[pclayton]

Don't sweat it. The hands mesh well, and this isn't a good hand for your methods.

If South overcalls 1♠, I presume you play transfer advances, and this is a good raise IMO. South bids game.

EVen without transfer advances, South invites with something after the single raise, and North shows the heart values if he does not accept.

[cherdano]

On Rosenberg/Zia's card I found IJO's explained as "roughly AKJxxx + A", from what Justin told me some other time this seems similar to what he plays, i.e. I assume unlike Noble that an excellent 6322 12-count qualifies.

Back to the original question: I don't think there is anyone to blame except xxx opposite x, but I think forcing to game with North would be reasonable. Opposite KQJxxx xx Axx Kx game would be bad but playable, and opposite any hand with ♥K it should be good.

I don't know what to make of the late 4♣ bid, I probably would have stayed consistent respectively stubborn by passing as either partner -- stubborn in this case...

[jwmonty]

When I first saw this problem, I was surprised North hadn't simply raised to game without further ado. He has three-card support, two bullets, a probable ruffing value, and a suit that could set up for pitches if necessary. This seems like plenty opposite any intermediate jump overcall I have ever heard of.

However, I don't actually play IJO's, so I decided to check what the conventional wisdom says. According to the Bridge Encyclopedia (5th Ed.), xx/AKJxxx/AQ/Jxx is an "ideal hand." Clearly, if South is showing this much, North needs to bid game. Have the requirements for this bid been lowered while I wasn't looking?

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2007, 07:17 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jun 4 2007, 02:49 PM, said:

You're saying a 6322 12 count isn't good enough, right?

Right, of course AKJTxx Axx xx xx would be fine, but most 6322 12s would not be (ie someone posted earlier KQJ9xx KJ QTx xx, this would not be good enough).

Since this IJO sounder than I am used to I am changing my answer from "need better methods" to North made a slight error in judgement.

[pclayton]

jwmonty, on Jun 4 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

When I first saw this problem, I was surprised North hadn't simply raised to game without further ado. He has three-card support, two bullets, a probable ruffing value, and a suit that could set up for pitches if necessary. This seems like plenty opposite any intermediate jump overcall I have ever heard of.

However, I don't actually play IJO's, so I decided to check what the conventional wisdom says. According to the Bridge Encyclopedia (5th Ed.), xx/AKJxxx/AQ/Jxx is an "ideal hand." Clearly, if South is showing this much, North needs to bid game. Have the requirements for this bid been lowered while I wasn't looking?

This looks slightly heavy to me. Note that opposite two black aces this hand needs a hook (figures to work but not guaranteed) and a heart split (maybe not, but we need to bid these games).

I've always defined a IJO as 12-15 HCP and 6-7 losers.

I don't play them in the direct chair, but they are fairly common in the balance position, and this is what my requirements are.

[cnszsun]

If south has overcalled 1♠ only, north has a clear constructive 2♠ call. After IJO 2♠ by south instead, should not 3♠ by north still constructive?
With bad hand, he can pass safely because partner is more limited than simple overcall. My first thought is that 3♦ by north just asks partner to bid game with any non dead minimum hand. So, i feel south could have bid game.

[kenrexford]

jwmonty, on Jun 4 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

When I first saw this problem, I was surprised North hadn't simply raised to game without further ado. He has three-card support, two bullets, a probable ruffing value, and a suit that could set up for pitches if necessary. This seems like plenty opposite any intermediate jump overcall I have ever heard of.

However, I don't actually play IJO's, so I decided to check what the conventional wisdom says. According to the Bridge Encyclopedia (5th Ed.), xx/AKJxxx/AQ/Jxx is an "ideal hand." Clearly, if South is showing this much, North needs to bid game. Have the requirements for this bid been lowered while I wasn't looking?

I'm not sure how this example of an "ideal hand" means that North should bid game.

The "ideal hand" (corrected for spades) was ♠AKJxxx ♥xx ♦AQ ♣Jxx. Note that this is the ideal hand, meaning not the minimum hand. This hand has an initial count of seven losers. However, the spade Jack and the diamond Queen reduce this to six losers if one finesse works, or five losers if both work (and there is transportation). However, the possession by partner of a cover card opposite a finessable holding is a duplication (straight cover plus finesse you no longer need). So, it seems that a rough estimate of 5-6 Losers is fair.

So, let's analyze this further, tailoring this for Advancer's known hand and for reasonable possibilities.

Correcting it for the location of the small doubleton, you have ♠AKJxxx ♥Jxx ♦xx ♣AQ.

Correcting it for the known spade situation, you end up with ♠KQJxxx ♥Jxx ♦xx ♣AQ. Now, if the club finesse works, you have a fair shot at 4♥, especially if spades split 2-2. Now, depending upon the count, you may be able to play hearts for KQ in Opener's hand (after eliminating the clubs) or for the K-Q to be split (also after eliminating the clubs). Change the length of the hearts and clubs, however, and you seem to need a 3-3 heart split, or spades splitting 2-2 and hearts 4-2.

On all of these, though, you still need the club finesse, which is far from assured.

What if, however, Opener has something like xxx in hearts, even with AK in clubs? Something like ♠KQJxxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AK? This layout is essentially a hopeless layout.

The problem with the "ideal hand" analysis is that the book provides a weird hand. It has the benefit of a finessable club suit (which may provide a way to avoid a loser you would otherwise count) and a stray but critical Jack in the three-card fragment. That hand type is one of the many hand types that might bid 3♥ as a punt after 3♦.

It seems to me that 3♦ asks if partner has a maximum (bid 4♠), an "ideal hand" (bid 3♥ with a hand that has a finesse and a neat card, perhaps), or a minimum (sign off). Perfect for Advancer's hand.

Overcaller, on this deal, has a 5-loser hand. At IMP's, this seems like enough to me. But, if he is really conservative, 3♥ might be right -- "I'm thinking about it." Advancer now can look at his third spade (not necessary), his heart Ace-fifth (a possible trick source), and his doubleton diamond (possibly a ruffing value) and bid the game. Certainly that auction makes sense at matchpoints.

Had the cuebid been one under the major (e.g., 1♦-2♥-P-3♦), the loss to Overcaller of a last train invite might justify Advnacer just blasting. He would be so justified because Overcaller, in making an intermediate jump overcall into the suit right above Opener's suit, should avoid that call unless he has the tweener hand, a reciprocal empathy for Advancer's problem.

Here, however, Overcaller knows that he can sign off, accept, or push back after 3♦, because he knows that he can bid 3♥ in that auction. So, he has a tad bit more flexibility. Advancer should respect that.

So, IMO, Overcaller dropped the ball when he signed off. 3♥ would be fair, but conservative. 4♠ would be my choice.

In contrast, Advancer IMO made the right call. Had the major fit been hearts, then Advnacer would be justified bidding 4♠ because Overcaller should bid a simple 2♥ with some hands with which he could have bid 2♠.

[Fluffy]

I never played intermediate, so I have no clue if there is someone to blame.