[awm]

Say the opponents open 2♣ showing 6+♣ and 10-15 hcp. Partner makes a jump overcall, for example 3♥. How would you interpret this without discussion, keeping in mind that jump overcalls are normally weak over an "opening bid" but normally strong over a "preempt"? Assuming you have the chance to discuss this in advance, how would you prefer to play it?

[ralph23]

1. I would assume weak w/out prior discussion. Opener will have a "real" opening hand most of the time.

2. I would agree on weak as well if we had prior discussion. The odds favor opener's having a real hand instead of a weak-2 in clubs.

[pclayton]

These are Int to Strong. Thats what I would assume with a good partner absent discussion.

I don't have a strong preference against these being a good or weak hand. I've never heard of these being conventional, but it seems like a good idea to make them 2 suiters.

[cherdano]

This opening is way too well-defined to make normal preempts over it IMO. If a jump is weak, it should be a very classic constructive preempt, but I am pretty sure I would prefer them to be stronger, maybe s.th. like AKQxxx KJx Axx x, not sure whether you want to call this strong or intermediate in this situation.

[jdonn]

They are preempts, the opening 2♣ shows an opening bid (though it may be lighter than standard bidders), it is not a preempt, so a jump over that is preemptive. Considering that we are on the 2 level so the bottom end of a single overcall is bumped up, I see no reason for these to show some kind of strong hand, nor any basis for assuming someone would mean them that way sans discussion. Phil your post is very surprising to me.

[jdonn]

Arend it's true they have more information then when you preempt over a standard 1♣ for example. But
- They still lose valuable bidding space.
- It is the only way for our side to enter the auction on such hands, and we might just make something.
- The frequency is way higher than any other meaning.

[Apollo81]

I also think that it should be a preempt. I actually think that this is very damaging to Precision 2♣ openers since most people play negative doubles catering to opener possibly having a 4 card major.

[pclayton]

I don't think I ever gave the matter much thought, but I was reading something by Steve Robinson a few months ago who was absolutely adamant that the jump showed a good hand. Therefore, I assumed this was standard practice.

Other than ''common sense' does anyone have a reference saying its weak?

[Robert]

Hi pclayton

Steve Robinson is a very good player, however, he has some ideas that are not standard. He opens 65432 void void AKQJ10987 with one spade. Maybe that is good bridge, however, some players might disagree.

I highly reccomend his Washington Standard book. It contains a great deal of very good advice.

Regards,
Robert

[Free]

Since it's a constructive 2♣ opening, I would asume jumps to be preemptive. I also prefer it that way.

[FrancesHinden]

We've discussed this and have agreed them as strong.

Quote

- The frequency is way higher than any other meaning.

I'm not sure this is true. It's quite hard to evaluate, because neither comes up very often.

We didn't feel very strongly about what was best at the point when it was discussed. Various people here have explained the advantages of playing them as pre-emptive, so here's a plug for the other side:

2C defines the hand within fairly narrow parameters (6 clubs or 5 + a side suit; not a 1NT opener, 10-15 HCP). When coming into an auction, the side that has defined their hand within narrow limits is usually the one that can afford to pre-empt; the side that hasn't started yet needs a constructive call. As the defending side you have already lost one level of bidding, and your LHO knows enough about the hand to jam the auction if he wants.

A 1-level opening in standard methods is much vaguer: there is a bigger advantage to pre-empting, because he has said much less about his hand, and there is a smaller advantage to your side from being able to show a strong 1-suiter quickly as the auction is less likely to get out of control.

If you 'just double' with strong 1-suiters you get into the same difficulties as over a weak two. (2C) x (P) 2S (P) 3H: is that a strong 1-suiter or a more flexible 3532 type strong hand?

