[jtfanclub]

I didn't want to ruin Glen's thread with bidding theory, but I was thinking about something in that link.

He passed, opp opened 1♣, and partner passed with 6 spades Q9 and nothing else. His partner pointed out that a pre-empt would be more likely to help opponents than help partner. There's another case I hate, which is overcalling 1 in the red suits. Again, more likely to help opponents than help partner across a passed hand.

I'm becoming convinced that across a passed hand only, 2M should show 6-11 hcp and 3m should show 6-13 hcp. Since we play Precision, the odds of us having game unless partner shows up with 4 card support are virtually nil, so the bids can afford to be wide ranging.

This means a non-jump would show a real hand- 11+. In other words, a hand with game interest across a passed hand.

The IJO should make for a lot of trouble for opponents. It's high up enough that it's real interference, while the wide range means:

1) It doesn't flag that they have game, just that we don't without a massive fit.
2) In a normal game result, it doesn't give much away. If you get to game with26 total hcp, knowing that one opponent has 6-11 doesn't help much for guessing queens and suchlike.

On the other hand, a 'real' overcall makes for some interesting auctions. Is
(P)-1♣-([1SP])-X-(4♠)
a sacrifice, or to play? Even if opener has 4 hearts, how many points will it take for him to show it?

Just another thought bouncing around my skull like a BB in a barrell...

[glen]

jtfanclub, on Mar 10 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

I didn't want to ruin Glen's thread with bidding theory, but I was thinking about something in that link.

He passed ...

Just a note - it was not me who passed but the player who kindly provided the impressions of playing in that world class event.

And np with getting bumped - this thread is very much in the same vein.

jtfanclub, on Mar 10 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

I'm becoming convinced that across a passed hand only, 2M should show 6-11 hcp and 3m should show 6-13 hcp.  Since we play Precision, the odds of us having game unless partner shows up with 4 card support are virtually nil, so the bids can afford to be wide ranging.

Recently against local experts it goes Pass-1♥-3♣, and my wife, next to bid, asks if 3♣ is weak. "Preemptive" is the reply. Why the difference?

Since 3♣ is opposite a passed hand (and these experts play 10-12 notrumps), it will be bid preemptively with a wide range of hands wanting to play just 3♣ if partner is unable to raise with fit. So it changes from a "weak jump overcall" to a "preemptive jump overcall", which is not the same as an intermediate jump overcall, which I think would promise some values.

[inquiry]

I would not necessarily go so far as to play intermediate jump overcalls. After all, preempts still work. However, in support of your idea is the bidding principles of Arturo Franco sometime credited to Benito Garozzo which I found on Zar's pages long time ago. These are"

1. Bridge is a game of suits
2. It is better not to enter the race than not to be able to win
3. Don’t tell the opponents how to play the hand

Preempts without hope of buying the contract fall into the category 2 and 3.

[hrothgar]

Here's the problem: You're making a lot of assumptions based on the strength of the 2♠ overcall.

Most bidding structures have different shape requirements for 1♠ and 2♠ overcalls.

A 2♠ overcall (typically) requires 6+ Spades.
A 1♠ overcall requires 5+ Spades (some people would say 4+)

There are going to be lots of intermediate strength hands with 4-5 Spades which will be forced to overcall 1♠.
Therefore, you can't make any assumptions that this bid denies the strength normally shown by a 2♠ jump overcall.

[jtfanclub]

IMHO, there is no hand that makes a 4 card direct seat overcall across a passed hand without 11+ hcp, regardless of what system you play. The only purpose that serves is to tempt partner into raising you and watching it go for 1100.

That leaves 5 card suits. One option is to pass with a balanced hand with a 5 card suit and 10- hcp. While there is a good argument that spades are boss and therefore you should compete with them when you can, I can live without it.

All that's left are unbalanced 5 card suits, particularly ones with shortness in a suit other than opener's. To me, if I take the argument as far as it goes, 2♠ should merely promise 5 and an unbalanced hand (though I can certainly pass them when I want). Should work far more often than it doesn't, especially since with the boss suit and the wide range it's not clear that they can bid higher. Of course, when it doesn't work and they can find the X, it's going to be exciting.

I think 'intermediate strength' across a passed hand is a trap. That information won't help partner, and it will help the opponents. Balanced 7-10 hcp hands should pass, even if they include a 5 card major.

At least, that's the theory.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Mar 10 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

At least, that's the theory.

My theory is a bit different:

If you give opponents lots of bidding space, they will typically land in the right contract. If you put them under lots of pressure, they won't.

I readily admit, there are counter examples: The hand from the Yeh Cup that Sartaj posted and Glen quoted is an obvious example.

