Intermediate Jump Shifts

[kfay]

The opponents are bidding. Do you like to use them? If so, when?

[rogerclee]

I think

 

1♣ - (1♦) - 2♥

 

and

 

1♣ - (1♦/1♥) - 2♠

 

should be played as natural and invitational and should be made fairly aggressively. The reason is that often the opponents can give us a big problem by preempting or raising their suit, and it's very important to be able to get your 6 card major in. I would jump on hands that do not quite fit the classic "intermediate" style in an uncontested auction; in particular, the suit quality is not as big a deal as long as the hand is reasonable. IMO you are just put into too many tough positions with hands that can't solo to the three level after an opposing preempt.

 

By the way many pairs play

 

1m - (1♥) - 2♥

 

as 6+♠, and I thought I saw gnasher on vugraph playing this as actually 5+♠ and a good hand. These seem like good agreements to me, as long as you can handle the limit raise well.

[kfay]

Oops! Sorry I didn't really mean inter. j/s but intermediate... jump overcalls or whatever you'd call them.

 

For instance (1H)-P-(1N)-3C

 

But that's still an interesting idea, Roger. :o

[hanp]

I don't get how Roger can be so confident. There are so many ways in which you can play the jumps yet Roger seems to know how they should be played. Wow.

 

I play intermediate jump overcalls with Arend when vulnerable. (1C) - 2H shows about 12-14 HCP with a good 6-card suit. We can have an 11-count with a 7-card suit too. 1S - (3C) shows a better hand than that, perhaps 13-15 HCP with a 6-card suit but the suit should be very good.

[jdonn]

I have never played intermediate jump overcalls. I always felt like they were a bit of a waste, those are easy hands to bid and hands with less need to take up space than true preemptive hands. If you are vul then regular preempts do get more risky, but you can still be fairly sound with those and not change the whole system.

 

Nonetheless, it seems easy to believe intermediate jump overcalls would work well when they come up, since they are very constructive and describe a large group of hands well.

[hanp]

"Change the whole system" seems an overbid.

 

I think the idea of intermediate jump overcalls is that they are not good enough to jump afterwards yet a simple rebid may not show anything. For example if it goes

 

1D - 1S - 2D - Dbl

p - 2S

 

This does not do justice to AQJ10xx xx Ax Qxx but jumping to 3S might be too much.

[gnasher]

By the way many pairs play

 

1m - (1♥) - 2♥

 

as 6+♠, and I thought I saw gnasher on vugraph playing this as actually 5+♠ and a good hand. These seem like good agreements to me, as long as you can handle the limit raise well.

Did I bid a no-play slam on the next round? If so, we were playing it as any hand with six spades, or a game-force with five.

 

I think it works better if you limit the type "game-force with five" type to 5-5 shapes.

[jdonn]

Han, I think your first comment is nitpicky for no particular reason. Anyway...

 

I don't think your reasoning of why people play them is correct, for several reasons. One is the observation that they are almost exclusively played when vul by most pairs, but the advantage you state would exist nonvul as well. Another reason is your logic wouldn't exist on auctions where partner didn't bid and is unlikely to start bidding new suits or making takeout doubles (like in Kevin's second post). Another is that you don't help tighten the ranges anyway, since you can still have a suit inadequate for an intermediate jump overcall and be stuck with the same type of rebid issue.

 

Of course I can't say why you in particular play them, and your reason is valid. But I still think in the majority of cases it is played by pairs who are not comfortable jumping aggressively on weak preemptive hands when vul.

[nick_s]

I play them when protecting as an unpassed hand.

 

eg. (1♣) - Pass - (Pass) - 2♠

 

I think this is pretty normal though. Weak jump overcalls don't make too much sense here.

[Apollo81]

I have never played intermediate jump overcalls. I always felt like they were a bit of a waste, those are easy hands to bid and hands with less need to take up space than true preemptive hands. If you are vul then regular preempts do get more risky, but you can still be fairly sound with those and not change the whole system.

 

Nonetheless, it seems easy to believe intermediate jump overcalls would work well when they come up, since they are very constructive and describe a large group of hands well.

