[pescetom]

Let's make this one progressive, seeing as there are so many replies these days

MP

---

Both sides playing 2/1 GF, 15-17 1NT.
Your call now?

[mw64ahw]

I have two options playing The Overcall Structure
X - 15+ intending to rebid ♠ to show the strength/length. This would a!so be my standard approach, but with a normal X.
2N - ♠ and another suit at least 54, 8.5 tricks in hand

I'll choose the X given the ♠ length, it is a takeout shape and an easy rebid

[smerriman]

I can't see any alternative to double.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-May-30, 15:54, said:

I can't see any alternative to double.

There are experts who overcall in suit with stronger hands than traditional bidding allows, just wondering (for now) if anyone draws the line this high.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2024-May-30, 16:00, said:

There are experts who overcall in suit with stronger hands than traditional bidding allows, just wondering (for now) if anyone draws the line this high.

I doubt you’d find many experts overcalling 1S. I’m a believer in Kokish’s ideas about overcalls, and I’ve happily overcalled on hands of (close to) this strength but never with the boss suit.

The reason for very strong overcalls is fear of not being able to control the auction should partner get aggressive in a suit in which we are short.

Say one has Kx x AKJxxx AQxx and RHO opens 1S. You double, LHO bids 3S on his weak hand with 4 spades and partner bids 4H (f you doubt a passed hand could bid that, make him unpassed). Now what? So you overcall 2D.

Here, it’s exceedingly unlikely that the auction will go beyond the 4 level before you get to bid after doubling, so the odds are that you’ll be able to show your suit and your power if you start with double.

[Cyberyeti]

I will overcall 1♠, partner will respond to this as if I'd opened 1♠ by our methods. With this particular hand it is less important as the heart finesse is likely to be right, but there are hands where we will make more tricks in clubs and there I would prefer to bid 1♠ then X than the other way round particularly if next stop is 5♦.

[DavidKok]

Start with double. We can control the auction with the boss suit, as mikeh explained.

[pescetom]

Ok so we double.

---

What do you bid now, and what should be the agreement about this and alternative bids?

[DavidKok]

1♠, showing a hand too strong to overcall in spades last round. Partner will raise us with a good fit or find another bid with a hand in the 5-8 range, so not much is at stake by taking it low (some perfect doubleton support 4-count maybe?). There's a case for 2♠ rather than 1♠, but I don't have any explicit agreements about this so I'll avoid bidding it.

Incidentally, 1♥ does not promise four hearts. It can be the smallest lie, for example on 3=3=4=3 or so. The EW silence is deafening: if they have some points and 9+ diamonds, why are they not bidding? Probably partner has 4-5 diamonds to go with their weak hand.

[mw64ahw]

Playing X as Power 1♥ would be 0-4 or 0-7 with a long minor, which defines the range better. In this case 1♠ would be a scramble for a suit so I bid 2♠
The South hand will wear at least 3♠, but 1♠ for me shows 19+ F1 in a standard approach and gives partner the opportunity to raise or rebid ♥s

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-May-31, 06:41, said:

1♠, showing a hand too strong to overcall in spades last round. Partner will raise us with a good fit or find another bid with a hand in the 5-8 range, so not much is at stake by taking it low (some perfect doubleton support 4-count maybe?). There's a case for 2♠ rather than 1♠, but I don't have any explicit agreements about this so I'll avoid bidding it.

Incidentally, 1♥ does not promise four hearts. It can be the smallest lie, for example on 3=3=4=3 or so.

I was indeed interested what people would agree (or at least take) 2♠ to be here.

Sure, the hearts can be three at worst. But the agreement is nominal 4+ cards and that 2♥ is still 4+ cards and only showing more strength (which I know you think is not optimal, maybe you could link that recent discussion here as I couldn't find it now).

[smerriman]

This is an old article and the formatting is a little broken but contains an interesting discussion on what experts consider forcing after a takeout double with opinions varying (e.g. Kit Woolsey says 2♠ is NF, some others F1).

I think 1♠ (NF) is sufficient here though as we need partner to have something useful.

pescetom, on 2024-May-31, 08:23, said:

Sure, the hearts can be three at worst. But the agreement is nominal 4+ cards

Why do you need to "nominally" agree a length - the agreement should just be it's your best suit. Incidentally, would you pass with a 2-2-7-2 Yarborough with the deuce through 8 of diamonds? Probably best but an interesting quandary - I wonder if there's any hand where responding in a doubleton is plausible.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-May-31, 14:01, said:

Why do you need to "nominally" agree a length - the agreement should just be it's your best suit.

The agreement is that it is your best suit, but you miss my point (probably non-obvious unless you followed the previous discussion). We play (as stated) that a jump bid by Advancer of takeout double shows strength but not extra length (could still be 4 cards). Davidkok outlined an interesting alternative scheme in a recent discussion, unfortunately I can't remember where.

[smerriman]

It was here; I didn't miss that but don't see how it had any relation to why you need to specify a nominal length for 1 level responses, which are identical either way.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-June-01, 13:53, said:

It was here; I didn't miss that but don't see how it had any relation to why you need to specify a nominal length for 1 level responses, which are identical either way.

Thanks for the link. The explanation was (doh) to explain the agreement, which involves length and strength.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2024-June-01, 14:36, said:

Thanks for the link. The explanation was (doh) to explain the agreement, which involves length and strength.

If the agreement is 4, then every time you have one of the hands where you have no choice but to show 3, to quote you..

pescetom, on 2024-May-23, 12:46, said:

More in general, how can it be programmed to alert and explain agreements that it does not play?
This is in blatant violation of the letter and spirit of the Laws.

But we're getting off topic

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-June-01, 15:10, said:

If the agreement is 4, then every time you have one of the hands where you have no choice but to show 3, to quote you..

But we're getting off topic

When you have a short space to explain something, you do it synthetically.
My system card says 4(3)+ cards.
The point of the explanation is the strength range and that there is no unusual promise about length.

I think we are unnecessarily and way off topic, which is (for now) what 2♠ would/should promise when 1♠ was available.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-June-01, 15:10, said:

If the agreement is 4, then every time you have one of the hands where you have no choice but to show 3, to quote you..

But we're getting off topic

When you have a short space to explain something, you do it synthetically.
My system card says 4(3)+ cards.
The point of the explanation is the strength range and that there is no unusual promise about length.

I think we are unnecessarily and way off topic, which is (for now) what 2♠ would/should promise when 1♠ was available.