[BudH]

 gordontd, on 2017-August-24, 04:47, said:

Not close enough for me. I am however happy that most people's two-level over calls are comparable to opening bids.

I agree. Until I hear otherwise (through some approved rulings of this type), I would tend to allow a queen difference in range. I might be convinced to allow a king difference. But an ace difference simply feels like too much of an allowance.

The roughly queen difference works when playing Standard American and making a non-passed 2♥ response after partner's 1♠ opening with no interference that might be on about 10 HCPs that might not opening the bidding, following a withdrawn 1♥ bid out of rotation.

Similar for a 2 over 1 with interference even if playing 2 over 1 game force (the game force not being applicable with the interference), e.g.,

1♠ - (2♦) - 2♥

Possibly a queen lighter than a minimum opening bid. But not an ACE lighter.

[blackshoe]

I read a book on hand evaluation a while back that suggested that Axxxxx - AJxxx xx or Axxxxx x AJxxx x should be opened 1♠ in first or second seat. Both hands fit the "rule of 22". If this is a minimum opening bid, how much lighter can a one level overcall (not of this opening, obviously) be?

[barmar]

 weejonnie, on 2017-August-23, 14:41, said:

The major change is the addition of "The same purpose" - this means, to quote the usual example, that replacing 2♣ (stayman) over 2NT with 3♣ (puppet Stayman or whatever) is now allowed. In addition transfer bids are now allowed by default (instead of the 'incotrevertibly not artificial' limitation)

Also 'A similar' meaning is now allowed - thus an overcall instead of an opening bid is probably OK whereas before you could argue that as an overcall could be based on lower HCPs then it could be banned. Now it is similar (A specified suit and sufficient values to enter the auction)

I consider these just changes in degree, not in kind. The old law said "same or more specific meaning", that's not vastly different from "same purpose".

[BudH]

Here is a very revealing document written by Laurie Kelso (WBF Secretary) and Jacob Duschek (Denmark):

http://www.qldbridge...ableCalls(JD+LK).pdf

The start of the quote below focuses on a 1♥ opening bid cancelled at RHO's turn, followed by RHO opening the bidding 1♠ with a 2♥ overcall being comparable. Note the last paragraph where it says it is "dubious" to consider a one-level overcall to be comparable due to minimum strength difference being too large between a one-level overcall and an opening bid (if the overcall minimum is 6-7 HCP).

"Obviously, the 2♥ overcall does not have exactly the same meaning as the 1♥ opening. The opening bid shows about 11‑20 HCP, whereas the overcall shows about 9‑16 HCP.

The difference in the maximum strength of the two bids is rarely relevant in this auction, so let us focus on the minimum. The overcall can be made with reasonable playing strength on a hand which is just short of an opening bid. The difference in strength, both at the top and at the bottom of the range, is small, and we can accept the meaning as “similar”, i.e., it is a comparable call. There is a good chance that South’s mistake will not influence the result.

Should however South’s mistake nevertheless affect the auction or the play, i.e., if the additional information from the illegal opening bid (which is authorized for North) turns out to be useful for North, the Director adjusts the score. Note that the Director must not apply UI principles; instead, he must assess the likely auction and play had the illegal call never occurred at all. (This issue is worthy of a separate article.)

The problem is somewhat different if South overcalls at the one-level after an opening bid out of turn. Now the overcall might be made on certain hands containing just 6-7 HCP, and the potential difference in strength could be quite large. Deeming this type of overcall comparable would now be quite dubious."