As someone who has played IJOs for a few years, I've observed that one good thing that happens is that responder makes a negative double, and then subsequently goes for a number (usually -2 x'd) when the partnership has a weak 8-card fit and about half the HCP (suits are tending to split badly here, and it is easy for advancer to make a penalty double).

 

I am also convinced that it is best for 2♠ by responder to be a negative free bid over an intermediate 2♥ jump overcall, and that peoples' failure to play this causes some good results for the IJOers.

 

Without going into details or giving an example, I've also noticed that it is a little harder to reach some good 4M contracts for the side that is playing IJOs.

[Jlall]

I like them vul because weak jump overcalls vul are so rare.

[Apollo81]

I like them vul because weak jump overcalls vul are so rare.

strongly agree

[kenrexford]

I like intermediate jump overcalls in the obvious fourth seat and when RvW. RvR, I think normal weak comes up enough.

 

I also like intermediate jump responses whether interference or no.

[awm]

I like them vul because weak jump overcalls vul are so rare.

strongly agree

I thought this at one time, but now I'm a lot less sure of it.

 

The issue is that whether a hand is suitable for a weak jump overcall at vulnerable has a lot more to do with suit quality than overall hand strength. So for a vulnerable WJO I'd want a hand where my suit is at least a certain length with not very many losers.

 

For an IJO, it seems like you require some degree of overall hand strength, which is fine, but generally holding (or not holding) outside cards is independent of suit quality. Assuming that you won't make IJOs into lousy suits either (it's actually even worse than a WJO into a lousy suit, because now you not only risk going for a number, but opponents probably couldn't make game on the hand) the ratio of "frequency WJO: frequency IJO" should not depend on vulnerability.

 

I guess the question is, can you construct a hand where you would make an IJO at vulnerable, but where if we took away an ace (or otherwise 4 hcp) outside your trump suit, you would not make a WJO at vulnerable? If so, then perhaps this frequency argument makes sense. If not, then it doesn't really hold water.

[Cascade]

I play intermediate jump overcalls at all vulnerabilities.

 

I think there is a case for playing them at all vulnerabilities except favourable.

 

We only play our two-level jumps as intermediate although I have played three-level jumps that way with some partners.

 

Our ranges are loosely:

 

12-16 HCP with a six-card suit vulnerable

 

10-14 HCP with a six-card suit not vulnerable.

 

In practice these probably vary up or down a point or so depending on the opponent's vulnerability.

 

Often they make our constructive bidding very easy when potentially the opponent's are ahead - compare:

 

(1♦) 2♠ (3♦) or some other raise with

 

(1♦) 1♠ (3♦)

 

Since 2♠ intermediate is a narrower range it makes sense that our constructive bidding is going to be harmed less on those auctions. This is true whatever the range of 2♠. Since games are more likely over intermediate jumps than weak jumps we prefer for those hands to be in the jumps.

[gnasher]

In the UK, intermediate jump overcalls were standard when I first started playing in the early 1980s. Amongst tournament players they had gone out of fashion by about 1990. Nowadays they're played mainly by the people you meet in the early rounds of a Swiss Teams event.

 

I don't agree that this hand-type is hard to show after making a simple overcall. If partner hasn't shown anything, you either double or bid your suit again at a minimum level; if partner has already shown some life you jump in the suit. The example Han gave is borderline, but I'd be fairly happy with bidding 3♠ at IMPs - opposite something like xx KQxx xxx KJxx, 3♠ is reasonably safe.

 

Personally I hate the idea of not being able to preempt when I have a good suit and nothing else, and as responder I much prefer dealing with 1♦ (1♠) than 1♦ (2♠). It's true that a hand good enough for a pure weak jump overcall is less common when you're vulnerable, but you can allow it to have more side-suit strength without abandoning the primary objective of obstructing the opponents' auction.

[Cascade]

In the UK, intermediate jump overcalls were standard when I first started playing in the early 1980s. Amongst tournament players they had gone out of fashion by about 1990. Nowadays they're played mainly by the people you meet in the early rounds of a Swiss Teams event.

