[joshs]

For the record, I have always played these jumps as strong. It feels wasteful to have different agreements as the range changes from 10-15, to 9-14 to 8-13 and so on. How about if its 10-13? 9-12? Usually its better to have simple rules (like "a jump over a non-forcing 2 level opener is strong"). Now if you have a cutofff value such as "jumps are weak if the minimum for there bid is 10" in a similar way that we might play 2 defenses to 1N openings. But you need to have discussed this....
Of course my agreement is probably not optimal if the 2C opner was 16-19....

Now as to the frequency argument, I postulate a claim:
A strong hand is MUCH more likely to have a strong suit than a weak hand

Further, under the assumption that a 3 level weak jump shift is normally a strong 7 card suit (except maybe at favorable) but a Strong, but limited jump shift can be 6+ cards, these frequency claims are hardly obvious to me..... I think the weak is probably slightly more common than the strong, but I am really not sure.

[jdonn]

A strong hand should require a stronger suit to make a jump than a weak hand should to preempt. If you are 7132 with QJ9xxxx of spades your hand might easily qualify for a weak 3♠ bid but surely not for a strong 3♠ bid. Also, if a strong hand does jump in a 6 card suit it will be a VERY good suit, the same type that would qualify for a weak bid on a 6 card suit. And the weak bids indeed will be 6 cards fairly often since jumping to 2 is not an option. I am really not seeing why these bids should ever be strong hands for a range that is essentially a normal minimum opening bid, and am not buying the frequency arguments either.

[han]

Arend and I agreed that we'd bid over 2C as we bid over weak 2's. I assumed that that meant that jumps are strong so I am glad to see that it is also what Arend thinks.

I am not at all sure that this is better than weak. jdonn makes a good case for the weak jump (without calling anybody an idiot!) but I can still see arguments in favor of the strong jump.

For example, when I have a strong single-suiter with spades I'd be worried that the auction might go: (2C) - Dbl - (5C) - back to me, while if I have a strong single-suiter with clubs I'd be less worried that the auction goes (1S) - Dbl - (4S) back to me. Does that make sense? Similarly, I'd say that (1S)-2C can be wider ranging than (2C)-2S. Maybe the reason is that we are more likely to want to preempt when we have a minor-suited hand and more likely to bid constructively when we have a major-suited hand. Maybe this is all nonsense, I'll think about it some more.

By the way, Arend and I do play intermediate jump-overcalls over 1S when we are vulnerable but they haven't come up often so far (it hasn't been long).

[han]

joshs, on Aug 3 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

Now as to the frequency argument, I postulate a claim:
A strong hand is MUCH more likely to have a strong suit than a weak hand

Yes, this makes sense to me.

[helene_t]

joshs, on Aug 3 2007, 11:37 PM, said:

Now as to the frequency argument, I postulate a claim:
A strong hand is MUCH more likely to have a strong suit than a weak hand

True, but weak hands are more frequent than strong hands, especially when RHO showed a range with a midpoint above 10 points.

Given that you hold a good 6-card, how much do you have in the other 7 cards on average? 7*40/52=5.4, but given that RHO has shown some values (and presumably tends to have strength in his opening suit since with a weak suit he might have passed or opened 1NT) the expectation is probably less. Lets say you have 7-8 points in your suit and 4-5 points outside, that's neither weak nor strong but it's closer to weak.

Then again, if p is a passed hand, your expected strength is higher.