1 diamond overcall of a standard 1 club

[Wackojack]

Any thoughts on this use of the 1♦overcall?

 

The 1♦ overcall shows a balanced 11-14 without 4-3 or 4-4 in the majors, which you would otherwise have to pass. Then partner, knowing you have above-average points and least 2 cards in all suits, can then easily compete on common hands he would otherwise have to pass. This can make life difficult for opener with sequences such as 1♣ - (1♦) - Pass - (2♠)

Other interventions are as usual except that 2♦ is natural and intermediate strength.

[mikeh]

There's probably a good reason for having the pass card available with the sort of hand you are describing: a below strength, possibly stopperless 1N.

 

If anyone ever told me they were playing it, assuming it to be legal (which I doubt in ACBLand) I think it fairly easy to play against.

 

I would play double as penalty oriented rather than negative. The cost would be having to bid 1♥ with both majors, but after all 4th chair will be raising diamonds far less often than if the overcall showed diamonds, so I am not losing a lot, and meanwhile every time responder holds a decent flat 10+ hcp, the bloodletting may well be about to begin.

 

I have never understood the lemming-like urge to be in every auction, even with flat hands lacking significant strength. It seems to me that far too many people prefer to get minuses on offence rather than plusses on defence.

 

Despite what you wrote about the problems you may cause the opps, the reality is that your overcall takes away no meaningful bidding space, tells the opps a lot about your hand, and in general makes their lives easier. It is rare for a bidding convention to be of more use to the opps than to the side using it, but I think you have found one.

 

Ok, I guess I don't like it :P

 

Oh...and I am pretty sure that I've seen hands on which being able to overcall a natural 1♦ led to a good contract.

[kuhchung]

balanced hands defend

[neilkaz]

I don't care for this. I'll also note that a preemptive 2♦ over a 1♣ opening can be effective when LHO doesn't have 4 cards in each major for a perfect neg X or when he some points but acting is risky. Of course, there's also the times advancer can raise ♦ to compete or extend the preempt.

[blackshoe]

Not legal under the GCC.

[Wackojack]

I strongly suspected that the views of this convention would be negative. This convention is the brainchild of a bridge player friend and has been used against me. It had neutral effect on the result of that particular board. I was not convinced of its efficacy but sufficiently interested to do some simulations on Playbidge. I gave opener 11-19 points and 0-4 cards in the majors and 3+ cards in clubs and then took out all the resulting hands that were in the 15-17 balanced range. I gave the next hand 11-14 points with 2-4 in the majors and 2-5 in the minors and took out all the hands with 4-3 in the majors. Out of 33 hands the the vast majority were neutral or uncertain. I could not find any hands where the 1D overcall very definitely was a disadvantage any differences being MP decisions. There was 1 hand where initially I thought that overcalling 1D gave one a definite advantage.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakt6ht2d9752c643&w=s84haq8654dj43c98&n=s975h973datcakqj5&e=sqj32hkjdkq86ct72&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1c1d1s2hd2sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Then I looked again. I North plays support doubles here then 2♠ is the contract and declarer has a road map to make 10 tricks. Without the overcall the bidding would go 1♣-1♠-1NT-p making 8 tricks without the heart lead. Then I looked again and saw that North's hand is easily worth 15 and so would open 1NT. Nevertheless take away the J♣ say and the result would be the same.

 

However:

 

Quotes Mikeh "I would play double as penalty oriented rather than negative. The cost would be having to bid 1♥ with both majors, but after all 4th chair will be raising diamonds far less often than if the overcall showed diamonds, so I am not losing a lot, and meanwhile every time responder holds a decent flat 10+ hcp, the bloodletting may well be about to begin."

 

This risk I think is exaggerated.

 

"I have never understood the lemming-like urge to be in every auction, even with flat hands lacking significant strength. It seems to me that far too many people prefer to get minuses on offence rather than plusses on defence."

 

:P

 

"Oh...and I am pretty sure that I've seen hands on which being able to overcall a natural 1♦ led to a good contract."

