Conventions

Home

M J Bridge

♦

♠

♥

♣

Bidding

Hands

Theory

Cue-bid in the opponents’ suit.

Game-forcing

In the early days of bidding theory it was thought necessary for overcaller to have a bid which immediately created a game-forcing situation, and this bid was almost universally the cue-bid in the opponents’ suit.

The idea, of course, was that you did not want partner to pass your take-out double for penalties when you have something like the hand above.

Fashions have changed.

For a start, partner is unlikely to be strong enough to pass such a double, and even if he has a holding in spades it will be rare that a doubled penalty at the one-level will score significantly better than a contract your way other than on two balanced hands.

Considering that there is not even such a game-forcing bid when your opponents have failed to open the bidding, this can only be seen as something of a luxury.  (There are game-forcing sequences, but not game-forcing opening bids in their own right - even a traditional 2♣ opening is forcing only as far as 2NT.)

If you do hold the hand above, and you have not adopted two-suited conventional bids, then start with a double and follow with a bid in the opponents’ suit.

My honest advice is not to define a meaning for this bid until you are ready to adopt a system of two-suited overcalls, but if you really can’t stop yourself then play it as

strong but not game-forcing

Such a bid would be absolutely forcing for one round, and highly encouraging for a second.

In practice, this means that it does not force to five of a minor.  The example hand above can finish in 3♥ opposite nothing, or 4♦ opposite not very much.

Two-suited hands

When you decide that you are ready to extend your repertoire then adopt either

Michael’s cue-bids

or

some other system of two-suited overcalls

These are discussed in their own section.

Advancer’s next bid

Context - overcaller - opponents opened one of a suit (natural).

This page last revised 22nd Jun 2020