Worst 2 level overcall

[EricK]

What's the worst 2 level overcall you've ever seen? By 'worst' I simply mean lacking in bridge merit.

 

How does this one compare?:

Vulnerable against not, dealer passes, 2nd hand opens 1♠, 3rd hand holds ♠AQx ♥Jxxxx ♦xx ♣Kxx and bids 2♥

[manudude03]

Junior Europeans last year, one of my opponents decided it would be a good idea to overcall 2D at R/R over my partner's 4th seat 1H on ♠ 8 6 2 ♥ 7 2 ♦ T 8 6 3 2 ♣ A K Q. We happily took that for 800 on a partscore board, holding him to 3 clubs and partner's 2 major aces.

[the hog]

What's the worst 2 level overcall you've ever seen? By 'worst' I simply mean lacking in bridge merit.

 

How does this one compare?:

Vulnerable against not, dealer passes, 2nd hand opens 1♠, 3rd hand holds ♠AQx ♥Jxxxx ♦xx ♣Kxx and bids 2♥

 

 

This is by far not the worst.

[Zelandakh]

Not even close Eric. You have a 5 card suit and some preemptive value. An example from a recent hand:

 

♠AJ752 ♥5 ♦532 ♣AQ86 1st seat@Game All

P - (1♥) - P - (1♠);

2♣

 

 

And here is a red 4 level overcall from the same player with a bonus 5 level follow-up:

 

♠7 ♥KQ65 ♦KJT75 ♣Q62 3rd seat@Red vs White

P - (P) - P - (1♠);

P - (2NT)* - P - (4♠);

P - (P) - 4NT - (P);

5♣ - (X) - 5NT

* natural, invitational

 

 

You could also look at a few of my more creative overcalls, a few of which I have posted here if you look around.

[billw55]

Maybe not the worst, but another funny BBO expert story. Vulnerable, partner overcalled 2♣ in 2nd seat holding ♠Kxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣KQxxx. We end up defending 3NT. Late in the play, all the spade and diamond honors were identified, and I found myself on lead holding ♥Kx. "Knowing" that partner must hold the ♥A or Q for his bid, I laid down the king. Declarer produced the AQ, and partner insta-booted me for such a stupid lead http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

[helene_t]

The worst I have seen was probably a 2♣ overcall on a doubleton - playing 5542, she would have opened 1♣, now opps forced her to bid her suit at the 2-level.

[Trinidad]

I remember a hand from the '90s (!)

 

I held something like ♠Kxx ♥AKQxx ♦AKQJ ♣x, and nobody vul. (I am not 100% sure of the whole hand, but diamonds are 100% accurate.)

 

My partner opened 1♣, the wife on my right passes and I responded 1♥. Now the husband on the left bid 2♦, my partner makes a support double, and RHO passes. I passed too. Yes, we did have a slam, but the 1400 in 2♦X -6 was better. LHO couldn't complain: Dummy showed up with the ♠A and a diamond honor! (The overcall was on ♦9xxxx.)

 

The conversation after the hand was short and intense: I suspect that the husband slept on the couch for the rest of the week.

 

Rik

[olegru]

Two weeks ago.

I hold something like:

 

♠ AKQJ9x

♥ xx

♦ xxx

♣ xx

 

My partner open 1NT (15-17) and RHO overcalled with 2♠. Natural, not even two-suited. Guess who hold the 10 of ♠. :)

[ggwhiz]

As a rookie I once overcalled 2♣ on a 3 count cause I had just finished counting my cards, not my points.

[kenrexford]

The worst I have seen was probably a 2♣ overcall on a doubleton - playing 5542, she would have opened 1♣, now opps forced her to bid her suit at the 2-level.

 

On a related note, I used to make a ton of natural "cuebid" overcalls on three-card suits, but these were effective for a weird reason.

 

I played with a lady years ago who was the most timid player I have ever seen. So, to open her up a bit, I talked her into a light initial action system where most 8-counts were opened. Related, our overcalls were 0+, and we played R.U.N.T.

 

So, suppose you have this auction:

 

1♦-P-1♠-?

 

Partner's pass, when playing R.U.N.T. and 0+ overcalls, is very telling. I could usually predict a 5+ holding in diamonds. Thus, this auction occurred quite frequently:

 

1♦-P-1♠-2♦! (natural, with 3+ diamonds)

 

 

 

 

 

[Zelandakh]

Partner's pass, when playing R.U.N.T. and 0+ overcalls, is very telling. I could usually predict a 5+ holding in diamonds.

Were the opps also so clued in on all of the negative inferences available?

[neilkaz]

A fun hand from here on BBO a couple years ago in MBC. LHO passed, PD opened 1♦, RHO passed his yarb, and I responded 1♥ with a flat 11 count. Then LHO overcalled Red vs White a bad 10 count with QT8xx in ♣. PD made a support X, and I took a shot and passed, having seen two other awful 2 level overcalls from this LHO, I took my shot and passed.

