[ArtK78]

TylerE, on May 1 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

My concern has nothing to do with going for a number. If this is a 2♣ bid, how does partner ever know what's going on when (1♦) - 2♣ could be on:

---

or

---

Partner doesn't know what we have. A 2♣ overcall has a wide range, just as an opening 1 bid has a wide range.

Partner bids his cards and expects that I will bid my cards.

[kenrexford]

This is a hand for why I like 2NT to not be "two lower unbid" but both minors. Of course, some might find 2NT here as sick. LOL

At MP, I'm in for 2♣. At IMP, no way. Maybe 3♣, but not 2♣.

[effervesce]

jtfanclub, on May 1 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

Apollo81, on May 1 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

These two situations are completely different.

No, the situations are exactly the same. It's a 2/1 overcall in which you have a singleton in an unbid major.

The scoring is different- one is MPs NV, the other is IMPs Vul. If the decision on both is based on venue, say so. Me, I don't buy it. On the one hand, Match Points gives you a little more leeway when NV. On the other hand, -150 is probably a loss of 1 or 2 IMPs, but darn close to a 0 in MPs. I would not feel more comfortable if partner raised me to 3♣ on this one if we were NV in MPs than if we were Vul in IMPs. Partner knows the scoring too.

No, they're distinctly different, in that the 2♣ call here _removes bidding space_ and is thus slightly preemptive on the opponents. This is important. For example, you might stretch to bid 1♠ over 1m with

AQ98 x Kxxx Qxxx

but you would be much less willing to bid 1♠ over 1♥ with this _exact same_ hand - as bidding 1♠ over 1♥ removes no space. In the first case, partner should expect you might have stretched to shut out the hearts.

[effervesce]

jtfanclub, on May 1 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

Apollo81, on May 1 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

These two situations are completely different.

No, the situations are exactly the same. It's a 2/1 overcall in which you have a singleton in an unbid major.

The scoring is different- one is MPs NV, the other is IMPs Vul. If the decision on both is based on venue, say so. Me, I don't buy it. On the one hand, Match Points gives you a little more leeway when NV. On the other hand, -150 is probably a loss of 1 or 2 IMPs, but darn close to a 0 in MPs. I would not feel more comfortable if partner raised me to 3♣ on this one if we were NV in MPs than if we were Vul in IMPs. Partner knows the scoring too.

No, they're distinctly different, in that the 2♣ call here _removes bidding space_ and is thus slightly preemptive on the opponents. This is important. For example, you might stretch to bid 1♠ over 1m with

AQ98 x Kxx Qxxxx

as the bid might shut out the hearts, but you would be much less willing to bid 1♥ over 1♦ with

x AQ98 Kxx Qxxxx

as in this second case, a bid of 1♥ has zero preemptive effect. Partner should also take this into account when responding to your overcall. If the overcall removed no space, then you have a hand that definitely has not stretched. But in a (1♥) - 2♣ case, partner should take into account the fact that you may have stretched to shut out the spades, for example a hand like x Kxx Kxxx QJ98x is possible, but he would (rightly) not expect Kxx x Kxxx QJ98x.

[pclayton]

A is an easy 2C overcall NV at MPs. You will give LHO a problem with any hand that looks like a NFB. Good MP players give up a lot of NV undertricks during the course of a session.

On B I'd probably overcall 1N. The hand looks notrumpy with the long suit, QT's and 6322.

[kenrexford]

There's more to the value of a 2♣ overcall of 1♦ than simply the preemptive value, IMO.

As a contrast, consider what initially appears to be the exact same preemptive effect (as to number of spaces taken) for 1♠-2♥ or 1♥-2♦.

In the first (1♠-2♥), the overcall actually enables Responder to better handle a difficult pattern. Had you passed, Responder may have had a constructive hand with both minors, which is extremely difficult to handle. Does he bid 1NT forcing? If so, what next? Your overcall just helped.

In the second (1♥-2♦), your overcall does not really cause that much of a problem, because only one unbid major is in play. Instead, you may actually effect a de facto transfer bid, so that the stronger opponent Declares (lead into stronger hand, not skill).

The 1♦-2♣ auction, in contrast, causes a problem when Responder has only one major. Had you passed, this would have worked itself out. Now, suddenly a problem develops.

Similarly, 1♣-2♦ causes massive problems.

