[ahtan]

Hi, my partner and I recently encountered this. I’m wondering what is the generally agreed approach here.

In general, I’m looking for a suitable agreement for when your partner overcalls the opponent, you have an opening hand, no stops in opponents suit and no support for partners suit.

An example, let’s say that….

LHO opens the bidding 1C. My partner overcalls 1H. RHO passes.

Our agreement is that an overcall range is 8-16HCP. A change of suit at cheapest level is a non forcing bid.

The actual hand may vary, but the situation is opening hand, no support for partners suit and no stops in opponents suit. Let’s say I have an (say 13HCP) opening hand with a singleton H, 2 lousy clubs, 4 spades, and 6 diamonds. If I bid 2D, my partner may pass.

I tried this hand on the BBO bidding table, and the robot bid 2D as the advancer. But my problem is we may have a game with as little as 10HCP (LHO having most of the opponents strength). It seems to me changing the suit (non forcing) is not ideal. My partner says if I bid 3D (jump shifting) it may be too high, given the possibility of a 8hcp overcall. But I think it’s a risk not worth fussing over as it’s going to be uncommon (and 3D can make most of the time if passed).

[mike777]

Fwiw with your example hand .
Vul I would start with 2C.
NV much closer, probably 2D but close to 2C cuebid, very close.

[jillybean]

2C,cue bids are so useful. Partner can get out in 2H if he needs to.

[TylerE]

ahtan, on 2025-August-06, 17:52, said:

A change of suit at cheapest level is a non forcing bid.

All your problems ultimately stem from this unplayable agreement.

[smerriman]

TylerE, on 2025-August-06, 18:57, said:

All your problems ultimately stem from this unplayable agreement.

Unplayable is a bit extreme, given 2♦ being nonforcing is part of BWS and was still comfortably the majority opinion the last few threads I've seen on it on Bridge Winners..

[mw64ahw]

The Overcall Structure plays a mini lebensohl here so that 2♦ is forcimg and 1N asks partner to bid 2♣. Now you have a way to differentiate, but you lose the option to play in 1N, which on this occasion may be the optimal bid as you have the balance of points.
Here if 2♦ is forcing and I get a 2♥ response then I'm happy with passing.

[mikeh]

smerriman, on 2025-August-06, 19:42, said:

Unplayable is a bit extreme, given 2♦ being nonforcing is part of BWS and was still comfortably the majority opinion the last few threads I've seen on it on Bridge Winners..

While I personally prefer that a new suit by advancer is a one round force, I’d be quite happy playing it as non forcing. Do not confuse ‘non forcing’ with weak.

As I understand it, those experts who play it non forcing require it to be ‘constructive’. Partner is supposed to bid with anything much more than a minimum overcall.

As an example, it’s commonplace to overcall 1H, after 1m, with as little as AQJ9xx and out, if at mps and non vulnerable. So playing 1S as forcing goes long way to undoing any benefit from this overcall. xxx AQJ9x xxx xx, I’d happily pass 1S. Kxx AQJ9x xxx xx I’d happily bid 2S etc.

One way of reducing these issues is to adopt transfer advances of overcalls.

(1D) 1S (P) 2D shows hearts…unlimited….overcaller assumes it’s akin to a weak two and bids accordingly. Advancer can bid again with more…can jump, can cuebid, can bid notrump, can raise partners suit etc.

[Huibertus]

"A change of suit at cheapest level is a non forcing bid."

That is not playable. Make it forcing and your problem is solved.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

as stated by MiheH, nonforcing is playable and works.
We play xfer Advances, but not on the 1-level.

The main advantage of playing forcing is, that it helps to discover some 44 fits,
which can be missed. Playing nonfocing implies, that new suits show 5+.

The usual solution is to use the cue, as long as you have xx in p suit, playing at the
2 level wont be an issue. P will bid is suit, if he is broke.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

There are a lot of styles here. Other than transfers/switch/other artificial approaches, I prefer for changes of suits to be forcing and show 5(+) cards. This way the cue shows a fit, while changes of suit deny a fit (almost always). Showing or denying the fit can be crucial information for partner to evaluate their hand strength, especially if advancer is strong so overcaller is likely weak and shapely.

About a year ago I had an entertaining misunderstanding with a pickup partner over this. I don't remember the exact hands, but I will give the approximate hands at the end of the auction with explanations:

(1♣)-1♦-(P)-2♣*;
(P)-2♠-(P)-3♥;
(P)-4♦-(P)-4♥;
(P)-4♠-(P)-5♣;
(P)-5♦-a.p.

My interpretation, having overcalled 1♦, was:
1♦: 5(+)♦, approximately 9(+) points (this overcall in particular should be a bit conservative as it doesn't take away space, doesn't show a major suit and it's a pickup partnership).
2♣: Invitational(+) with a diamond fit.
2♠: I have a non-minimum overcall with spades alongside the diamonds.
3♥: Probing for 3NT and indicating a weakness in clubs. Likely 4 hearts. Cannot be 5(+), as those hands bid 1♥ the first round.
4♦: Sorry partner, no club stopper here, not even half a stopper (3♠), and no extras to take the lead. This is not forcing.
4♥: Control bid for 6♦.
4♠: Control bid for 6♦.
5♣: Control bid for 6♦.
5♦: No extras.

