[kfay]

The opponents are bidding. Do you like to use them? If so, when?

[rogerclee]

I think

1♣ - (1♦) - 2♥

and

1♣ - (1♦/1♥) - 2♠

should be played as natural and invitational and should be made fairly aggressively. The reason is that often the opponents can give us a big problem by preempting or raising their suit, and it's very important to be able to get your 6 card major in. I would jump on hands that do not quite fit the classic "intermediate" style in an uncontested auction; in particular, the suit quality is not as big a deal as long as the hand is reasonable. IMO you are just put into too many tough positions with hands that can't solo to the three level after an opposing preempt.

By the way many pairs play

1m - (1♥) - 2♥

as 6+♠, and I thought I saw gnasher on vugraph playing this as actually 5+♠ and a good hand. These seem like good agreements to me, as long as you can handle the limit raise well.

[kfay]

Oops! Sorry I didn't really mean inter. j/s but intermediate... jump overcalls or whatever you'd call them.

For instance (1H)-P-(1N)-3C

But that's still an interesting idea, Roger.

[hanp]

I don't get how Roger can be so confident. There are so many ways in which you can play the jumps yet Roger seems to know how they should be played. Wow.

I play intermediate jump overcalls with Arend when vulnerable. (1C) - 2H shows about 12-14 HCP with a good 6-card suit. We can have an 11-count with a 7-card suit too. 1S - (3C) shows a better hand than that, perhaps 13-15 HCP with a 6-card suit but the suit should be very good.

[jdonn]

I have never played intermediate jump overcalls. I always felt like they were a bit of a waste, those are easy hands to bid and hands with less need to take up space than true preemptive hands. If you are vul then regular preempts do get more risky, but you can still be fairly sound with those and not change the whole system.

Nonetheless, it seems easy to believe intermediate jump overcalls would work well when they come up, since they are very constructive and describe a large group of hands well.

[hanp]

"Change the whole system" seems an overbid.

I think the idea of intermediate jump overcalls is that they are not good enough to jump afterwards yet a simple rebid may not show anything. For example if it goes

1D - 1S - 2D - Dbl
p - 2S

This does not do justice to AQJ10xx xx Ax Qxx but jumping to 3S might be too much.

[gnasher]

rogerclee, on Jun 4 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

By the way many pairs play

1m - (1♥) - 2♥

as 6+♠, and I thought I saw gnasher on vugraph playing this as actually 5+♠ and a good hand. These seem like good agreements to me, as long as you can handle the limit raise well.

Did I bid a no-play slam on the next round? If so, we were playing it as any hand with six spades, or a game-force with five.

I think it works better if you limit the type "game-force with five" type to 5-5 shapes.

[jdonn]

Han, I think your first comment is nitpicky for no particular reason. Anyway...

I don't think your reasoning of why people play them is correct, for several reasons. One is the observation that they are almost exclusively played when vul by most pairs, but the advantage you state would exist nonvul as well. Another reason is your logic wouldn't exist on auctions where partner didn't bid and is unlikely to start bidding new suits or making takeout doubles (like in Kevin's second post). Another is that you don't help tighten the ranges anyway, since you can still have a suit inadequate for an intermediate jump overcall and be stuck with the same type of rebid issue.

Of course I can't say why you in particular play them, and your reason is valid. But I still think in the majority of cases it is played by pairs who are not comfortable jumping aggressively on weak preemptive hands when vul.

[nick_s]

I play them when protecting as an unpassed hand.

eg. (1♣) - Pass - (Pass) - 2♠

I think this is pretty normal though. Weak jump overcalls don't make too much sense here.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Jun 4 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

I have never played intermediate jump overcalls. I always felt like they were a bit of a waste, those are easy hands to bid and hands with less need to take up space than true preemptive hands. If you are vul then regular preempts do get more risky, but you can still be fairly sound with those and not change the whole system.

Nonetheless, it seems easy to believe intermediate jump overcalls would work well when they come up, since they are very constructive and describe a large group of hands well.