Ishmael Del'Monte (who is a better player that I could ever dream of being) chose to pass RHO's 1♦ opening holding

♠ Q109xxx
♥ xxx
♦ xx
♣ xx

The opponents had an unobstructed auction to 3NT and went down three when Ish lead a low Spade to partner's AKx. This was a phenomenal result when the other table played 4♠X - 4.

At the same time, Sartaj does note that that opponent's were cold for 6♦. I wonder if the swing should properly be attributed to Ish's decision to pass or the opponent's inability to find a cold slam given an unobstructed auction. (I readily admit, there are a lot of hands out there where a pefect slam won't be found) In any case, I wonder if the tale would have been the same had the other team won 12 IMPs for +1420 compared to -800....

[pclayton]

I've played around with an idea for a competitive system based on a similar idea.

(1♣) - 1♥ gives you a little preemption, but I hate (1♣) - 1♦, since it adds clarity to the opponents bidding, and preempts nothing.

I was thinking about using (1♣) - 1♦ as a cheap takeout of the unbid suits, similar to a 1N overcall in Overcall Structure.

Double is 15+ a la Overcall Structure
1♥ / 1♠ would be natural.
1N would be Raptor-Style with 5+ diamonds and 4 major.
2♣ would be Multi - a WJO in a major.
2 of anything becomes an IJO.

Over 1♣, I think this is a darn good idea. Over 1♦, it could also be played, but you start to give up real basic bids like a 1♥ overcall, which just feels wrong.

[dake50]

Finally hearing someone who sees the OBVIOUS to obstruct 'may be short' 1C!
When their 1C bid is 2-7C, 0-5D, 0-4H, 0-5S, and 12-21hcp what do they know?
What can they sort out at 3-level with one response to decide partial/game/ penalty? Make them guess especially when the guessing is bad = highly ambiguous, many possibilities.
Much changes after passes in an auction. Especially, the likelihood of opponents overheating. They may still mis-bid to wrong strain, or under-bid, but no left field overbid is possible. The same for our side: partner won't overheat unless promoting a super fit. So most divergences up or down from expected are effective. 4cM in 3-seat even playing 5cM; 1NT 10-16 in 3-seat; 2C starts at 19hcp; 1C/1D are strong ala Roth-Stone.

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on Mar 10 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

2. It is better not to enter the race than not to be able to win

No doubt there are some rare occasions where this might be predicted, but generally I have a problem with this argument.

Whether you are likely to be in a position to win "the race" is largely dependent on your partner and on how well his hand fits with yours. If you don't bother to bid your own hand, partner will never be in a position to judge how well his hand fits with it. On those occasions when it fits badly you would have done better to stay quiet. On those occasions when it fits well, the opposite may be the case.

There is also the argument that depriving the opponents of bidding space will restrict their bidding accuracy even on those hands where they are destined to buy the contract. That of course has to be weighed in the balance against the assistance that you will have provided to them in playing the hand.

[the hog]

Phil raises some interesting points here. I have often thought that the optimal overcalling strategy should vary depending on vulnerability and on whether pd is a passed hand or not, just like I have often thought that bidding systems should do likewise.

The problem with all of this though, is that it is not really practical. I, for one, would find it difficlut in a long teams match, or even in a MP event over the course of the evening, to remember these agreements.

Having said this, I really do believe that the strategy over a 1m opening should be different to that over 1M. Some time ago pd and I played canape overcalls over 1m. This had the added advantage that it worked well over a strong C opening as well and thus eliminated some memory burden. I suppose that they are not allowed in the States? Pity, they are very effective.

[Flame]

The different between your suggestion and standard are the non jumps overcalls only, the width range jumps are normal and everyone play them.
I am not convince that opposite a passed hand we would be better placed with a 11+ 1♠ then with 7+ 1♠. I think the 7+ does more damage to the opponenets, and you will be doing ok as long as you follow the law of total tricks guidlines and not push partner with no resson.
On the side you gain the ODR different between jump and no jump bids which is much more important then hcp, and you dont have to pass balance 5 spades.

[Gerben42]

I think that if you have a hand interested in saving, especially holding ♠, jump overcalls with a passed hand should have a wide range in HCP but a small range in trick taking power. Partner knows how much to beef it up and opps have a hard time locating the honors.

On the other hand I've become fond of IJOs at unfav. vulnerable, partner passed or not. Opps try to double you anyway and you somehow seem to make more contracts this way, and the weak variation is rarely worth bothering in this case.

[blackshoe]

The_Hog, on Mar 10 2007, 06:40 PM, said:

Some time ago pd and I played canape overcalls over 1m. This had the added advantage that it worked well over a strong C opening as well and thus eliminated some memory burden. I suppose that they are not allowed in the States? Pity, they are very effective.

