[ArtK78]

I read Lawrence's book many years ago. I know he liked to overcall good 4 card majors when he had length in RHO's suit on the theory that it was more likely that partner had a fit if he rated to have less cards in RHO's suit. I never heard this theory extended to overcalling a lower ranking suit at the 2 level.

Having said that, the 2♣ overcall on the hand in the OP was an atrocity and deserved the result that it got. It would have received a similar result if it were a six card suit. It should receive a similar result even if it were nonvul or even at favorable vulnerability. But overcalling at the two level vul on QT9xx? To be charitable, it is not my style.

There is nothing wrong with overcalling at the two level with a five card suit. But QT9xx is not a suit. It serves virtually no purpose to overcall on this hand. The bid is not lead directional. The bid wasn't made because the overcaller had a good hand and had to take some action. The bid is barely obstructive as it doesn't take up enough of the opponent's bidding space to make the risk worthwhile.

So, if there is a lesson to be drawn from the result of this atrocity, it is don't overcall bad suits at the two level.

[Statto]

 MickyB, on 2012-March-25, 21:51, said:

However, just because A implies B, and B implies C ... does not mean A implies C

Actually it does in formal logic. But "implies" is the wrong word here, as there are no guarantees

[HighLow21]

 MickyB, on 2012-March-25, 21:51, said:

My having diamond length reduces partner's expected diamond length.

Partner having short diamonds increases his expected club length.

However, just because

A implies B, and
B implies C

does not mean

A implies C

Ummm, actually, yes it always does, by the transitive property of logic. :-)

[HighLow21]

 ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 22:35, said:

So, if there is a lesson to be drawn from the result of this atrocity, it is don't overcall bad suits at the two level.

Agreed, unless the rest of the hand is great, the suit is 6 cards, and/or the vulnerability is favorable. (And even then, it's usually marginal.)

[Antrax]

This thread was pretty interesting (thanks, JB!) until it turned into a cesspit of appeals to authority. A pity.
What I don't really understand is how the sixth club matters. Let's say I give you your partner's ♣7 and in return he gets one of your diamonds. It seems that makes things much worse, not better. No?

[BunnyGo]

 Antrax, on 2012-March-26, 00:12, said:

This thread was pretty interesting (thanks, JB!) until it turned into a cesspit of appeals to authority. A pity.
What I don't really understand is how the sixth club matters. Let's say I give you your partner's ♣7 and in return he gets one of your diamonds. It seems that makes things much worse, not better. No?

The original hand was just not going to be a good overcall, even with a small 6th club (move some spade honors to clubs and then you're talking). And hopefully, when we do have 6 cards instead of 5, we didn't take it from our partner

[jillybean]

 Antrax, on 2012-March-26, 00:12, said:

This thread was pretty interesting (thanks, JB!) until it turned into a cesspit of appeals to authority. A pity.
What I don't really understand is how the sixth club matters. Let's say I give you your partner's ♣7 and in return he gets one of your diamonds. It seems that makes things much worse, not better. No?

I didn't mean to imply a 6th club would make this hand ok, it wouldn't. I have experienced several -800's, and worse by overcalling on crappy 5 card suits. The advice I was given is that I should have a decent 6 card suit or a solid 5 cards and outside values. So far this has worked well for me.

[gwnn]

 HighLow21, on 2012-March-25, 23:30, said:

Ummm, actually, yes it always does, by the transitive property of logic. :-)

Yes I'm afraid MickyB used the wrong word there. It might be better to use "suggest". So, for example, (suppose we live in the 60's):

This hair product will make your hair grow.
Those who have long hair are more likely to be addicted to narcotics and oppose the war.
Therefore, my grandpa who is using the hair product is a hippie.

Another one:
Those who sit in the sun doing nothing as a kid will likely need glasses after a while.
Those who wear glasses are statistically more intelligent than those who don't.
Therefore, if you sit in the sun doing nothing long enough, you will get smarter and smarter!

[phil_20686]

A pretty good criteria for a 2 level over call is that it should be "better than a wk nt". So if you are 5332 you need extra values to tilt cost benefit in your favour.

Hands like xx Axxx x Axxxxx you have to overcall over 1d though as you potentially have a huge hand if partner has a fit and he may well have too many diamonds to get in himself later.

Lentgh in RHO's suit is not generally a good thing in an overcall. Despite the intuitive proposition that partner should be more likely to have support it turns out not to be true. I am not going to attempt to "prove it" but we did do simulations on the forum that basically conclusively proved that it made no difference. In fact we showed slightly more than that: It is also (much) more likely the hand is a misfit. To see this recall that with you having 4 cards in RHO's suit, it is considerably more unlikely that the opponents have a large fit. Since we tend to have fits when the opponents have fits and vice verse, the odds of us having a nine card fit are considerably reduced if you have four cards in RHO's suit.

