Overcalling 1NT

[jgillispie]

I was very pleased with the results that I got in my last post. Those who have further insight are more that welcome to share it.

 

However, this poll focuses on criticisms, modifications, and insight on conventional systems vs. 15-17 NT.

 

Additionally, what are some guidelines for 1: Knowing when to overcall 2: Knowing when to X (if Penalty) 3: Knowing when to bid in the balancing seat.

 

Thanks.

[kenrexford]

Of course, my recommendation is the brilliant work done in "Overcalling Opponent's 1NT," found here: http://www.amazon.com/Overcalling-Opponents-1nt-Ken-Rexford/dp/1554947626

 

;-)

 

 

 

[hrothgar]

I was very pleased with the results that I got in my last post. Those who have further insight are more that welcome to share it.

 

However, this poll focuses on criticisms, modifications, and insight on conventional systems vs. 15-17 NT.

 

Additionally, what are some guidelines for 1: Knowing when to overcall 2: Knowing when to X (if Penalty) 3: Knowing when to bid in the balancing seat.

 

Thanks.

 

Against intermediate or strong NTs I am fond of a convention called Lionel.

 

In direct seat

 

X = A two suited hand with Spades

2C = Clubs and Hearts

2D = Diamonds and Hearts

2H = Hearts

2S = Spades

2N = Extreme two suiter

 

We overcall aggressively For example, white on red, I would happily make a 2D overcall something like

 

♠ 32

♥ KQT9

♦ KQ82

♣ QT2

 

We try to get in an out of the auction as quickly as possible

[billw55]

In this crowd, you will certainly get multiple varying opinions, including some homecooked methods.

 

I would say that having a thorough and mutually consistent understanding with your partner about your methods, is usually more important than what those methods actually are.

[RunemPard]

I honestly don't mind natural with some kind of meaning to X/2NT. I have found it better than many methods. With a new partner for example, I would rather spend time on other things than what we will do over a NT opening.

[sfi]

I play with some people who have given it a lot of thought. What they like is something with a penalty double and a natural 2H/S. So we play some Aspro/Astro/Asptro thing. It's different with different people and I have no idea whether any of them match the original published conventions.

 

Personally, I couldn't really care less. This is one area partner gets full control over.

[jallerton]

I was very pleased with the results that I got in my last post. Those who have further insight are more that welcome to share it.

 

However, this poll focuses on criticisms, modifications, and insight on conventional systems vs. 15-17 NT.

 

Additionally, what are some guidelines for 1: Knowing when to overcall 2: Knowing when to X (if Penalty) 3: Knowing when to bid in the balancing seat.

 

Thanks.

 

Your extensive list does not include the defence which is probably the most popular with international players these days: "Multi-Landy"

 

2♣ = Both majors

2♦ = Single-suiter in one of the majors

2♥/♠= 2-suiter: 5 cards in bid suit, 4+ in a minor suit

 

Some players combine this structure with double of 1NT to show a 4-card major plus a 5-card minor, both suits unspecified. Others prefer to retain double as penalties (at least by a non-passed hand).

[Cthulhu D]

I play Multilandy because it's effective, shows a variety of hand shapes and for memory reasons - I probably see 5% mini no-trumps, 30-35% weak no trumpers (typically ACOLites) and 60ish% 14-16 or 15-17 or 15-18 NT so having one defence that can flexibly work in all three scenarios is very useful.

 

For us, this is powerful because I agree with Billw55 - having one method that you both understand in depth is more effective than playing different things in different places that you don't. If we were playing super seriously we might change things up a bit but for a once a week partnership

[the hog]

Asptro. You don't even include this in your poll.

[sfi]

David Stevenson has a fairly thorough description of existing conventions. It's worth checking out.

[lycier]

I play Hello convention (Jerry Helms).

[Zelandakh]

What jallerton wrote. My own contribution to this area is a combination of Asptro, Multi-Landy and French:-

 

X = ♥ + ♦ + ♣; or 4♥5+m; or ♥ + ♠ with longer/better spades

2♣ = ♠ + ♥ + ♦; or 4♠5+m; or ♥ + ♠ with longer/better hearts

2♦ = ♥ or ♠

2M = 5m4+m

2NT = ♣ + ♦

 

In comparison with Asptro, this avoids the (1NT) - 2♦ - 2♥ problem and also sometimes allows stopping at the 2 level when this is not possible in Asptro. It is also clearer since the 5M4m and 4M5m hands are separated. But it does mean giving up a penalty double, which not everyone likes. In comparison with the Multi-Landy variant with X showing 4M5+m, we are essentially bidding on the same hands but I think showing a specific major is advantageous. My scheme also allows bidding on a couple of 3-suiters, which is a very minor additional plus. On the flipside it does not get to play in 2♣ when Overcaller has the 4♠5+♣ hand and is generally more complicated.

 

On the second part of the OP, I tend to overcall a strong NT because I have shape and want to disturb them. This is a matter of style and agreement. A more traditional approach is about 10+ hcp with decent distribution. I do not really like playing a penalty double against 15-17 but if you do it will show the upper half of the range or better and a decent lead. The better the lead the less you need and vice versa. Sometimes it works out better to show your suits than double with a lot of shape even in a very good hand. Bidding in balancing seat is similar - expect to find some values in partner's hand.

 

Basically there are many good options here. Above all, find one that you and your partner like and find logical. Ideally the method should have a way of showing both majors and pinpointing which is longer. Looking over your list I would immediately discard Cappelletti (worse than Multi-Landy and not simpler), Ripstra (too restrictive), Astro and Asptro (both worse than Asptro). Once you have chosen a method, think carefully about how to deal with further bidding by the opponents, especially if the method is complicated or artificial. Very often a simple-looking scheme (such as Asptro) can have deceptively complex follow-ups. For Asptro, in particular, there are 2 popular methods of advancing and players of both styles usually regard their way as the standard one.