 

I don't agree that this hand-type is hard to show after making a simple overcall. If partner hasn't shown anything, you either double or bid your suit again at a minimum level; if partner has already shown some life you jump in the suit. The example Han gave is borderline, but I'd be fairly happy with bidding 3♠ at IMPs - opposite something like xx KQxx xxx KJxx, 3♠ is reasonably safe.

 

Personally I hate the idea of not being able to preempt when I have a good suit and nothing else, and as responder I much prefer dealing with 1♦ (1♠) than 1♦ (2♠). It's true that a hand good enough for a pure weak jump overcall is less common when you're vulnerable, but you can allow it to have more side-suit strength without abandoning the primary objective of obstructing the opponents' auction.

The frequencies for various ranges are approximately:

 

5-9 0.38017

6-10 0.42236

7-11 0.44626

8-12 0.44625

9-13 0.42647

10-14 0.38984

11-15 0.34003

12-16 0.28369

 

So if your aim is to cause the opponents the most headaches after (1♦) 2♠ then a range of 7-11 is best (of the above options).

 

We actually do something similar on the auction (1♣) 2♦ where there are two majors unbid. We play around 8-12 for that auction. We also do something similar lowering our normal requirements for a two-level overcall on (1♦) 2♣ for the same reason to hopefully cause more problems for the opponents.

[hanp]

I like them vul because weak jump overcalls vul are so rare.

strongly agree

I thought this at one time, but now I'm a lot less sure of it.

 

The issue is that whether a hand is suitable for a weak jump overcall at vulnerable has a lot more to do with suit quality than overall hand strength. So for a vulnerable WJO I'd want a hand where my suit is at least a certain length with not very many losers.

 

For an IJO, it seems like you require some degree of overall hand strength, which is fine, but generally holding (or not holding) outside cards is independent of suit quality. Assuming that you won't make IJOs into lousy suits either (it's actually even worse than a WJO into a lousy suit, because now you not only risk going for a number, but opponents probably couldn't make game on the hand) the ratio of "frequency WJO: frequency IJO" should not depend on vulnerability.

 

I guess the question is, can you construct a hand where you would make an IJO at vulnerable, but where if we took away an ace (or otherwise 4 hcp) outside your trump suit, you would not make a WJO at vulnerable? If so, then perhaps this frequency argument makes sense. If not, then it doesn't really hold water.

Let's say you need at least 3 honors in your suit to consider a vulnerable jump overcall. You are more likely to hold that suit when you have 12 HCP than when you hold 7 HCP. When you take away honors, they don't have to be in side suits.

 

Also, I do think holding an ace in a side suit makes a difference. The difference is roughly 1 trick.

[hanp]

The frequencies for various ranges are approximately:

 

5-9 0.38017

6-10 0.42236

7-11 0.44626

8-12 0.44625

9-13 0.42647

10-14 0.38984

11-15 0.34003

12-16 0.28369

Again, you are taking into account that RHO has opened 1D for these odds?

[Cascade]

The frequencies for various ranges are approximately:

 

5-9    0.38017

6-10  0.42236

7-11  0.44626

8-12  0.44625

9-13  0.42647

10-14 0.38984

11-15 0.34003

12-16 0.28369

Again, you are taking into account that RHO has opened 1D for these odds?

This is harder because it depends on exactly what you put into a 1D opening.

 

Here are some numbers based on 1000000 hands for:

 

12-14 Balanced 4432, 4D but not 4C, 5D

 

11-19 5+ Diamonds longer than hearts and spades maybe the same length as clubs

 

5-9 0.453776

6-10 0.486067

7-11 0.491079

8-12 0.465875

9-13 0.419851

10-14 0.358222

11-15 0.288389

12-16 0.220326

 

These frequencies will favour the higher range the more balanced 11 counts you open.

[helene_t]

3-level IJO seem rather pointless to me. The range would have to be quite narrow because there is no room for game tries, and a 2-level overcall already conveys most of the message.

 

I don't hate 2-level IJOs at mathchpoints. Often LHO will be too weak to compete directly so we will be allowed to play there while a 1-level overcall would allow them to find a fit.

