[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

pairs, annual christmas tournament, you are one of the strongest pairs in the room,
there is another one (maybe a bit stronger, ... depending on your current level of
concentration).

You are in 4th position, red vs. green and hold

♠xx
♥QT9xx
♦KQJ9xx
♣-

The auction so far

(Pass) - Pass - (1♣) - ???

You have fairly standard agreements, with the small caveat, that a "WJS" showes a min opening hand
at the given colors, as does 2NT (showing the red suits), but you are facing a passed hand, so you
have some freedom. You cant bid 2D, this would show the majors.

Your options seem to be Pass, 1♦, 2NT, 3♦. Your pick.

As always reasoning is more important than anything else.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

I don't like any of the three specifications - the jump overcalls requiring an opening hand, giving up the 2♦ preempt to show both majors, and the implication that we'll deviate from the strength agreement when partner is a passed hand.

The last one might require a bit of explanation, though I'll keep it brief. It relates to partner's expected continuations, especially with a maximum pass. The conditional probability of partner having a near-opening hand when we fudge our alleged opening strength jump overcall is quite high, especially if we are 'sound bidders', and partner may well inadvertently hang us for it.

Locked into these agreements I'll bid 3♦, if that's weak.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-04, 01:50, said:

<snip>
giving up the 2♦ preempt to show both majors
<snip>

I am not too fond of this one either, we play 2C as natural, we face a lot of (possible) short 1♣ openings.
As a consequence you need a bit to replace the cue.

[DavidKok]

Yes, that is exactly the agreement that I love to play against. The natural 2♦ jump overcall causes me serious problems, while the natural 2♣ overcall is much easier to manage. We get the inference that opener isn't unbalanced with primary clubs 'for free', and the extra step allows for gadgets, e.g. transfers. If only all my opponents would swap that out, my life would be a lot better.

A third alternative is to forego a way to show both majors at once. I think this is interesting but controversial, and goes beyond my point above.

[helene_t]

It's WJO not WJS, I pressume.

I'll bid either 2nt or 3♦.

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on 2024-December-04, 03:20, said:

It's WJO not WJS, I pressume.

I'll bid either 2nt or 3♦.

You are right, WJO.

[mw64ahw]

I favour 2-suited overcalls as this improves the probability of a fit and the potential for further pressure so 2N.
3♦ may take away further bidding space, but I doubt this will be much of an issue for good ops. if they have the contract.

Playing The OS though I bid 2♦ as 5+♦ 4+♥, but have re-purposed the 2N overcall to show some single-suited pre-empt.

[DavidKok]

 helene_t, on 2024-December-04, 03:20, said:

I'll bid either 2nt or 3♦.

I have no sympathy for 2NT with these agreements. This partnership has agreed that it shows an opening hand, and we don't have one. Not only is there a risk that partner bids too much, it's also a disclosure issue.
When this partnership made the agreement that these jumps show opening hands they agreed to systemically take a hit on the weaker-than-opening-hands with the same shape. I personally have a strong dislike for the "we agreed X, but my hand is not-quite-X, so let me bid it anyway. Too bad if partner misinforms the opponents ", especially when it comes to artificial competitive bids.
Am I to understand that this example hand is considered a normal 1-level opening for this partnership? For me it isn't, and as far as I'm concerned we should either find a preempt (which is why I conditioned my 3♦ suggestion on a question) or suck it up and make better agreements before it comes up again. No matter what you can't have it both ways, bidding 2NT on weak hands and systemically have it show an opening.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2024-December-04, 04:44, said:

I have no sympathy for 2NT with these agreements. This partnership has agreed that it shows an opening hand, and we don't have one. Not only is there a risk that partner bids too much, it's also a disclosure issue.
<snip>

You will get the disclosure, that the opening bid req. will be softened up a bid, given that the bidder faces a passed hand.
It may not have been clear, but the "you have some freedom" part was meant exactly to be this, and this will be disclosed.

[AL78]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-December-04, 05:19, said:

You will get the disclosure, that the opening bid req. will be softened up a bid, given that the bidder faces a passed hand.
It may not have been clear, but the "you have some freedom" part was meant exactly to be this, and this will be disclosed.

This is going to depend on the definition of "softening up" but I would be inclined towards 2NT in that case (swap a small heart for the jack and I would class it as an opening hand), followed by a mental note to discuss and refine our competitive system later.

[P_Marlowe]

AL78, on 2024-December-04, 05:47, said:

This is going to depend on the definition of "softening up" but I would be inclined towards 2NT in that case (swap a small heart for the jack and I would class it as an opening hand), followed by a mental note to discuss and refine our competitive system later.

I was thinking of writing, that for some adding the Jack of hearts would make it an opening bid, not for me, for me the "Line in the Sand" is 10HCP
(however they are distributed, Singleton honor contribute to the 10), but sure it depends what softening it up really means, how close it is.

Just in case it was not obvious in my original post, the opening value req. is only due to the fact, that we are red and they are green.

[Cyberyeti]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-December-04, 06:24, said:

I was thinking of writing, that for some adding the Jack of hearts would make it an opening bid, not for me, for me the "Line in the Sand" is 10HCP
(however they are distributed, Singleton honor contribute to the 10), but sure it depends what softening it up really means, how close it is.

Just in case it was not obvious in my original post, the opening value req. is only due to the fact, that we are red and they are green.

REALLY, You preempt or pass QJ10xx, void, x, KQJ10xxx rather than open it 1 ?

I consider the OP hand IS an opening hand of sorts, 8+11 = 19 and the ♥109 to boot, so would fall within the scope of our 1 bids, although we have a 3-9 5-5 reds opener which we'd probably use instead, but that hand with 6M/5♣ we'd open 1.