[nullve]

Three kinds of "strong pass"-based overcall structure I've been contemplating at some point, but not all at once until now:

1) Very informal testing (with nullve in all seats at a teaching table) suggests that something like

(1x)-?:

P = opening strength, unsuitable for 1y/1N
X = < opening strength, unsuitable for 1y(/1N)/2♣+ (so like a "fert")
1y = normal overcall
1N = "14-16 BAL". Could also include a weak option (and still not be a BS) if 1x is ART
2♣+ = < opening strength, PRE, possibly ART

might be playable (and even effective as well as fun), but obvously more so if x=♣ NV vs. V than if x=♠ V vs. NV.


2) If 1♣ is strong, then

(1♣)-?:

X = like a WOS 1♣ openng
P/1♦+ = like WOS P/1♦+ openings

is a non-BS defence and therefore a way to (semi-jokingly) play a WOS (like Regres) legally in most jurisdictions.


3) Against some 2-level artificial preempts like Multi I've often wondered if it would be better to base the overcall structure on

(2x)-?:

P = opening strength, unsuitable for [2x+1]+
X = < opening strength, unsuitable for [2x+1]+
[2x+1]+ = something,

in the hope that we'd be

* not obviously much worse off if Overcaller has less than opening strength, i.e. not even after opps (2x)-X;
* much better off when Overcaller has opening strength.
------

Thoughts?

[spotlight7]

Virtually all good players use a 1N* 15+-18 overcall.


Why not try a Raptor 1NT* overcall?

If they open 1m, 1NT* shows 5+ of the other minor and a 4 card major.

If they open 1M, 1NT* shows 4 of the other major and a 5+ minor.


The range is @10-15, however, you may play a lower range 'for more fun.'


Woolsey at Bridge Winners suggests a Raptor style 1N* overcall vs Precision 1D* and other 'might be short' minor openings.

[spotlight7]

After a strong 1C*, I tend to bid with shape.

X to show HCP 'without shape' is an unwise move IMHO.


Vs a multi Chris Ryran suggests X as @12-16 balanced or 20+HCP and 2N as 17-19.

If they have a misfit, you may get a nice penalty. If they have a fit, you tend to find your own contract.

[steve2005]

Looks like your making FERT bids at the 2-level.
There should be some method by which the opener can exact a penalty on some hands.

[awm]

It seems like there are two things you'd hope to gain from a forcing pass: more space on the strong hands (where you start with pass) and take away space from the opponents on random weak hands (where you don't start with pass). But here, your double does not take any space from the opponents (actually gives them MORE space by way of redouble) whereas it does expose you to some penalties if the opponents have most of the values. And the space gained by the pass is illusionary too, because opponents will very rarely pass in these sequences after they open.

Even against Multi, people will often bid 2M pass/correct after 2♦-Pass or 2♦-X (regardless of the meaning of pass vs. X). So switching them will make little difference. But occasionally (say when responder has a good hand with diamonds) the X exposes you to a number. Surely this is more likely when you have nothing, than when you have a good hand?

[Zelandakh]

spotlight7, on 2017-May-21, 10:55, said:

Vs a multi Chris Ryran suggests X as @12-16 balanced or 20+HCP and 2N as 17-19.

If they have a misfit, you may get a nice penalty. If they have a fit, you tend to find your own contract.

I think you mean Chris Ryall, no? In fact he recommends playing X as multi against multi, "hearts or spades or strong", but says he had such success with it that all of his regular opponents gave up on the Multi 2♦ and therefore made the decision to go back to Dixon (that's the name of the defence you give) because it was not worth the overhead of the complex one for how often it came up. His general page for Multi 2♦ defences can be found here.

As far as the OP suggestion goes, I can only underline what Adam writes. I fail to see the upside here to compensate for the obvious risks.

[spotlight7]

Yes, Chris Ryall. I read this site several years ago.


One of his suggestions was to use Multi vs Multi.


He had some very nice ideas listed on his site.

