[jeffford76]

---

No special agreements over 3H. Your replies to 2NT would have been slightly different from standard Jacoby, but I don't think that matters at this point. Now what?

[mike777]

I'll try 4h now.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

You can taylor-make some agreements for your system when there is this type of interference ( a bid AFTER partner's 2NT! ).

When Spades are trump, it is pretty easy -- say for simple Jacoby and 3H interference:

DBL = "stole my bid" = ♥-shortness -- and this is something you always want to show ( or imply ).
And the other bids can remain the same :
3S = extras, no shortness
4S = minimum, no shortness
4C/4D = 2nd 5 card suit ( ergo shortness somewhere -- most likely in the overcall suit, ♥ )

It would be RARE to have shortness in a different suit other than the overcall suit, but you can work out a system to show that.

When Hearts are trump, you have to "tweak" the replies a bit.

[trevahound]

I held this hand at the same club that night, playing roughly the same methods as Jeff. I chose 4♠, and pulled partner's X of 5♥ to 5♠. I believe we'd get 500 from 5♥, so that wasn't particularly clever, but 450 at least got me to average (when I'd played it).

I thought 4s portrayed lots of offense with little defense and little slam interest -- which is how I felt about this hand.

Brian Zaugg

[Codo]

I would hate any bid which takes up a lot of room like 4 ♠ without showing something of interesst, f.e. an balanced hand with nothing extras, espacially not with a heart void.
I would like to have a lot more overall strength for 4 heart, so I simply pass or double, depending on the agreement I have. As I seem to have no clear agreement about a double and this could be very well interpreted as penalty, I better pass for now and await the development.

[mikeh]

I'm not going to offer a specific answer. What I am going to say is in two parts.

1. It is very important, if you want to play seriously, to have specific agreements about competition over J2N. My most current system notes (I am retired at least for now from any serious partnership) detail agreements over 3 and 4 level interference. Having such agreements, even if sub-optimum, is better than guessing and hoping partner is on the same wavelength.

2. When the opps bid J2N, stretch to interfere, especially in a suit in which you want the lead. Few partnerships will settle for a 3-level penalty (or even a 4 level penalty) and many partnerships, even of experts, won't have agreements...well-oiled ones will, but experts aren't always playing in their well-established partnerships.

[Zelandakh]

You can build a defence as Don suggests, you can build a defence based on DOPI, or, if you have time and an agile brain, you can codify stuff to try and optimise. Just looking at Don's suggestion, it might be interesting to add to that Pass as either wanting to penalise them or a shortage in a lower suit. Then Opener doubles with any hand that would pass a penalty double and Responder either passes for penalty or shows their shortage.

As an aside, I agree with Mike's 2 points completely, especially the second which is often forgotten.

[mgoetze]

Absent special agreements, I will bid 3♠, which should show a more offensive hand than pass or double, but not 4♥, which IMHO should show some extras I don't have. 4♠ should show a hand where I suddenly regret having opened which is certainly not the case here.

[mcphee]

The most important question is, "do we control" the suit bid. Double should show shortness and any new suit bid must also show a control of the enemy suit,A or K.