[mw64ahw]

15-17NT
Your overcall and criteria for overcalling?

---

Spoiler

Not yet

---

[jillybean]

I want a decent long suit or strong, 2 suited hand to overcall a strong nt

2♣ or whatever your system is to show both majors

[bluenikki]

mw64ahw, on 2025-April-08, 07:37, said:

15-17NT
Your overcall and criteria for overcalling?

---

Spoiler

Not yet

---

I overcall. But the spots are _just_ good enough.

Edgar Kaplan had a saying. If you're beaten by aces and kings, that may not be so bad. But if you're beaten by secondary trumps...

[johnu]

Based on previous posts, I'm very surprised you don't have a specific bid for 4=5, 5=4, 5=5 or better in the majors, along with below average, average, above average strength ranges.

[mw64ahw]

I suspect the defence to an overcall showing both Majors can vary depending on whether 2♣, 2♦ or 2♥ is used.

Over 2♣ as both Majors what defence do people apply? Is it systems on, some minor orientated scheme, Lebensohl orientated or a hybrid approach? Does it matter if overcalls are sound or can be made on very little for nuisance value?

[TMorris]

Automatic overcall of whatever your system is to show the majors. This is not a minimum.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we would go in.
As it is this is a max. for us, ... but you have no idea, if you can beat 1NT, and given the length,
if you pass, you may not have a 2nd chance.

And for the record, we cannot show both majors at once, only spades + ?, which is a minus, but than
we are talking about going in against a strong NT, i.e. this minus does not pull full weight.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

We have to decide which is the better suit, which is the worse one with both majors, not clear in this case

[mw64ahw]

I'm aware of several approaches over a 2♣ artificial overcall, but rather than introduce one (offers are welcome) I will keep systems on.

On this occasion 2N is either long ♦ or weak 55minors.

---

[pescetom]

I think systems on is a poor choice. Better options are natural, some version of Unusual over Unusual, standard Rubensohl.

But here anything West does will not prevent North sensing 4H is the contract. So now the real decision is whether they have 5 in their minor. It would be easier to figure out if 2C promised 5-5, but we play 5-4. Total trumps suggest it must be close at any rate.

[mw64ahw]

 pescetom, on 2025-April-09, 08:42, said:

I think systems on is a poor choice. Better options are natural, some version of Unusual over Unusual, standard Rubensohl.

But here anything West does will not prevent North sensing 4H is the contract. So now the real decision is whether they have 5 in their minor.

I have yet to put in place an agreement with my key partner on this so part of this post is about establishing what is better against a Landy type overcall. We'll overcall via 2♥ for run of the mill both Majors; it may be 44, but I doubt many Landyesque players do that so systems on is probably not best as finding a Major suit fit is unlikely to be profitable.

I cam e across one structure that looked useful
X interest in defending 2MX
2♦ both minors
2♥/2♠ GF respectively in ♣/♦
2N Lebensohl
.. 3♣
.... Pass to play
.... 3♦ NF
.... 3♥ ♥ stopper, no ♠ stopper
.... 3♠ ♠ stopper, no ♥ stopper
.... 3N to play with stoppers
3♣/♦ invitational
3♥/♠ GF shortage
3N natural no stoppers (seems unlikely given other options)

[blackshoe]

For me, the bid with both majors over 1NT is 2♥. And as TMorris says, this is not a minimum.

[P_Marlowe]

The main question is, what min length is shown.

If the shown major is 4+, than playing bidding the shown suit as natural is not the worst option,
only because they have bid 9xxx not trying to play in this suit is ...

It is quite similar to play 2S in the seq.

(1C) - Pass - (1S) - 2S (*)

as natural, may not be your cup of tea, but it is a common agreement.

Also assume, they open a 2H Erkren, what is 2S.

If the shown suit is 5+, it longer is a sensible option to try to play in the suit.