[nullve]

awm, on 2017-May-21, 22:54, said:

It seems like there are two things you'd hope to gain from a forcing pass: more space on the strong hands (where you start with pass) and take away space from the opponents on random weak hands (where you don't start with pass). But here, your double does not take any space from the opponents (actually gives them MORE space by way of redouble) whereas it does expose you to some penalties if the opponents have most of the values. And the space gained by the pass is illusionary too, because opponents will very rarely pass in these sequences after they open.

Even against Multi, people will often bid 2M pass/correct after 2♦-Pass or 2♦-X (regardless of the meaning of pass vs. X). So switching them will make little difference. But occasionally (say when responder has a good hand with diamonds) the X exposes you to a number. Surely this is more likely when you have nothing, than when you have a good hand?

I don't disagree with any of this when applied to 2) and 3).

But at least in 1) I'm not talking about a simple P/X inversion, so although it's true that opps will gain space on hands where the bidding starts

(1x)-X

instead of

(1x)-P(std),

the hope is that they will still suffer a net loss of space on hands where the bidding goes

(1x)-X/2♣+

instead of

(1x)-P(std).

I also think that Responder will pass over (1x)-P/X fairly often regardless of overcall structure, so with 2♣+ = PRE already (for the sake of experiment) I had to

define P and X so that decent constructive bidding would still be possible afer

(1x)-P/X-(P).

That seemed intuitively easier if I let P/X be "strong"/"weak", respectively, instead of e.g. keeping P "normal" by overloading the double. (I must admit I haven't worked this out in much detail yet.)

[nullve]

I don't think the overcall structure in 1) is playable when x=♠ without a good rescue system over

(1♠)-X-(XX*),

* "10+" or similar

so this is something I've been working on.

Here's what I've come up with so far:

(1♠)-X-(XX)-?:

P = "C+D" or "(5332)"
...(P)
......1N = catchall
.........(P)
............P = "C+D"
...............(X)
..................P = catchall
.....................(P)
........................XX = "4D4C" or 5D5C
........................2♣ = "C+D", C longer
........................2♦ = "C+D", D longer
..................(...)
............2♣ = "5C(332)"
............2♦ = "5D(332)"
............2♥ = "5H(332)"
......2♣ = 5+ C, couldn't safely bid 1N
......2♦ = 5+ D, couldn't safely bid 1N
......2♥ = 6+ H
......(...)
.........(X)
............P = "4D4C", 5D5C or "5C(332)"
...............(P)
..................XX = D PREF opposite 4D4C
.....................(P)
........................2♣ = "5C(332)"
........................2♦ = "4D4C" or 5D5C
..................2♣ = C PREF opposite 4D4C
............XX = "C+D", D longer
............2♣ = "C+D", C longer
............2♦ = "5D(332)"
............2♥ = "5H(332)"
1N = "C+H" or "4H4D"
...(P)
......P = catchall
.........(X)
............P = "4H4C"
............XX = "C+H", H longer
............2♣ = "C+H", C longer
............2♦ = "4H4D"
............2♥ = 5H5C
......2♣ = 3-H3-D5+C¹
......2♦+ = P/C
...(X)
......P = catchall
.........(P)
............XX = "4H4C" or 5H5C
............2♣ = "C+H", C longer
............2♦ = "4H4D"
............2♥ = "C+H", H longer
......XX = 3-H3-D5+C
......2♣+ = P/C
2♣ = "D+H" (not 4H4D) OR 3-H3-D6+C
...(P)
......P = catchall
.........(X)
............P = 3-H3-D6+C
............XX = "D+H", H longer
............2♦ = "D+H", D longer
............2♥ = 5H5D
......2♦+ = P/C
...(X)
......P = catchall
.........(P)
............P = 3-H3-D6+C
............XX = "D+H", H longer
............2♦ = "D+H", D longer
............2♥ = 5H5D
......2♦+ = P/C
2♦ = 3-H3-D6+D
2♥ = 6+H3-D3-C
(...)

¹ Nice to be able to play 2♣ with 5C(332) opposite 4H4D(32), especially 2443.

Scare quotes are used when a call may be a "least worst lie". For example, Advancer might want to treat 3343 as 4D4C initially.