[gwnn]

Antrax, on 2012-March-27, 01:39, said:

ML argument?

Mike Lawrence argument mentioned above (that if you're long {4+} in RHO's suit, that's a good thing).

[jillybean]

mycroft said:

One of the things I tell newer players is that "almost certainly, you're too cautious.

I must be an exception to the rule. It has been suggested that I could be more disciplined but I have never had a partner complain that I was too cautious.

[sfi]

Statto, on 2012-March-25, 17:06, said:

Partner is just as likely to have a fit regardless of your length in RHO's suit. Mike Lawrence if he said otherwise is wrong here.

He's not entirely wrong when he suggests that it's a plus to overcall aggressively with length in RHO's suit. Ok, he was about the chances of finding a fit improving. But if you do find a fit then it is likely to play very well.

If you don't find a fit though, you want to be getting out of the auction pretty quickly though.

[Zelandakh]

jillybean, on 2012-March-27, 02:32, said:

I must be an exception to the rule. It has been suggested that I could be more disciplined but I have never had a partner complain that I was too cautious.

That is because most club players have no idea whatsoever about competitive bidding. They only notice if they get a minus on offence. The multitude of minuses they get from opponents making a contract you might have bullied them out of, the contracts that make because they made the wrong lead without an overcall to guide them, or indeed the simple part-score battles that they lost by not overcalling, go completely unnoticed.

[Codo]

jillybean, on 2012-March-27, 02:32, said:

I must be an exception to the rule. It has been suggested that I could be more disciplined but I have never had a partner complain that I was too cautious.

You are exeptional in more then one way.

But I do not share mycrofts observation anyway. Just older students tend to be too cautious, younger are quite often quite wild, not too cautious.

[1eyedjack]

I think that players tend to fluctuate between aggression and caution, the fluctuations having wider amplitude in early years of development, gradually tapering to stability (which may be on the cautious or aggressive side depending on the individual).

But I would certainly expect a skew toward cautiousness in the early days if playing regularly against better players. Inferior card play will lead to a lot of contracts failing which they probably should have made, and they will tend to bid "down" to reduce that frequency without realising that it is the card play that needs to catch up. The fact that they let a lot of contracts through in defence is not so obvious an error. If playing against like standard opponents I would not expect that skewed effect.

[billw55]

Crap overcalls getting rung up is about my favorite thing to see on BBO. Way to go

[mycroft]

Yes, younger players tend to be wild. But they still tend to be "too cautious" - they bid on the wrong kinds of hands and the right kinds of hands, but also until they learn not enough of the right kinds of hands. But they *also* tend to figure out what I've been saying on their own - they see which is right and which is wrong, and settle in. But in general, yes, I'm talking about the older newer players.

Jillybean - it may be that you're "aggressive enough" and don't need to let the caution go; it could be that your partners are still too cautious, and you aren't being called out because you're about right for them. I'm going to assume the former, of course!

Now, the concept of "discipline" vs "aggression" - that's another story. If by "more disciplined" they mean "less aggressive", that's one thing; but if it means "more disciplined" - that's a separate (and valid) axis. I strongly agree with "be disciplined" - but that means "when you bid something, have what partner expects - even if it's ten-seventh and a card or two."

As an example, I have one partner for whom, if I open a weak 2 on 5 cards, it had better be KQTxx and out(ish) - all the points in the suit and a bad hand. I have another partner who doesn't care about the suit quality much, but it had better be 9-bad 11. I have yet another partner where, after I put down AKQJT, he'll ask "where's the other one?". Similarly, I have one partner that I will raise to game if they open 2♠, but with the exact same hand and another partner, I'll pass, confident we're making it - but not surprised if we don't! The key is that within our boundaries, we're consistent, whether the boundaries are "solid" or "really aggressive" - +170 frequently costs as much as -200.

One of the keys to "too cautious" is "when was the last time you went 800+? When was the last time (at matchpoints, at least) you gave up -530/-790?" If you can't remember, you're too cautious.

(of course, the other side of the coin is "when last your partner went for 800+, did you say anything stronger than 'hard luck, partner'?" If so, your partner's likely too cautious! But nobody here would do that, would they?)

[HighLow21]

Antrax, on 2012-March-27, 01:39, said:

ML argument?

He's referring to the Mike Lawrence argument I brought up, from his book Overcalls, which states that when one overcalls in Suit A after an opening in Suit B, overcaller's length in Suit B is an asset. Essentially, the more cards in Suit B that you hold, the more likely it is that partner will have support in Suit A due to a likely shortness in Suit B.

I'm still not 100% convinced either way. What I do know is that whatever support partner has in Suit A, it will be useful whenever I have more cards in Suit B, because in that situation a ruff-right crossruff is likely to emerge.

[whereagles]

The 1♦-2♣ overcall is EXTREMELY BOTHERSOME for the opening side (it preempts both majors), so it should be done as often as possible.

That being said, it doesn't mean you should overcall on assorted junk like the hand above LOL.

[Antrax]

Thanks to this thread, I gave it (deliberately overcalling on crap) a try last night - I overcalled 2♥ at favourable with KTxxx opposite a passed hand. Minus one undoubled opposite xx in dummy was an average result.

[Charlie Yu]

Antrax, on 2012-March-28, 01:30, said:

Thanks to this thread, I gave it (deliberately overcalling on crap) a try last night - I overcalled 2♥ at favourable with KTxxx opposite a passed hand. Minus one undoubled opposite xx in dummy was an average result.

2♥ has always been overcalled on crap because 2♥x is game.

[Antrax]

Not sure it matters all that much in matchpoints. Does it?

[the hog]

Antrax, you appear to have missed the point. Many of us will bid 2D over (1C) because it takes away a 1 Major response from the opps. I don't know your hand, but it seems that 2H with KTxxx over 1S perhaps does nothing except ask to go for a number.

[Antrax]

Could be. At the table I figured if they have a spade fit they'll bid it regardless of the overcall, but it'll be more difficult for them to find a minor suit fit or NT after it. How misguided was that?

[jillybean]

Antrax, on 2012-March-28, 01:30, said:

Thanks to this thread, I gave it (deliberately overcalling on crap) a try last night - I overcalled 2♥ at favourable with KTxxx opposite a passed hand. Minus one undoubled opposite xx in dummy was an average result.

I am specifically talking about vulnerable 2♣ overcalls here, not random crappy hands. I'd be very interested to see bbf'ers results of these V 2♣ overcalls.

[Antrax]

Yeah, sorry, I mistakenly thought the thread evolved a bit beyond the original question, seeing as some thoughts were expressed along more general lines. I hadn't realized the vul. 2♣ in particular is especially important.

[jillybean]

Antrax, on 2012-March-28, 08:44, said:

Yeah, sorry, I mistakenly thought the thread evolved a bit beyond the original question, seeing as some thoughts were expressed along more general lines. I hadn't realized the vul. 2♣ in particular is especially important.

Yes it has evolved, like many threads on BBO

[gwnn]

There's an interesting argument that you should stretch to overcall if your bid will be (1x)-2x-1, i.e. 1S-2H, 1H-2D, 1D-2C (of course, this is just a generalisation of 1D-2C). You give them the most headaches with almost the same risk without selling your hand as a pre-empt. Personally I never pay attention to details like this, there are more important things to worry about in life.

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on 2012-March-28, 09:46, said:

Personally I never pay attention to details like this, there are more important things to worry about in life.

Gwnn is not telling the truth. I suspect he has given situations like this some thought, and he knows Bridge is the only important thing in life.