Recently in your column, many difficult bids were brought home based on information provided declarer by “shape” overcalls, i.e. Michaels, today’s simple T/O, …

You have written that Reese took a dim view of Michaels for that reason. Do you have any rule(s) of thumb as to when to decline the opportunity to overcall with one of them??

I meant rules of thumb outside of the generally accepted hcp upper and lower limits.

Hi Bruce,

Your letter of inquiry delves into the strategy of whether a descriptive defensive bidding action creates more plus than minus for the bidders themselves.

The answer is subjective, not easily proven, making the response a product of the person’s own personality.

Many good players prefer to go out with guns blazing and would almost never consider not using Michaels (two suited weakish overcalls), Unusual NT (for the two lowest unbid suits), or light overcalls if the occasion presented itself. Collectively they believe that the best defense against the other partnership which holds the power is an aggressive defense which pushes the bidding up higher, steals creative room from the opponents while at the same time sometimes leads to worthwhile sacrifices or even miracle makes, not to mention more accurate opening leads.

The other school of remaining mostly quiet, even when possibly holding qualified intervention in order not to tip off to your worthy opponents both how to play the hand and better bidding evaluation by them based on what your bidding represented. This type of strategy was taught to me (I was just getting into the high-level game) by my mentor, Johnny Gerber from Houston. He particularly preferred that method when our team was behind with only a session or so to go, since to not create different looks at one table or the other, was almost a sure death warrant, when significantly behind and while playing a competent team.

If the above is an accurate analysis, and I think it is, then every partnership has the right to choose their own direction, with, of course, the necessary caveat of before one starts to play a bridge session, the different strategy partnership, must make clear to the opponents that partnership’s private understandings of what the opponents have the right to expect. Such is the different nature of the game we all love (I hope) and differentiates our partnership game’s ethics from other more publicized competitions, where mystery and stealth combine to usually play significant roles.

At least for me, I prefer to throw caution to the wind, bid boldly, play safe and pretend that our superior talents (oft times dreaming) will ultimately triumph. Keep in mind that some people prefer chocolate, others vanilla, and still others strawberry.

Have I sufficently confused you?

Hardly…

I am not at all surpirsed that you describe it largely as either subjective or, occasionally, tactical. One might consider the level of play of the opps. If they are seasoned and very strong, lay off except when determined to press the case. Weaker opps will likely have a more difficult time overcoming the pre-emption and using the information in the play.