2C overcall results in -800

[jillybean]

I played this hand in a team game on BBO today, a good reminder why a vulnerable 2♣ overcall should be made a solid 6 card suit.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt987hqt54dqtca7&w=s4hj2dak953ckj865&n=skqha8dj842cqt942&e=sa6532hk9763d76c3&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp1d2cxppp]399|300[/hv]

[Cthulhu D]

I'm not sure 5 card overcalls at the 2 level are bad intrinsically, the problem is that you have the tri-defecta. A rubbish hand, a rubbish suit and rubbish breaks.

[barmar]

I was operating the Vanderbilt Semi-Final Vugraph today, and a world-class player made what I thought was a normal 2♣ overcall. He had about 13 HCP and the suit was AKQTx. His partner even had 987 support for him. But Jxxx was behind him, the defense was accurate, and he went for 800.

[jillybean]

I'm not sure 5 card overcalls at the 2 level are bad intrinsically, the problem is that you have the tri-defecta. A rubbish hand, a rubbish suit and rubbish breaks.

After a number of disasterous 2♣ overcalls made on 5 card suits and advice from experienced players, I am convinced that a 6 card suit is needed for these overcalls. Sure there are exceptions but I think it is a good guideline. This hand is particularly bad (I'm West here) but a hand I would have blindly overcalled with in the past.

[aguahombre]

We like to bid 2C over 1D a whole lot, and it seems to reap good results. Having the sixth club is nice, but we like to make that overcall more often.

 

This hand, at these colors, with human partners is the trifecta against doing it on this occasion.

[jmcw]

This is a horrible overcall which got what it deserved IMO.

Agree with Aqua that bidding 2!c/1!D is likeable, but this is way too much of a stretch.

 

I don't think it needs the "trifecta" to make it a bad call, it's just bad.

[HighLow21]

After a number of disasterous 2♣ overcalls made on 5 card suits and advice from experienced players, I am convinced that a 6 card suit is needed for these overcalls. Sure there are exceptions but I think it is a good guideline. This hand is particularly bad (I'm West here) but a hand I would have blindly overcalled with in the past.

The number of cards is not essential. The number of likely tricks is essential.

 

♠A8

♥3

♦JT732

♣KQJT8

 

This is anyone's 2♣ overcall.

 

♠AJ

♥QT

♦Q93

♣KJ8532

 

This is probably NOT a 2♣ overcall. Even though it is 2 HCP stronger and has an extra club.

 

If you'd like a further explanation of why, I'd be happy to provide it.

 

The original hand in question is definitely not an overcall.

[aguahombre]

The number of cards is not essential. The number of likely tricks is essential.

 

♠A8

♥3

♦JT732

♣KQJT8

 

This is anyone's 2♣ overcall.

 

♠AJ

♥QT

♦Q93

♣KJ8532

 

This is probably NOT a 2♣ overcall. Even though it is 2 HCP stronger and has an extra club.

 

If you'd like a further explanation of why, I'd be happy to provide it.

Probably better to have stuck with your first example and left the second one out.

[HighLow21]

Probably better to have stuck with your first example and left the second one out.

Fair point; I guess my point is that the 1st overcall is definitely better than the 2nd one because it is less dangerous.

[gwnn]

I like overcalling on 5-card suits on the 2-level but not with 5332 and not without at least some reason. I also like to overcall with a lot of crappy hands with 6-card suits, definitely yes on the one HighLow gave above. I don't have huge success stories to share with you, but I do like it that I don't have to think about balancing later in the auction and it often makes defence easier (negative inferences from partner's failure to raise, for example). Of course, sometimes auctions are made easier because RHO doubles and LHO leaves it in, but it really doesn't happen that often.

 

edit: note that if your partner likes to overcall on sick hands, it makes sense to run more freely when opps double him/her. Of course, this also depends on the tempo of the auction (from the opps' side!).

[aguahombre]

Highlow: your second example has practical implications, beyond theoretical examination. The subtractors on it might be offset a whole bunch by the value of messing with their auction, for instance; or, we might stumble into a Meckwell 3NT making.

