Dear Mr. Wolff,

I noticed that the weak 2-suited overcall hit some trouble at one table and I can think of many hands where such bids have rebounded by helping declarer read the distribution. There again, the potential interference value of 2-suited overcalls can be considerable at favourable vulnerability.

Can I ask what is your preferred approach on Michaels, UNT and the like in terms of strength, type of scoring and vulnerability?

Many thanks,

Iain Climie

Hi Iain,

My guess is that I am sort of in the middle, although my Michaels over a major suit opening is not standard, it is the other major and clubs, so that if the responder to the opening bidder raises (or jumps) in opener’s suit (quite frequent) my partner will know which minor I have. With the other major and diamonds, I tend to bid the other major if long enough and then bid diamonds later if practical.

With UNT I tend to do it, but while doing it I am always weak (often favorable vul) and designed for sacrifices, not constructive bidding.

A first time bridge mentor of mine, the late Johnny Gerber from Houston (a great player in his day) always reminded me that if my team was behind, vary overcalls or not depending on trying to do differently than my counterpart at the other table so that we or they might easily get to a different contract, enabling favorable swings when fortune smiled.

It, of course, doesn’t work often, but at least it is good advice, but perhaps better advice is not to get behind to start with.

Back to your question, it is very important for whatever one’s tendencies tend to be, for partner’s sake be consistent so that he will be in a better position to judge, than if his partner did something different every time.

In poker, since it is an individual competition, the more variance the better, but not in bridge, where partner is better placed to be in the know.

Many thanks and interesting advice on not flattening boards

Iain