[blackshoe]

I prefer Hello. I'm not sure any particular method is clearly head and shoulders above all the rest. I agree with the recommendation to take a look at David Stevenson's site.

[fromageGB]

I don't like any method where a bid shows a particular major and an unspecified minor. If you go the the 3-level in search of a fit that is not there, then you don't attempt to try. They seem to work only opposite a rare hand with length in both minors, so in general they are a waste of bid. I much prefer simpler bid of a minor showing that 4m + unspecifed 5M. Now you can play a known minor fit by passing, or find overcaller's major. Both at the 2-level.

 

I also like a natural 2M so that partner knows what I have, and as I want a call that shows 4+4+ both majors, it has to be X.

[wank]

2♣ for the majors.

penalty x of weak NT and common strong NT psyching positions.

 

meanings for the other bids you can draw out of a hat for all the difference it makes.

[kenrexford]

I don't like any method where a bid shows a particular major and an unspecified minor. If you go the the 3-level in search of a fit that is not there, then you don't attempt to try. They seem to work only opposite a rare hand with length in both minors, so in general they are a waste of bid. I much prefer simpler bid of a minor showing that 4m + unspecifed 5M. Now you can play a known minor fit by passing, or find overcaller's major. Both at the 2-level.

 

I also like a natural 2M so that partner knows what I have, and as I want a call that shows 4+4+ both majors, it has to be X.

I always thought that the main reason for this approach would be to facilitate game tries when the major can be raised, with the escape only a fringe benefit.

[fromageGB]

I would have thought the part score was more important against a strong NT. Getting to a playable contract beats getting to game, in my view.

[kenrexford]

I would have thought the part score was more important against a strong NT. Getting to a playable contract beats getting to game, in my view.

That's why the approach is often different. After a weak 1NT, cappelletti is popular, which includes the major - minor two suit hands, because game is more likely. The structure preferences for many over strong 1NT doesn't have that bid because the focus is part score.

[Vampyr]

jallerton' timestamp='1391469243' post='776651']

Your extensive list does not include the defence which is probably the most popular with international players these days: "Multi-Landy"

 

I quite like Multi-Landy, but over a strong NT I prefer what I guess you could call "Modified Meckwell":

 

X = Majors, Minors or ♦

2♣,♦ = that minor plus a major

2♥, ♠ = natural

[bill1157]

playing X as takeout (suggesting majors) and suit bids natural works just fine.

[Siegmund]

The two I have been happiest with have been CRASH(or CHASM or SCUM, to make it GCC legal), and "BROOSS" from Kleinman's NT Zone. The latter is useful mostly as being one of the few conventional methods to keep all three of 2D,2H, and 2S natural. (X=clubs, or a two-suiter without clubs, while 2C=C+M.)

 

I am a big believer in having 2M be natural. Beyond that, I like showing as many hand-types as I can with the cheap overcalls.

 

Multi-Landy's 2C bid is great for constructive purposes, and is the sort of thing I'd like over a weak notrump, but I think is just too valuable of a bid to give to only one hand pattern in a primarily obstructive auction.

 

I've wanted to try a system that could distinguish all of the 4-5s from the 5-4s (maybe X=4M5+m, while 2C promises 5M+another, or something) but never found one I liked.

[Zelandakh]

I've wanted to try a system that could distinguish all of the 4-5s from the 5-4s (maybe X=4M5+m, while 2C promises 5M+another, or something) but never found one I liked.

There are lots of ways of doing this if you ignore the hands with both minors. You could adapt my method to include natural 2M overcalls and lose the cheap 3-suiters by:

 

X = hearts + another (2♣ = non-forcing relay for 5 card suit)

2♣ = spades + another (2♦ = non-forcing relay for 5 card suit)

2♦ = open

2M = nat

 

For the 2♦ overcall, choose one from:

 

a. nat

b. 5-5 majors

c. minors

d. some 3-suited shapes (qv Sharples)

 

c would allow you to differentiate all 5-4s from 4-5s but is probably bad in practise due to this being such a low priority hand type.

[helene_t]

I've wanted to try a system that could distinguish all of the 4-5s from the 5-4s (maybe X=4M5+m, while 2C promises 5M+another, or something) but never found one I liked.

You might want to try AWM's system ("Meyerson"):

 

X= major/minor two-seater. Now 2♣ is N/F relay asking for the 5-card suit, while 2♦ asks for the major

2♣=majors

[fromageGB]

I've wanted to try a system that could distinguish all of the 4-5s from the 5-4s (maybe X=4M5+m, while 2C promises 5M+another, or something) but never found one I liked.

Don't forget that if you use X or 2♣ for both majors of unspecified lengths, you can easily get the best fit by a direct 2♥/♠ reply being to play with 4 cards or 2+ cards better in advancer's length, while a lower reply asks for doubler to bid his longer. (Numbers on the basis that a 5-2 fit is better than a 4-3 fit, but you would prefer a 4-4 to a 5-3. Or adjust to taste.)

 

Playing X for both majors gives you a choice of different add-ons:

1) 2♦ asks for longer, while 2♣ says "I hate the majors, pass or correct to 2♦".

2) For a bit of fun, put opener on lead :

2a) If it was a 2nd seat X, 2♣ asks for longer major to be expressed by red suit transfer, 2M = this major

2b) If it was a 4th seat X, then 2♣ asks for longer major to be bid directly, red suit transfer = this major

[fromageGB]

X= major/minor two-seater. Now 2♣ is N/F relay asking for the 5-card suit, while 2♦ asks for the major

2♣=majors

A 3-seater is better, as it has the advantage that one defender does not have to sit on the knees of the other.