[peachy]

My preference about overcalls is "reasonable range and appropriate suit length and quality" that depends on position, vulnerability, level, which suit is ours, etc. etc. and my preference about advancing overcalls is new suits are constructive by passed hand and forcing one round by unpassed hand, while over a double a new suit is an attempt to escape - and knowing where the escape is.

Some people play an overcalling style where overcalls are very sound and new suit is a signoff with singleton or fewer in support of the overcall. I have trouble finding benefits of this style, and having agreed to play this style with a new partner, all I see is disaster as result, in the form of missing major suit fits, not having any descriptive forcing calls available, stopping at the wrong level, having to use a lot of bidding room to investigate because have to cuebid first, etc. etc. Maybe I am biased or just too old to learn new tricks. Please comment on what style you prefer, and what you think a common style in the US is nowadays.

[JLOGIC]

your style

[fromageGB]

Can't comment on what is usual or popular in USA, but my preference for the overcall is a couple of points weaker than than a sound opening, or better, except in 3rd or 4th seat a WJO becomes wide-ranging, anything up to a sound opening.

My preference for advancer, if responder passes, is natural up to 2 of opener's suit, forcing if not passed, suit bids of 2 of opener's suit and higher are transfers, except for a raise of partner's suit.

This applies also to jumps, so after (1♦) 1♠ (p)
3♠ shows a 4 card suit but is preemptive, 3♥ is game invitational, a minimumish opening hand.
If advancer had passed initially, 3♥ is not much short of an opening bid, and 3♠ is weaker.
A transfer raise to 3 of a minor would be NT game invitational, 13/14, but with the minor so that overcaller can play there if minimum.
NT bids always natural.

[Flameous]

I play something like in between style. Overcalls are either sound or good suit, occasionally 4 cards.
Advances are that cuebid is only force, any GF or good invite with (3 card) support. New suits are constructive but nonforcing, except for the 1st level. Typically something like 10-14, little less with better/longer suit, sometimes used in the hopes of rescuing with singleton. Jumps show fit, inv+ often just 4 card suit. NT bids natural.

I like it better than natural, forcing approach in the same sense as with NFBs but you always gain some and lose some.

[MFA]

Who cares what is common in the US?

I prefer very wide range 1-level overcalls with NF responses and transfers starting with opener's suit. Overcaller doesn't go out of his way to pass an advance though, but he can have a quite ridiculous hand.

At the 2-level it's a different league. Then we start to care about suit quality and we usually have 6 cards. New suits are forcing now. I don't subscribe to the theory of overcalling 2♣ over 1♦ with rubbish, just that it could be marginally looser than usual. 2♥ over 1♠ could be a bad suit.

If third hand neg. dobl. then advancer can't "escape" in a new suit. If he bids something he has a hand.

[JLOGIC]

MFA, on Sep 15 2010, 07:26 AM, said:

Who cares what is common in the US?

People who live in the US and play with various new partners from the US?

[awm]

One observation is that pretty much everyone will overcall at the one-level on some rather bad hands with a decent suit, hoping to direct a lead. Suppose for example that I overcall 1♠ over 1♦ with: ♠KQJTx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣xx. Lousy hand, but I do think a lot of people will bid. Partner advances with 2♣ (natural).

It will be quite unusual that partner has enough for game opposite a hand as bad as mine, especially without a major fit (and with my RHO opening). This suggests that there is some advantage to playing the 2♣ call as non-forcing, allowing me to pass with lousy hands like the one given above, while still allowing partner to bid 2♣ on a variety of "decent but not great" hands in case my overcall delivers something resembling opening values, without having to worry about getting too high opposite a garbage overcall.

This is the idea behind "non-forcing constructive" two-level advances. You do lose on the hands where partner really can force game opposite a minimum overcall (now partner has to do something awkward like cuebid without a fit or jump shift or something) but it helps on the much more frequent situation that partner has something like 11-14 high with a suit of his own.

My personal preference for advances is:

(1) Transfers starting from cuebid.
(2) New suit below cuebid forcing by UPH opposite 2-level overcall or above.
(3) New suit below cuebid NF constructive opposite 1-level overcall.

[Zelandakh]

Adam, if I am reading your post correctly that must mean that on your example auction (1D - 1S - p) you use 3C as natural and forcing (15+) instead of a fit jump(?) In that case how would you rebid with your example hand? How about if your hearts and clubs are reversed?

To the OP, I usually just play new suits as natural and forcing but it is clearly superior to agree transfer advances with anyone that you play with regularly.

[Siegmund]

I still play new suits constructive but NF. There was a time I could safely assume that anyone who played (1C)-1H-(p)-1S was forcing was a beginner who assumed overcalls and opening bids had identical continuations. That has changed and quite a number of good players - still not the majority, IMO, but a very significant minority - play them forcing now. Gawd, that makes me feel old (and I'm still the youngest person at the club most nights.)

