i'd pass and maybe pull later if they start doubling. I don't play 2H NF so I'm making this up on the spot lol.

[diana_eva]

MickyB, on 2014-July-01, 09:12, said:

2♠ shows a hand too good to WJO in my book, which seems fine, although raising is tempting too.

Yup 3H crossed my mind, but I have no clue what a 2H might look like at it's weakest and strongest ranges. Since I don't know that, 2S seems more honest, it should be constructive and keeps the bidding open.

[helene_t]

Probably 2sp shows extras if it is your style to bid 2sp on any six card suit. With 5044you just have to blame the loss on the system. You can't design around that specific hand

[MickyB]

helene_t, on 2014-July-01, 16:19, said:

Probably 2sp shows extras if it is your style to bid 2sp on any six card suit.

IMO if your suit isn't good enough to WJO then it's no big deal to just pass 2H now.

[PhilKing]

MickyB, on 2014-July-01, 16:41, said:

IMO if your suit isn't good enough to WJO then it's no big deal to just pass 2H now.

I'm glad you didn't go so far as to actually recommend pass.

[whereagles]

Why should 2♠ show a hand "too good for WJO"? Can't you have something like

JTxxxx
xx
AKJx
x