 

Here in Acol-land, minor suit openings are very informative so the point of preempting is less than it is when opps play 5-card majors. As for (1♥)-2♠ it is the opposite and I think we ought to play fairly wide-ranging weak jump overcalls here.

 

All in all I prefer weak jumps throughout. Many club players play variable but I don't like that, getting used to partner's style takes longer the more different systems I play with the same partner.

[paulg]

I play weak jumps throughout, but I expect that many of the vulnerable jump overcalls overlap with what others describe as intermediate.

 

Position, vulnerability and quality of suit are all important factors - the juniors I mentor agree with this, but seem to interpret it in different ways to me :)

 

Paul

[Jlall]

I was playing a sectional team game many years ago and I picked up: xx AQJTxx xxx xx. They opened 1C and I bid 2H red/white. I went for 800, but figured this was a textbook preempt.

 

After comparing, my teammate (Bob Hamman), said they made the same terrible bid of 2H at his table. I asked if he really thought it was terrible and he said of course. He does not result ever.

 

Then I noticed many of my friends who are great bridge players and generally very aggressive were overcalling 1H with hands like this (and playing weak jump overcalls). Guys like hampson, meckstroth, grue, soloway etc.

 

This made me think 2 things:

 

1) A lot of hands you would open with a weak 2 you should overcall with 1. You still get lead directors in, find saves, allow partner to jam their auction further, etc, while just losing some of the preemption. This is definitely a cost, but in the eyes of a lot of great players that I respect, it is worth it to avoid the dangers of bidding.

 

2) Thus, you shouldn't even be playing weak jump overcalls vulnerable because they are very infrequent.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand what slight differences in frequency have to do with anything.

 

I mean, overcalling 2♥ after a 1♣ opening with 0-10 HCP and 4+ hearts would come up a lot, but it would be stupid.

 

It seems astoundingly obvious that the question is not frequency of being abloe to bid the particular call alone, but rather more complex. You want to make the call that is part of an entire approach that maximizes results.

 

When looking at, for example, a 2♥ RvW overcall of 1♣ -- Justin's example -- you analyze (like he said) the relative benefits of an entire approach. If 1♥ is rather unlimited but 2♥ is weak, then you get hammered a lot on 2♥ overcalls and have a difficult time unwinding one-level overcalls. If, however, you make 1♥ limited (not good enough for an intermediate jump) and make 2♥ intermediate, your frequency of a 2♥ call is affected, and the preemptive effect of the 1♥ call is less, but you don't go for numbers as much and you have better constructive auctions in game-going or game-seeking hands.

 

Comparing frequency of how often you overcall 1♥ and how often 2♥ doesn't tell you which approach is a net gainer (gains minus losses). You have to interplay the two AND assess how each independently operates as far as wins and losses.

[Phil]

I was playing a sectional team game many years ago and I picked up: xx AQJTxx xxx xx. They opened 1C and I bid 2H red/white. I went for 800, but figured this was a textbook preempt.

 

After comparing, my teammate (Bob Hamman), said they made the same terrible bid of 2H at his table. I asked if he really thought it was terrible and he said of course. He does not result ever.

 

Then I noticed many of my friends who are great bridge players and generally very aggressive were overcalling 1H with hands like this (and playing weak jump overcalls). Guys like hampson, meckstroth, grue, soloway etc.

 

This made me think 2 things:

 

1) A lot of hands you would open with a weak 2 you should overcall with 1. You still get lead directors in, find saves, allow partner to jam their auction further, etc, while just losing some of the preemption. This is definitely a cost, but in the eyes of a lot of great players that I respect, it is worth it to avoid the dangers of bidding.

 

2) Thus, you shouldn't even be playing weak jump overcalls vulnerable because they are very infrequent.

Very good stuff here; thanks. P.S., I still check in on your blog but the updates are few and far between now :(

 

I know Hamman plays IJO's although I don't know if they are just vul..

 

If you respect vulnerability (and I do), a lot of minimum WJO's especially r/w are close to intermediate for me (or damn close). A max jump overcall r/w is definitely at least a minimum IJO.