Competitive Bidding

Recently, I engaged in a post mortem with partner about the meaning of various available calls to overcaller in the following auction (both sides vulnerable if you believe that makes a difference):

My suggestion is that overcaller’s choices are based upon his answers to two questions: (1) does overcaller’s side have game potential?; and (2) what is the offense-to-defense orientation of overcaller’s hand, given the original overcall of 1♠?

If there is a potential for game, overcaller can choose to bid game or to bid a non-spade suit to draw partner into the decision.   A bid of 3♦ would show a second suit (two-suiter) and a bid of 3♣ or 3♥ would likely show a stopper in the bid suit and ask partner to consider 3NT or otherwise best describe his hand.  On some hands, overcaller might choose to bid a second suit even if later planning on bidding game, just in case partner needs to make a decision at the five level.

If there is not potential for game, overcaller can, within the context of a hand that had overcalled 1♠, double with a hand with a low offense-to-defense orientation, bid 3♠ with a hand with high offense-to-defense orientation, and Pass with a hand with a non-extraordinary offense-to-defense orientation.

FWIW, my hand was KQ9765, 3, Q987, 73, and I overcalled 1♠ and then bid 3♠ over the 2♠ cue bid.  (Our being vulnerable and the opponents not having a fit induced me to fail to jump to 2♠.)  Our side can make eight tricks at spades; the opponents can make eleven tricks at hearts.  That happens to be one or more fewer than Law of Total Tricks might suggest, because each side had a ten card fit in one major and an eight card fit in one minor.  (In a spade contract there was an easy-to-find ruff available to the defense in the minor suit of overcaller’s eight card minor suit secondary fit.)