pard overcalls on shape

[mike777]

fwiw I often find I lose hands when partner makes a simple overcall on shape rather than power.

 

I tend to x too much.

 

 

=should I just tend to x much much less?

[glen]

you should tend to x less on auctions where the opponents are showing power

[Zelandakh]

Have a general rule that if partner is weak and overcalling because of good shape, they make a jump overcall rather than a simple overcall. Not only does this simplify the process or working out whether we want to bid constructively or destructively, being aggressive with weak hands and shape is generally a winning strategy against non-experts. If your constructive and destructive auctions are separated, the decisions on whether to double or not will also become easier. So a logcal bidding ladder for a hand with a long suit might be:-

 

Weak: pass or jump overcall

Intermediate: simple overcall

Strong: simple overcall then rebid suit if the auction is low enough

Very Strong: Double then bid suit/jump/double/cue

 

Obviously you can amend this to taste and you will also want to make allowance for vulnerability. But it can help to think about these things and such thoughts will only improve competitive bidding, something that is generally a weakness for most intermediate players.

[kenberg]

I suppose that if the opponetns are often collecting when you double, either you need to change your doubles or your partner needs to change his overcalls. It's pretty hard to give any useful opinion on who should do what simply from this abstract formulation.

 

I generally assume that my opponents are not crazy or, if they are, that this will eventually work to my advantage whether or not I double right now. So I try not to hang partner for his perhaps aggressive overcall. But, again, that's a generality.

 

This could be a good thread for discussing some real life decisions. I would expect there might be frequent disagreement.

[ggwhiz]

I can't tell if the problem is you doubling on points instead of tricks or your partner overcalling on trash.

 

Keep a record going forward to find out and try to avoid situations where you mark yourself say with a trump stack when a decent declarer will go down 1 instead of down 2 if you had stayed silent. Sometimes they make instead of down 1 too. I double when I can book the contract based on expected tricks after pard overcalls on most vulnerabilities at mp's and often don't bother at imps when turning 50 into 100 isn't worth any risk.

 

If the problem is revealed to be trashy overcalls buy your partner a book on balancing. When the opponents stop low marking your partner with some values, that's the time to bid on shapely junk, not leading with your chin

[glen]

Does your partner bid like this:

 

Unfav vul, 1♥-1♠ overcall with ♠KQJ65 ♥74 ♦J76 ♣T85

All white, 1♦-2♣ overcall with ♠6 ♥Q93 ♦Q2 ♣KJT8654

Fav vul, 1♣-1♦ overcall with ♠874 ♥72 ♦AQ98743 ♣5

Both vul, 1♠-2♥ overcall with ♠K73 ♥KQ753 ♦AT85 ♣2

Unfav vul, 1♣-1♠ overcall with ♠KJT864 ♥T954 ♦3 ♣KJ

All white, 1♣-1♥ overcall with ♠T74 ♥AT7532 ♦96 ♣74

 

Then you need to bid like a world class Italian advancer

 

Above boards:

Nunes board 18, 4th final session world championship

Fantoni board 24, 4th final session world championship

Bocchi board 19, 2nd quarterfinal session world championship

Lauria board 13, 1st semifinal session world championship

Duboin board 19, 2nd semifinal session world championship

Sementa board 8, 3rd semifinal session world championship

[the hog]

Does your partner bid like this:

 

Unfav vul, 1♥-1♠ overcall with ♠KQJ65 ♥74 ♦J76 ♣T85

All white, 1♦-2♣ overcall with ♠6 ♥Q93 ♦Q2 ♣KJT8654

Fav vul, 1♣-1♦ overcall with ♠874 ♥72 ♦AQ98743 ♣5

Both vul, 1♠-2♥ overcall with ♠K73 ♥KQ753 ♦AT85 ♣2

Unfav vul, 1♣-1♠ overcall with ♠KJT864 ♥T954 ♦3 ♣KJ

All white, 1♣-1♥ overcall with ♠T74 ♥AT7532 ♦96 ♣74

 

Then you need to bid like a world class Italian advancer

 

Above boards:

Nunes board 18, 4th final session world championship

Fantoni board 24, 4th final session world championship

Bocchi board 19, 2nd quarterfinal session world championship

Lauria board 13, 1st semifinal session world championship

Duboin board 19, 2nd semifinal session world championship

Sementa board 8, 3rd semifinal session world championship

 

All of these apart from the third, which is a wjo in my book, are perfectly normal overcalls that would be made by any decent player. I canot even believe that they are mentioned in a thread such as this.

