[jjbrr]

DWM, on Dec 15 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

With regards to the hand quality I take it there is a reasonable difference between the minimum hands for

p - (1♣) - 1♠

and

(1♣) - 1♠

Some poker theory is probably useful here. Opposite a passed hand, you can bid 1♠ with strong hands that fit your later criteria (good strength, good suit, etc), but you can also overcall with particularly weak hands, which acts effectively like a lead-directing psych, since you know partner can't go crazy bidding a lot with a big hand.

When partner isn't a passed hand, the range of hands you can overcall with a 4-card suit is much narrower, since partner will try to have a constructive auction.

This is why I called these type of bids very situational.

[whereagles]

Length in the opening suit is also a plus. Makes it more likely pard has some support.

[gwnn]

oh there was a huge thread about that!!! I wonder if I could find it...

[gnasher]

whereagles, on Dec 15 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

Length in the opening suit is also a plus. Makes it more likely pard has some support.

Although at least one learned author has said that, it's not true. Length in RHO's suit may make the hand easier to play, because you can ruff in dummy without risking an overruff, but it doesn't have any effect on partner's expected length in any other suit.

Suppose that my suit is hearts. There are 9 hearts and 30 non-hearts available to partner. The exact suit of each non-heart can have no bearing on the number of non-hearts he receives.

[TimG]

gnasher, on Dec 15 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Suppose that my suit is hearts. There are 9 hearts and 30 non-hearts available to partner. The exact suit of each non-heart can have no bearing on the number of non-hearts he receives.

This isn't quite true, is it? Aren't there fewer than 39 cards available to partner since RHO has announced possession of a certain minimum number of cards in the suit he opened?

[jdonn]

I believe the conclusion in that big thread was if clubs (and maybe diamonds?) were opened on your right and you were long in that suit, partner was less likely to have support for you in another suit. The reason was if RHO opens 1♣ and I'm long in clubs, the largest effect is RHO is likely to have fewer clubs, and therefore be balanced, and therefore be longer in the suit I want partner to have support in.

There was a time years ago when I was a big fan of 4 card overcalls. I have soured on them greatly over time and try to avoid them at almost any cost now. I think it makes things way too difficult on the partner of the overcaller in competition. Even having a clear agreement you can have 4 only helps a bit IMO because he will still have so many hands he wants to do one thing if you have 5 and another if you have 4.

Another huge problem of 4 card overcalls is you so often steal the suit from the opponents. Since 4 card overcalls are only safe in good suits, that means they miss out on a contract that was getting a very bad break and you may even have been able to double. Again, having an agreement to make those overcalls really doesn't help this problem.

[gwnn]

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=20253 there it is!

[jdonn]

So it was every suit, not just clubs. I guess I remembered that because awm's example was in clubs.

[mtvesuvius]

jjbrr, on Dec 15 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

andy_h, on Dec 15 2009, 10:51 AM, said:

mcphee, on Dec 15 2009, 11:52 PM, said:

I am not against o/c on 4, but I do not find an excuse to do so.

I agree with this. Some hands just look right for bidding it, so I guess one's preferred style comes with experience.

This entirely. Don't look for hands where you should overcall 4-card suits. When you get one, it will be pretty obvious that you need to bid but you don't have the perfect hand for it (and do not think i mean balanced opening hands unsuitable for double. i mean generally unbalanced but not always, generally concentrated values in the suit but not always, and most often a vulnerability that makes the bid not too dangerous). A lot of it is very situational, eg who the opponents are, what the state of the event is, what you hope to accomplish, etc.

A litmus test i sometimes use is "how will i feel if partner makes a weak jump raise in this suit? What if he raises to 4?"

This for sure. I've found that 4 card overcalls are good when partner is a passed hand, or when you have one of those "problem hands", i.e. AKxx xx xx AJxxx and RHO opens 1H. There are other hand types, like a 4441 or similar where it is very effective to overcall even when partner is unpassed.

One of my favorite examples was playing in a local tournament a few months back, and I held AJTx Kx x Qxxxxx and my RHO opened 1D. I bid 1S, which partner raised to 2, and I made an overtrick. Partner had a 3451 7 count, and everyone else played in 2C doubled... My LHO had AKJTx♣ and nothing else. Granted this was a lucky case, but in general, with a weak 5 card suit and a strong 4 card suit, I usually go for the 4 carder.

[Siegmund]

The Miles book had a really great exposition, I thought, of the times when it's appealing to be able to show a 4-card major as overcaller.

