JUMP OVERCALLS

[dickiegera]

We play Weak Jump Shifts in Comp 1♣ 1♦ 2♥ and I believe this needs no alert.

We play Weak Jump Shifts not in Comp 1♣ Pass 2♥ and we alert this

We play Jump Overcalls Weak if partner has yet to bid 1♦ 2♥ no alert

 

My question is what if partner has passed in the bidding. P 1♦ 3♥[or 2♥] I would like to play this as undefined. I am bidding what I believe I can make, or what might make it helpful to our side, anywhere from 8 - 13pts.

 

DOES NEED AN ALERT or can partner if asked explain as undefined 8-13pts?

[TylerE]

"What I beleive I can make" is NOT "undefined".

[barmar]

I think it's "just bridge" that preempts opposite a passed partner can be wide-ranging, and many players will do it with hands around normal opening strength.

 

I have one occasional partner who thinks they should be alerted because we have an explicit agreement to this effect. I personally think this is unnecessary, since I would do it with practically any partner, regardless of whether we'd discussed it.

[mycroft]

Remember, Alert regulations depend on the Sponsoring Organization. So, all of these calls, playing self-alerts ("behind screens") on BBO, are "who cares if they're Alertable, self-alert and explain them anyway". However, given "Ohio" I'm assuming you mean ACBL- (or ACBL-affiliated club) regulated events.

 

As you say, Natural (that suit only) Jump Shifts, whatever they mean, in competition, are not Alertable; Natural J/S after 1x-pass are Alertable if Weak. Jump overcalls are not Alertable if weak. Note that most players play Jump overcalls by balancing hand as Intermediate (similar to fourth-seat "weak" 2s) - and those are Alertable.

 

I would agree with you that opposite a passed hand, "Preemptive" Jump Overcalls may be anything you think will get a good score; and I don't believe they are Alertable. However, if asked, you can't explain them as "weak" if they could be not weak. Explain your agreement - "Preemptive, wide-ranging, does not promise or deny defensive strength" and be on your way.

 

I agree with the others who are saying "undefined" is not only a bad explanation, it is also incorrect; you do have an agreement, it's just that the agreement is "given you passed, I prefer to get in their way than try to constructively compete" - the opponents are entitled to that information.

 

Yes, "everybody" plays it that way - except that they don't. And it's those players, who don't know any better, who will get very upset when the better players "just bridge" them into a bad score because they feel they don't have to explain anything.

 

In short; I agree with your thoughts on Alerting. Explanations, as always, need to be Full Disclosure, and "no agreement" or "undefined" is not Full Disclosure when you do in fact know (whether by discussion or experience).

[barmar]

I'm assuming you mean ACBL- (or ACBL-affiliated club) regulated events.

No need to assume, he said ACBL in the sub-title of the thread.

[mycroft]

Ah, so he did. Sorry.

[Winstonm]

I think it's "just bridge" that preempts opposite a passed partner can be wide-ranging, and many players will do it with hands around normal opening strength.

 

I have one occasional partner who thinks they should be alerted because we have an explicit agreement to this effect. I personally think this is unnecessary, since I would do it with practically any partner, regardless of whether we'd discussed it.

 

If you know something about your partner's hand that the opponents cannot know then it needs an alert.

[barmar]

If you know something about your partner's hand that the opponents cannot know then it needs an alert.

Well, that's the issue: is the possibility of bidding with an opening hand something the opponents cannot know? If it's common practice, not particular to any partnership, then opponents could know that it's possible.

[ggwhiz]

If it's common practice, not particular to any partnership, then opponents could know that it's possible.

 

The ACBL convention card lists jump overcall as weak, not alertable, intermediate or strong as alertable. Since this auction could be weak OR intermediate it is alertable and should be described as such.

 

Mind you I once had a disagreement with an opponent on whether a bid was alertable and we discovered that it was not on my version of the cc but was on his older copy.

[barmar]

The ACBL convention card lists jump overcall as weak, not alertable, intermediate or strong as alertable. Since this auction could be weak OR intermediate it is alertable and should be described as such.

The ACBL CC doesn't have separate checkboxes for these bids opposite a passed partner. The only place where the CC acknowledges that bids may have different meanings depending on seat is in the major and minor openings sections. Most players consider it "just bridge" that we're free to take liberties when we know that game is unlikely because partner passed, it's not generally a partnership-specific understanding.

[blackshoe]

So the knowledge that we're free to take liberties when we know that game is unlikely because partner passed is "knowledge generally available to bridge players"?

 

If so, then not disclosing that one might take liberties in that situation is not illegal. See Law 40B6{a}.

[Vampyr]

Possibly the alert charts will provide more guidance then the check boxes.

[blackshoe]

I think, though I don't remember where, that the ACBL has said that the system card is not definitive, and if it differs from the alert chart or procedure, the chart or procedure governs. In theory the chart and procedure should both say the same thing, but if they don't, there's a problem, because the ACBL has also said that neither takes precedence over the other.

[barmar]

I think, though I don't remember where, that the ACBL has said that the system card is not definitive, and if it differs from the alert chart or procedure, the chart or procedure governs. In theory the chart and procedure should both say the same thing, but if they don't, there's a problem, because the ACBL has also said that neither takes precedence over the other.

The Alert Procedure doesn't go into any more detail about this than the CC. The only place where the word "seat" even appears is in talking about 2NT overcalls of 1-level bids (it's alertable if natural unless made in the balancing seat).