[glen]

All of these apart from the third, which is a wjo in my book, are perfectly normal overcalls that would be made by any decent player ...

Thus the players holding these hands in the world championships who took other actions are not decent players in your view?

[Zelandakh]

1. Unfav vul, 1♥-1♠ overcall with ♠KQJ65 ♥74 ♦J76 ♣T85

2. All white, 1♦-2♣ overcall with ♠6 ♥Q93 ♦Q2 ♣KJT8654

3. Fav vul, 1♣-1♦ overcall with ♠874 ♥72 ♦AQ98743 ♣5

4. Both vul, 1♠-2♥ overcall with ♠K73 ♥KQ753 ♦AT85 ♣2

5. Unfav vul, 1♣-1♠ overcall with ♠KJT864 ♥T954 ♦3 ♣KJ

6. All white, 1♣-1♥ overcall with ♠T74 ♥AT7532 ♦96 ♣74

I may not be world class (not Italian) but several of these illustrate the difference in approach I suggest for intermediate players over that popularised by several Italian pairs:

 

1. 1♥ - 1♠

2. 1♦ - 3♣

3. 1♣ - 3♦

4. 1♠ - P

5. 1♣ - 2♠

6. 1♣ - 2♥

 

Only Hand 1 remains a simple overcall, although I have sympathy with anyone making a simple overcall on Hand 4 or who prefers not to preempt on Hand 6. Taking these weak distributional hands out of the simple overcalls make them easier to handle for us mere mortals of the game. Hand 1 would obviously not bid again unless forced, once again clarifying the line between constructive and non-constructive values.

[kenberg]

Myself, I go with the WJO on 3 and 6, the simple overcall on the others. They are nice hands for discussion.

 

I see that I was right that there would be disagreement.

[the hog]

Thus the players holding these hands in the world championships who took other actions are not decent players in your view?

 

As this offensive post has not been removed, let me rephrase: all the overcalls are perfectly normal. Some might prefer a wjo on some hands rather than a one level bid, but to even post these hands as seeming to be unusual actions is very peculiar indeed for anyone who is not a bean counter.

[rhm]

Have a general rule that if partner is weak and overcalling because of good shape, they make a jump overcall rather than a simple overcall. Not only does this simplify the process or working out whether we want to bid constructively or destructively, being aggressive with weak hands and shape is generally a winning strategy against non-experts. If your constructive and destructive auctions are separated, the decisions on whether to double or not will also become easier. So a logcal bidding ladder for a hand with a long suit might be:-

 

Weak: pass or jump overcall

Intermediate: simple overcall

Strong: simple overcall then rebid suit if the auction is low enough

Very Strong: Double then bid suit/jump/double/cue

 

Obviously you can amend this to taste and you will also want to make allowance for vulnerability. But it can help to think about these things and such thoughts will only improve competitive bidding, something that is generally a weakness for most intermediate players.

I have played this for years, but I have given up and come to the conclusion the whole concept is flawed.

If you play simple overcalls as "constructive", because you are playing weak jump overcalls you frequently get hands, which are neither suitable for an overcall nor for a jump overcall.

 

In other words you are either

 

1) not interfering often enough or

2) preempting too much with the wrong hands. If you preempt once RHO has bid you need a better preemptive hand not a worse one for doing so.

 

Many players tend to do both. The whole concept is bad advice for advancing players.

With regard to weak jump overcalls opponents are far more likely to catch you compared to a preempt when nobody has bid yet and it tends to gain much less when RHO has opened already.

Thus weak jump overcalls are okay, but the right hands do not come up as often as proponents let you believe.

 

I think it is beneficial to overcall frequently and for a weak jump overcall you need the right hand, depending on colors.

 

Thus I have given up the old fashioned notion that simple overcalls are "constructive", because of weak jump overcalls. My overcalls have a purpose but are wide ranging.

As a corollary partner should restrain himself before doubling opponents, who usually have a good knowledge of their combined assets once they have opened the bidding.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ahydra]

I may not be world class (not Italian) but several of these illustrate the difference in approach I suggest for intermediate players over that popularised by several Italian pairs:

 

1. 1♥ - 1♠

2. 1♦ - 3♣

3. 1♣ - 3♦

4. 1♠ - P

5. 1♣ - 2♠

6. 1♣ - 2♥

 

 

To offer yet another different opinion:

- on 4 I would overcall 2H, pass seems very wimpish

- on 5 I would bid 1S because the ♣KJ are defensive values, your suit is dodgy for red vul and you have hearts also

- on 6 I would pass, the hand is flat and the suit is crap (isn't there a song that goes something like that? :))

 

Also Zelandakh probably forgot to include the ever-useful bid-then-double as a way of showing Strong (~14-17) hands, though I'm sure OP is aware he can do this.