The alternative to overcalling in the 4CM directly is to find another method of showing them: with my regular p, we gave up Michaels in favor of a convention to show 4-5 hands. Others adopted Equal Level Conversion to handle these hands. (That would be my 3rd choice among the three - but seems to be the most popular.)

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Dec 15 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

There was a time years ago when I was a big fan of 4 card overcalls. I have soured on them greatly over time and try to avoid them at almost any cost now.

+1 at imps. -1 at MP.

[Jlall]

Jlall, on Dec 15 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 15 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

There was a time years ago when I was a big fan of 4 card overcalls. I have soured on them greatly over time and try to avoid them at almost any cost now.

+1 at imps. -1 at MP.

Actually I should say... +1 at imps, +1 at MP vul, -1 at MP white I guess.

[blackshoe]

Hardy suggested:

Top and Bottom cue bids+ELC+certain JSs over a minor to show two suited hands where the lower ranking is longer or stronger.

Personally, I think Michaels is one of those conventions that everybody uses because, well, everybody uses them.

[akhare]

This has long been the staple of the "Overcall structure" and seems to work quite well in conjunction with RJOs. As I recall, even Lawrence advocates it, especially with length in the opened minor.

[Phil]

akhare, on Dec 15 2009, 09:06 PM, said:

This has long been the staple of the "Overcall structure" and seems to work quite well in conjunction with RJOs. As I recall, even Lawrence advocates it, especially with length in the opened minor.

Only the hardcore OS people play the garbage 4 card overcalls. Along with the awful double jump IJO's.

I've been playing OS for nearly 10 years now and I do not miss having to overcall on KTxx, xx, Axxx, xxx.

[Echognome]

blackshoe, on Dec 15 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

Hardy suggested:

Top and Bottom cue bids+ELC+certain JSs over a minor to show two suited hands where the lower ranking is longer or stronger.

Personally, I think Michaels is one of those conventions that everybody uses because, well, everybody uses them.

Hardy wrote a few good books. I don't think many experts heed his general advice though. No offense, just saying he's not the first source I would think to quote.

[blackshoe]

Okay. So who is the first source you'd think to quote, and what did he say?

[eyhung]

jdonn, on Dec 15 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

So it was every suit, not just clubs. I guess I remembered that because awm's example was in clubs.

Actually, it's not true in every suit. While I was able to get similar results as awm for a 1C opening (similar parameters to awm except opener is allowed to have a 5cM with 6+ clubs and a good hand, and some balanced hands are discarded due to opening NT ranges), it's not true for a 1H opening (which guarantees 5 hearts, and also can't be 15-17 balanced or 20-21 balanced, and might have 5 spades only if holding 6+ hearts).

When RHO opens 1H and you are considering overcalling 1S, if you hold

4=2=3=4 shape

Over 1 million deals, partner averages 3.39 spades and RHO averages 5.52 hearts

4=4=3=2 shape

Over 1 million deals, partner averages 3.45 spades and RHO averages 5.30 hearts

This seems slightly unintuitive given awm's argument, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could double-check my results. If they hold, the only explanation I have for this discrepancy is that RHO's club length has far more variance. With long clubs in the overcaller's hand, the results are therefore weighed towards the short club openings, which significantly and adversely impacts partner's spade length. But when you are long in hearts, RHO's minimum is always 5, and usually in the 5-7 range,

Taken to an extreme, let's say RHO is playing a system where 1H promises 9 hearts. Now, with 4-4 in the majors, you know partner has exactly 0 hearts so he is longer in spades than if you were 4-2 in the majors.

[eyhung]

As a quick check, I also ran the experiment for a 1D opening (where all hands 4-4 in the minors and not eligible for a NT opener open 1D)

4=3=4=2 and 4=3=2=4 had almost exactly the same spade length (3.25) in both cases, even though opener average was 4.63 diamonds to 4.98 diamonds.

[TimG]

eyhung, on Dec 16 2009, 04:34 AM, said:

When RHO opens 1H and you are considering overcalling 1S, if you hold

4=2=3=4 shape

Over 1 million deals, partner averages 3.39 spades and RHO averages 5.52 hearts

4=4=3=2 shape

Over 1 million deals, partner averages 3.45 spades and RHO averages 5.30 hearts

This seems slightly unintuitive given awm's argument, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could double-check my results.

I got results similar to yours for hearts. I did not include any HCP requirements in my opening bid shape models. I know including HCP requirements would remove some of the minimum length hands from the opening bid pool and thus increase the average length of the opened suit no matter what NT ranges you use. But, I needed to first satisfy myself from a strictly shape standpoint (which I did).