[HighLow21]

Highlow: your second example has practical implications, beyond theoretical examination. The subtractors on it might be offset a whole bunch by the value of messing with their auction, for instance; or, we might stumble into a Meckwell 3NT making.

I understand the obstructive value of overcalling while bypassing both majors and NT. It can also lead to a great contract by our side, either in clubs or NT.

 

It can be a huge win to do this with this 2nd hand, I fully agree.

 

The topic of this thread seems to be primarily about the safety consideration in deciding whether to overcall, and what I was trying to demonstrate was how much more unsafe the 2nd example is, in spite of the higher HCP count and the additional club.

 

The first example is safe almost 100% of the time. The 2nd is a lot riskier in spite of the 6-card suit.

[Statto]

For me, the predominant reason for not overcalling with the OP hand is that it has a lot of defence (e.g. against a ♦ contract) and bugger all offence with ♦ having been bid on my right. NV I would probably overcall for the pre-emptive value.

 

Or viewed another way, the high cards are all in the short suits, which does not a good hand make.

[HighLow21]

For me, the predominant reason for not overcalling with the OP hand is that it has a lot of defence (e.g. against a ♦ contract) and bugger all offence with ♦ having been bid. NV I would probably overcall for the pre-emptive value.

The length in diamonds and lack of values in diamonds are actually offensive assets. It suggests a club fit most of the time, which happens not to be the case here.

 

I would prefer to move the JD to clubs (immensely) in exchange for a small club becoming a small diamond, but losing a jack is a small loss. (The implication of an additional potential trump trick loss is immense, though!)

 

That said, the rest of the hand screams defense. Soft honors in majors. Poor suit. Decent but not great overall shape. Plenty of reasons why overcalling can go awry whenever the hand overall is a semi-misfit. And this hand is a bad overall misfit. I hate letting them take me down at all when they have no contract. Down 3 vulnerable, doubled, in a partscore, breaks my heart.

 

-800 without a game on for them is actually extremely unlucky. Much more common is -200 or -500 while they STILL don't have a game on. But I'm also guessing on this hand that there was some sort of misdeclaration, as I cannot conceive how the defense can take 8 tricks.

[Statto]

The length in diamonds and lack of values in diamonds are actually offensive assets.

The lack of values, yes, but not the length. It's length that would be better placed in a more useful suit, one that opps have not bid.

[HighLow21]

The lack of values, yes, but not the length. It's length that would be better placed in a more useful suit, one that opps have not bid.

See Mike Lawrence's book on overcalls. Length (4+) in the opening suit (especially an opening to your right) is an offensive asset, especially without minor honors (this one has J, bad but better than Q), because it suggest shortness in that suit with, and therefore trumps with, partner. Thus, 2♣ is a better overcall after a 1♦ opening that 1 of either major. (It is also better because of the obstructive value of skipping so many responses by LHO.)

 

In order of preference, roughly, are the following holdings in RHO's opening bid suit, in terms of whether to overcall:

- 5+ with A or no honors at all

- 5+ with K

- a void

- 5+ with minor honors

- 4+ with AQ, AK, or A

- 4+ with minor honors and no ace

- 2 cards with AK, Ax or Kx

- 1 card (A or x)

- 2 cards xx

- 2 or 1 cards with minor honors (Qx, QJ, Jx, K, Q, J)

- 3 cards Axx

- 3 cards xxx

- 3 cards QJx

- 3 cards with Q or J but not both. Terrible.

 

With less and less length in opener's suit, a stronger overcall suit is more essential, because more shortness in the opening suit decreases the likelihood of partner having fitting length and/or strength. (It also increases the chance of partner having wastage in the opening suit.)

[HighLow21]

deleted

[Statto]

... it suggest shortness in that suit with, and therefore trumps with, partner ...

Agree it is more likely partner will be short in that suit, so there may be fewer losers. But it in no way makes it more likely partner will have more trumps.

[HighLow21]

If partner has fewer diamonds, he has more non-diamonds. Therefore, more likely, he has some number of clubs. When he has 2 diamonds (as here, about average in this spot), his expectation is slightly more than 3 clubs. Voila: a sufficient trump suit.