 

All during the defense my PD (a rude pickup) was typing stuff like (my X was support you idiot, we missed a cold game..how can you pass?). Well +1400 after declarer gave us an extra trick (missed an endplay) when +1100 was cold for us.

[kenrexford]

Were the opps also so clued in on all of the negative inferences available?

 

No. Apparently, you apparently (I tried for a while) are not supposed to alert a pass and then provide an absurdly convoluted set of bizarre inferences.

 

Plus, many of the inferences come from what is in my hand, which surely is not alertable.

 

On the first point, I used to have fun explaining inferences. This can truly be fun. Consider an example.

 

"Alert."

 

"Yes?"

 

"Partner has one of several hand types. If he is balanced, he has a sort of Woodson-style two-way holding, meaning either a weaker range of 11-14 HCP or a higher range of 18-19 HCP. He might also be unbalanced, with at least four clubs. The unbalanced range runs anywhere from 8 HCP up to about 22 HCP. If he is unbalanced, he can have a 5-card major. His club suit could be his shortest suit, his second-shortest suit, his second-longest suit, or his longest suit. "

 

"Has this been pre-approved?"

 

"Yes. This is part of a system called Standard American."

 

 

[billw55]

A fun hand from here on BBO a couple years ago in MBC. LHO passed, PD opened 1♦, RHO passed his yarb, and I responded 1♥ with a flat 11 count. Then LHO overcalled Red vs White a bad 10 count with QT8xx in ♣.

This happens all the freaking time in the MBC. I even have a standard profile note for it, I call it "late entry" and use it very frequently. They can't open the bidding at the one level, nor can they preempt, but they can butt in later at the two level after both ops have bid. This is almost always done on a bad five card suit.

[EricK]

This happens all the freaking time in the MBC. I even have a standard profile note for it, I call it "late entry" and use it very frequently. They can't open the bidding at the one level, nor can they preempt, but they can butt in later at the two level after both ops have bid. This is almost always done on a bad five card suit.

The same player as in the OP did this to me a few weeks back:

Me LHO CHO RHO

P P P 1♠

P 2♥ 3♣

 

I never seem to be able to get through to him how this sort of bidding makes no logical sense.

 

Why is it that some people can never seem to grasp "bridge logic"? I'm no expert, and I might not have been able to work this sort of thing out all by myself, but I never needed it explained more than once.

[blackshoe]

"Has this been pre-approved?"

 

"Yes. This is part of a system called Standard American."

ROFL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[the hog]

Were the opps also so clued in on all of the negative inferences available?

 

They don't need to be.

[Fluffy]

The worst 2 level overcall was made by a lady who has been playing for like 40 years already, she had something like A KQ109xxx KQJxx - or something like that, it was 11 winners, and 2♥ didnt score very well.

 

Then there is my partner who likes to overcall opponents 5 card major opening with his 4 card in the same suit. But surpriingly this has always turned into a top somehow.

[Zelandakh]

They don't need to be.

And this is the problem and the reason why Fred and others have a good point when they support unusual systems remaining banned. It does not matter that a convention has little bridge merit if the opps are unable to defend against it due to insufficient information or, in extreme cases, time to prepare. When the opps catch on to what you are doing you just change it to the next unusual method.

 

It is my view, and I know I am not alone in this, that regulation of methods allowed should be relaxed in many areas but that there should be a burden of responsibility in playing such methods that opponents are aware of all inferences in a timely manner. In the case of a non-alertable call such as a pass that would mean a pre-alert, probably in conjunction with an additional sheet for the CC. If we were able to improve disclosure that would go some way to improving the situation with regards to "germ warfare". Not completely of course, since familiarity is very important in bridge, but enough that most of the worst-offending methods would probably phase out naturally after a few years.

 

To be honest I am surprised that methods such as RUNT are not pre-alertable in the ACBL. The SAYC exampe is obviously silly because, as above, the key here is familiarity rather than complexity.

[helene_t]

I don't see why RUNT itself should be pre-alertable. It doesn't seem to require a special defense.

 

Maybe the pass should be alerted. In Ken Rexford's case I think it should be, but that is pretty extreme.

 

I know the ACBL doesn't require negative inference to be alerted. I can sorta understand this but probably the idea is that you don't need to alert when it doesn't matter much. Since there isn't any difference between positive and negative inference. You could for example define Muiderberg as a 5-card preempt showing an unbalanced hand and denying a 4-card in the other major. Then it becomes negative inference that you have a 4+ card in a minor, but obviously that doesn't make it any less alertable.

 

Once my partner passed in direct seat holding a completely normal 1NT overcall - but we play raptor. Declarer misguessed because he thought my partner couldn't have 16 points and be silent in the auction. Afterwards he said he thought I should have alerted my partner's pass. I think he has a point. It is a bit difficult to formalize, though. And some opps get annoyed if you alert too much.

[kenrexford]

"Alert."

 

"Yes? "

 

"Partner's pass shows any hand where he would not have opened/overcalled. Here are the definitions of the 11 most common opening bids or overcalls..."

 

This is why they made me stop it.

