[helene_t]

3-level IJO seem rather pointless to me. The range would have to be quite narrow because there is no room for game tries, and a 2-level overcall already conveys most of the message.

I don't hate 2-level IJOs at mathchpoints. Often LHO will be too weak to compete directly so we will be allowed to play there while a 1-level overcall would allow them to find a fit.

Here in Acol-land, minor suit openings are very informative so the point of preempting is less than it is when opps play 5-card majors. As for (1♥)-2♠ it is the opposite and I think we ought to play fairly wide-ranging weak jump overcalls here.

All in all I prefer weak jumps throughout. Many club players play variable but I don't like that, getting used to partner's style takes longer the more different systems I play with the same partner.

[paulg]

I play weak jumps throughout, but I expect that many of the vulnerable jump overcalls overlap with what others describe as intermediate.

Position, vulnerability and quality of suit are all important factors - the juniors I mentor agree with this, but seem to interpret it in different ways to me

Paul

[Jlall]

I was playing a sectional team game many years ago and I picked up: xx AQJTxx xxx xx. They opened 1C and I bid 2H red/white. I went for 800, but figured this was a textbook preempt.

After comparing, my teammate (Bob Hamman), said they made the same terrible bid of 2H at his table. I asked if he really thought it was terrible and he said of course. He does not result ever.

Then I noticed many of my friends who are great bridge players and generally very aggressive were overcalling 1H with hands like this (and playing weak jump overcalls). Guys like hampson, meckstroth, grue, soloway etc.

This made me think 2 things:

1) A lot of hands you would open with a weak 2 you should overcall with 1. You still get lead directors in, find saves, allow partner to jam their auction further, etc, while just losing some of the preemption. This is definitely a cost, but in the eyes of a lot of great players that I respect, it is worth it to avoid the dangers of bidding.

2) Thus, you shouldn't even be playing weak jump overcalls vulnerable because they are very infrequent.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand what slight differences in frequency have to do with anything.

I mean, overcalling 2♥ after a 1♣ opening with 0-10 HCP and 4+ hearts would come up a lot, but it would be stupid.

It seems astoundingly obvious that the question is not frequency of being abloe to bid the particular call alone, but rather more complex. You want to make the call that is part of an entire approach that maximizes results.

When looking at, for example, a 2♥ RvW overcall of 1♣ -- Justin's example -- you analyze (like he said) the relative benefits of an entire approach. If 1♥ is rather unlimited but 2♥ is weak, then you get hammered a lot on 2♥ overcalls and have a difficult time unwinding one-level overcalls. If, however, you make 1♥ limited (not good enough for an intermediate jump) and make 2♥ intermediate, your frequency of a 2♥ call is affected, and the preemptive effect of the 1♥ call is less, but you don't go for numbers as much and you have better constructive auctions in game-going or game-seeking hands.

Comparing frequency of how often you overcall 1♥ and how often 2♥ doesn't tell you which approach is a net gainer (gains minus losses). You have to interplay the two AND assess how each independently operates as far as wins and losses.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Jun 5 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

I was playing a sectional team game many years ago and I picked up: xx AQJTxx xxx xx. They opened 1C and I bid 2H red/white. I went for 800, but figured this was a textbook preempt.

After comparing, my teammate (Bob Hamman), said they made the same terrible bid of 2H at his table. I asked if he really thought it was terrible and he said of course. He does not result ever.

Then I noticed many of my friends who are great bridge players and generally very aggressive were overcalling 1H with hands like this (and playing weak jump overcalls). Guys like hampson, meckstroth, grue, soloway etc.

This made me think 2 things:

1) A lot of hands you would open with a weak 2 you should overcall with 1. You still get lead directors in, find saves, allow partner to jam their auction further, etc, while just losing some of the preemption. This is definitely a cost, but in the eyes of a lot of great players that I respect, it is worth it to avoid the dangers of bidding.

2) Thus, you shouldn't even be playing weak jump overcalls vulnerable because they are very infrequent.

Very good stuff here; thanks. P.S., I still check in on your blog but the updates are few and far between now

I know Hamman plays IJO's although I don't know if they are just vul..

If you respect vulnerability (and I do), a lot of minimum WJO's especially r/w are close to intermediate for me (or damn close). A max jump overcall r/w is definitely at least a minimum IJO.

[vuroth]

Phil, on Jun 5 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 5 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

I was playing a sectional team game many years ago and I picked up: xx AQJTxx xxx xx. They opened 1C and I bid 2H red/white. I went for 800, but figured this was a textbook preempt.

After comparing, my teammate (Bob Hamman), said they made the same terrible bid of 2H at his table. I asked if he really thought it was terrible and he said of course. He does not result ever.

Then I noticed many of my friends who are great bridge players and generally very aggressive were overcalling 1H with hands like this (and playing weak jump overcalls). Guys like hampson, meckstroth, grue, soloway etc.

