[jillybean]

---

You have a good heart raise, which cue do you use?

I have played it as Cue over, Natural under
and have heard of it being played as
cheapest cue invitational, other cue GF

[awm]

For me both cuebids are raises; 2♠ is stronger (would be game force opposite an opening but not always game force opposite an overcall) while 2♣ is a limit raise.

[DavidKok]

On this start I play the following bids as raises. Note that I'm giving the quick approximate description, in truth the length of the suit and strength of the hand are not absolute, but writing it out in full would take a lot of time.

• 2♣: Invitational(+) 3-card raise.
  
• 2♥: Competitive 3-card raise.
  
• 2NT: Invitational(+) 4-card raise.
  
• 3♣: Mixed 4-card raise.
  
• 3♦: Fitbid (4(+)♥, decent 5(+)♦, competitive strength for 3♥).
  
• 3♥: Preemptive 4-card raise.
  
• 3♠: Spade splinter.
  
• 4♣: Club splinter.
  
• 4♦: Fitbid (4(+)♥, decent 5(+)♦, competitive strength for 4♥).
  
• 4♥: Preemptive 5-card raise/shutout bid.

There are not that many hand types left that wish to support but cannot make use of one of these bids - you could consider making room for a clubs fitbid if the 1♣ opening is frequently a doubleton, but I do not. Note that 2♠ is not on there - I simply don't need it as another raise, and so my agreement is that it is natural and not forcing. Here, where 1♠ showed 5 cards, that's a wasted bid - I can't remember ever wanting to play in spades on this start. But I don't need it for a raise either, and that's what my simple rules in competition say, so for me it's natural.

[jillybean]

Thanks

[harikannan]

Thanks to OP for the question and David for a comprehensive answer. Don't intend to hijack the thread, still, will the same logic apply when partner had made a take out double instead of an overcall? Or, 2S be natural spades given the possibility of psyche by the responder? Thanks.

[jillybean]

awm, on 2025-September-13, 23:00, said:

For me both cuebids are raises; 2♠ is stronger (would be game force opposite an opening but not always game force opposite an overcall) while 2♣ is a limit raise.

What is the minimum your partner will hold for her 1♥ overcall?


harikannan, hijack all you like. Good question

[awm]

We tend to assume that our overcalls have a range of around 8-16 points. In practice we will sometimes bid with less than this (especially with a suit we really want lead and/or a lot of shape) and will also sometimes bid with more than this (typically a hand which is very short in an unbid major and afraid of being hung if we make a power double).

I will note from David's response that in Europe, it is very popular to play that a 2NT advance of overcall shows a good 4+ card raise. This is not so common in North America (from my experience). The hand type you lose by doing this is a non-fitting balanced 13-15 or so, where you are too heavy for a 1NT advance but not strong enough to force game opposite an overcall. You can perhaps get around this by playing forcing new suit advances (not very standard but they have some following), and of course with opener's partner bidding you could also potentially include this sort of hand in double (although in North America Snapdragon is much more common), or you could just hope it doesn't come up (would be reasonable if opponents always have values for their bids, but that's not always true in the modern era).

[P_Marlowe]

harikannan, on 2025-September-14, 07:46, said:

Thanks to OP for the question and David for a comprehensive answer. Don't intend to hijack the thread, still, will the same logic apply when partner had made a take out double instead of an overcall? Or, 2S be natural spades given the possibility of psyche by the responder? Thanks.

If you replace 1H with a T/O call

#1 2S would be natural, showing 5+, X would also show spades, a strong 4 carder.
It is also common, that 1S denies 4 or 5 spades, not a psych, but an agreement, and you will get an
alert, if the alert is req. by the local organization.

#2 You could play the lower cue as showing the lower suit, the higher cue as showing the higher suit,
better hands, than bidding the suit directly, similar to unsual vs. unsual
We did play this for a while, but changed back, in the end it does not come up often, it depends
also on the strength of the T/O ( make the T/O bidder facing a p, that had already the chance to
bid ... and if you are ok to lower the strength req., the cue will help you tighten the ranges ).

It does not really matter, psychs are rare, but your area / experience may differ, when all bid, the
points are roughly equal, i.e. better hand become rare.

With regards to the original q: without add. agreement, I would assume the cheaper cue, to be the fit showing
cue.

[DavidKok]

awm, on 2025-September-14, 13:32, said:

I will note from David's response that in Europe, it is very popular to play that a 2NT advance of overcall shows a good 4+ card raise. This is not so common in North America (from my experience). The hand type you lose by doing this is a non-fitting balanced 13-15 or so, where you are too heavy for a 1NT advance but not strong enough to force game opposite an overcall. You can perhaps get around this by playing forcing new suit advances (not very standard but they have some following), and of course with opener's partner bidding you could also potentially include this sort of hand in double (although in North America Snapdragon is much more common), or you could just hope it doesn't come up (would be reasonable if opponents always have values for their bids, but that's not always true in the modern era).

I can't speak for all of Europe. However, I can share my own experiences:

• Overcalls are light these days. Openings and responses are also light, but not the main source for concern - that's why I like to ask my question about what partner does when given ♠AQ9xx, ♥xx, ♦xxx, ♣xxx and RHO opens 1♣. 2NT isn't safe with 13-15 opposite.
  
