[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

[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]

kenrexford, on Sep 30 2007, 02:25 PM, said:

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]

skaeran, on Sep 30 2007, 10:36 AM, said:

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]

kenrexford, on Sep 30 2007, 07:25 AM, said:

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]

awm, on Sep 30 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

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]

blackshoe, on Sep 30 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

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

No.

[kenrexford]

awm, on Sep 30 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

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]

Hannie, on Sep 30 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

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.