 

I didnt find one in my sample

[f0rdy]

I strongly suspected that the views of this convention would be negative. This convention is the brainchild of a bridge player friend and has been used against me. It had neutral effect on the result of that particular board. I was not convinced of its efficacy but sufficiently interested to do some simulations on Playbidge. I gave opener 11-19 points and 0-4 cards in the majors and 3+ cards in clubs and then took out all the resulting hands that were in the 15-17 balanced range. I gave the next hand 11-14 points with 2-4 in the majors and 2-5 in the minors and took out all the hands with 4-3 in the majors. Out of 33 hands the the vast majority were neutral or uncertain. I could not find any hands where the 1D overcall very definitely was a disadvantage any differences being MP decisions. There was 1 hand where initially I thought that overcalling 1D gave one a definite advantage.

Oh, I assumed that if you wanted to play something like this (showing equal interest in either minor) it would over be a "frequently 2" 1C opening, the kind including many (443)2 and maybe 3352 hands; there I could start to see the logic.

 

"Oh...and I am pretty sure that I've seen hands on which being able to overcall a natural 1♦ led to a good contract."

 

I didnt find one in my sample

But you didn't allow overcaller to have 6 diamonds, or be unbalanced?

[fromageGB]

Not convinced about using 1♦, but I use (and am very happy with) a similar idea of using X to say "I would have opened 1♣" with advancer making the normal transfer walsh responses. In effect, this gets you whatever a takeout double would achieve, but with whatever added definition you put into your twalsh structure. I have no restriction on major holdings though, although 2-4 are guaranteed in each major with twalsh.

 

A balanced hand with nothing much often finds something useful opposite. I appreciate responder has redouble available, but while occasional bad scores can occur, good ones can, too.

[Finch]

I have played against a pair playing a strong pass system who (among other things) played a 1D overcall of 1C as 0-7 any.

 

This has the appearance of being marginally insane, but it was surprisingly effective. It looks as though it takes away nothing but what happened was that fourth hand often bid if we doubled, and then you are guessing whether you should be defending at the 1-level while all your carefully constructed methods no longer apply.

 

We only played 8 boards against it (part of a Swiss qualifier) and it didn't have any impact on the results. Neither did their 1D fert opener (also 0-7 any), but that also takes you immediately out of your comfort zone when you play against it.

 

After the Swiss qualifier when we got to the KOs and were able to choose opponents, we avoided this team because their methods just make life harder.

 

p.s. no, it's not legal in the ACBL GCC. But some people play in other places. This event was in Sweden.

[helene_t]

You might want to put the balanced 15-17 into the 1♦ bid also, freeing 1NT for something funny.

 

But I would be concerned that I would be giving away a lot of information to declarer (if we end up defending) while the information that I have a balanced hand without 4-3 or 4-4 majors rarely will be useful to partner. Intuitively I would think that

1♦=multi

1M=4-card suit

would be more helpful to partner.

 

With Shogi I used to play, against certain 1♣ openings:

- x: clubs

- 1♦: fishbein

- 1NT: 4♠, 5+ red

- 2♣: majors or some monster hand

 

We stopped playing it because it led to too many misunderstandings having several different schemes against different 1♣ openings.

[the hog]

Not legal under the GCC.

who cares? Why does everything have to relate to US regulations? Having said this, I much prefer to play a Polish 1nt over all, showing at least 4-4 in the Ms, or 5h and 4s, about 10-14 points.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would take out the 4333 shape hands.

 

That way the 1D overcall will be based most of the time on a 4+ carder,

so it will be very hard to go for blood in 1D.

You will also have a add. chance to find a resting place, if they really

have the chance to hurt you in 1D.

 

Also you could make it (semi) bal. 4+ D, and 4 M, 11-14, you should not

loose a lot of frequency, ... I am not sure, you really want to go in with

club length and a bal. hand.

 

This version, should also be GCC legal, since 1D is a natural overcall,

but I have no experience with the GCC framework.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenberg]

I don't know if this usage for 1♦ is useful or not, but I like to hope that it isn't. I feel it sort of screws up a nice game. Here is why.

 

Suppose I am a declarer trying to work out a hand. Part of my thinking might be: Surely my opponent does not hae a balanced 16 count with stoppers in my suit since he would have oercalled 1NT with that holding. It is much less likely to occur to me that surely my opponent does not have a balanced 11 count because he would have overcalled 1♦ with that holding. Of course this is just life, I don't really expect my opponents to alert 1♣-(Pass) as denying a balanced 11 count, but it is true that they have information from the auction that I do not.

 

I content myself with hoping that ideas such as this will die a natural death.