 

If playing pairs and the contract makes, your excuse is "it's pairs". :P At teams, "don't double unless you think the contract is going two off" is a good rule - so the question becomes evaluating when it's going two off. Straining to compete as advancer (e.g. responsive double showing some convertible values) can help since then partner can double if he has extras; otherwise, I would suggest making an agreement like "1-over-1 overcalls promise no defense, 2-over-1 promises about 1 defensive trick" and using that to judge when to double.

 

ahydra

[glen]

All of these apart from the third, which is a wjo in my book, are perfectly normal overcalls that would be made by any decent player ...

 

let me rephrase: all the overcalls are perfectly normal. Some might prefer a wjo on some hands rather than a one level bid

Let's start with board 6.

 

Open:

Levin, Fantoni: 1♣-Pass

Narkiewicz: 1♣-2♥

 

Seniors:

Hayden, Elinescu: 1♣-Pass

Lasocki: 1♦-2♥

Poizat: 1♠-Pass

 

VC:

Zhang, Pasman, Eythorsdot: 1♣-Pass

F. Brown: 1♦-Pass

 

It would be best if you re-rephrase at this point before we continue

[gwnn]

All white, 1♦-2♣ overcall with ♠6 ♥Q93 ♦Q2 ♣KJT8654

They probably play 1♦-3♣ as conventional, though, right? If so, 4♣ is too rich for me and I hate pass.

[glen]

They probably play 1♦-3♣ as conventional, though, right? If so, 4♣ is too rich for me and I hate pass.

Yes, but I think this is key, and well worth reposting in whole:

 

I have played this for years, but I have given up and come to the conclusion the whole concept is flawed.

If you play simple overcalls as "constructive", because you are playing weak jump overcalls you frequently get hands, which are neither suitable for an overcall nor for a jump overcall.

 

In other words you are either

 

1) not interfering often enough or

2) preempting too much with the wrong hands. If you preempt once RHO has bid you need a better preemptive hand not a worse one for doing so.

 

Many players tend to do both. The whole concept is bad advice for advancing players.

With regard to weak jump overcalls opponents are far more likely to catch you compared to a preempt when nobody has bid yet and it tends to gain much less when RHO has opened already.

Thus weak jump overcalls are okay, but the right hands do not come up as often as proponents let you believe.

 

I think it is beneficial to overcall frequently and for a weak jump overcall you need the right hand, depending on colors.

 

Thus I have given up the old fashioned notion that simple overcalls are "constructive", because of weak jump overcalls. My overcalls have a purpose but are wide ranging.

As a corollary partner should restrain himself before doubling opponents, who usually have a good knowledge of their combined assets once they have opened the bidding.

 

Rainer Herrmann

I believe that the Italian style is to make non-jump overcalls on a wide range of hands, and this then frees up jump overcalls for specific meanings, whether well-defined weak, well-defined intermediate, two-suiter. In other words, imo, they don't overcall 2♣ because 3♣ is not available, they overcall 2♣ because that is their style which frees up the 3♣ bid for other meanings.

 

In answer to OP's question, by studying the Italian style where overcalls may have little in defensive value, you can see when and how they X the opponents. Note the Italian style has another component, that is they will double on some strong hands that the Kokish school would still overcall on. If you look at the ACBL cc's on the USBF site, common one level overcall ranges are 7-17, 8-18, 6-18, 6-17, 7-18 for a simple overcall, but the Italians drop both the bottom and the top of these.

[Zelandakh]

I have played this for years, but I have given up and come to the conclusion the whole concept is flawed.

If you play simple overcalls as "constructive", because you are playing weak jump overcalls you frequently get hands, which are neither suitable for an overcall nor for a jump overcall.

The only player I know on BBF that plays one level overcalls as strictly constructive is Cyberyeti. Hand 1 in glen's list is a good example that I am not ruling out a simple overcall with a weakish hand. The point is that such a hand is only worth one action and therefater you pass. On the other hand, (non-jump) two level overcalls and hands that take a second action show extras. Thus, weak, distributional hands (which was the point of the OP) will usually start with either a jump overcall or a 2-suited bid. Therefore the first sentence of my post began "Have a general rule that if partner is weak and overcalling because of good shape". The part that comes after the "if" is important. This does not preclude partner from making a perfectly normal overcall with other hands (such as Hand 1).

