Rules for overcalls at level 4
I have two questions about what overcalls are legal (in direct seat over natural 1-of-a-suit openings) at level 4:
a) At level 4, any meaning is allowed for openings of 3NT and higher. It's common to see, for example, a "gambling 3NT" opening which shows an unspecified solid 7-card minor.
There doesn't seem to be a similar allowance for overcalls, though. For example, I would have thought it would be reasonable to play (1!h), 3NT as an unspecified solid 7-card minor + a heart stopper. However, there doesn't seem to be any sort of permission to allow this sort of "technically a multi" call at any level of bidding (because it doesn't specify which minor it has).
Is it intentional that this sort of bid is allowed as an opening bid, but not as an overcall? If it isn't, is this a mistake in the rules, or is it a mistake in my understanding of them?
b) At level 4, there's a requirement on suit overcalls that "the quality of the suit and the strength of the hand must conform to the standards generally played for a natural call at the minimum possible level (bids showing at least 5-5 in two suits may traditionally be made on very weak hands)."
My reading of this requirement is that it applies even to natural suit overcalls of natural 1-of-a-suit openings, meaning that aren't allowed to be any weaker than the standards that are generally played. This implies to me that something like half of bridge-playing pairs must be in violation of this rule; some pairs will just naturally play overcalls lighter than others, so around half the pairs will have their overcalls heavier than the typical standard, and the other half will have their overcalls lighter (and thus be violating the rule).
Presumably, even if this rule is meant to stay as a subjective rule, there should be some latitude for just how much weaker than the usual standard it can be, but there doesn't seem to be one. (It might be better to have an objective rule, though, because it's hard to know what the general standard for overcalls on particular shapes is, especially for new players.)
As a concrete example to illustrate the problem: suppose a pair overcalls 1!s over the opponents' natural 1!h, in direct seat, holding !s K9863 !h 84 !d A54 !c T76, and it emerges that the pair consider this to be a normal/systemic overcall. I think this is a little lighter than the typical pair would play it – but I'm not sure, and thus wouldn't know whether it's legal by the current rules. I, however, was very surprised to discover that an agreement to overcall on this sort of hand seems to be against the rules (make it a little weaker if this would be an overcall for a typical player, but I don't think it is); the hand doesn't seem to be ridiculously weak, and natural overcalls are hardly a difficult agreement to defend against.
At any rate, I think some clarification/rewording/improvement of the rule would be beneficial; I don't want to have to ensure that all my natural overcalls are unusually sound in order to ensure that they don't accidentally end up marginally light (especially as I suspect that I overcall lighter, but not that much lighter, than the typical player).
(Such a clarification would also be helpful for weak jump overcalls; I sometimes make those on very weak hands, with only a 6-card suit, if my partner is a passed hand (of course, I alert this as a possible holding for the bid). Is this a legal agreement at level 4? I have no idea how weak people are playing their weak jump overcalls nowadays.)
Comments
a) I agree that I don't think you can agree to play a 3NT overcall in this fashion. If you agreeement is that 3NT is strong balanced then you can deviate (or psych) - but such deviations may give rise to implicit partnership agreements - for instance is partner doesn't investigate a slam with holding 10-12 high card points. Note that you CAN do this in the balancing position.
You could use a jump cue bid to show such a hand - indeed one of the standard meanings of the bid is "I have a solid suit do you have a stop in their suit?" (not to be confused with "I have a stop in their suit - do you have a solid suit?")
b) The requirements for making 1-level overcalls seem to have dropped over the years. I would overcall 1 Spade on the basis that the spots aren't that bad and my Ace and King are worth more than 7 high card points. (I overcall at the one level on 4-card suits as well - but then the suit has ot be good, I must have an opening hand and the hand must not be suitable for a take out double. ) This is admittedly right at the minimum (the 5332 hand doesn't help matter either and 1S over 1H isn't that pre-emptive)
c) For a weak jump overcall at the two level one would expect a 6-card suit and something in the region of at least 6 points (most of which are in the suit!) At the three level one would expect a 7 card suit. Your partnership will no doubt have system notes as to what your agreements are regarding suit hand strength to make such an overcall. You don't alert (or announce) your strength when making an overcall (jump or not).
d) Pl;yers who are found to be abusing the guideleine should have their actons recorded to establish whether there is an implicit agreement to overcall on too weak a hand.
I have't yet been called to query a sub-standard overcall - but I am still young (at heart).
This implies to me that something like half of bridge-playing pairs must be in violation of this rule
If 1/2 of the people do something, then that is standard, at least to me... I would think anything done by 10% or more of the population of players would be 'standard' as you would come across that virtually every session or 2?
I've played in partnerships where it would be reasonable to make weak jump overcalls (not openings!) on 0, with appropriate shape (although they weren't common, because you don't often get dealt a 0-point hand). We alerted this so that the opponents wouldn't be mislead into thinking we had 6 points or so.
I hadn't even considered that this might be against the rules for overcalling (after all, it's a natural bid, and we almost always allow those), until I happened to be looking at them today. (It would be legal as an opening bid, after all, and it doesn't make sense for the rules for openings to be more restrictive than the rules for overcalls as overcalls are easier to defend against.)
a) In my opinion, it's a mistake in the rules. I suspect the L&E would allow any meaning for 3NT+ the same as openings if asked (there's a meeting next week).
Reading the rules again, there's clearly a lacuna, because you also don't seem to be able to play a 2NT overcall as strong and natural unless it denies a singleton (I'm sure at one point you were allowed to make any "Strong" bid)
b) There are two problems with this clause. It's been like that for a while with no-one noticing, and then three times in the last two weeks it's come up (I don't know if it's just London buses, or you are all talking to each other). Originally the wording about strength only applied to transfer overcalls, but it got compressed at one point to the current version. As written of course it's meaningless as has been pointed out (or at least non-comformable with) but it doesn't make a huge amount of sense even when applied to transfer overcalls, because no-one knows what 'traditional standards' are in the first place. The wording when applied to transfer overcalls dates back a long way but has never been tested (not least I suspect because no-one plays transfer overcalls anyway, other than Ghestem-like 3C bids or similar).
As pointed out, the intent was likely to be that natural suit overcalls are allowed at any strength (although if they absurdly light the opponents should be told).
c) Your expectations for jump overcalls are whatever they are, but they don't align with mine. I've never expected any high cards for a weak jump overcall although in practice I don't think I've ever seen a 0-count; and I have never thought there was any standard for such. Which is why the clause referred to is poor anyway (it was intended for simple overcalls, but it doesn't say so).