My partner's interpretation was:
1♦: 5(+)♦, approximately 9(+) points (this overcall in particular should be a bit conservative as it doesn't take away space, doesn't show a major suit and it's a pickup partnership).
2♣: The only forcing bid. Promises points, doesn't promise shape.
2♠: Reverse, extra strength. Forcing to game.
3♥: Showing 5(+) hearts, typically 6(+).
4♦: Rats, we're past 3NT.
4♥: Well, at least we can stop in my long suit.
4♠: A wheel has come off. But maybe partner is so strong we make slam?
5♣: You decide.
5♦: To play(?).

I held approximately ♠ATxx, ♥x, ♦KQxxxx, ♣Jx, partner held ♠Qx, ♥AKJTxx, ♦x, ♣KQxx. 5♦ was not great.

The two morals of the story are: 1) play the same agreements your partner plays. This is more important than anything else. 2) I place tremendous value on bidding shape. Forcing changes of suit help with this by immediately clarifying degree of fit and leaving room to explore other strains - notice how I upgraded my hand to the 2♠ bid based on an assumed 9-card diamond fit and working honours, which is a ridiculous overbid if 2♣ does not promise support. Non-forcing changes of suit can involve more all-or-nothing decisions. Conversely, forcing bids can well get you a level too high, and also push weaker shape hands into 'pass'. "Get to the right strain at the wrong level". Transfers solve these problems and combine the strengths of both approaches with some new and interesting (smaller!) weaknesses.

[awm]

The approach I’ve always taken is that “non-forcing constructive” means overcaller cannot pass with a full opening bid (but could pass with less). These calls normally have a range of approximately 10-14 (with less pass or 1nt, with more force to game via jump or cuebid). It’s true that you might land in a 23-point 3nt occasionally (like overcaller 8 opposite advancer 15) but this is the price you pay for wide-range overcalls (I think it’s worth it overall).

On the original hand I’d bid 2♦ and expect partner not to pass with (m)any hands that make game.

I agree that transfer advances are generally a good treatment provided both partners will remember them. Amusingly I once played a strong team match where both tables had a transfer forget in the same hand! My teammates took it off their card after that, dunno about the opponents.

[mikeh]

Playing in a sectional this weekend. Picked up xx A1097xx K10x xx

(1D) 1S (P)

This is a classic example of the power of transfer advances. The hand is far too weak to bid 2H opposite an overcall but is perfect for 2D, showing hearts, unlimited but partner assumes a weak 2H type.

Try bidding this hand (partner held KJx) without transfers.

[jillybean]

I could show this hand during the short time I was playing negative free bids.
Obviously plying transfers over interference gives you many other options to show your had. Time to try it.

Looking forward to seeing some hands from Nanaimo. I’m in Port Renfrew this weekend but not for bridge.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2025-August-10, 08:00, said:

Obviously plying transfers over interference gives you many other options to show your had. Time to try it.

Transfers in competition are really good, but also come with their own set of unique and new problems. Personally I would only recommend this to experienced partnerships. Be aware that it's not a panacea for competitive bidding problems, though I do think it's an improvement over natural options.
Also, there are many (many) variants of transfers in competition, with major differences between them. I'd be happy to share my own set, but more generally I recommend being a bit cautious here - I've run into people explaining 'the' way transfers work in competition, and this can lead to confusion.

[jillybean]

Thanks. One of my partners does play transfers so I should first see his system

[ahtan]

Thanks for all the replies! On reflection,

My thoughts....

A strong advancer hand is fairly rare. Therefore, a protocol that shows a strong advancer hand should be (A) easily memorized and not forgotten due to rarity and (B) does not sacrifice some other thing.

I saw suggestions of advancer transfers. I looked them up. To my mind, the main issue is that it sacrifices cuebid limit raises and natural bids.

I also saw a suggestion that new suit bids be forcing. It seems to me it sacrifices the ability to change suit when you are very short in partner's hand.

lastly, I see a suggestion that we should not forget that a new suit by advancer, if non-forcing, does not mean you should pass. In fact, you should treat it as constructive.

The last is the approach we will take. Its simpler and fits into what we know. We simply have to bear in mind that a new suit does not mean we should pass.

To summarize my position: After something like 1C-1H
- new suit bid has 0-2 cds in H, 5+ cds in the suit and is of "overcall strength" itself. Intervenor should pass with min or bid on with 11+ or so points himself.
- if you have a stopper, you may bid the suitable NT bid
- if you have a H support but less than 9 pts, just simply raise
- if you have H support but is 10+ pts, cue bid limit raise (2C in this case)
- if the advancer has a really strong hand (unlikely) of 16+ pts and cannot bid NT, then you can simply fake a cuebid limit raise, and rebid.

