[rbforster]

I've heard the conventional wisdom that

1. it's hard for good constructive continuations when partner opens 1♦ and they overcall 2♣, and consequently:
2. you should consider overcalling 2♣ over 1♦ on marginal hands

In part #1 is true since 4-4 major fits will be lost since lots of hands with 6+ points can bid a 4 card major. To bid over 2♣ however, responding hands need both majors and/or a major and club tolerance and often need enough values/shape to push to the 3 level. Clearly there are lots more hands of the former type than the latter. So there are losses by the opening side as a consequence of the preemptive effect of the 2♣ overcall.

What do you think about formalizing the suggestion #2 about marginal overcalls and just playing (1♦)-2♣ as a weak two bid in clubs? If you've got a normal club overcall, pass and await further developments. Surely this is not without risk, but it seems like you're more likely to have a bad hand with clubs than a good one given the opponents have already opened. Sure it might be the case that 2♣ was the best spot and it goes (1♦)-AP, but that's not too likely since these days both the responder to 1♦ and your partner are straining to bid something if it gets passed to them.

I'm sure there are lots of other competitive considerations (feel free to elaborate), but what do people think about the general idea of a preemptive/weak 2♣ bid?

[the hog]

#2 is a really bad idea. If you have a 2C bid then bid it!
2C overcalls should be aggressive, not totally insane, and you will gain more by overcalling on a variety of hand types than by the strategy you have suggested.

[han]

It seems to me that it is better to overcall with normal hands and to allow for a bit lighter hands than to create problems for yourself on the hands where you might actually have game.

[jdonn]

1♣ 2♦ creates similar problems, in fact even more. So I think that should be a weak two bid in diamonds to increase the frequency. Thoughts?

[pclayton]

What you say about (1D) 2C makes sense from a preemptive standpoint but you are taking a good idea too far when you suggest you should pass with a good hand.

Make it slightly wider ranging. You'll get the best of both worlds.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Mar 22 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

1♣ 2♦ creates similar problems, in fact even more. So I think that should be a weak two bid in diamonds to increase the frequency. Thoughts?

With my most regular partner we play (1♣) - 2♦ as a wjo in a major suit. (2♣ is natural and 2M is weak/strong Michaels).

With anyone else 2♦ is a wjo.

[paulg]

jdonn, on Mar 22 2008, 07:16 AM, said:

1♣ 2♦ creates similar problems, in fact even more. So I think that should be a weak two bid in diamonds to increase the frequency. Thoughts?

Old school thinking unbecoming of you, Josh

With the proliferations of short club systems, especially outside the ACBL, we all need to be able to overcall a natural 2♣ aggressively over 1♣. So 2♦ is needed to show the majors.

[rbforster]

pclayton, on Mar 22 2008, 02:21 AM, said:

What you say about (1D) 2C makes sense from a preemptive standpoint but you are taking a good idea too far when you suggest you should pass with a good hand.

True, surely this wouldn't be the first time I've suggested giving good club hands the shaft in favor of preempts

pclayton, on Mar 22 2008, 02:21 AM, said:

Make it slightly wider ranging. You'll get the best of both worlds.

I understand the argument for wider ranges - most people people take this to mean 9-18 instead of 11-18. I take this as a suggestion for 6-12 or so, which isn't wider really but much higher in terms of frequency. Weaker hands are much more likely - a 6 count is about as likely as a 13 count and that's without conditioning on the 1♦ opener (which obviously increases the weaker hand's odds). Sure if you pass with a 13-18 count you might miss game. But if you've got the weaker end of my suggested range, say 6-9 (hands that standard bidders aren't overcalling), it's a lot more likely it's the opponent's hand and you can cramp their auction. On a good day partner can raise your preempt to 3♣ and cause the opponents to misguess their strain even when it's their hand.

As an aside for overcall structure fans, it might not be too hard to include the better club hands in the power double of 1♦ (which is already 15+ balanced or 1 suited very strong). So you might try:

(1♦) -

X - 15+ points. Balanced, one suited clubs, or very strong one suited (not clubs)
1M - natural
1N - weak takeout of diamonds
2♣ - 7-14 weak/intermediate club overcall

(as usual, special higher bids- 2♦, 2♠, and 2N - take care of two suited hands with clubs and a shorter major)

Now when you've got a really strong club hand you need to jump after doubling, since just bidding clubs cheaply would show a typical sound club overcall. Of course these very strong club hands are pretty rare, and you've basically traded treating those auctions worse (due to the jump and lost space) in exchange for getting to bid the vastly more common 7-10ish weak club hands as overcalls. This seems like it might be a reasonable treatment. Adding the good club hands to double works much better in overcall structure than in standard of course since partner is expecting a NT hand rather than a distributional competitive hand.

[han]

I like Donn's suggestion, I might try it some time.

[gwnn]

I think Donn's suggestion is callous.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Mar 22 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

1♣ 2♦ creates similar problems, in fact even more. So I think that should be a weak two bid in diamonds to increase the frequency. Thoughts?

We actually play this as around 8-13 to increase the frequency. This range is more frequent than say 5-10. Perhaps something like 7-12 might be the most frequent if you are willing to have a range this wide.

Our other jump overcalls are intermediate 10-14 or so not vulnerable and 12-16 or so vulnerable.

[Cascade]

On (1♦) 2♣ ...

we don't have a jump overcall in clubs since 3♣ shows some specific two-suiter. As a consequence we play that 2♣ overcalls can be a bit lighter. As I stated in my other post I think (I might do the numbers later) that a range of around 7-12 or 8-13 will be the most frequent.

[pclayton]

Rob F, on Mar 22 2008, 06:58 AM, said:

As an aside for overcall structure fans, it might not be too hard to include the better club hands in the power double of 1♦ (which is already 15+ balanced or 1 suited very strong). So you might try:

(1♦) -

X - 15+ points. Balanced, one suited clubs, or very strong one suited (not clubs)
1M - natural
1N - weak takeout of diamonds
2♣ - 7-14 weak/intermediate club overcall

(as usual, special higher bids- 2♦, 2♠, and 2N - take care of two suited hands with clubs and a shorter major)

Now when you've got a really strong club hand you need to jump after doubling, since just bidding clubs cheaply would show a typical sound club overcall.

I've played a lot of OS, and I've had a lot of problems with making a power double with a strong single suiter, unless the hand is a moose.

You would make a simple club rebid after a PD with something like: AKx Ax xxx AKJxx wouldn't you?

[irdoz]

The link below is from Ulf Nilsson's blog. He argues for considering overcalling more often with weak suits.

http://viewsfromthebridgetable.blogspot.co...x-and-more.html

[Mbodell]

I think it also matters a lot if it goes P-1♦-? or just 1♦-? as if partner is a passed hand you can definitely widen your overcalls and jump overcalls on both sides (weaker and stronger) when you are confident game isn't making.

[dake50]

Is <1D> 2C to find C-fit and take space?
Or to claim a good source of tricks for 3NT try?
On frequency basis take space; on ambiguous 1C (2-7C,0-5D,0-5H,0-5S,12-22hcp) opener take space, but then what for 3NT try?

[Gerben42]

Quote

1♣ 2♦ creates similar problems, in fact even more. So I think that should be a weak two bid in diamonds to increase the frequency. Thoughts?

You mean it isn't? WJO are very common in most countries...

[han]

It was a joke Gerben.