[DrTodd13]

RHO opens 1♣. Does 2♥ or 2♠ deny the ability to bid 1♥ or 1♠ respectively? Is 2M strictly 5-7 with 6 card suit or can it be 5-10. I know people that play it both ways. Just wondering what the majority opinion is.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Jan 17 2005, 01:12 AM, said:

RHO opens 1♣. Does 2♥ or 2♠ deny the ability to bid 1♥ or 1♠ respectively? Is 2M strictly 5-7 with 6 card suit or can it be 5-10. I know people that play it both ways. Just wondering what the majority opinion is.

This depends...

If partner is a passed hand, I prefer to treat jump overcalls as extremely undisciplined with large amounts of overlap between simple, jump, and double jump overcalls.

If partner is not a passed hand, I prefer more disciplined styles so that partner is well positioned during a competitive auction.

[hotShot]

A WJO is a preempt, and you should only preempt, if you think this does more damage to your opponents bidding than to yours.

So if you can open 1M you should, if it is not crystal clear that your p has nothing usefull in his hands.

[Cowology]

I tend to play very disciplined overcalls (approx 10+-16). As such, my WJO's have a broader range but deny values for a simple overcall.

[mike777]

hrothgar said it very well

[sceptic]

if you make a WJO does this not take space away from your own bidding, if so why do it, if you can make a normal overcall?

[han]

Absolutely not! I play weak jump overcalls more undiciplined than weak 2 openings. Think about it, when you open a weak 2, you may be preempting partner or the opponents. But when RHO opens, doesn't this increase the chance that you are preempting them, not partner?

When partner is a passed hand, I make weak jump overcalls as much as I can (say with 0-13 HCP). At favorable vulnerability, I use almost the same strategy. When red I'm more diciplined.

[pbleighton]

"Absolutely not! I play weak jump overcalls more undiciplined than weak 2 openings. Think about it, when you open a weak 2, you may be preempting partner or the opponents. But when RHO opens, doesn't this increase the chance that you are preempting them, not partner?

When partner is a passed hand, I make weak jump overcalls as much as I can (say with 0-13 HCP). At favorable vulnerability, I use almost the same strategy. When red I'm more diciplined."

Hannie, would you give an example of a hand which you could both simple overcall and jump overcall with:
1) in the first two seats, AND
2) at a particular vulnerability (say favorable)

Peter

[han]

How about AKJ10xx Q10x x xxx. This would be too good to open 2S on imo, but after RHO opens 1C, I would bid 2S at any colors.

When white I would jump overcall on for instance x KQJ9x KJxx xxx over 1C. With this hand I would overcall 1H when red.

[helene_t]

As the question is put it suggests something like a randomized strategy. As in Hannie's example, a WJO does not deny the strength of a simple overcall, but if you don't play a randomized strategy, it does deny (per definition) a hand suited for a simple overcall.

It also depends on the kind of enemy opening. In many systems, 1♣ is less informative than 1♦, which calls for less diciplined overcalls against 1♣.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar says it quite well. Still a couple points also to consider.

A) Vulnerability and suit quality come into play. Take 987632, AKx, Kxx, x and over 1C I would bid 1S at any vulnerability; however, equal vulnerability, I would need something like QJ109xx, Axx, Kxx, x to make a jump overcall. Yet, non vul vs vul you might find me "out there" with Q10xxxx, Kx, xxxx, x. The key issue is how easy is it to get doubled for penalties; the worse the suit, the easier it is, so the lower level I bid. The key to a successful low-level penalty double is a trump stack well situated. QJ98 behind you may quite easily find you playing not 2 spades, but 4 spades, and the undertricks costing 200, 500, 800. Note that on the latter hand that it is extremely unlikely to be doubled at the 2 level, and even if partner raises to 3 on xxx of trumps, you are unlikely to get doubled due to the lack of a trump stack. This is especially true at imps.

Vulnerability is extremely important. The only time I get loosy-goosy is when I am white and they are red. Equal vulnerability is equal in danger due to the relative losses. If I lose -300 against their +140 I lose 4 imps; if I lose -500 against their +140 I lose 8 imps, a 50% difference. However if I lose -300 when they are going set -50 I lose 8 imps, yet going set -500 when I am due +100 is a 12 imps loss, only a 25% difference. Finally, if I go set -500 NV when they cannot make I lose 600 or 12 imps, yet when I go set 3 vul against their -100 I am only losing 900 or 14 imps, a 1/7th difference. Many good players make this error; white vs white can be an invitation to disaster; it is only when NV vs Vul that the imp scale favors the risky bids.

WinstonM

[Chamaco]

Agree with Richard.
Just treat it as a preempt, an use the same tactics you have agreed with your pard, according to vulnerability and whether or not pard is a passed hand.

In an undiscussed partnership, I'd play that opposite a passed hand, anything goes.

[MickyB]

Winstonm, I'm not quite sure how you reached your conclusions - some of your percentages seem quite dubious. Neither vul is definitely less dangerous than both vul. If they can definitely make game then it makes little difference to the odds whether it is love all or game all, just the swings will be smaller either way at love all; If they cannot make game, then you are losing more when you are vul. Therefore with a stronger hand you are much safer at love all, whereas with KJTxxx and out opposite a passed hand there is little difference.

I think.

[Free]

Depends on the situation. Usually, I play 1M followed by 2M stronger than an immediate 2M bid, so generally I'd say "yes". However, when I already passed, I only have rubish hands, so bidding 1-level is just shorter than 2-level. So with a jump I could also have bid 1M...

Poll-response: OTHER (as usual)

[Winstonm]

[QUOTE] Mickyb "Neither vul is definitely less dangerous than both vul."

Didn't dream this up myself. I believe in fact it was a Fred Gitelman article I read about Jeff Meckstroth that said a main strength of Meckstroth's was that he understood the concept so well of vulnerability - that he understood that NV vs NV was actually a dangerous vulnerability, whereas so many considered it safe.

As for the numbers, I'm no mathematician so they could be wrong.

WinstonM

[MickyB]

It seems to me that love all is much closer in terms of gains vs risks to game all than it is to only opps vul. I guess in this sense it is probably more dangerous than most people realise. I might have a go at some figures tomorrow.