 

It says that intermediate or better jump overcalls require an alert. But I think an intermediate jump overcall is one that shows constructive values. Our jump overcall just just shows something like 5-11 HCP, but in some cases we may deviate with a point or 2 more.

 

It says "unusual overcalls" (the examples given are some very aggressive styles) must be pre-alerted, but I don't think anyone would consider this to be in that class.

[helene_t]

Any non-constructive overcall fits the definition of "weak". If your partner's pass limits his hand to a flat 7-count (and you alert this), you can make a WJO with on a 16-count. This is not an agreement, it is just bridge. So I can't imagine that it requires an alert.

[blackshoe]

Any non-constructive overcall fits the definition of "weak". If your partner's pass limits his hand to a flat 7-count (and you alert this), you can make a WJO with on a 16-count. This is not an agreement, it is just bridge. So I can't imagine that it requires an alert.

Why would you have to alert partner's pass?

[barmar]

Why would you have to alert partner's pass?

Not sure you have to alert the pass (because of the well known, but not officially written, rule that you don't have to alert negative inferences), but you'd have to pre-alert the very aggressive style where you open all 8 counts.

[pran]

Why would you have to alert partner's pass?

An example is PASS after partner opens 1 in a suit and his LHO overcalls with 1 or 2 in a suit.

 

When the agreement is to use negative (or similar) doubles this PASS implies a suggestion that opener doubles for penalty. This PASS should be alerted.

[barmar]

An example is PASS after partner opens 1 in a suit and his LHO overcalls with 1 or 2 in a suit.

 

When the agreement is to use negative (or similar) doubles this PASS implies a suggestion that opener doubles for penalty. This PASS should be alerted.

I've never heard of anyone being required to alert this pass. It doesn't suggest much other than the player doesn't have a bid available. If opener is short in LHO's suit, and RHO didn't raise it, he might infer that partner is making a trap pass. And some pairs say they "always reopen" in case this is what he's doing (but I think this "we always reopen" claim is most often heard when they do it after partner hesitates, as a way of indicating that the UI did not affect their action).

 

And it's not clear what this example has to do with Helene's earlier comment "If your partner's pass limits his hand to a flat 7-count (and you alert this)". The trap pass isn't limited like that.

[pran]

And it's not clear what this example has to do with Helene's earlier comment "If your partner's pass limits his hand to a flat 7-count (and you alert this)". The trap pass isn't limited like that.

I didn't post it as an example relevant to OP, but as relevant to the question that developed whether a PASS in similar situations can ever be alertable.

 

And isn't a PASS in situations where your double would be for takeout pretty often (or quite possibly) be what you call a trap pass?

[blackshoe]

An example is PASS after partner opens 1 in a suit and his LHO overcalls with 1 or 2 in a suit.

 

When the agreement is to use negative (or similar) doubles this PASS implies a suggestion that opener doubles for penalty. This PASS should be alerted.

If I pass in that auction all it tells partner or anyone else is that I don't have a negative double. There are lots of hands that would pass in this situation that don't want partner to double for penalties.

[pran]

An example is PASS after partner opens 1 in a suit and his LHO overcalls with 1 or 2 in a suit.

 

When the agreement is to use negative (or similar) doubles this PASS implies a suggestion that opener doubles for penalty. This PASS should be alerted.

If I pass in that auction all it tells partner or anyone else is that I don't have a negative double. There are lots of hands that would pass in this situation that don't want partner to double for penalties.

Indeed.

And there are many hands that do want partner to double.

 

Partner will very often be able to see from his own hand what is the case and call accordingly, but unless he feels pretty sure that a double is not hoped for then he should double.

 

And the responder (who passed originally) should then of course take out if double was not his desire.

 

In any case the original PASS could be a desire for a double (showing values) and should therefore be alerted.

[barmar]

In any case the original PASS could be a desire for a double (showing values) and should therefore be alerted.

Except it doesn't "show values". He might have values, he might not. The only thing it's showing is one of many hand types that doesn't have an available call. The way to find out is to reopen and see what he does.

 

Sometimes it works out -- partner had the trap pass and he converts the double to penalties. Other times, it gives overcaller a chance to show his extra values and/or shape, and get to a game. And sometimes opener rebids a suit because he's one- or two-suited, and dummy hits with a total misfit because he was hoping for a double.

[pran]

In any case the original PASS could be a desire for a double (showing values) and should therefore be alerted.

Except it doesn't "show values". He might have values, he might not. The only thing it's showing is one of many hand types that doesn't have an available call. The way to find out is to reopen and see what he does.

 

Sometimes it works out -- partner had the trap pass and he converts the double to penalties. Other times, it gives overcaller a chance to show his extra values and/or shape, and get to a game. And sometimes opener rebids a suit because he's one- or two-suited, and dummy hits with a total misfit because he was hoping for a double.

I did intentionally write "could be" and I understand your post that you agree with me this is one of several possible understandings on the PASS in this situation.

 

This possible understanding should be alerted because it is a PASS showing values.

 

An opponent shall not have to wait for the next calls to learn which of the possible understandings is in force in this particular auction, he should learn about that possibility exactly as he is warned with alerts on other ambiguous calls for which at least one of the possible understandings requires an alert.

[barmar]

This possible understanding should be alerted because it is a PASS showing values.

But it's not showing values. There's a difference between showing something and possibly having that something (i.e. not denying it).

 

For instance, when I open 1♠, I'm showing 5+ spades. I might also have 5+ in another suit, but I'm not showing it.