Vulnerable One Level Overcall

[FelicityR]

We had an 'interesting' discussion over the rubber bridge table about overcalling vulnerable with a poor five card suit in a 5332 hand. As always I appreciate your replies and thank you in advance. And I have made the poll to reflect the position if you were playing MPs or IMPs too. This was the hand:-

 

[hv=pc=n&e=st8532hj3daq4ckq10&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1h]133|200[/hv]

 

Would you bid or not?

[steve2005]

overcalling 1♠ will get you the horrid Kx lead from partner if they have it.

[apollo1201]

overcalling 1♠ will get you the horrid Kx lead from partner if they have it.

Had you been dealer, would you have passed? Then it goes 2H in your left and partner will make the same Kx lead.

 

True, the lead-directing value of this overcall is yet to be found. At least, if they play H, you’ll be on lead.

 

But S is the boss suit, and when I have opening values (which I have, although very minimum), the suit can be weak. The risk of being unable to buy the contract if we pass or X because we miss our 5-3 fit seems too important to me. Some statistics could help, though.

[Tramticket]

We have spades and we have opening values. Looks like an overcall to me.

 

This might attract the wrong lead, but I'm an optimist - opps might be on lead.

[HardVector]

You have the spade suit. If it looks like you should be competing and a spade fit is likely, you can always come back in. The delayed bid will tell your partner the suit is trashy and warn them of aggressive leads if you're on defense. What I particularly like on these hands, is if they end up in some game, your partner will lead THEIR best suit. Holding Kxxxx in diamonds and nothing else, wouldn't a diamond lead be great instead of 9 from 9xx in spades? I actually had a hand similar to this a couple months ago. The auction went something like; 1h-(p)-1s-(p)-2s-(p)-3s-all pass. +100 was all the matchpoints.

[nekthen]

I guess many do not have much experience with rubber.

I pass at all forms of scoring, but at rubber it seems clear cut to pass. You want to win the rubber and you are in pole position. The worst that can happen is that you make a bad sacrifice in 4♠ having pushed them into bidding 4♥ which they would not bid on their own. If they stop in a part score, you are still favourite to win the rubber.

At MP or imps I will compete the part score, but I will pass initially and act if the opps look like they are going to buy a 2 level contract

[Tramticket]

I guess many do not have much experience with rubber.

I pass at all forms of scoring, but at rubber it seems clear cut to pass. You want to win the rubber and you are in pole position. The worst that can happen is that you make a bad sacrifice in 4♠ having pushed them into bidding 4♥ which they would not bid on their own. If they stop in a part score, you are still favourite to win the rubber.

At MP or imps I will compete the part score, but I will pass initially and act if the opps look like they are going to buy a 2 level contract

 

This analysis relies on the assumption that you are simply competing for a part-score. But since you hold opening values yourself, it seems a little early to rule out making a vulnerable game your way (or completing the rubber!).

 

I am not expecting partner to readily sacrifice in 4♠ over 4♥ at these colours in a rubber bridge match.

[nudnikbp]

One spade at any form of scoring. If partner has three or four spades you're the one who has to bid to find that fit. Passing is too pessimistic.

[Cyberyeti]

Had you been dealer, would you have passed? Then it goes 2H in your left and partner will make the same Kx lead.

 

 

Nope, because I opened 1N

[msjennifer]

Sir,I have voted for a TOD for following reasons. 1)The spade suit is not a rebiddable suit as per the definitions set. (2) If LHO has a game forcing hand (or 10 +HCP) and my partner is on lead then I DO want him to make his normal lead and more so if LHO is declarer. (3) This hand does have a 4 card spade suit (NORMALLY PROMISED),a tolerance for both the minors (whichever partner shall lead in a NT contract) and not more than 2 wasted cards in hearts.(4) I do not want to FORCE partner to lead Spade if LHO is declarer in a NT contract. (5) a 1S overcall does not also pose any problem, whatsoever, to the opponents.

=

[rmnka447]

I hate bidding 1 ♠ on such a horrid suit, but the values dictate otherwise at all forms.

 

I might consider passing if way ahead in an IMP match or at rubber bridge.

[dsLawsd]

I think this depends somewhat on partner's skill set.

A double would lead partner to lead our likely best suit or to

compete as appropriate.

 

Matchpoints requires a 1♠ overcall for reasons of how high to

compete.

 

I voted for a double at IMPs but it may be correct to pass depending

on partner.

[miamijd]

Bridge is a bidder's game. Yeah, the suit stinks, but you have an opening hand and the spade suit. Get it there and fight.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[mikeh]

I pass at all forms of scoring. Bridge may be a bidder's game but overcalling 1S on this hand has only a couple of things going for it and several more things going against it.