----------------------------------------------

Note that you have to change from 'weak' to 'strong' at some point as the opponents' opening bid gets weaker. Most people play jumps as strong over a weak two opening. What do you do against a Fantoni-Nunes 2-level opener (about 9-13)? What if the 2C opener were not quite standard Precision, but was more precisely defined: say 9-15 with 6+ clubs, no 4-card major? Now I would definitely play jumps as strong. I've also seen opening 2-bids played as 'constructive 7-11' - are jumps strong or weak over them? There clearly isn't a concrete answer; you just decide at what point their opening bid reaches the point that your jump is strong - and you agree that with partner.

We would play jumps as weak against a strong, forcing opening or against an artificial strong opening; but I don't actually know what we would do against a "strong, non-forcing" two-bid (which one sometimes sees round here). Perhaps that's where we change to weak.

[MickyB]

I'd assume a jump was strong. 2♣ describes the hand well and you expect it to be passed reasonably often, in that way it has more in common with a weak two than a one-level opening.

As Frances says, you need to draw the line somewhere. I'd certainly expect the same method to be used over Precision and Fantunes 2♣ openings.

[MickyB]

jdonn, on Aug 2 2007, 10:52 PM, said:

- It is the only way for our side to enter the auction on such hands, and we might just make something.

Playing strong jumps lends itself to lighter simple overcalls, which allows you to get in on some hands that you'd have had to pass playing WJOs.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 3 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

Quote

- The frequency is way higher than any other meaning.

I'm not sure this is true. It's quite hard to evaluate, because neither comes up very often.

If opener has 10-15, the average for the other players is about 8-10 each. It shouldn't be hard to conclude that a preemptive hand is more likely than a strong hand for the next player, by a lot.

[MickyB]

jdonn, on Aug 3 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 3 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

Quote

- The frequency is way higher than any other meaning.

I'm not sure this is true. It's quite hard to evaluate, because neither comes up very often.

If opener has 10-15, the average for the other players is about 8-10 each. It shouldn't be hard to conclude that a preemptive hand is more likely than a strong hand for the next player, by a lot.

Any strong hand with a 7-card suit, and many with a 6-card suit, would be suitable for a strong jump. This isn't the case for a three-level WJO, particularly over such a well-defined opening.

My instinct is that a WJO would still be more frequent than a SJO, I just don't think it's as clear-cut as you make out.

[jdonn]

MickyB, on Aug 3 2007, 12:03 PM, said:

Any strong hand with a 7-card suit, and many with a 6-card suit, would be suitable for a strong jump. This isn't the case for a three-level WJO, particularly over such a well-defined opening.

Really? Qxxxxxx AKQ x AJ? KQJx AKxxxxx Kx -? There are lots of flaws a strong hand could have.

I think this point of how well defined the opening is is being overemphasized. They still have no clue about major suit fit if responder has 4 or 5 in a major, and opener is still on a 6 point range. A preempt will make them guess plenty.

[awm]

I think it's interesting that people look so differently at a 1♠ and 2♣ opening. In particular:

1♠ in precision shows 10-15 hcp and 5+♠. You can't introduce your own suit over this below the two-level, and opponents have a lot of information (very frequently spades is their best strain). Yet everyone I've ever talked to about it plays weak jumps over 1♠.

2♣ in precision shows 10-15 hcp and 6+♣. You can bid any suit you want at the two-level over this but nothing at the one-level. Same point range as 1♠. One more club is promised, but clubs is still probably less likely to be their best strain because majors are favored over minors. Nonetheless a lot of people play strong jumps over 2♣, and even believe this is "normal" without discussion.

Yes, there are some good arguments for strong jumps over 2♣, but I think all these arguments apply (maybe even more effectively) over 1♠.

[MickyB]

I agree that the differences aren't great between a limited 1♠ and a limited 2♣, but I think WJOs are clearly more useful over a 1♠ opening - you are removing two more steps than you would over 2♣.

[gwnn]

where's the limit between a preemptive opener and this kind? 9-14 is still constructive surely. 8-14? 8-12? etc?