Worse, if you have honours in rho's suit, often the total tricks are considerably reduced. Our overcalls have the biggest gain when both us and them have relatively pure fits, with some decent shape, and there are a large number of total tricks. Thus a holding like KQTx in opponents suit is a strong warning sign not to overcall.

[mycroft]

On the other side of the coin (and I certainly wouldn't recommend 2♣ on that hand, so I'm not commenting about that!) - if you don't go for 800 sometimes, you're not bidding enough.

One of the things I tell newer players is that "almost certainly, you're too cautious. *Also*, you're bidding on the wrong kinds of hands. So, agree with your partner that for the next month, whenever you think about bidding, you'll do it. Play in good games. You *will* get doubled, you *will* go for big numbers. Smile, laugh, go on to the next hand, and keep doing it. At the end of the month, look at the hands where you went for numbers, and try to work out why they were wrong (and remember, sometimes it's just "unlucky"). Look also at the hands where you *didn't* go for numbers, and try to work out why they worked. *Now*, back off to "saner"; you'll have a much better idea what saner means. And you'll likely feel comfortable with two other things: a) how to play impossible contracts with equanimity, and as best you can (which is a very good skill to learn), and b) you'll have a better idea as defender when the opponents have stepped out and a big number is available."

[1eyedjack]

I am not too keen on blindly followiing rules such as needing a 6th Club. Among the questions that you need to ask yourself are: if you are not going to overcall 2C, what is the next best alternative, what sort of things can go wrong if you choose that alternative, and how happy are you to risk that compared with risking going for a number with the overcall? It is not always an easy circle to square.

Most of the time, your alternative will be to pass. This can work well. It probably rates better than to double and hear partner go and bid your doubleton. Certainly a pass can be made on respectable values and partner should appreciate that, but it does not come free of risk of adverse developments. With a decent opener and a decent 5 card suit I would overcall. It could be your last chance to get your hand across at a *respectable* risk of getting out undoubled if things don't pan out.

[jonottawa]

Since both N's in this match overcalled 2♣, I think a better lesson to draw might be that if you're going to overcall 2♣ with this, you'd better declare well. Declarer could have gotten out for -200 on the actual defense.

[glen]

One of my fav blog postings of all time:

viewsfromthebridgetable suit quality paradox and more

[jillybean]

Taken from this thread http://www.bridgebas...862#entry172862

White all, you hold:
S:A9X
H:JT
D:Q8X
C:KQT86

RHO opens 1D(Precision but promises 3+). Do you overcall 2C or pass?

I am specifically talking about R vs. W so if you change the vulnerability - do you still overcall?

Maybe when my play is approaching that of Fred's I will then be happy overcalling on these hands.

[aguahombre]

 jillybean, on 2012-March-26, 19:16, said:

Maybe when my play is approaching that of Fred's I will then be happy overcalling on these hands.

Perhaps it won't take very long for that to happen, if you overcall on these hands to get the practice.

[Cthulhu D]

Every time, and I could safely replace the jack of hearts with a small heart and I'd still do it. And yeah playing 2H doubled and trying to make sure you only go for 300 vs 3NT making the other way is always Fun™.

[Charlie Yu]

I still think it is OK to overcall 2♣ here.
People only remember the occasional -800 when the suit breaks 5-1, they forget how many 7 IMPs partial swings they got because of the overcall, or the game this was not biddable if you dont overcall when you have balance of power.

[benlessard]

I have clubs and a D side suit, therefore im short in the M, partner must have M lenght wich implies that he is short in clubs

ML argument was debunked long time ago.

[Antrax]

ML argument?

[Zelandakh]

 mycroft, on 2012-March-26, 11:18, said:

So, agree with your partner that for the next month, whenever you think about bidding, you'll do it. Play in good games. You *will* get doubled, you *will* go for big numbers. Smile, laugh, go on to the next hand, and keep doing it. At the end of the month, look at the hands where you went for numbers, and try to work out why they were wrong (and remember, sometimes it's just "unlucky"). Look also at the hands where you *didn't* go for numbers, and try to work out why they worked. *Now*, back off to "saner"; you'll have a much better idea what saner means.

I think this is a good approach. When my first partner insisted that we play weak jump overcalls and that it should be automatic on any 6 card suit with 0-11 points I learnt alot. In fact my first ever WJO was 3♦ on a 10-high suit at red(!) and even though it was a success I would not do that now. The point is that having tried this stuff out it is so much simpler to weed out the good from the bad. If you have always done things a particular way then you can never really know if another approach is better.