[pescetom]

I think the main question (for both sides) is what is the prime objective here, which is indirectly related to 1NT range and scoring.
If we are talking strong 1NT then my thought is that the both majors interference is primarily disturbance, and therefore it makes sense to be fairly aggressive when NV, to significantly increase the frequency by allowing 5-4 and to optimize developments for a safe runout rather than investigation of game (in a fluke situation like this).
Similarly my thought is that the opening side should be ready to punish foolhardy or unlucky interference but otherwise be optimized to find the best partial rather than 3NT or 5m, at least at MP.

I have no real idea about weak NT, where things are undoubtedly different on both sides.

[mw64ahw]

blackshoe, on 2025-April-09, 14:31, said:

For me, the bid with both majors over 1NT is 2♥. And as TMorris says, this is not a minimum.

I've played both Multi-Landy and a modified Hello in the last couple of weeks so using 2♥ as the overcall I'll bid 2♠ although with a bit more thought playing transfer lebensohl 3♣ is also an option

---

[TMorris]

pescetom, on 2025-April-09, 15:29, said:

I think the main question (for both sides) is what is the prime objective here, which is indirectly related to 1NT range and scoring.
If we are talking strong 1NT then my thought is that the both majors interference is primarily disturbance, and therefore it makes sense to be fairly aggressive when NV, to significantly increase the frequency by allowing 5-4 and to optimize developments for a safe runout rather than investigation of game (in a fluke situation like this).
Similarly my thought is that the opening side should be ready to punish foolhardy or unlucky interference but otherwise be optimized to find the best partial rather than 3NT or 5m, at least at MP.

I have no real idea about weak NT, where things are undoubtedly different on both sides.

I have seen experts say/write against a weak nt interference should be more constructive than against a strong nt. I play all the time against a weak nt and I think that is wrong. I also know what experts say is not the same as what they do. Non-vul with some shape and especially with the majors one needs to bid.

[P_Marlowe]

TMorris, on 2025-April-11, 11:46, said:

I have seen experts say/write against a weak nt interference should be more constructive than against a strong nt. I play all the time against a weak nt and I think that is wrong. I also know what experts say is not the same as what they do. Non-vul with some shape and especially with the majors one needs to bid.

First of all it is a question with regards MP or IMP.
Playing MP you can weaken the req. playing against a weak NT, playing IMP you have to stop somewhere, ..., the question is now,
when should partner make an inv. move, and when should it be content with a partial.
The given hand is fine, with regards to interference against both.

Take away the Ace, replace it with a small x, and now going in against a weak NT facing a partner who did not yet have the chance
to speak starts to become ..., it may still be ok depending on your method, but it starts to get ...

[TMorris]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-April-11, 13:19, said:

First of all it is a question with regards MP or IMP.
Playing MP you can weaken the req. playing against a weak NT, playing IMP you have to stop somewhere, ..., the question is now,
when should partner make an inv. move, and when should it be content with a partial.
The given hand is fine, with regards to interference against both.

Take away the Ace, replace it with a small x, and now going in against a weak NT facing a partner who did not yet have the chance
to speak starts to become ..., it may still be ok depending on your method, but it starts to get ...

Non-vul I would still bid if the Ace was a small card at MP. That would be a minimum for me but I am a tad conservative. At IMPs I might bid, depends who I am playing against but most likely would pass.

[bluenikki]

TMorris, on 2025-April-11, 11:46, said:

I have seen experts say/write against a weak nt interference should be more constructive than against a strong nt. I play all the time against a weak nt and I think that is wrong. I also know what experts say is not the same as what they do. Non-vul with some shape and especially with the majors one needs to bid.

Edgar Kaplan claimed that over many years, opps who were aggressive over WNT with unbalanced hands did very well. With balanced hands, they did not very well at all.

[mw64ahw]

pescetom, on 2025-April-09, 08:42, said:

I think systems on is a poor choice. Better options are natural, some version of Unusual over Unusual, standard Rubensohl.

But here anything West does will not prevent North sensing 4H is the contract. So now the real decision is whether they have 5 in their minor. It would be easier to figure out if 2C promised 5-5, but we play 5-4. Total trumps suggest it must be close at any rate.

You sensed correctly

---

or

---