[Phil]

gwnn, on 2011-June-28, 10:11, said:

sorry, it's me again... this was the thread I was thinking about

http://www.bridgebas.../27250-balance/

the hand in question was AT9xx QJTx x xxx, 2nd hand all vul imps over 1♦.

Gwnn gets an auto upvote for fishing out these great old threads.

[Free]

gwnn, on 2011-June-28, 10:11, said:

sorry, it's me again... this was the thread I was thinking about

http://www.bridgebas.../27250-balance/

the hand in question was AT9xx QJTx x xxx, 2nd hand all vul imps over 1♦.

Is it me or is this link something completely different? Proves that the upvoters didn't even click on it.

Btw, imo the hand you're describing is completely different from the one Han posted. It's unbalanced, it's short in opener's suit, and it has no rebid problems whatever partner bids. So yeah, it's useful to keep posting these hands, but the arguments are indeed always the same.

[Phil]

Free, you have to read the thread. The hand with AT9xx of spades was balancer's partner.

[whereagles]

much better intermediates and playing strength in that hand, csaba. clear overcall here.

[the hog]

This hand is a clear pass for me. A holding of 3 small in the opened suit and 2 unsupported Queens make for a very poor hand. This piece of trash bears little resemblance to some of the other hands from other threads; the arguments are similar though.

[dake50]

The point is not "is this an overcall?"
but can partner/your response scheme handle this light a hand.
Show your response scheme if you overcall.
How minimum can my minimum rebid be?

[MrAce]

1♥ for me.

[mike777]

I find these overcall questions great.

I was taught that vul overvcalls=opening hands even lite opening hands.

I see many good players overcall on less.

[JLOGIC]

I'd probably pass, it is close. I would much rather overcall AT9xx QJTx x xxx

[JLOGIC]

That might surprise people, especially given some of my posts in the other threads. I think that I've gotten much more careful about overcalling at the 1 level vul at imps on the garbage balanced defense hands, this is the type of hand we might get hit for a number when they don't make anything (something like 1C 1H p 2H X p p p will be very bad), and it's the type of hand where it's unlikely we must bid to get in on a double partial or game hand, which should be our main goal when overcalling vul at imps (to win a partscore or game swing that we otherwise would not win). Allowing partner to preempt heavily is probably not necessary, we are not stealing with a hand like this. The only thing it has going for it is a good suit, maybe the lead director will come in handy. But, it might also allow them to pick off our queens during the play when they declare the hand, depending on how early they have to guess it (maybe there will be enough possible high cards that they'll go with distributional clues...but when we have TWO queens probably one guess will be able to be delayed). Given our queens, we can handle any natural lead partner can make, and we don't have a heart spot, so perhaps a heart lead will not be good anyways.

A hand like AT9xx QJTx x xxx offers much more chance of winning a good partscore swing by overcalling (we have a promising hand opposite a fit, and we have shortness in their suit), and also might be necessary for us to bid if we have a game (opposite some Kx Kxxxx xxxx Ax hand type). The upside there is way more promising to me.'

At their core we always want bids to serve some purpose, with the rewards outweighing the risks...yes we usually don't think about this in the early rounds of the auction since it's too early, but I think it's a valid way to think about hands like this.

[han]

My partner passed at all vulnerable. I had Kxxx Qxx A10x Axx but with the cards lying very poorly 2H would have gone down. The opponents ended up in 1NT which also went down 1, so passing led to a good result. I was a bit ashamed of it but I ended up agreeing with my partner's pass, there's just too little upside. I agree with JLOGIC that this hand is entirely different from the AT9xx QJTx x xxx hand in the earlier thread.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2011-June-28, 23:11, said:

At their core we always want bids to serve some purpose, with the rewards outweighing the risks...yes we usually don't think about this in the early rounds of the auction since it's too early, but I think it's a valid way to think about hands like this.

I think this says it all.
Even if you do not belong to the school, which thinks a vulnerable overcall should approach opening values (I don't) it is not really a matter how light you can be. It is a matter of hand evaluation.
Those, who over-call here just like to hear themselves and their over-calls do not serve any purpose.
I do not understand how their partners can make reasonable decisions thereafter, in particular if they do not get the rest of the bidding for themselves, which seems likely when you are weak.

For me it is not close.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

Quote

Those, who over-call here just like to hear themselves and their over-calls do not serve any purpose.

