Equal level conversion doubles

[Wackojack]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skxxhkxxxdajxxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

In a recent county mixed pairs event RHO opened 1♠. I doubled , passed round to partner who jumped to 6♣. Partner was justifiably very unhappy seeing dummy and went 1 off after not being able to pick up the ♣K. OK my bid was bad and although not an excuse (I had been holding a long series of passing hands) it raises some questions about the principles of equal level conversion doubles.

 

Beef up the hand to say ♠Kxx ♥KQxx♦ AJ10xx ♣x, is this the type of hand to make a take out double if you have agreed ELC? If so how should partner respond holding a powerful 1-suited hand? It seems to me that you need some clearly defined agreements using ELC to avoid getting into trouble. Suppose the bidding goes 1♠-x-3♠-?. Now what does partner do with ♠x, ♥Axx, ♦Kx, ♣ AQJxxxx? (This was not partner's actual hand, I have lost the computer print-outs)

 

What are the views on ELC's? If you use them, do you have agreements on what qualifies apart from the equal level criterion? Do you have agreements on limits to jump responses?

[whereagles]

ELC is an important tool to deal with preempts. You can do without them at the 1-level, but above that you're probably better off playing that.

[Codo]

I tried ELC and stopped it. No need to use this often. I needed just to learn to pass and wait or to reopen starving biddings quite light.

 

Look at your example:

 

♠ Kxx ♥ Kxxx ♦ AJxxx ♣ x opp.

♠x, ♥Axx, ♦Kx, ♣ AQJxxxx?

 

The opps have around 15 HCPs between them, but if they jump to 3 Spade and you are not able to come into the auction, you still get + 300. Things could be worse.

But more likely, the bidding will proceed with

(1 Spade) pass (pass) 2 Club

(pass) 2 Spade ( pass) ...

 

and you will find your way to 3 NT.

 

Or

(1 Sapde) pass (2 Spade) pass

(pass) 2 NT (Pass) ??

and you may reach 3 NT or 5 Club or 4 Heart again, even if this is quite difficult...

2 NT had been "two placed to play".

 

I think, this works much better then ELC, because you can bid this style with all "two-suiters". With ELC, you can get many problems with hands like yours, but the minors switched. And you can never handle hands, where the other major is short.

And Pd is "NEVER" allowed to jump into his long suit, because he must fear, that there is no fit.

 

 

Another idea had been "raptor", which is another tool, which makes ELC less usefull. But of course, all methods have their pros and cons. Our hero Fred (and many others) dislike Raptor, but otoh, I don`t see too many ELC bidders too.

 

 

Anyway, a jump to 6♣ is even worse then your first double.

Or did you have serious time problems?

[Gerben42]

I find ELC useful at a level higher than the 1-level only. At higher level it's essential, though. Consider this auction:

 

(3♠) ?

 

Axx

KQTx

AKQxx

x

 

Surely you should be able to double and correct 4♣ to ♦.

[mikeh]

I do not use ELC: I did play for a short time with a partner who liked the treatment, but I did not enjoy the few times it came up.

 

As advancer, I tend to be on the aggressive side in terms of bidding, and so find that playing ELC really impairs one's ability to bid ♣ in competitive auctions. It also distorts one's expectations of partner: the more he departs from the classic takeout double style, the more difficult bith bidding and defence becomes.

 

And the costs are very real if the opps bounce, and, of course, these days opps tend to do that.

 

If you hold 2=3=2=6 and the bidding goes [1♠] x [3/4♠], to you, you may well need to bid some number of ♣, but elc makes that far more of a gamble than it should be.

 

I recognize that ELC does have its merits: there are undoubtedly many hands on which playing ELC affords an advantage, but my experience suggests that, for me at least, the cost is too rich.

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with mikeh completely.

[jdonn]

Me too. It also makes bidding good hands much tougher!

[joshs]

My belief is that if you want to play ELC, xing and correcting should still promise extras, just not the 17 count or so normally associated with that sequence. Also, with a doubleton in the low suit, you don't need quite as much extras as with a singleton.

 

So for instance over 1S:

With 3451 you need about a 15 count to x and correct

With 2452 you need about a 13 count to x but at least 15 to plan on xing and converting, Note: with this shape you really can't convert except at the 2 level and often with this shape you don't convert even at the 2 level.

Even with these extras, your dummy will be a dissapointment

With 1462 type you can get away with xing and converting on about 12-13 if you have prime values.

[whereagles]

Would it surprise you to know that Robson/Segal bid the following hand

 

Kxxxx

Ax

KQ9x

Ax

 

RHO......You....LHO.....Pard

(2♣)*....dbl...(pass)....2♥

(pass)....2♠

 

* Precision, 11-15 with clubs.

(Page 206.)

 

To me this verges on the extreme, when it comes to ELC. But it goes to show that some experts don't mind going to extremes to keep their auction flexible.

[keylime]

Ditto Mike's superb post.

[awm]

I've found equal level correction doubles to work quite well. The main problem is two-suiters with a shorter major and longer minor. For example:

 

Kxx

KQxx

AQxxx

x

 

RHO opens 1♠. If you bid 2♦, you could get passed out with a big heart fit. You could get doubled (1♠-2♦-P-P-X) and it will not be clear whether to run to hearts or pass (will the opponents leave it in? do you have a better spot in hearts?). If you pass and the opponents raise spades, then it will be very hard to come in later.

 

These types of hands are really a serious issue, and people have come up with many ways to try and deal with them, including:

 

(1) Raptor 1NT. This works okay when you have the hand, although the ambiguity about the minor is a potential problem point. The big downside comes when you have the natural 1NT overcall or a takeout double (which is now ambiguous because it includes the strong NT).

 

(2) Roman jump overcalls. This works okay when you have the hand, although you may have to play at the three-level to get to the minor. The big downside comes when you have a preemptive jump overcall and you can't bid it.

 

(3) Equal level correction.

 

Yes, you occasionally get into trouble playing ELC when the doubler's partner has a big one-suited hand with length in the lowest suit (the one doubler may or may not have support for). But this problem is less frequent than you might think, especially given that partner knows ELC is a possibility. The convenient thing is that opponents normally help you out here. If opponents raise their opening to a high level, then they probably have a big fit. Thus you can often gauge partner's length in the enemy suit, which helps you to figure out the hand type. If the opponents don't raise and you have shortness in their suit, you can usually infer that partner has the ELC-type hand and go slowly. In any case it's often better to start with a cuebid opposite the ELC hands, noting that if partner owns up to a stopper in the enemy suit then support for the lowest unbid becomes much less likely.

 

Anyways I've found that the wins seem to more than compensate for the losses inherent in this style. I should note that ELC does particularly well when doubler has both majors, as finding a 4-4 spade fit after a 1♥ overcall can be pretty tough, and when in doubt partner usually bids a major rather than the unbid minor over a takeout double anyway.