Weak, Intermediate, Yeah. But "Strong?"

[kenrexford]

I know what a "Weak Jump Overcall" looks like.

 

I know what an "Intermediate Jump Overcall" looks like.

 

What does a "Strong Jump Overcall" look like?

 

Strangely, it came up.

[gwnn]

I think it's an Acol two?

 

AKQxxxx Ax x KQx

for (1♣)-2♠?

[kenrexford]

That's what I thought.

 

It didn't matter, but I thought that a director's ruling this weekend was on the list of worst I've seen.

 

My RHO jump-overcalled 2♠ with something like AQJxxxx-Axx-Ax-x. His partner explained this as a weak jump overcall, clarifying that it showed about 6-10 HCP. Advancer then raised to 3♠, which was raised to game.

 

When RHO explained his call, he stated that he had meant it as a strong jump overcall. I called for the director. It seems to me that a strong jump overcall usually shows about a 4-loser hand, but that 5 is possible. However, a 5-loser hand cannot be anything but a minimum holding. Thus, the 3♠ raise seems to be a very weak bump, showing at most one trick, and possibly simply a fit without any cards of clear value.

 

So, it seemed that there was a clear UI situation, as well as a clear logical alternative of passing 3♠ (the game was MP, not IMP).

 

The TD ruled that anyone would raise to 4♠ with that hand after Advancer raised the weak jump overcall. Thus, the table result stood.

[whereagles]

I don't know what a strong jump overcall is because I never held one :rolleyes:

[paulg]

I'd appeal this ruling.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

a strong jump overcall shows +16HCP

and a good 6 card suit.

The bid is certainly not forcing, and the bid

certainly does not show an Acol two.

 

Given that the hand holds a 7 card suit, the

bid would also be made without one the side

suit Aces, i.e. the hand is certainly not min. for

the call.

Just ask your selt, if you would claim that

AQJxxxx-Axx-xx-x

is a min intermediate jump overcall, one would

make an intermediate jump overcall also without

the 7th spade, ... in which case the hand would be

min.

 

Regarding UI:

There was UI involved, but if you assume, that

the raise was inv. I would accept that the raise

to 4 is ok.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[bhall]

Ancient history: Strong JOs according to Culbertson showed either a "strong" 5-5 or an eight-trick single-suiter. His examples: AK1054 AQJ75 6 32 and AQ109653 6 AK5 32. The jump to 3m showed a nearly solid suit, inviting 3N. You can find this treatment described as late as 1965 in the book by Kay, Silodor, and Karpin.

 

Your example qualifies. The raise generally showed one very probable trick with some hope for a second. If that were a side entry and 3 small spades, then game is on a hook through the opening bidder. Only a coward would pass, IMO.

[skjaeran]

That's what I thought.

 

It didn't matter, but I thought that a director's ruling this weekend was on the list of worst I've seen.

 

My RHO jump-overcalled 2♠ with something like AQJxxxx-Axx-Ax-x. His partner explained this as a weak jump overcall, clarifying that it showed about 6-10 HCP. Advancer then raised to 3♠, which was raised to game.

 

When RHO explained his call, he stated that he had meant it as a strong jump overcall. I called for the director. It seems to me that a strong jump overcall usually shows about a 4-loser hand, but that 5 is possible. However, a 5-loser hand cannot be anything but a minimum holding. Thus, the 3♠ raise seems to be a very weak bump, showing at most one trick, and possibly simply a fit without any cards of clear value.

 

So, it seemed that there was a clear UI situation, as well as a clear logical alternative of passing 3♠ (the game was MP, not IMP).

 

The TD ruled that anyone would raise to 4♠ with that hand after Advancer raised the weak jump overcall. Thus, the table result stood.

Well of course anyone would reraise knowing that partner expected a wjo. That is, unless this knowledge is UI to you.

 

So if the TD really ruled that he was allowed to raise on the ground that anyone would raise after advancer raised the weak jump overcall, the TD was totally incompetent.

 

The TD should have judged whether a strong jump overcaller would raise to game in this position.

 

Your RHO needed a red king with his partner to be able to make on a trump finesse through opener, possibly the ♠T to be able to finesse out king third. He would also make if advancer held the ♠K and a heart doubleton.

 

Thus, raising to game is absolutely possible with his hand, and a bid I expect the majority to make. But IMO a pass is a logical alternative, so I would not allow 4♠ here.

 

I hope you appealed this ruling.

[jdonn]

Ken it's so much better if you just pose the problem this way if your goal is to determine logical alternatives:

 

AQJxxxx Axx Ax x, rho deals

 

1♣ 2♠* p 3♠

p ???

 

* strong jump overcall

[bhall]

Your RHO needed a red king with his partner to be able to make on a trump finesse through opener, possibly the ♠T to be able to finesse out king third. He would also make if advancer held the ♠K and a heart doubleton.

 

Thus, raising to game is absolutely possible with his hand, and a bid I expect the majority to make. But IMO a pass is a logical alternative, so I would not allow 4♠ here.

 

I hope you appealed this ruling.

A side K by itself would not qualify for a raise. A full quick trick (♣A or ♠K) would still need a doubleton side suit to qualify. A side KQx would be barely enough. So, the worst case consistent with Culbertson would be Kxx Jxxx xx xxxx, hoping for a ♦ ruff, which is a very doubtful raise.

[blackshoe]

Did the director offer your partner the opportunity to take back his final pass and substitute another call?

[awm]

Seems to me that it's clear there was UI (partner thinks the overcall was weak) and that the UI suggests bidding (partner likely to have enough for game opposite the strong hand if raising the weak hand). The question is whether passing is really a logical alternative.