This made me think 2 things:

1) A lot of hands you would open with a weak 2 you should overcall with 1. You still get lead directors in, find saves, allow partner to jam their auction further, etc, while just losing some of the preemption. This is definitely a cost, but in the eyes of a lot of great players that I respect, it is worth it to avoid the dangers of bidding.

2) Thus, you shouldn't even be playing weak jump overcalls vulnerable because they are very infrequent.

Very good stuff here; thanks.

Ditto

[hanp]

Cascade, on Jun 5 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

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

Are these the requirements that you would expect of your opponents? I would expect my opponents to open 1D also with some balanced 18-19 hands for example. And I would expect my opponents to open 1D also with some balanced hands containing 4 diamonds and 4 clubs.

Why is it that when you post such numbers, you first ignore the fact that RHO has opened the bidding, and then when somebody asks about it you make up requirements that to me seem completely unreasonable? Are these just cultural style differences?

[cherdanno]

Why do you care, Han? Without suit quality requirements, the numbers are meaningless anyway.

[hanp]

I care because I can't stand it.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 5 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

If, however, you make 1♥ limited (not good enough for an intermediate jump) and make 2♥ intermediate, your frequency of a 2♥ call is affected, and the preemptive effect of the 1♥ call is less, but you don't go for numbers as much and you have better constructive auctions in game-going or game-seeking hands.

Playing intermediate jump overcalls (and otherwise standard methods) doesn't mean that 1♥ is limited. You still have to bid 1♥ on intermediate-strength hands with only five hearts.

[Cascade]

hanp, on Jun 6 2009, 06:41 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 5 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

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

Are these the requirements that you would expect of your opponents? I would expect my opponents to open 1D also with some balanced 18-19 hands for example. And I would expect my opponents to open 1D also with some balanced hands containing 4 diamonds and 4 clubs.

Why is it that when you post such numbers, you first ignore the fact that RHO has opened the bidding, and then when somebody asks about it you make up requirements that to me seem completely unreasonable? Are these just cultural style differences?

I did include 18-19 Balanced i just forgot to write it there.

I had to pick some style for balanced hands with 4=4 in the minors.

You are more than welcome to do your own numbers.

I just do them to try and get a rough feel for the situation. I am aware that someone opening the bidding will change the numbers some. But I am also aware it is impossible to get an exact answer since everyone's style varies and this affects the numbers.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jun 6 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 5 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

If, however, you make 1♥ limited (not good enough for an intermediate jump) and make 2♥ intermediate, your frequency of a 2♥ call is affected, and the preemptive effect of the 1♥ call is less, but you don't go for numbers as much and you have better constructive auctions in game-going or game-seeking hands.

Playing intermediate jump overcalls (and otherwise standard methods) doesn't mean that 1♥ is limited. You still have to bid 1♥ on intermediate-strength hands with only five hearts.

Of course, you see that your comments makes no sense. Of course 1♥ is limited. It is limited either in HCP or in length. To say that it is not limited, and then in the very next sentence to note a limitation, is odd.

This is of course important when overcaller rebids his own suit, hence noting the HCP limitation, or bids strongly in a new suit, hence noting the heart legth limitation.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 6 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

Of course, you see that your comments makes no sense.  Of course 1♥ is limited.  It is limited either in HCP or in length.  To say that it is not limited, and then in the very next sentence to note a limitation, is odd.

You can use words however you please, but you're more likely to make yourself understood amongst bridge players if you use the same terminology as everyone else who plays bridge. When the rest of the bridge-playing world uses the word "limited", it means:

The Bridge World said:

Limited: (of a call) with specified lower and upper strength requirements, the latter below the maximum possible.

Similar definitions appear in the ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge, on Bridgeguys.com, and, I am sure, in many other places.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-June-06, 16:11

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jun 6 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 6 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

Of course, you see that your comments makes no sense.  Of course 1♥ is limited.  It is limited either in HCP or in length.  To say that it is not limited, and then in the very next sentence to note a limitation, is odd.

You can use words however you please, but you're more likely to make yourself understood amongst bridge players if you use the same terminology as everyone else who plays bridge. When the rest of the bridge-playing world uses the word "limited", it means:

The Bridge World said:

Limited: (of a call) with specified lower and upper strength requirements, the latter below the maximum possible.

Similar definitions appear in the ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge, on Bridgeguys.com, and, I am sure, in many other places.

Well, had I just used the word "limited," then you might have a point. However, I specifically included in parantheses immediately after the word limited my intended definition of that term, which was "not good enough for an intermediate jump overcall." That parenthetical was offered for confused souls like yourself to further understand what I was saying, apparently for naught.

As an intermediate jump overcall essentially promises a six-card suit, or longer, then 1♥ is limited when holding a qualifying suit to not good enough. Technically, if an intermediate jump overcall could ever be made on a five-card suit, that also limits the bid, but I don't know when that happens. In any event, this part does require some contextual analysis and is not apparently easily deciphered by the incomplete parenthetical. If this sort of confusion occurs again, please feel free to ask.

[helene_t]

Ken, seriously: (random lawyer joke goes here)