Are these generalisations and near-personal attacks really necessary Rainer?

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2011-June-29, 04:24, said:

Are these generalisations and near-personal attacks really necessary Rainer?

What are "near-personal attacks"? Did I miss you?

I said before that the over-callers did not give any arguments for their action. You responded with generalisations why one might over-call in the abstract. They all do not fit this hand. That's why I said it is a matter of hand evaluation.

Read JLOGIC comments. I am only surprised he still considers it close.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

A near-personal attack is something that is slightly insulting and unfair, but it is probably not something that was meant to insult. However, this is a definition that I just made up now for an expression I've never heard before and used it for the first time.

If you insist: for me personally, most important on this hand and others like it is the lead directing effect and the nuisance value. I hope partner will bid 2♥ and make it harder for them slightly. I also tend to get worse results when opponents bid and raise a suit than when they pass and pass. Of course, this does not mean that I overcall on all hands. In fact, this hand is quite minimum for an overcall - I find it close. However, this makes me a person who only likes to hear himself and my overcalls have no purpose at all. I guess people who find it close but pass are people who like to hear themselves very much, but not exclusively, and their overcalls serve a bit of a purpose, albeit not a lot.

edited to add this short paragraph: what I was saying all along is that it would not be so productive for me to write to this thread "I will bid 1♥ here for nuisance value" and next time about Jx AJxxx Qxx xxx or something "I will pass here because I might go for a number and I will help them play the hand". The factors are the same but they apply to just a little bit different proportions. Some people say things like "this hand has 23.4 adjusted ZAR's and at this vulnerability I need 23.5, so I pass" - it would be cool if there were such a system, but there isn't really and such exact, rational calculations are not generally well-received in bridge.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2011-June-29, 04:58

[han]

gwnn, on 2011-June-29, 04:51, said:

A near-personal attack is something that is slightly insulting and unfair, but it is probably not something that was meant to insult.

I don't agree with this definition, it has nothing to do with personal, and neither had rhm's post.

[gwnn]

Fair enough. My definition and probably also my choice of words were sloppy. I would like to change it to "a hasty and slightly insulting generalisation" I am still trying to come up with a non-personal insult, but I don't like debating semantics that much. Do you also agree with his view that anyone who bids 1♥ (whether they think it's close or not) only like to hear themselves and their overcalls serve no purpose?

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2011-June-29, 06:37

[han]

No, perhaps this view of rhm is typical for those that think a vulnerable overcall should be more or less an opening hand. There are still plusses for overcalling with this hand. There is a good chance that hearts is the best lead, or that a competitive auction makes it harder for the opponents. I just think that the minusses outweigh the plusses.

I would overcall when non-vulnerable, or when holding Qx AJ10xx Qxx xxx or xx AJxxx K10xx xx. Probably my opinion will again change in a few years, at least I hope so. My style also depends on the opinion of my partner, and my current partner is considerably more conservative in these matters than I am.

[JLOGIC]

rhm, on 2011-June-29, 04:45, said:

Read JLOGIC comments. I am only surprised he still considers it close.

Rainer Herrmann

Meh, I'm still not in love with 1C-1N all pass or 1C-1S-1N all pass or auctions of that nature. And I pretty much am one of those people you talked about that likes to overcall at the 1 level with any excuse, it's been a winning style to me. At one point I was the most aggressive good player I knew of when it came to that, until Han surpassed me It's funny that we both pass now. Still, if we miss a 5-4 heart fit or a lucky 5-3 heart fit that fits well, it's possible to lose a partscore swing by passing. And of course missing the heart lead might end up badly, so I do consider it close, and if you changed the hand much I'm sure I would bid.

Also white/red I would hate to play a style where it's a pass, and would guess that it's a losing style (obv I cannot know this for a fact and might be wrong, but thats my opinion). Maybe this is obvious, but vulnerability is really a huge factor for decisions like this. Even though everyone understands that, I think it is generally MASSIVELY understated how important it is. I also used to think that vulnerability did not matter for opening bids, a hand is either an opening bid or it isn't and responder is the one who adjusts for vulnerability, but I no longer believe that to be true.

[OleBerg]

han, on 2011-June-29, 06:13, said:

I don't agree with this definition, it has nothing to do with personal, and neither had rhm's post.

Agree with han, the post was not personal. It was genarally arrogant, but thats not personal.