[helene_t]

Ken this is silly.

 

Alert!

 

Yes?

 

We play a 1NT as a very light take-out so he could have a balanced 16 count but he can't have a 3-suited hand short in spades unless he has less than 7 HCPs.

 

You don't need to say that he doesn't have a hand suitable for a normal (jump) overcall.

[the hog]

I don't see why RUNT itself should be pre-alertable. It doesn't seem to require a special defense.

 

Maybe the pass should be alerted. In Ken Rexford's case I think it should be, but that is pretty extreme.

 

I know the ACBL doesn't require negative inference to be alerted. I can sorta understand this but probably the idea is that you don't need to alert when it doesn't matter much. Since there isn't any difference between positive and negative inference. You could for example define Muiderberg as a 5-card preempt showing an unbalanced hand and denying a 4-card in the other major. Then it becomes negative inference that you have a 4+ card in a minor, but obviously that doesn't make it any less alertable.

 

Once my partner passed in direct seat holding a completely normal 1NT overcall - but we play raptor. Declarer misguessed because he thought my partner couldn't have 16 points and be silent in the auction. Afterwards he said he thought I should have alerted my partner's pass. I think he has a point. It is a bit difficult to formalize, though. And some opps get annoyed if you alert too much.

 

I disagree totally with this. It is not your role to give lessons in bidding. Pd opens 1C. Do you say, "He may only have 3 Cs. If he has 3 Cs he does not have a 5 card M. He does not have a bal 20-22 etc etc etc?" You get the idea.

You open 1NT and pd bids 3. Do you alert and say pd does not have a 5 card M or a 4 card M unless he is 4333 etc etc?" For heavens sake! In your example above, I do not bid on crappy bal 16 counts without a source of tricks. This is Bridge in my opinion.

[helene_t]

In your example above, I do not bid on crappy bal 16 counts without a source of tricks. This is Bridge in my opinion.

Not sure what you disagree with. Sounds like you are mixing up my post with Ken's.

 

My p passed because he didn't have a natural 1NT bid available, not because he found the hand unsuitable for a natural 1NT bid.

 

Of course it is just bridge that when partner passes over opps opening he is likely to have some length in opps' suit if he has decent values. In Ken's system, the pass virtually guarantees length in their suit. I don't think that is GBK.

[kenrexford]

If full disclosure is taken too far, you can get into what seems like the absurd. Consider a few examples.

 

1. You open One Heart. Do you alert, noting that you play Flannery? The 1♥ opening in the context of Flannery tends to show shorter spades on average than the 1♥ opening usually has, and the 1♥ opening tends to have slightly longer hearts on average than the normal 1♥ opening (because you eliminate from the mix all 5-card holdings with four spades).

 

2. Do you disclose impending inferences? If one needs information to determine a call to make, future possible actions are important. For instance, I have selected between two options on the basis of whether the opponents do or do not use Rosenkranz Doubles. Should I be alerted to this convention being used when RHO overcalls 1♠? Or, should I be expected to ask or to look at their card? This might seem silly, but nuances to a past auction are important, but nuances to a possible future auction are also important. Knowing the opponents' defense to a weak two, for instance, impacts whether I do or do not make a weak two. A "future" penalty double in the context of Fishbein impact whether I do or do not open a light 3-bid. Should I be alerted after the deal to Fishbein?

 

3. Should I be alerted as to the options available to opponent's partner in general? Their structure may impact their decisions and give nuance to their bids. For example, consider a third-seat 1♥ opening. In the abstract, the 1♥ opening might not seem to have any plausible nuances from a response structure. However, Drury impacts the type of hands opened 1♥. Equally, a 2♦ response as showing 3♥/4♠, for instance, might make a 4-4 major holding more likely. Should 1♥ be alerted because of Drury and 2♦ as described, because this gives nuance to their opening bid?

 

This might seem silly, but nuances arise all the time that are applied by the partnership but not necessarily disclosed, because the nuance is not spotted unless you have a strange reason for the nuance to become important. For that matter, it is extremely difficult to accurately describe nuances.

 

Consider describing the nuances of a 1♣ opening. Would most people be able to remember to describe the nuance of the hand with 5M/6♣? How about the subtlety of the Rule-of-Twenty and freak hands? How about the nuance of the balanced ranges (if 14, poor 14, if 19, poor 19, could be good 17)? What about nuances like describing what balanced hands in the 15-17 range are not opened 1NT?

 

When you start getting into the extremely nuanced, it seems that there becomes a point where the disclosure on the convention card should be enough to inspire questions, or where knowledge of the GCC should inspire questions, or knowledge of the game should inspire questions. If the convention card has "RUNT" listed, or 0+ overcalls, the opponents should be expected to use logic to realize that maybe a pass is significant and ask. If you in general decide that a failure to overcall 1NT means something in the play, knowledge of the GCC suggests asking to be sure. When someone opens 1♥ in third seat and nuances might matter to you for some reason, knowledge of the game might inspire asking whether the nuances are or are not present.