As someone who has played IJOs for a few years, I've observed that one good thing that happens is that responder makes a negative double, and then subsequently goes for a number (usually -2 x'd) when the partnership has a weak 8-card fit and about half the HCP (suits are tending to split badly here, and it is easy for advancer to make a penalty double).

I am also convinced that it is best for 2♠ by responder to be a negative free bid over an intermediate 2♥ jump overcall, and that peoples' failure to play this causes some good results for the IJOers.

Without going into details or giving an example, I've also noticed that it is a little harder to reach some good 4M contracts for the side that is playing IJOs.

[Jlall]

I like them vul because weak jump overcalls vul are so rare.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

I like them vul because weak jump overcalls vul are so rare.

strongly agree

[kenrexford]

I like intermediate jump overcalls in the obvious fourth seat and when RvW. RvR, I think normal weak comes up enough.

I also like intermediate jump responses whether interference or no.

[awm]

Apollo81, on Jun 4 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 4 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

I like them vul because weak jump overcalls vul are so rare.

strongly agree

I thought this at one time, but now I'm a lot less sure of it.

The issue is that whether a hand is suitable for a weak jump overcall at vulnerable has a lot more to do with suit quality than overall hand strength. So for a vulnerable WJO I'd want a hand where my suit is at least a certain length with not very many losers.

For an IJO, it seems like you require some degree of overall hand strength, which is fine, but generally holding (or not holding) outside cards is independent of suit quality. Assuming that you won't make IJOs into lousy suits either (it's actually even worse than a WJO into a lousy suit, because now you not only risk going for a number, but opponents probably couldn't make game on the hand) the ratio of "frequency WJO: frequency IJO" should not depend on vulnerability.

I guess the question is, can you construct a hand where you would make an IJO at vulnerable, but where if we took away an ace (or otherwise 4 hcp) outside your trump suit, you would not make a WJO at vulnerable? If so, then perhaps this frequency argument makes sense. If not, then it doesn't really hold water.

[Cascade]

I play intermediate jump overcalls at all vulnerabilities.

I think there is a case for playing them at all vulnerabilities except favourable.

We only play our two-level jumps as intermediate although I have played three-level jumps that way with some partners.

Our ranges are loosely:

12-16 HCP with a six-card suit vulnerable

10-14 HCP with a six-card suit not vulnerable.

In practice these probably vary up or down a point or so depending on the opponent's vulnerability.

Often they make our constructive bidding very easy when potentially the opponent's are ahead - compare:

(1♦) 2♠ (3♦) or some other raise with

(1♦) 1♠ (3♦)

Since 2♠ intermediate is a narrower range it makes sense that our constructive bidding is going to be harmed less on those auctions. This is true whatever the range of 2♠. Since games are more likely over intermediate jumps than weak jumps we prefer for those hands to be in the jumps.

[gnasher]

In the UK, intermediate jump overcalls were standard when I first started playing in the early 1980s. Amongst tournament players they had gone out of fashion by about 1990. Nowadays they're played mainly by the people you meet in the early rounds of a Swiss Teams event.

I don't agree that this hand-type is hard to show after making a simple overcall. If partner hasn't shown anything, you either double or bid your suit again at a minimum level; if partner has already shown some life you jump in the suit. The example Han gave is borderline, but I'd be fairly happy with bidding 3♠ at IMPs - opposite something like xx KQxx xxx KJxx, 3♠ is reasonably safe.

Personally I hate the idea of not being able to preempt when I have a good suit and nothing else, and as responder I much prefer dealing with 1♦ (1♠) than 1♦ (2♠). It's true that a hand good enough for a pure weak jump overcall is less common when you're vulnerable, but you can allow it to have more side-suit strength without abandoning the primary objective of obstructing the opponents' auction.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Jun 5 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

In the UK, intermediate jump overcalls were standard when I first started playing in the early 1980s. Amongst tournament players they had gone out of fashion by about 1990. Nowadays they're played mainly by the people you meet in the early rounds of a Swiss Teams event.