• Normally I play my changes of suit forcing, also by advancer. I find that it doesn't just help on the strong hands, it's also better for finding the right strain. As a cost, sometimes we get too high. In practice I find it much too difficult to diagnose when a pass of a free bid is best and when I should introduce my second suit or return to my first one, so I think the ability to pass partner's bid isn't all that valuable...
  
• ...except when third seat also bid. When we're fourth to act and the other three players have made non-pass calls I play new suits as NF. The rationale is simple and statistical: give opener 11+, partner 7+ for the overcall, responder 6+ for their action, and we can't have all that much in our own hand (and when we do, partner must have a minimum). And while it's possible that any or all of the bids were even weaker than these limits, it's a terrible parlay bet to aim for two or more of them to hold a minimum. By frequency it's just sensible to treat our hand as limited, and pay up on the big hands.
  
• But even granting that we hold a 13-15 balanced hand, and that partner's overcall is likely heavy enough that 2NT has reasonable protection, it's still not clear that it's a great bid. We might well choose to defend (we get another bid, responder's action was forcing, or if it was 1NT we can whack it for penalties) with our misfit and the assumed balance of strength, or resort to blast-or-pass.

Combining this, I think a natural 2NT in this auction is both rare and not a real solution to the problem. I'm happy to do without.¹

The hand type is much more relevant when responder passes, and here I play forcing changes of suit but occasionally have to blast-or-pass. Transfers would solve this at a low cost, but I (currently) don't play them.

This follows a general theme: when we have a misfit, stay low and flexible. This part is more meant for people less familiar with these raise structures than awm, but I'll spill some ink on it regardless:
Of all the calls in this scenario from pass and double through 4♥, only six do not show a fit for me: 'pass', 'double', '1NT', '2♦', '2♠' and '3NT'. This is not a coincidence, but a design choice to satisfy two requirements simultaneously:

• We need a lot of raises, anticipating the contested auction. With a big fit this might be our last chance to describe the hand, so we need a lot of accurate ways to show our type of raise.
  
• On misfit deals we need the flexibility, and our safety level is lower (notice how the 3-card raises are also below 2♥, the 4-card raises below 3♥ etc.). I don't need multiple ways to show a potential misfit hand, instead I need the remaining bidding space after my (cheap) change of suit to find our best strain.

This second point also motivates playing forcing changes of suit while the hand is unlimited. Compress all the potential misfit hands into cheaps bid showing their shape, so that the rest of the system is free to clarify degree of fit. Transfers are even better for this purpose, permitting forcing bids that can still be quite weak.

¹Now, as it is, I actually don't love 2NT as the "4(+) card invitational(+) raise". Instead I think it's better to play that 2NT sets up a forcing pass, while 2♣ does not. This is approximately the same as putting the 3-card strong raises through 2♣ and the more shapely ones through 2NT, but it's not quite identical. What's more, defining a bid by the continuations means there won't be confusion about when a forcing pass is (not) in effect. And lastly, the requirements automatically adjust to seating, vulnerability, and the auction thus far!

[awm]

I think it’s interesting that people are so worried that opponents will open on air and respond on air that they want a natural 1nt available in sandwich position… yet they seem to give up on game in a lot of competitive auctions after both opponents bid (like here, with no real way to show a good non-fitting hand) and argue that since “both opponents showed values we probably don’t have game on power.”

It doesn’t seem entirely consistent to me.

In this auction i think a natural 2nt has more utility than a natural 2♠ bid (admittedly neither is very frequent). But perhaps it’s easier to remember that “2nt is always a raise” (In my case it’s easy enough to remember that 2nt is never a raise if opponents have bid a suit though).

[DavidKok]

awm, on 2025-September-14, 15:31, said:

I think it’s interesting that people are so worried that opponents will open on air and respond on air that they want a natural 1nt available in sandwich position… yet they seem to give up on game in a lot of competitive auctions after both opponents bid (like here, with no real way to show a good non-fitting hand) and argue that since “both opponents showed values we probably don’t have game on power.”

It doesn’t seem entirely consistent to me.

I agree, though I'll take the modus tollens to your modus ponens: the natural 1NT in the sandwich can go at low cost.

awm, on 2025-September-14, 15:31, said:

In this auction i think a natural 2nt has more utility than a natural 2♠ bid (admittedly neither is very frequent). But perhaps it’s easier to remember that “2nt is always a raise” (In my case it’s easy enough to remember that 2nt is never a raise if opponents have bid a suit though).

Here I completely agree, my 2♠ bid is as good as worthless and I only play it because of consistent meta-rules for competitive auctions. I like the rest of the system though.

[bluenikki]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-September-14, 13:34, said:

psychs are rare

But bidding worthless 4-card suits seems not to be rare.

[P_Marlowe]

bluenikki, on 2025-September-14, 19:07, said:

But bidding worthless 4-card suits seems not to be rare.

I agree, ..., although it is also quite common to play 1S as showing 5+.
I am sure, the optimal method would take the promised length into account.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-14, 15:16, said:

I can't speak for all of Europe.

Here in Italy your scheme could be taken for granted with most decent pickup partners, except that there is no standard for 3♦ and 4♦ would be a splinter (if your different definition was intended).