 

For me, overcalling at the two level is a completely different ball game. Here I want constructive values and either some extra distribution or extra strength. The reason I do not overcall Hand 4 is that the hand is a minimum at Game All and it feels semi-balanced to me with length in Opener's suit. Had the opening been in clubs (eg Precision 2♣) then passing would indeed be too wimpy for me. Therefore I consider this hand to be marginal either way.

 

Finally, I did not mention bid then double because it seems an unnecessary confusion and because I am not sure that the way I use this would be Standard for America. My style is to do this with less than ahydra's 14-17, under the mentality that it the responsibility of the hand with shortage to take action (and it is also a common theme in my bidding ideas for double to show primarily shape rather than extras in most auctions). Thus it would also apply to hands in the "intermediate" range. In many such auctions partner has already denied constructive values and it is clear the double is merely competitive.

[Lorne50]

fwiw I often find I lose hands when partner makes a simple overcall on shape rather than power.

 

I tend to x too much =should I just tend to x much much less?

You should double when you have trump tricks and a misfit or when you have a big surprise for declarer (ie their trumps are 5-0 and at least one of them made a non-forcing bid) or sometimes in MP pairs when there is a competitive auction where you are pretty sure you would have made your contract and the opponents bid one more but you do not want to be pushed higher.

 

In the first two cases nearly all your doubles should get a positive score, in the last you can stand the oppo making a few as you were getting a bad score anyway so the double may turn a 20

% board into a zero or 100%.

 

Also playing weak jump overcalls helps since most hands with little defense start with a jump which will warn you not to be trigger happy.

[jogs]

fwiw I often find I lose hands when partner makes a simple overcall on shape rather than power.

 

I tend to x too much.

 

 

=should I just tend to x much much less?

 

Easy solution. Trust opponents to be rational. Trust partner to always

be at the bottom of the range. STOP doubling on general principles.

[Lurpoa]

For what it is worth.

 

I tend to double on shape on a minor opening.....

[the hog]

Let's start with board 6.

 

Open:

Levin, Fantoni: 1♣-Pass

Narkiewicz: 1♣-2♥

 

Seniors:

Hayden, Elinescu: 1♣-Pass

Lasocki: 1♦-2♥

Poizat: 1♠-Pass

 

VC:

Zhang, Pasman, Eythorsdot: 1♣-Pass

F. Brown: 1♦-Pass

 

It would be best if you re-rephrase at this point before we continue

 

Why should I rephrase? To take action on these hands is perfectly normal. Perhaps if you are related to Caspar Milquetoast or your partner is, you may wish to pass.The fact that some players pass here is meaningless except to suggest that they are conservative.To post these hands and intimate that taking some action on them is unusual is totally silly.

[barmar]

Some people seem to be making a falacious conclusion. "Decent players have done X" does not imply that someone who does not do X is not a decent player. The reason this game is so interesting, even at expert levels, is that there are many options and styles. Very few actions are black-and-white, where you can state thst someone who does not not take them is a poor player.

[the hog]

Some people seem to be making a falacious conclusion. "Decent players have done X" does not imply that someone who does not do X is not a decent player. The reason this game is so interesting, even at expert levels, is that there are many options and styles. Very few actions are black-and-white, where you can state thst someone who does not not take them is a poor player.

 

Correct, Barry. That is why I suggested a course in Clear Thinking where one learns to avoid such elementary errors in logic. Apparently one poster took umbrage at that suggestion.

[cherdano]

Some people seem to be making a falacious conclusion. "Decent players have done X" does not imply that someone who does not do X is not a decent player.

 

You know, maybe you should reread what he wrote before taking sides for one of the most inflammatory regular posters.

 

All of these apart from the third, which is a wjo in my book, are perfectly normal overcalls that would be made by any decent player. I canot even believe that they are mentioned in a thread such as this.

 

Maybe "any decent player" means something different for you and the hog, but for anyone I know it means "every decent player".

[glen]

Some people seem to be making a falacious conclusion. "Decent players have done X" does not imply that someone who does not do X is not a decent player. The reason this game is so interesting, even at expert levels, is that there are many options and styles. Very few actions are black-and-white, where you can state thst someone who does not not take them is a poor player.

There is a clear difference between "Decent players have done X" and "Decent players would have done X" and to do otherwise makes one or their partner related to Caspar Milquetoast. The latter does not result in a fallacious conclusion, as any course of logic would teach. Suggesting that Fantoni and Levin are conservative is totally silly. Suggesting that when 1 person out of 12 is the only person to take a specific action is not at least worth some study is totally silly.