 

Going for it (at this vulnerability): the hand may belong to us in a partial. Except at mps, even bidding 3S over their 3H, and failing by a trick, may be a good outcome (at mps, they are more likely to double than at other forms of scoring). The hand may even belong to us in game. However, for that to happen, either partner is able to get into the auction, in which case overcalling or passing was probably irrelevant, or the opps are not getting beyond the 2-level by the time the auction gets back to me, and I am not passing this hand out, and will bid over 2x by rho, (unless LHO bid 1S!).

 

Meanwhile, bidding can go so wrong so many ways.

 

If LHO is declarer in notrump, we would prefer that partner lead his better minor: a spade lead will usually blow a trick (if he had one) or at the least blow a tempo.

 

We could get doubled at the 1-level and go for more than their (possibly non-existent) game

 

Partner, with any 3 card support and some modest values, will overcompete. Our minor cards are likely useful, in that context, but having 3 trump losers is unlikely to be good for our side.

 

If the opps declare some number of hearts, so that at least partner isn't making a suicidal spade lead, declarer is likely going to be able to place all the missing hcp once he figures out our spade suit.

 

Going 200 on any part score battle will be disastrous at mps, and lead to a small loss at both imps and rubber. Going 500 or more at any level is going to be bad at all forms of scoring.

 

Finally: unless your partner agrees that one should bid with this hand, bidding and being wrong will be bad for the partnership.

 

Yes, bridge is a bidder's game: but that is not the same as meaning that one always has to bid anytime one has an opening or near opening hand.

 

And, yes, I would open 1S had RHO passed or were I the dealer. I have no idea why that makes it wise to bid 1S here: RHO did in fact open, which is, to my mind, something that affects how I think about the hand. Why anyone would think that one can ignore the actions of the opps, when considering one's actions, escapes me entirely.

 

Now, is the decision close? Yes....very close. In fact were I white v red I would write as strongly in favour of overcalling as I now do in favour of passing. But we are red, they are white and our suit is horrific: the very worst situation for aggressive overcalling.

[nige1]

.[hv=pc=n&e=st8532hj3daq4ckq10&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1h]133|200|.

FelicityR writes 'We had an 'interesting' discussion over the rubber bridge table about overcalling vulnerable with a poor five card suit in a 5332 hand. As always I appreciate your replies and thank you in advance. And I have made the poll to reflect the position if you were playing MPs or IMPs too. This was the hand:- Would you bid or not?'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Close decision but I rank

1. Double = T/O. Pretending that ♠ is a 4-carder as MsJennifer recommends.

2; 1♠ = NAT. The boss-suit increases our chance of winning the auction.

3. Pass = Might well be best as MikeH suggests.

[/hv]

 

.

[pes_6]

I voted 1♠ in all offered situations. I've 11 honors and five cards suit (♠) so I chosen overcall. Those who are said "pass" on poll would you pass in this case if you've additionally K♦ and maybe J♣ or J♦ that would be 14 or 15 honors. It's same situation with 3 or 4 more points, you again risk ♠ lead from Kx♠ but is that reason to hide your points? Is ok to pass in that situation out of fear cause of poor lead? What's more worse "sell" one-two tricks or miss partial contract 2♠ or 3♠?

[maartenxq]

1 ♠all the way. At MP's and IMPS this is obvious in my opinion. True, partner may get the wrong lead against NT, but I feel we must compete. The big downside is south having a big penalty against spades. Especially at rubber bridge this could prove to be very expensive, but even there I am willing to take the risk.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[HardVector]

Bridge is a bidder's game. Yeah, the suit stinks, but you have an opening hand and the spade suit. Get it there and fight.

 

Cheers,

Mike

This quote is soooo abused. People continue to think that this means you should always be aggressive and when in doubt, bid more. Yes, it is a bidder's game. The goal is to ACCURATELY describe your hand to your partner and have a communication to arrive at the optimal contract. Sometimes, the optimal contract for you is to LET THEM PLAY. If your overcalls include trash like this as well as KQT32 J3 AQ4 T85, your partner is going to have no idea what to do.

[the hog]

This is a totally obvious 1S overcall at any vulnerability at ANY form of the game, including high stakes rubber. Pass and you will never partner me again.

[Winstonm]

I don't know what is right - but my instincts and thinking agree with pass. I hadn't thought about double, but for that with this weak of hand I would want a singleton heart and some 4-card minor.

[cherdano]

Very strongly feel that 1S is right.

If partner has Axxx x xxx Axxxx are we really planning for one of us to get in at the 3- or 4-level? I'd respect the passers' opinions more if they could acknowledge the risks of passing.

[mikeh]

Very strongly feel that 1S is right.

If partner has Axxx x xxx Axxxx are we really planning for one of us to get in at the 3- or 4-level? I'd respect the passers' opinions more if they could acknowledge the risks of passing.

 

what a weird comment.

 

have you actually read the comments by the passers?

 

Ironically, it is the slew of 1S bidders who seem to assume that their action has no risks attached to it.