Comparable Call 3D overcall instead of 1D opener

Dealer West. North opens 1D out of turn not accepted by East. Bidding reverts back to West who opens weak 2S. Is 3D by North now a comparable call?

Comments

  • .... because it is difficult to think of a hand that would wish to overcall 3!d over 2!s that would not be a hand that would open 1!d in first seat. This does not mean that the 3!d overcall and 1!d opening are "similar" under the definition of Law 23A1 because there are many hands, particularly with just four diamonds, that would open 1!d but not wish to overcall 3!d over 2!s.

    But it does mean that the definition of Law 23A2 applies because the hands that would overcall 3!d are a sub-set of all the hands that would open 1!d, and that is why the 3!d is a Comparable Call!

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • edited February 6

    What about!s J8!h AQ6!d AKJ32!c KQ5? That hand looks like a 3!d overcall to me (at least, I can't think of an alternative call that seems appropriate in the situation, unless 3!s has been agreed as a conventional call appropriate for this sort of hand), and yet I'd imagine most people would open it 2NT.

    That said, most hands that overcall 3!d are going to be 1!d openers, not 2NT openers, so at least in my opinion the overcall indicates the corresponding opening bid strongly enough to make it comparable.

  • @ais523 said:
    What about!s J8!h AQ6!d AKJ32!c KQ5? That hand looks like a 3!d overcall to me (at least, I can't think of an alternative call that seems appropriate in the situation, unless 3!s has been agreed as a conventional call appropriate for this sort of hand), and yet I'd imagine most people would open it 2NT.

    The question is whether in their system an overcall of 3D would be a subset of hands opening 1D.

    With a hand that strong I would probably double first. That wouldn't be a comparable call, but that's the point. With a hand too strong to be a 1D opener you would double first over a weak 2. Thus overcalls of 3D are going to be a subset of a 1D opener.

  • @JeremyChild said:

    @ais523 said:
    What about!s J8!h AQ6!d AKJ32!c KQ5? That hand looks like a 3!d overcall to me (at least, I can't think of an alternative call that seems appropriate in the situation, unless 3!s has been agreed as a conventional call appropriate for this sort of hand), and yet I'd imagine most people would open it 2NT.

    The question is whether in their system an overcall of 3D would be a subset of hands opening 1D.

    With a hand that strong I would probably double first. That wouldn't be a comparable call, but that's the point. With a hand too strong to be a 1D opener you would double first over a weak 2. Thus overcalls of 3D are going to be a subset of a 1D opener.

    Agreed, unless partner realises that the 3D bid might have been adjusted downwards, simply to make a call that might be viewed as comparable. If he can do that then the hands which can now call 3D are no longer a simple subset of hands which would open 1D and we're back to square one.

  • @Tag said:

    @JeremyChild said:

    @ais523 said:
    What about!s J8!h AQ6!d AKJ32!c KQ5? That hand looks like a 3!d overcall to me (at least, I can't think of an alternative call that seems appropriate in the situation, unless 3!s has been agreed as a conventional call appropriate for this sort of hand), and yet I'd imagine most people would open it 2NT.

    The question is whether in their system an overcall of 3D would be a subset of hands opening 1D.

    With a hand that strong I would probably double first. That wouldn't be a comparable call, but that's the point. With a hand too strong to be a 1D opener you would double first over a weak 2. Thus overcalls of 3D are going to be a subset of a 1D opener.

    Agreed, unless partner realises that the 3D bid might have been adjusted downwards, simply to make a call that might be viewed as comparable. If he can do that then the hands which can now call 3D are no longer a simple subset of hands which would open 1D and we're back to square one.

    Hmmmm. I think it's still comparable (because that's what their system says) - the question is whether South uses the UI from the (withdrawn) opening bid. If so, then 23C comes into play.

  • I would say that the hands are similar - both show opening values and a diamond suit. That is similar enough for me. (the difference between 4+ diamonds and 5+ being irrelevant) If partner bids 3NT because he suspects that the overcaller only has 4 diamonds and this turns out to be the winning action then we adjust. (There is no UI from the withdrawn bid, BTW - see Law 23b)

  • @weejonnie said:
    There is no UI from the withdrawn bid, BTW - see Law 23b)

    Sorry yes - poor choice of words on my part. I should perhaps have said "knowledge of his partner's withdrawn bid". 23b says the (sometimes draconian) UI rules do not apply (logical alternative etc.), but 23c says that if they do use the information from the withdrawn bid then there is damage and hence rectification. The difference is that under UI you have to be squeaky clean, whereas under 23c it's balance of probabilities.

Sign In or Register to comment.