[Chamaco]

Hi all,
just a question on overcall requirements.

BACKGROUND

I just read some weeks ago, in the book "Tournament ACOL", by Tim Bourke, his comment on the modern style of overcalls.

He states that, in the early days, one would make a takeout double planning to rebid his suit with a 5M332 16+ count, whereas today the modern tendency is to overcall 1M and double later.

Also, the introduction of weak jumpovercalls have reduced the way to show strong hand.

At the same time, many 1-level overcalls are as low as 6-7 hcp (e.g. KQJxx-xxx-xxxx-x will often overcall 1S, Non Vuln, vs a 1C opening).

The net result is a too wide range of 1M overcalls: 6/7 - 16/17, according to the tendencies of players.

Such a range is not optimal, and for such a reason Bourke suggests to overcall (if pard is unpassed hand) with close to opening values in terms of playing strength.


THE QUESTION

I wonder whether it may payoff to adopt to overcalls the same strategy adopted for Fantoni-Nunes openings when pard is unpassed hand:

a. 1-level overcalls are 1R forcing even in front of a yarborough, and promise a hand that will make game opposite a 10 count or equivalent; that usually means a minimum strength of 14+ or a very good, shapely 12/13.

b. jump overcalls at the 2 level promise a (good 9)10-13 hand

c. NON jump overcalls at the 2 level remain the same as in standard bidding


What is your assessment in terms of Pros and cons ?

[MickyB]

No reason to make overcalls 1RF IMO - you can start strong hands off with a double. At one point I played P-(1X)-1Y as showing an opening hand and made a WJO on anything weaker, but 5 card WJOs are more dangerous than 5 card weak twos IMO - a reopening double is almost automatic.

[Chamaco]

MickyB, on Jun 1 2005, 09:07 AM, said:

No reason to make overcalls 1RF IMO - you can start strong hands off with a double.

In general, yes.
But there are hands such as:

AKTxxx-x- AQxx-xx
OR
AKTxxxx-x- AQxx-x

These hands are unsuited for dbl + new suit (too low hcp content, potentially 2 places to play), and unsuited for a direct 1S (pard may pass) or 4S (slam can still be on).

This kind of hands can greatly benefit of being 1RF, as well as many 5332 hands with 15-16 hcp that would be shown with a forcing overcall at 1 level

[helene_t]

Sounds like the cure would be worse than the disease.

Those 9-14 HCP hands with a mediocre 5-card come up very often. You can't afford to pass, yet it is not completely safe to overcall at the two-level.

You may increase the lower end of the range in some situations, and you may play some gadgets against a 1♣ opening (transfer overcalls?). Rubin transfers solve a few of the problem you have with wide-range overcalls.

In general, partner will respond to your overcall with any 10 HCP hand. That may take you too high when you don't have a fit but then there's allways the chance that opp's will take over the auction.

I don't like off-shape t/o doubles but most of the times you have an alternative. With shortness in an unbid major, the risk that your 17-HCP overcall is passed out is modest. A heavy preemptive 4♥ or 4♠ may make partner make the wrong decision but it may also make opps make the wrong decision. Overcalling 1NT (you may have the agreement that 1NT shows 16-19 or even 17-20, at least against a minor suit opening) with a 5-card major (sometimes even with a 6-card) may be an option.

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Jun 1 2005, 09:40 AM, said:

Sounds like the cure would be worse than the disease.

Those 9-14 HCP hands with a mediocre 5-card come up very often. You can't afford to pass, yet it is not completely safe to overcall at the two-level.

Thanks Helene
Below are my considerations for the hand types you mention.
I'd appreciate further feedback from anyone on this point

My general idea to deal with the hands you refer to (e.g. 9-14 hcp hands with bad suit) would be, opposite an unpassed pard:

- overcall at the 1 level (forcing 1R) 14 hcp hands and GOOD, shapely 12/13 hcp hands (where GOOD = about 6.5 losers or better);
- pass hands worth less than an opening if they do not have a good suit; bidding a bad suit (that pard will lead) just because it's 5+ card does not seem a good idea even it it happens at the 1 level;


That leaves hands worth a bad opening bid (say 7 losers), say good 11- bad 13 or so.
Of course, if these hand have a good suit, that can be a candidate for opening at the 2 level.

If instead they do not have a good suit, they are usually:
a. balanced OR
b. offshape (wasted values in opps suit) OR
c. with the right shape for a t/o double

In many case, can be treated the same way as a 12-14 balanced hand.
So, just like a 12-14 balanced hand, you pass if offshape, ad make a t/o double if the shape allows for it.
The disadvantage of not showing directly a bad 5 carder and rather pass or double for takeout can turn into an advantage since pard will not make a bad lead.

Basically the idea is to downgrade a mediocre 5 bagger to a 4 bagger, and bid consequently.

[luke warm]

Chamaco, on Jun 1 2005, 03:11 AM, said:

AKTxxx-x- AQxx-xx
OR
AKTxxxx-x- AQxx-x

These hands are unsuited for dbl + new suit (too low hcp content, potentially 2 places to play), and unsuited for a direct 1S (pard may pass) or 4S (slam can still be on).

maybe you're right, mauro... it's a matter of judgment.. have you commented on klinger's rules for t/o doubles? his 'a, b, c' structure?

type A=12-15 (rule of 15) passes any response (assuming partner bids at cheapest level, doesn't cue, etc)...

type B=16-18, any type not suitable for 1nt overcall in that range, names new suit (no jump), raises advancer, etc...

type C=19+
........1) double + cheapest nt = 19-21
........2) double + jump in nt = 22-23
........3) double + jump raise or jump in new suit = 4 losers
........4) double + cue in opps' suit = 19+ and not sure of direction

on your example hands, the 1st can bid spades or michaels or top/bottom or something.. if you bid spades and partner passes, he passes.. the 2nd however, i think that has greater playing strength.. i'd x then bid spades, showing a type b double.. aamof, it's close (to me) to a type c double if you view the spade suit as self-sustaining

[hrothgar]

Did Bourke make any reference to improving the response structure used to advance partner's overcall?