I think this covers it. The approach where a new suit is non-forcing but constructive may possibly miss a few games, but is going to be rare, and may be a problem faced by all relevant pairs in a duplicate anyway.

[ahtan]

Thanks all.

My partner and I have decided to stay with what we have: new suit is non-forcing and of overcall strength. Intervenor should remember to bid on constructively with good knowledge about the partnership shape and opponent's hand.

Mainly, its because its simpler, and we like our cuebid limit raises (so that transfer advances are out). Also, a strong advancer hand should be rarely encountered. We also think its slightly more common to encounter weakish (of min overcall strength) advancer hands with no support for partner but a long suit of one's own.

If we miss a few games because of it, well then c'est la vie! Not forgetting that other pairs in a duplicate will encounter the same problem.

[P_Marlowe]

ahtan, on 2025-August-11, 04:39, said:

<snip>
I saw suggestions of advancer transfers. I looked them up. To my mind, the main issue is that it sacrifices cuebid limit raises and natural bids.
<snip>

We play a xfer structure that still has the cuebid limit raise, and several natural bids.
The downside is, it is less symmetric, and not mainstream.

In the end it comes down, which bid is the first xfer bid, which is the last.

But simplicity rules, if you only play a limited amount, we only have one live,
and there is live besides bridge.

[Stephen Tu]

ahtan, on 2025-August-11, 04:39, said:

A strong advancer hand is fairly rare. Therefore, a protocol that shows a strong advancer hand should be (A) easily memorized and not forgotten due to rarity and (B) does not sacrifice some other thing.

I saw suggestions of advancer transfers. I looked them up. To my mind, the main issue is that it sacrifices cuebid limit raises and natural bids.

That's not true. Transfer advances don't sacrifice stuff. They just rotate the meanings of bids around, and in some cases allow more strength ranges to be shown because advancer gets to bid again after a transfer accept. Example: (1c)-1s-(p)-?. Playing transfer advances, you haven't lost the ability to show diamonds and hearts, you just transfer into them (technically you've lost the "natural bid" way to show them, but you can still show them), and now you get a 2nd call with more strength. And you haven't lost the cue LR either, those just go in the one-under 2H bid.


With transfer advances, depending on the suits involved, sometimes you don't get transfers into a particular suit. Like after (1d)-1s-(p)-? you can transfer into hearts and use 2h as your cue-LR+ of spades, but you don't get to transfer into clubs (since 1nt is valuable as natural, xfers don't begin until the cue bid). So you still have the issue of what to do with clubs. Personally, I just play 2c as constructive NF (similar to awm, sub-opener overcaller frequently pass), and bid 3c as forcing if advancer has the rare moose.

[DavidKok]

Stephen Tu, on 2025-August-11, 10:53, said:

That's not true. Transfer advances don't sacrifice stuff. They just rotate the meanings of bids around, and in some cases allow more strength ranges to be shown because advancer gets to bid again after a transfer accept.

That's false. Transfers definitely have some sacrifices and some gains. Personally when I started playing transfers in competition, in more situations than just advancing seat, I identified three primary benefits and four primary costs. There are more, but I think this is enough for a broad overview:

Advantages:

• NF new suits let you stop in any suit at the cheapest level. F new suits guarantee you get to show multi-suited hands and strong hands, and improve your chances of finding the best fit. Transfers offer a best of both worlds - and showing your suits even on relatively weak hands (if you so desire), and being able to stop at the cheapest level, and offering a rebid in case of a shapely or strong hand.
  
• In the case of transfer responses, not advances, it puts overcaller on lead more often. This means they are often leading away from strength, and certainly leading with less information than their partner.
  
• Using a cheaper bid to show a hand gives partner an extra step. They can, for example, use that freed up space for strength and/or shape clarification, which might be more difficult in natural systems. In this way transfers in competition can improve on the classical 'complete the transfer if you would have passed a NF response'.

Disadvantages:

• They can be a lot of work, especially if you only play them in some competitive situations, or have different agreements for different situations. Furthermore, a system forget is likely irrecoverable - partner will play you for a completely different suit than the one you actually have.
  
• While transfers allow you to bid more shape-oriented and with more hands, this also means you no longer have the inference that partner has a solid hand if they do use a transfer. If partner transfers and RHO bids (again), this creates new and unique competitive problems that require new skills to handle.
  
• Transfer always have to start somewhere, e.g. 'at their cuebid' or 'at 2♣' or 'at 1NT' or 'at (re)double'. That lowest call is sacrificed to enable the transfer responses, and usually gets tacked on at the end of the transfer bids. Normally, a little something is lost along the way - we can't fully take a cheap natural meaning and slot it in at a higher bid free of cost. Transfers claim to gain more on the rest than they lose here (and I agree), but e.g. people disagree on the value of a natural 1NT in competition or a natural redouble and this immediately results in different transfer schemes. This cost is real and needs to be managed somehow.
  
• We're not the only ones who can take advantage of that extra space - the opponents are listening too. They get the usual suite of double-then-pass, pass-then-double etc. as well as the cue bid (the suit we're showing, not bidding) that they wouldn't have available otherwise.