[Swammerdam]

You are Non-vul vs Vul. Your RHO deals and passes.
You hold AT9xxx (void) Kxxx KQx and open 1 spade.
LHO bids 2 hearts; this is followed by 2 passes.
What call do you make now?

In the olden days, players overcalled with weak hands and needed to be punished with penalty doubles.
But doubles were negative, so when partner Passes opener is expected to re-open, and if possible
to re-open with Double whenever he would have passed a penalty double.

Judging by the bidding at BBO, light overcalls are very much in vogue nowadays!
So, what call do you now make with the above hand?

[helene_t]

Yes I double.

I read in one of Dan Kleinman's books that he likes two-level reopening doubles to show extras but in normal methods, the reopening double just shows 5431 (with shortness in their suit) or better, or some strong hand.

I am not worried about doubling with this hand. With an ace and with KQ in a short suit, I have reasonable defence in case partner passes, and if he bids I am happy, too.

[mikeh]

Matchpoints or imps?

At MPs, I think it’s clear to double, even though I expect a bad result fairly often.

At imps, I’d be a lot more worried. There are three problems with doubling. One, the least of the three, is the extra spade, which may make 2S a safer call and a safer contract. However, this might actually make doubling work out better….unless partner passes. If, as often happens, he bids 2S on a doubleton, I’ll be happy I hold six spades.

The second is that most players will have a slightly higher minimum for the unfavourable 2H at imps than at mps. I think this is also at most a minor factor…I might well not even know if LHO is one of those players.

The third and by far the most important is my heart void, especially if LHO is an expert declarer. When such contracts (2Hx) make, it’s often due to declarer being able to endplay responder in trump, since the auction gives him a rough idea of how trump sit. The normal way for the defence to reduce the endplay problem is for opener to lad a trump through declarer, so not having one is often bad news.

As to what my void says about how the suit lies, it’s neutral. Hopefully partner has at least five hearts.

I know my main partner would be upset if I didn’t double, even at imps. So I think I’d double…but I’d be hating it at imps.

[WasWinM]

Double but only because of the defensive values and where they are located. Give me KQ in spades and a side ace instead I bid 2S.

[jillybean]

---

I'm wondering about 2♠ but X keeps partner in on the decision and a penalty pass would be fun.

[awm]

This is something I think would actually be pretty interesting to study in some way (i.e. by looking at vugraph results or even double-dummy sims). Making a reopening double with a void and minimum values (like this hand) has some obvious risks (partner leaves it in, but opponents have 8 trumps between them and can make it on repeated endplays). It seems quite possible to me that bidding 2♠ actually leads to better results, and I'd be interested to see just how often the double leads to problems.

With that said, having not actually done this analysis, I'm sure I'd double at the table too.

[Swammerdam]

Thanks much for the responses; I'm glad to see near-unanimity for Double!
Nobody mentioned the vulnerability but that seems important. Down Two will be better than making game Non-vul vs Vul,
but Down Four would be needed to compensate for game when Vul vs Non.

I was the partner of the hand in OP and had Q QJ97x A98x AT8 and was sure hoping to hear "Double!" 2♥ doubled fails at least two tricks, and probably three.
Instead partner bid 2♠ and I bid 3NT which is difficult to make unless the opening leader plays (as is likely?) Ace and another from ♥ATx.

Is there a way to see how this hand -- from 2 days ago -- played out at the other tables?

Yes, the overcaller had ♥K8432 and only 9 bad hcp. Overcalls here seem VERY light. Do experts make light overcalls also?

Speaking of light overcalls, consider this scenario:

A pair sits down at my table with a card that states "Light Overcalls."
I say "In that case, we're playing Penalty Doubles, not Negative."
They reply "Oh. Well in that case we're switching to Sound Overcalls."
I say "Then Negative Doubles are back on."
They say "Then so are our Light Overcalls."
... Repeat ad infinitum.

Does this ever happen? Is there a rule to stifle the infinite regress?

[DavidKok]

• To my knowledge, experts do not play 2♥ over 1♠ as light as this pair. It is common for this to be stronger.
  
• I think bidding 3NT over that 2♠ is somewhat questionable. You know partner has a minimum with extra shape and a big misfit - why else would they run instead of double? In fact, the posters here double with as little as this actual hand - a real 2♠ bid is likely weaker. Your hearts are basically worthless. Where are the tricks? Don't punish partner for making a bid you don't like by retaliating with another poor bid. It may or may not be good to still bid 3NT regardless, but be aware of the fact that you're gambling here, or bean counting.
  
• I don't think there is a rule to resolve this infinite recursion. At one time I naively thought that the bidding order would determine this - i.e. that you'd have to decide on the overcalls, and then the opponents could play whatever followups they want, and you can't take back the definition of the overcall. I've since been informed that this is not a rule, and you can indeed stall with such a recursion (though I've never seen it happen).
  
• If my opponents are kind enough to give up the extremely powerful tool of takeout doubles, I want to put them in that situation as often as possible! They will get so many unsolvable problems. I would, in response to their announcement of penalty doubles, drastically lower the requirements for an overcall or a preempt. This has the opposite effect of what you are suggesting.

[awm]

Experts don't judge their overcalls only on points -- it depends a lot on shape, vulnerability, suit quality, and even state of the match. With that said, I don't think many would overcall 2♥ on 9 points and a Kxxxx suit. For something like ♠x ♥KQTxxx ♦Axx ♣xxx you would get a lot of takers though (okay, at NV some people are bidding 3♥ with that, but at vulnerable I think most will bid 2♥).

[smerriman]

Swammerdam, on 2025-September-09, 13:17, said:

Is there a way to see how this hand -- from 2 days ago -- played out at the other tables?

Yes. (Found via MyHands).

But you will never learn anything from how other random BBO players bid; if anything, you'll suffer just looking at them..

Swammerdam, on 2025-September-09, 13:17, said:

Instead partner bid 2♠ and I bid 3NT which is difficult to make unless the opening leader plays (as is likely?) Ace and another from ♥ATx.

As a play problem it seems like 3NT should make on anything but the singleton diamond lead, just by knocking out the top two spades. You went down by giving up a trick to the ♥T - play high at trick 2 and your hearts are protected.

[blackshoe]

Swammerdam, on 2025-September-09, 13:17, said:

Speaking of light overcalls, consider this scenario:

A pair sits down at my table with a card that states "Light Overcalls."
I say "In that case, we're playing Penalty Doubles, not Negative."
They reply "Oh. Well in that case we're switching to Sound Overcalls."
I say "Then Negative Doubles are back on."
They say "Then so are our Light Overcalls."
... Repeat ad infinitum.

Does this ever happen? Is there a rule to stifle the infinite regress?

The rule, at least in the ACBL, is that when they say light overcalls, you can change from negative to penalty doubles. They cannot now switch their overcalls. More generally, only one side gets to change their methods in response to opponents' methods.