[655321]

 

♠A8

♥3

♦JT732

♣KQJT8

 

This is anyone's 2♣ overcall.

 

♠AJ

♥QT

♦Q93

♣KJ8532

 

This is probably NOT a 2♣ overcall. Even though it is 2 HCP stronger and has an extra club.

 

 

I admit I would always overcall the first hand NV, but vulnerable it doesn't seem quite as clear to me.

 

And the second example, although it is not a terrific hand, I would always overcall 2♣ even when vulnerable.

 

So I don't agree with your rankings.

 

 

See Mike Lawrence's book on overcalls. Length (4+) in the opening suit (especially an opening to your right) is an offensive asset, especially without minor honors (this one has J, bad but better than Q), because it suggest shortness in that suit with, and therefore trumps with, partner.

 

Try searching the forums for replies to this one.

[Statto]

In order of preference, roughly, are the following holdings in RHO's opening bid suit, in terms of whether to overcall:

- 5+ with A or no honors at all

...

One reason to overcall with the longer holdings is hoping to push opps up a level then sit back and defend.

 

With less and less length in opener's suit, a stronger overcall suit is more essential, because more shortness in the opening suit decreases the likelihood of partner having fitting length and/or strength. (It also increases the chance of partner having wastage in the opening suit.)

Partner is just as likely to have a fit regardless of your length in RHO's suit. Mike Lawrence if he said otherwise is wrong here. However I agree with the point about it being more likely partner has wastage in the suit.

 

Having shortage in openers suit has other advantages. Or put another way, having length in the other suits has advantages. If partner bids her own 5-card suit, she's more likely to find your hand fitting.

[HighLow21]

I admit I would always overcall the first hand NV, but vulnerable it doesn't seem quite as clear to me.

 

And the second example, although it is not a terrific hand, I would always overcall 2♣ even when vulnerable.

 

So I don't agree with your rankings.

 

Try searching the forums for replies to this one.

What am I to search on, and what am I going to find that negates the award-winning writings of a world champion? Besides, simple mathematical logic dictates that he is correct.

 

We are entitled to different opinions, but one thing is clear. Hand example #1 is a far safer overcall than hand example #2. Example #2 may have more offensive potential, but it's also the only one of the two that can get tagged for a telephone number.

 

And safety in overcalling is the gist of this forum thread.

[Statto]

If partner has fewer diamonds, he has more non-diamonds. Therefore, more likely, he has some number of clubs. When he has 2 diamonds (as here, about average in this spot), his expectation is slightly more than 3 clubs. Voila: a sufficient trump suit.

No, there are still the same number of unaccounted-for non-club cards in the mix, it makes no difference. Think about it...

[HighLow21]

One reason to overcall with the longer holdings is hoping to push opps up a level then sit back and defend.

And how do you feel if they have a great fit elsewhere, and so do you?

 

Partner is just as likely to have a fit regardless of your length in RHO's suit.

Demonstrably false.

 

Not only do length AND shortness in RHO's suit decrease the off-the-top losers expected in that suit, but length in RHO's suit decreases partner's likely length in that suit and, therefore, on an expectation basis, the number of cards he holds in any other suit.

 

Mike Lawrence if he said otherwise is wrong here.

You've just totally invalidated your argument. You're right: he has 3 world titles, logic, and Bayesian mathematics ALL backing his statements. What on earth was I thinking??

 

Having shortage in openers suit has other advantages. Or put another way, having length in the other suits has advantages. If partner bids her own 5-card suit, she's more likely to find your hand fitting.

Yes, having shortage is just as good in some ways as having length; it's worse in some ways; and it's better in some ways. The main point is, 3 cards is horrible, and movement in either direction is beneficial. That said, one way shortness is worse is this: if your suit does become the trump suit, your partner will, on average, have less support than if you had length on opener's bid suit; and you will thus be subject to early tapping more often.

[Statto]

the award-winning writings of a world champion?

These writers try to explain their judgement in layman's terms, and sometimes they get it wrong. Besides, some of them are trying to make a buck or two, because professional bridge doesn't exist.

 

Besides, simple mathematical logic dictates that he is correct.

No, it shows he is wrong in one aspect.