Interesting question. I'm not so sure they're disallowed, even at GCC level. After all, "canapé" simply means the suits in are bid in the reverse of the "normal" order, not that the agreement is conventional. But I think I'd check with Memphis before playing them. BTW, they're certainly allowed over a strong club, whether natural or conventional.

[ulven]

Maybe you should try the CJO. See my blog for details. More on the subject to come (probably later this week).

/Ulf

[inquiry]

ulven, on Mar 12 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

Maybe you should try the CJO. See my blog for details. More on the subject to come (probably later this week).

/Ulf

Curious agreement. I play raptor because I hate the off-shape doubles, CJO certainly would remove those hands from the double. This would be good treatment at MP I would suspect, but seems it forces to the three level on many misfits rather than two of a minor. Is this too expensive at imps? Do you forgo the jump overcall when vul and just bid the minor, giving up on the implication that no four card major exist after a minor overcall?

[ulven]

I'm not a fan of off-shape doubles either. I have never gotten taken after 2M and I can't remember any huge misfits.

It's a winner in my view, imps or mp's.

[jtfanclub]

Flame, on Mar 11 2007, 03:50 AM, said:

I am not convince that opposite a passed hand we would be better placed with a 11+ 1♠ then with 7+ 1♠. I think the 7+ does more damage to the opponenets, and you will be doing ok as long as you follow the law of total tricks guidlines and not push partner with no resson.
On the side you gain the ODR different between jump and no jump bids which is much more important then hcp, and you dont have to pass balance 5 spades.

Quote

different between your suggestion and standard are the non jumps overcalls only, the width range jumps are normal and everyone play them.

Partner dealt and passed. Next player opened 1♥. I had...

87
Q9
AQT765
KT7

I overcalled 3♦...I have no interest in game with this pile of crud across a passed hand. The opponents registered a psyche after the hand. I'd say a majority of people at the club would be shocked at such a 'strong' WJO.

Quote

I am not convince that opposite a passed hand we would be better placed with a 11+ 1♠ then with 7+ 1♠. I think the 7+ does more damage to the opponenets, and you will be doing ok as long as you follow the law of total tricks guidlines and not push partner with no resson.

There's two problems with that idea.

The first is, if they open 1♦ and you overcall 1♠, they certainly are not damaged. They lost one bid (the 1♥) and gained one (the X). A number of bids that they wouldn't have had any use for before suddenly gained extra meaning (2♠ and 3♠). Responder can also pass with a reasonable expectation that she will get another chance to bid. And it certainly helps them play the hand.

The second is, the total tricks guidelines kind of fell out the window on this one. Suppose the auction goes:
(1♦) 1♠ (X) ?

How many spades do you need to be protected at the 2 level? Is it 3? Well, your partner may have overcalled with 4. Even if he didn't, there's only a 5% when you have an 8 card fit they have a 7 card fit, but the auction just increased those odds (especially if you have some hearts). If the total is 15, they make 3, you're down 2 (doubled), they make 4, you're down three...not good. If the overcaller has some points, then you can make an educated guess about whether you're about to be doubled. Down 1 undoubled should be just fine, after all, no matter what the vulnerability.

So if I wait for 'full protection', then all the 1♠ does it make life easier for them. On the other hand, if you go with garbage raises to 2♠, you risk going for a number, a risk I think is very high, much higher than simply jumping to 2♠ with a 5 card suit, where they haven't had a chance to exchange information.

[jtfanclub]

ulven, on Mar 12 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

Maybe you should try the CJO. See my blog for details. More on the subject to come (probably later this week).

/Ulf

Well, um, they're alien enough that I'm not convinced. The bid seems too specific- if you compete with it and lose, you're likely revealing to much to the opponents, I think. Certainly if the opponents are unfamiliar with it that's a help, and if it allows you to compete and win... what hcp does it show?

Is it really a benefit to have it be true canape? Or would using it to show 4+/5+ instead of 4/5+ be more detrimental than helpful?

[ulven]

I'm not really trying to sell anything, just sharing.

Among well known partnerships, Fredin-Lindkvist played it for the full duration of their partnership (1997-2006).

If you don't like the idea, fine.

[Flame]

jtfanclub, on Mar 12 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

Partner dealt and passed.  Next player opened 1♥.  I had...

87
Q9
AQT765
KT7

I overcalled 3♦...I have no interest in game with this pile of crud across a passed hand.  The opponents registered a psyche after the hand.  I'd say a majority of people at the club would be shocked at such a 'strong' WJO.

Some of my student would consider many things a pysch, some think opening with 11 hcp and 6-5 hand a psych, this is against the rules, unallowed they will say.
Those guys are really novice offcourse, and those guys you talk about are better players but they still have things they dont know and they consider them psyches, hopefully in time they will learn. If i play such a field i might alert abid i know they might not understand but in good field this is standard and you should not alert it.