I am not convinced any of the styles in use now (old-standard, new suit forcing, transfer advances, or exotic stuff like the Overcall Structure) is ideal. But for the time being I have settled for gluing bandaids onto the style I first learned: new suit NF is a LOT more playable with fit-jumps and jump cue constructive raise than it is straight out of Commonsense Bidding.

[junyi_zhu]

peachy, on Sep 15 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

My preference about overcalls is "reasonable range and appropriate suit length and quality" that depends on position, vulnerability, level, which suit is ours, etc. etc. and my preference about advancing overcalls is new suits are constructive by passed hand and forcing one round by unpassed hand, while over a double a new suit is an attempt to escape - and knowing where the escape is.

Some people play an overcalling style where overcalls are very sound and new suit is a signoff with singleton or fewer in support of the overcall. I have trouble finding benefits of this style, and having agreed to play this style with a new partner, all I see is disaster as result, in the form of missing major suit fits, not having any descriptive forcing calls available, stopping at the wrong level, having to use a lot of bidding room to investigate because have to cuebid first, etc. etc. Maybe I am biased or just too old to learn new tricks. Please comment on what style you prefer, and what you think a common style in the US is nowadays.

Actually a very wide range of 1 level overcalls isn't very playable. Suppose your range of overcalls can be as bad as 7 HCP good suits to a good 17 HCP, It is just impossible to construct any good responding structure. Suppose you have 12-13 HCP without support in partner's suit, 2NT would be just unsafe, 1NT would be difficult if partner also holds 12-13 HCP. If you raise your range of 1NT response to 10-13, then you would often miss games if your partner overcalls with very sound values. The DONT style of overcalling is actually only good in old days when opps open with rather sound values. Suppose your opps usually open 13 HCP or more, you don't have to worry too much of missing games or slams. Nowadays, many open distributional 10 or even 9 or 8. There, you have to raise your overcall range a little bit to promise a little more. So hands like
KQJTx Qxx xxx xx may not really be a good hand to make one level overcalls nowadays. IMO, it's best to bid 2S when white vs. red and pass in other vuls. On the other hand, you should overcall 1S with Jxxxx AKx KJx xx, which many may pass, afraid of a possible huge penalties. In this sense, you should pretty much keep system on after a sound overcall, try to respond with 8 HCP no fit hands more because your partner's overcalls usually promise values. So now the minimum for a balanced hand to overcall is something like: AQxxx KJx Jxx xx and for an unbalanced hand, it can be something like Axxxx xx ATxxx x. Both hands are about 1 HCP lower than what you would open.

[hanp]

Thank you, Junyi Zhu, for stepping down from your cloud and sharing your godly knowledge of the game of bridge with us!

I agree that when the opponents play very light openings, it is better to raise the lower limits of your overcalls a little. But having done so, I can still comfortably overcall with KQJxx Qxx xxx xx.

[cherdanno]

Who passes with Jxxxx AKx KJx xx?

[the hog]

I cannot imagine anyone passing either KQJTx Qxx xxx xx or
Jxxxx AKx KJx xx

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Sep 16 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

I cannot imagine anyone passing either KQJTx Qxx xxx xx or
Jxxxx AKx KJx xx

Yeh, the fact that pard expects my overcalls to look like my opening bids wouldn't stop either one of us from acting with the 8-counter (marked 10-17+ occasionally light on our card).

[gnasher]

hanp, on Sep 16 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

I can still comfortably overcall with KQJxx Qxx xxx xx.

I'm sure this example hand used to contain ♠10.

With ♠10 included, I would overcall 2♠ non-vulnerable; without ♠10, I'd bid 2♠ only at favourable. At other vulnerabilities I'd overcall 1♠. Hence the range of my one-level overcalls is wider at worse vulnerabilities.

[Zelandakh]

junyi_zhu, on Sep 16 2010, 03:57 PM, said:

Actually a very wide range of 1 level overcalls isn't very playable. Suppose your range of overcalls can be as bad as 7 HCP good suits to a good 17 HCP, It is just impossible to construct any good responding structure. Suppose you have 12-13 HCP without support in partner's suit, 2NT would be just unsafe, 1NT would be difficult if partner also holds 12-13 HCP. If you raise your range of 1NT response to 10-13, then you would often miss games if your partner overcalls with very sound values.

The overcalls you describe are approximately a king short of an opening bid. So why would your NT responses not be a king more than over an opening bid? Thus 1NT = 9-12, 2NT = 13-15 seems quite logical and reasonably sound. If Overcaller is worried about missing game opposite a random 8 count from partner then (s)he is probably worth a double.