 

The normal way to determine this is to poll various players and see what they think. The problem is that virtually no modern player uses strong jump overcalls, so it will be difficult to poll accurately (at least without giving more specific definition of what qualifies for a SJO and what qualifies for a single raise).

 

However, I tend to believe that "result stands" is the correct ruling. It seems likely that the same hand with only six spades would qualify for a SJO (AQJxxx and two side aces). This hand is a trick better because of the extra trump, and there is likelihood of a ten-card fit after the raise. So it seems like passing 3♠ is probably not a LA.

[cherdano]

I agree with all that Adam said. I hope the TD had a better reason for his ruling than the given explanation, though.

[matmat]

His partner explained this as a weak jump overcall,

hmmm... did he alert the 2s?

was he asked about the meaning?

was this after the auction?

[paulg]

It seems likely that the same hand with only six spades would qualify for a SJO (AQJxxx and two side aces).

To the intermediates in my club, AQJxxx and two aces is a clear IJO. A SJO is way stronger, like an Acol 2-bid.

 

OTOH David Stevenson says that few who say they play SJOs really understand what they show and this is probably a good example.

 

Paul

[han]

Agree with the appeal.

[kenrexford]

Did the director offer your partner the opportunity to take back his final pass and substitute another call?

No.

[kenrexford]

Seems to me that it's clear there was UI (partner thinks the overcall was weak) and that the UI suggests bidding (partner likely to have enough for game opposite the strong hand if raising the weak hand). The question is whether passing is really a logical alternative.

 

The normal way to determine this is to poll various players and see what they think. The problem is that virtually no modern player uses strong jump overcalls, so it will be difficult to poll accurately (at least without giving more specific definition of what qualifies for a SJO and what qualifies for a single raise).

 

However, I tend to believe that "result stands" is the correct ruling. It seems likely that the same hand with only six spades would qualify for a SJO (AQJxxx and two side aces). This hand is a trick better because of the extra trump, and there is likelihood of a ten-card fit after the raise. So it seems like passing 3♠ is probably not a LA.

But, isn't that an intermediate jump overcall?

[kenrexford]

Agree with the appeal.

I appealed none of the three rulings.

 

I checked, and no positions would have changed, even ours (thankfully). Further, I know how these things go. Dinner is delayed so that three jokers can tell me how I lose again, and two idiots get even more affirmation.

[cherdano]

Of course I don't know what a strong jump overcall shows, but I can't believe the 3♠ raise would be made without any useful card. Given that a single red king makes you want to be in game (finesse through the opening leader) I would think passing is not a LA.

[Guest Jlall]

Always thought AQJxxx and 2 aces is a normal IJO. No idea what constitutes a strong jump overcall

[kenberg]

I recall a time when often players would ask opponents to please not alert their bids, exactly because they felt some opponents gained too much advantage from their own alerts. Similarly they read their opponent's cc instead of asking for an explanation. Of course this was taken as insulting, but it had, with some pairs, a basis in fact. This may well be such a case.

 

It's my view (and I know that I am not learned in the legal details) that when opponents show up not knowing whether their jump overcalls are weak or strong, and thus presumably not real clear on what they or their partner might mean by a strong jump overcall or what a raise should be based on, there should be a very high standard applied to bids that occur after an explanation that obviously has the potential to influence their actions.

[bhall]

It's my view (and I know that I am not learned in the legal details) that when opponents show up not knowing whether their jump overcalls are weak or strong, and thus presumably not real clear on what they or their partner might mean by a strong jump overcall or what a raise should be based on, there should be a very high standard applied to bids that occur after an explanation that obviously has the potential to influence their actions.

 

I agree. There is little chance that either opponent, the director, or any committee members, would know the Culbertson requirements. The only thing that would be relevant, in the event of an appeal, is how the overcaller defines the raise of a SJO. If he can't produce evidence for that definition, then he can't be allowed to bid 4S.

[ArtK78]

The Culbertson requirements for a strong jump overcall consisted of a near game forcing hand. Thus, the actual hand would fail to qualify.

 

It is difficult to say what the "modern" requirements for a strong jump overcall are, since almost no one plays them. I found this example on a web site of a strong 3♣ overcall of an opponent's 1♦ opening bid:

 

A32

----

AJ63

AKQ632

 

Clearly, this is not up to the old Culbertson standards, but it is much more than an intermediate jump overcall.

 

I would assume that the raise would be invitational. It is fairly standard practice of TDs to try to find about 5 players of similar ability to the player who made the strong jump overcall to poll them as to whether they would accept the invitation on this auction. As was previously pointed out, since almost no one plays strong jump overcalls, this will pose quite a problem. So, the TD will be left to his own judgment. He can try to find out from the bidder what the partnership understanding is for the strength of a strong jump overcall, but any information gathered in this manner would be self-serving.

 

So, the TD is left to his own judgment. As the hand in question has 5 losers, I don't believe that the TD should let the call stand given the UI conveyed by advancer's answer to the opponent's query about the meaning of the overcall.

[Codo]

Everybody so far agreed that there had been an UI.

I don´t get it yet.

 

There are two possible scenarios:

1. They have the agreement that 2 Spade shows a weak jump. In this case your lho misbid his hand but has any right to bid Spade now.

 

2. They agreed on strong jumpshifts, in this case he should have clarified after the final pass and TD should have been called. The TD should have allowed you to replace the final pass and should later judge whether there was an UI and a damage.

Of course there was an UI, but the TD must judge whether there are logical alternatives to the 4 Spade bid.

I think that there are some clues for a pass of 3 Spade with rhos hand, so I had judged for 3 Spade + 1.

But I had adviced them to take this to a committee. Maybe the AC will judge that pass in no LA and that the score stands.