I don't agree that this hand-type is hard to show after making a simple overcall. If partner hasn't shown anything, you either double or bid your suit again at a minimum level; if partner has already shown some life you jump in the suit. The example Han gave is borderline, but I'd be fairly happy with bidding 3♠ at IMPs - opposite something like xx KQxx xxx KJxx, 3♠ is reasonably safe.

Personally I hate the idea of not being able to preempt when I have a good suit and nothing else, and as responder I much prefer dealing with 1♦ (1♠) than 1♦ (2♠). It's true that a hand good enough for a pure weak jump overcall is less common when you're vulnerable, but you can allow it to have more side-suit strength without abandoning the primary objective of obstructing the opponents' auction.

The frequencies for various ranges are approximately:

5-9 0.38017
6-10 0.42236
7-11 0.44626
8-12 0.44625
9-13 0.42647
10-14 0.38984
11-15 0.34003
12-16 0.28369

So if your aim is to cause the opponents the most headaches after (1♦) 2♠ then a range of 7-11 is best (of the above options).

We actually do something similar on the auction (1♣) 2♦ where there are two majors unbid. We play around 8-12 for that auction. We also do something similar lowering our normal requirements for a two-level overcall on (1♦) 2♣ for the same reason to hopefully cause more problems for the opponents.

[hanp]

awm, on Jun 4 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jun 4 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 4 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

I like them vul because weak jump overcalls vul are so rare.

strongly agree

I thought this at one time, but now I'm a lot less sure of it.

The issue is that whether a hand is suitable for a weak jump overcall at vulnerable has a lot more to do with suit quality than overall hand strength. So for a vulnerable WJO I'd want a hand where my suit is at least a certain length with not very many losers.

For an IJO, it seems like you require some degree of overall hand strength, which is fine, but generally holding (or not holding) outside cards is independent of suit quality. Assuming that you won't make IJOs into lousy suits either (it's actually even worse than a WJO into a lousy suit, because now you not only risk going for a number, but opponents probably couldn't make game on the hand) the ratio of "frequency WJO: frequency IJO" should not depend on vulnerability.

I guess the question is, can you construct a hand where you would make an IJO at vulnerable, but where if we took away an ace (or otherwise 4 hcp) outside your trump suit, you would not make a WJO at vulnerable? If so, then perhaps this frequency argument makes sense. If not, then it doesn't really hold water.

Let's say you need at least 3 honors in your suit to consider a vulnerable jump overcall. You are more likely to hold that suit when you have 12 HCP than when you hold 7 HCP. When you take away honors, they don't have to be in side suits.

Also, I do think holding an ace in a side suit makes a difference. The difference is roughly 1 trick.

[hanp]

Cascade, on Jun 4 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

The frequencies for various ranges are approximately:

5-9 0.38017
6-10 0.42236
7-11 0.44626
8-12 0.44625
9-13 0.42647
10-14 0.38984
11-15 0.34003
12-16 0.28369

Again, you are taking into account that RHO has opened 1D for these odds?

[Cascade]

hanp, on Jun 5 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 4 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

The frequencies for various ranges are approximately:

5-9    0.38017
6-10  0.42236
7-11  0.44626
8-12  0.44625
9-13  0.42647
10-14 0.38984
11-15 0.34003
12-16 0.28369

Again, you are taking into account that RHO has opened 1D for these odds?

This is harder because it depends on exactly what you put into a 1D opening.

Here are some numbers based on 1000000 hands for:

12-14 Balanced 4432, 4D but not 4C, 5D

11-19 5+ Diamonds longer than hearts and spades maybe the same length as clubs

5-9 0.453776
6-10 0.486067
7-11 0.491079
8-12 0.465875
9-13 0.419851
10-14 0.358222
11-15 0.288389
12-16 0.220326

These frequencies will favour the higher range the more balanced 11 counts you open.