1♣-1♠ less so. In this sequence, the heart suit is not lost at all. In fact, you have now created an ability to make a 5-card 2/1 bid, an auction start that would not otherwise be possible (probably). Plus, hearts, when 4-4, will again be declared by the stronger side more often.

So, IMO, the issue is not the space consumed. It is the impact on the auction that is critical. Some calls, although "consuming space," actually in a sense create more space by changing the assumptions and limiting the alternatives Responder's options must cover. Some calls also suffer from lead-directional downsides.

[jtfanclub]

Apollo81, on May 1 2008, 03:41 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 1 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Apollo81, on May 1 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

These two situations are completely different.

No, the situations are exactly the same. It's a 2/1 overcall in which you have a singleton in an unbid major.

you think (1♠)-2♣ and (1♦)-2♣ are exactly the same...

wow.

Well, if they were indistinguishable, I guess everybody would just say "see other thread".

Sure, 2 clubs over 1 diamond is more pre-emptive, and not just for the space lost. The problem is, it's more pre-emptive for both sides. If your partner has a 10 count with a 4 card major, can he really afford to pass? It's made even worse because you have 4 diamonds, and only 4 cards in the majors- the odds that it's going to pass out are rather slim.

I am fully aware that some people bid 2 clubs over 1 diamond with almost anything and then figure that somehow their partner will know when he should bid on. IMHO, it's actually worse in MPs- who wants to make 90 when the field is making 110 or 140? Can't afford to miss a 4-4 major suit fit.

Sorry, I don't buy that these are completely different situations.

[the hog]

2C definitely, and yes they are TOTALLY different situations JT. I would pass over 1S.

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on May 2 2008, 07:43 AM, said:

2C definitely, and yes they are TOTALLY different situations JT. I would pass over 1S.

If you consider it borderline in both cases and pass with one and bid with the other, more power to you.

But would you pass 1 spade with:

♠ 832
♥ 4
♦ AK972
♣ AJ98

since that's my original assertion (if you're going to pass 1 spade with that, how can you bid over 1 diamond with a hand that's so much worse for overcalling).

[dcvetkov]

effervesce, on May 1 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 1 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

Apollo81, on May 1 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

These two situations are completely different.

No, the situations are exactly the same. It's a 2/1 overcall in which you have a singleton in an unbid major.

The scoring is different- one is MPs NV, the other is IMPs Vul. If the decision on both is based on venue, say so. Me, I don't buy it. On the one hand, Match Points gives you a little more leeway when NV. On the other hand, -150 is probably a loss of 1 or 2 IMPs, but darn close to a 0 in MPs. I would not feel more comfortable if partner raised me to 3♣ on this one if we were NV in MPs than if we were Vul in IMPs. Partner knows the scoring too.

No, they're distinctly different, in that the 2♣ call here _removes bidding space_ and is thus slightly preemptive on the opponents. expect Kxx x Kxxx QJ98x.

There is one point here that I agree, that is 2C, has certainly some preemptive value and removes several layers of bidding space, so LHO will be much less comfortable, then responding easy one of major. For that reason alone, I would bid 2C.

On the other hand, overcalling 2m over 1 spade, has less chances to gain with a bad suit, simply LHO is not so inconvinient as in the first case.

[han]

You are repeating yourself JT.

And I doubt we'll miss a 4-4 major suit fit.

[jtfanclub]

We'd gotten off topic.

So your partners give up on finding a 4-4 major suit fit when you overcall with 2 clubs? How about a 5-3 heart fit?

[whereagles]

Totally obvious 2♣ because 1m-2om are some of the most ANNOYING overcalls there is.

[han]

jtfanclub, on May 2 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

We'd gotten off topic.

So your partners give up on finding a 4-4 major suit fit when you overcall with 2 clubs?  How about a 5-3 heart fit?

I just pointed out that we won't miss a 4-4 major suit fit because we don't have a 4-card major.

You are correct that we do not have a way to look for 4-4 major suit fit after a 2m overcall. That doesn't mean that it will never be found of course, but it is a argument against overcalling 2m when you have a 4-card major. Especially if you are too weak to show the major later.

We have fine methods for finding 5-3 heart fits. Advancer shows hearts, overcaller raises. Again, this is not an issue with this hand because we don't have 3 hearts. We do have 3 spades but we are so light that if partner won't be able to bid spades then we are not likely to miss game.