[Caitlynne]

I am not sure what the question is since one is not stated, but I think the issue lies in the last comment - i.e., that this is a new partnership. Clearly, expectations about what overcalls show are not shared among you and your partner. Clearly, East expected more of West's hand when he/she bid 3NT. West would likely argue that East should have had more honor strength and a more suitable club holding for the 3NT bid.

The stiff Ace of clubs is not a good holding, and I believe that 3NT was a poor bid. Even if West had held another card - e.g., the King of diamonds - the contract does not look to be a favorite due to entry/transportation difficulties.

[fourdad]

billw55, on 2016-July-06, 06:38, said:

That might work as an agreement in an experienced partnership. But in a casual or new partnership, no reasonable player will expect 2♣ to include a raggedy 8 count.

Is there an echo in here?

[msjennifer]

Both 2 C overcall (a bit underpowered) and the 3NT bid (which is a far worse bid) need to be blamed for want of understanding of basics of bidding in a competitive auction.

[miamijd]

I think others have pretty much nailed this one.

2C is a truly awful overcall. If you overcall on hands like this, you'll end up too high when partner has a good hand and go for way too many telephone numbers when partner has a poor hand. Substitute the Jc for a small club and now you might think about overcalling. At least you have a one-loser suit opposite partner's expected doubleton, so you won't get Xed as often, and if partner has a holding like Ax of clubs, you have a source of trix in NT.

3NT is similarly an overbid. Ax or Axx of clubs would be far preferable, and even then, 2S or 2NT seem more reasonable. As it is, I think your only choice is to bid 2S. It's ugly on that shabby spade suit, but if partner has decent support, you might have a game. As it is, partner will pass 2S, and you're in decent shape. Hopefully, the opps will bid 3H and let your side defend.

50% charge to both I would say.

[MrAce]

Agree with others.
What surprised me the most was, the guy did not bid his spades when he held 4 of the enemy suit and they bid/raised this suit. Pd is short in hearts and very likely to hold 3 card spades (not in the actual deal)

[perko90]

Thx all for the spirited discussion. FWIW, a 2♠ bid by E would be NF constructive by agreement. I also didn't mention this was MP scoring.
Interestingly, almost all the points mentioned here were brought up in the postmortem.
W knew the 2♣ overcall was a sub-minimum, but thought the favorable vulnerability, stiff H, and 6-card suit w/ 2 of top 3 was enough to stay out of trouble. W never seriously considered passing, but in hindsight thinks 3♣ would be a better call.
E considered 2♠ but rejected it because of suit quality. E in hindsight regretted 3NT for the lack of another club.
While 2♣ was undeniably a sub-minimum, just how far below wasn't clear. While undiscussed beforehand, E had a higher expectation than W of what a minimum should be.

[661_Pete]

Well, wearing my Acol hat (the only hat I possess! ), West looks like a classic hand for a simple overcall. This can be interpreted as a WJO since it's at the two level, even though it's not actually a jump: clubs are not solid enough for a jump to 3♣. East with their 12 HCPs (four of them trapped in a singleton A of partner's suit), would recognise that with a weak partner they have nowhere near enough for 3nt, so they certainly shouldn't be bidding it!

OK some folks diss Acol, but there's a lot to be said for it!

[1eyedjack]

"Acol" is silent on the definition of the 2C overcall. The latter is just a matter of common sense, for which the principles to be applied are universal and the overarching system is irrelevant.

The reason that we place a minimum limit on the strength of a 2/1 overcall opposite a non-passed hand is because you have a restricted amount of bidding space available in order to investigate game, which in turn dictates a limitation on the (sensible) total range of an overcall. Lumping all strong hands into an initial double regardless of shape has proven to be disastrous to all who try it. Non-forcing strong jump overcalls may have some traction but are low frequency and do not help in all cases anyway.

The risk inherent in overcalling 2C has less to do with whether 2C is a safe contract, and more to do with whether partner can safely advance without overreaching, and safely pass without missing game. These considerations are system-independent.

[wank]

661_Pete, on 2016-July-07, 04:58, said:

Well, wearing my Acol hat (the only hat I possess! ), West looks like a classic hand for a simple overcall. This can be interpreted as a WJO since it's at the two level, even though it's not actually a jump: clubs are not solid enough for a jump to 3♣. East with their 12 HCPs (four of them trapped in a singleton A of partner's suit), would recognise that with a weak partner they have nowhere near enough for 3nt, so they certainly shouldn't be bidding it!

OK some folks diss Acol, but there's a lot to be said for it!

people tend to blame acol for unrelated bad bidding.

e.g. this hand: acol has nothing to do with overcalls and responding to partner's overcall.

[1eyedjack]

My earlier comment re. the tendencies of inexperience v experienced players may have some relevance.

If the OP mixes in circles of inexperienced players who, perhaps for geographical reasons, predominantly (profess to) play Acol, but by reason of their inexperience rather than their Acol preference, also have a tendency to light 2/1 overcalls, then it is forgivable to assume a causative link to explain the apparent correlation.