From my perspective, there is a lot of "slop" in traditional response structures.
Improve these and you can safely support a wider overcall range.

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Jun 1 2005, 04:11 AM, said:

MickyB, on Jun 1 2005, 09:07 AM, said:

No reason to make overcalls 1RF IMO - you can start strong hands off with a double.

In general, yes.
But there are hands such as:

AKTxxx-x- AQxx-xx
OR
AKTxxxx-x- AQxx-x

These hands are unsuited for dbl + new suit (too low hcp content, potentially 2 places to play), and unsuited for a direct 1S (pard may pass) or 4S (slam can still be on).

X and rebid spades.

1) X and rebid spades showing type B 16-18 hcp or equivalent playing strength.
2) X and jump rebid spades showing type C hand or equivalent playing strength.

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Jun 1 2005, 02:56 PM, said:

on your example hands, the 1st can bid spades or michaels or top/bottom or something.. if you bid spades and partner passes, he passes.. the 2nd however, i think that has greater playing strength.. i'd x then bid spades, showing a type b double.. aamof, it's close (to me) to a type c double if you view the spade suit as self-sustaining

I think bidding X then new suit should show not only good playing strength, but also very good defensive strength, much more than these hands.

E.g., pard may double them if they bid on if he holds as little as 6-7 hcp and xxxx in opps suit, expecting a REAL 17+ count, not only equivalent shape :-)

Often itwill not possible to discriminate "typeC" long suit hand from real battleships, because opps will bounce high (so u cannot jump to show the suit, and threfore u cannot discriminate between a shapely 13 or a real 17/18+), and pard may double them when we have little quick tricks to conribute because we have "type C" double

But I guess it's only matter of pship agreements :-)

[mike777]

With the real battleships, I would often x and cuebid or x and bid game. With these long suits I can x and bid suits, most of the time. With just long suit and no defense, agree do not x. On these two hands I do have outside AQ.

Of course when it goes 1h=x=4h=;

we may have issues but heck, p heard me show spades and the opp preempt.
Where are all the HCP on that auction?

[luke warm]

Chamaco, on Jun 1 2005, 09:41 AM, said:

I think bidding X then new suit should show not only good playing strength, but also very good defensive strength, much more than these hands.

sorry mauro, i don't agree with this... you seem to be saying that t/o doubles must be relatively balanced... i agree this is the case (shortness in opps' suits) with the type a doubles, you plan on passing partner anyway... but not necessarily with the type b and c hands...

often you'll want to start with a double to show slam potential in an offensive hand... bidding the suit directly will seldom work with those hands, imo... it will be hard to convince partner of your playing strength... even a type b double on your first example hand is not wrong, imo, and type c will probably work more often than not on hand 2 (though it's close)

[pigpenz]

i think you have to look at the frequency hands come up that allow you to bid on.
Jon Twineham and Don Spaulding a california pair have advocated a system call the overcall structure, where they basically bid on nothing to be able to use the law of total tricks to bid to the max level as quickly as possible. One can find it by googling the "overcall structure".

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Jun 1 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

sorry mauro, i don't agree with this... you seem to be saying that t/o doubles must be relatively balanced...

Sorry Jimmy,
I understand sometimes my posts are chaotic, and my message is not really clear.

I am not saying that DBL+ new suit should be balanced;

It can be indeed one-suited BUT it should promise, say, 3-3.5+ DEFENSIVE tricks, (where AKQ in a long suit is at most one quicktricks, and KQJ in long suit is most likely to be ZERO QT, as the 2nd round of the suit will be ruffed by opps if they buy the contract).

So basically, I am saying it needs more or less 10+ hcp (or, better, 2.5+ QT) outside the longest suit.

------------
DBL + new suit should promise a substantial amount of defense if opps buy the hand.

As Justin writes in the above post, doubling with purely offensive hands can turn badly if opps jumpraise preemptively and pard decides to sit for a double, overstating or defensive potential trusting our t/o DBL.

[luke warm]

remember, you also have the 1nt overcall available for more balanced (usually translated, more defensive) hands.. the type b double falls within, or can fall within, the 1nt range, but short in opener's suit

again, it would be hard for partner to know of my strength, holding a rock crushing offensive hand, if i simply overcall.. but that's just my opinion

[inquiry]

I don't like the concept that a jump overcall be 9 to 13. For one thing, you make their play (defense or offense) a lot easier if you describe your hand so "accuarately". For another, it is sooooo much easier to double a two or three level contract when you jump overcall for penalty than not, and if you use it with that "point count range", you don't have safety in having six or seven in the bid suit (much of the time you will have five). Finally, I am not sure that will help you anyway, you will still want to overcall 1S with KQJx(x) and out... so you will have the light overcalls still, but now you have to decide waht to do with your 14/15/16 point hands. Not jump as that is not strong enough, simple overcall, you have not helped your cause much by removing the really weak ones.

If you are terribly worried about this, teach your partner to balance and pass a lot of the intermediate hands, making the overcall always sound or "lead directional". For me, I play a very wide range overcall indeed, but I do use shapely takeout doubles, and speciallized two suited overcalls.

Ben