[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Jan 10 2006, 08:59 PM, said:

at least in bergen you can differentiate between what kind of strength you have. In this case if 3S encompasses preemptive raise, mixed raise and limit raise I'm not sure how partner can feasibly judge what to do.

its worth noting that the original 1♠ overcall has limited partner's hand. (Most overcall systems over strong club opening use a two-way pass. Pass shows either a very weak hand lacking sufficient shape to make a call or a good hand)

Its MUCH safer to employ wide ranging bids opposite a limited call. Equally significant, most overcall structures aren't designed to permit us to accurately explore game for games. We're here to screw up their auction while (hpefully) landing in a tolerable spot. (Shades of the discussions regarding overcall structures over Strong NT)

From my perspective, the key issue on this hand boils down to bidding 2♠ or 3♠. I can see merits to either bid, though I lean towards 2♠ given my defensive values. I don't consider the hand nearly strong enough to consider inviting game...

[pclayton]

This thread brings up some excellent questions.

1. Direct action over a strong club generally denies a strong hand. I've never heard a sensible definition of what a 'strong' hand is in this sequence. Is it an opening bid? A 16 count? Lets discuss. I would nominate that its an opening bid on its own, which may include some 10-11 counts obviously.

2. As a corollary to #1, hands with longer suits make preemptive calls. Accordingly, we can expect only a 5 card suit (or good 4 bagger) from pard.

3. There are some unique situations in competitive bidding where no 'cue' bid is available. Overcalling a strong artificial opening is one, and so is competing over a 1N opening bid. A pair I've played against in Southern California plays a NT bid as a 'cue' bid to create a force. I think this is a sensible approach.

4. My personal approach is that a equal vul overcall in a single suiter shows a fair hand. At green it can vary wildly. For 2 suiters, I generally promise 8 cards at green, 9 cards at equal and 10 cards at adverse.

With the subject hand, are we worried about missing game if partner denies an opening bid? I think the risk is minimal, if only on a LTC basis. With a little more, I'd make some sort of invite.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jan 10 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

Bidding DENIES an opening hand? This seems wrong from a frequency point of view (you will be starting with a pass on most of the hands you want to get in there with instead of bidding with all but the strongest) and from a common sense point of view (to me with nothing I will pass, with something I will bid).

This is how I've always played it and I don't think its a radical viewpoint. The rationale is how Richard described it; an initial pass is a 2-way action; either inappropriate for a call or a strong hand.

It makes loads of sense if it help define the possible hands that are taking action over a strong club. If the initial action is made to disturb their auction, to allow pard to preempt their auction or to help pard with the defense, its great.

But you can't throw into the mix "strong hands that are interested in game opposite the right 9 count". Otherwise, the range of the call is too wide and not playable. I'd rather overcall 1♠ over a strong club with AJTx and out than to do it with a 15 count and AJTxx.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Jan 10 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

I would agree the primary reasons to overcall are to find saves, be a nuisance, and lead directional. However we have a good hand with defense and offense. Partner, with the primary reasons to overcall in mind, chose to overcall. It seems likely he does not have a 5332 hand unless his suit is good, and he has some kind of values.

Does this comment suggest that you are expecting partner to have 5+ Spades?

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see partner table something like

♠ AJ94
♥ 54
♦ KT42
♣ 987

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Jan 10 2006, 10:24 PM, said:

Bidding DENIES an opening hand? This seems wrong from a frequency point of view (you will be starting with a pass on most of the hands you want to get in there with instead of bidding with all but the strongest) and from a common sense point of view (to me with nothing I will pass, with something I will bid).

Conditional probability again: The chance that you hold an opening hand drops rather alarming once someone opens a strong club on your right.

Not sure if I agree with Phil regarding the bounday for "good", but thats not particularly relevant.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Jan 11 2006, 12:01 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 10 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see partner table something like

♠ AJ94
♥ 54
♦ KT42
♣ 987

I would get a different partner if he had that.

The issue is one of consistancy...

As long as you and partner are on the same wavelength, things will work out.

With this said and done, I think that there is a lot to be said with jamming storng club auction with bids like this one. The 1♠ overcall can be very hard to penalize. Its high enough that it disrupts most response structures.

This overcall is sound compared to a lot of the stuff that I see...

[Kalvan14]

Looks like a popular topic.
Let's define better what we play:

• No overcall with a balanced hand, and good opening values. Which means 14-15/+ in our understanding. OTOH, a shapely 1-suiter (or even a 5-4-3-1) can include opening values. In the posted hand, pard is limited to 14 HCP in any case, given 1C opening and my 10 HCP.
  
• The overcall is >90% with 5 cards: 4-card majors with a 5-card minor are shown with Raptor.
  
• There are dedicated bids to show a 2-suiter. OTOH, since direct 2-suiters are either weak or strong, 1D (H) and 1H (S) can include an intermediate 2-suiter.
  
• The main aim is to disrupt oppos' auction. IMHO, the fact that we are at a low level gives us a chance to cater for constructive bidding too.

IMHO, I needed to make pard aware of 2 things: a 4-card fit and good values in clubs. The former is the most important, therefore I considered 3♠, given the better pre-empt value; however, at the table I went for 3♣, which better defines the hand (a limit raise, with 4 trumps and values in clubs).

LHO bid 3♥, and pard went to 4♠ with AQJxx, x, KJx, Txxx: the double fit justifies this 2-way bid, even with the risk of some wasted value in hearts.

As an aside, if I had a better hand (say KTxx, Qxxx, x, KQxx) I would bid 2♣ (fit-showing) and show my shortness at 2nd round.

1NT (cue-bid style) is interesting, but I am not sure that it is better than our way of using 1NT to deny fit and offer a choice of the minors. I'll have to think abt that.