elc

[kenberg]

There is an excellent summary of Equal Level conversion and related matters at

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/EGlossa...Conversion.html

 

 

Nonetheless, they do not comment on a frequently occurring situation.

 

You hold:

 

void

Axxx

AKxxxxx

xx

 

 

Suppose that you trust/hope partner will treat a double followed by a conversion of clubs to diamonds as not promising a huge hand. You double, and over the pass partner bids 1NT. Not an unusual situation at all. I was going to convert clubs to diamonds, should I not be able to convert NT to diamonds, also w/o showing extras?

 

On this particular day I was feeling frisky so I in fact bid 3D, partner 3N, they led a spade to her ace and diamonds ran. Sacrifice another goat to the bridge gods. I won't be defending my bid. But leaving aside my excessive optimism, what is your opinion on the meaning of 2D over the 1NT? It's not at the Equal Level of course, but that seems to be a semantic point.

[ArtK78]

It is a matter of partnership agreement. If you agree to make takeout doubles on hands like this, then 2♦ over 1NT should show this.

 

Obviously, the standard meaning of the 2♦ bid is a big hand with diamonds. As for your 3♦ bid, you said it yourself - sacrifice another goat to the Bridge Gods - your prayers were certainly answered.

[blackshoe]

if 2♦ is elc, then 3♦ shows the big hand.

[kfay]

Even if I were playing ELC I'd probably treat 2♦ as a GF anyways.

[kenberg]

Even if I were playing ELC I'd probably treat 2♦ as a GF anyways.

And so, if you were playing elc, you would do what with my hand?

 

This is why I brought this up. Quite a few players (and good players I mean) I think would play as you do: Over 2C the 2D conversion could be on the hand I have, but over 1N the 2D bid is still strong. Of course you may be comfortable enough leaving 1N in place and hoping for the best with this likely to run D suit. But often the person planning the elc holds a hand where it seems quite likely that leaving it in NT will not work out well.

 

It has just crossed my mind that maybe 3D over 1N should be the weak bid! The 1N bidder presumably has a little something in Ds and when you are 6-4 with modest values(the usual setting where you might want to get out of NT) it seems 3D may play decently. This leaves the 2D bid as gf or at least highly constructive, something that could be useful in choosing the right game. As far as I know, no one does this (plays the 3D as weak).

 

Anyway, it seems to me that when playing elc there should be some way out when partner, instead of 2C, bids 1NT.

[kfay]

Even if I were playing ELC I'd probably treat 2♦ as a GF anyways.

And so, if you were playing elc, you would do what with my hand?

 

This is why I brought this up. Quite a few players (and good players I mean) I think would play as you do: Over 2C the 2D conversion could be on the hand I have, but over 1N the 2D bid is still strong. Of course you may be comfortable enough leaving 1N in place and hoping for the best with this likely to run D suit. But often the person planning the elc holds a hand where it seems quite likely that leaving it in NT will not work out well.

 

It has just crossed my mind that maybe 3D over 1N should be the weak bid! The 1N bidder presumably has a little something in Ds and when you are 6-4 with modest values(the usual setting where you might want to get out of NT) it seems 3D may play decently. This leaves the 2D bid as gf or at least highly constructive, something that could be useful in choosing the right game. As far as I know, no one does this (plays the 3D as weak).

 

Anyway, it seems to me that when playing elc there should be some way out when partner, instead of 2C, bids 1NT.

I totally understand what you're saying and maybe even could be persuaded that it might be better to play this way. But if I agreed to play ELC with a partner I wouldn't logically assume that this is an ELC scenario. So I think it warrants a further agreement.

 

I didn't mean to say 'yeah it's better to play it this way' even though I can see now that it probably sounds like that. Both have arguments.

 

Personally I feel that there are probably a wide variety of hands where 1N is just as fine as whatever you want to pull to. Partner's expressed some values. If I'm so desperate to run from 1N I probably should have just bid my super-long suit in the first place and raised partner if he bid my other suit.

 

Edited once. Further Edit: With your hand I probably would have just bid 2♦ over 1♠.

[han]

There is something to be said for directly bidding a 7-card suit even when playing equal level conversion. I think double is very poor choice, they are quite likely to bumb in spades.

 

This is actually a serious flaw in the elc theory, when the oppopnents raise the level of the auction it may create impossible decisions for partner.

[kenberg]

Ignore this nonsense, sea Mia Culpa below.

 

 

did indeed consider 2D over 1C and somewhat more strongly consider 1D. I didn't rule it out because I was holding four hearts. Here though it might play very well in 4H whenever parter has four hearts and some modest strength.

 

I think of elc, at least the version where you double 1M and convert 2C to 2D, as more or less "pick-up standard". It does have its drawbacks and its ambiguities when things go other than pass-2C-pass after the X. And they often do.

[TylerE]

Ya know, if the opening bid was 1♣, not the 1♠ that the void implies, that should really be mentioned in the OP.

[louisg]

This is not really an ELC issue, but a more general question about takeout doubler's rebid of any suit after a 1NT advance. Many people believe (ELC or not)that this shows the hand that was "too strong to overcall", but the Goren-era texts that address this issue disagree (and I think they have the better of the argument).

 

Say you pick up:

 

♠

♥Qxxx

♦KQJxx

♣Kxxx

 

and double a 1S opener. Don't you think that 2D is likely to be a better contract than passing partner in 1NT? While if you hold the big hand, a forcing 3D bid is OK (partner has promised some values in theory) and still leaves room to explore for the correct game/slam.

[kenberg]

Ya know, if the opening bid was 1♣, not the 1♠ that the void implies, that should really be mentioned in the OP.

Mea most culpa

1S was right. I guess I was not thinking when I posted the prev comment. The brain takes a vacation sometimes. Momentary confusion with another hand I guess, or else just total brain death.

[kenberg]

This is not really an ELC issue, but a more general question about takeout doubler's rebid of any suit after a 1NT advance. Many people believe (ELC or not)that this shows the hand that was "too strong to overcall", but the Goren-era texts that address this issue disagree (and I think they have the better of the argument).

 

Say you pick up:

 

♠

♥Qxxx

♦KQJxx

♣Kxxx

 

and double a 1S opener. Don't you think that 2D is likely to be a better contract than passing partner in 1NT? While if you hold the big hand, a forcing 3D bid is OK (partner has promised some values in theory) and still leaves room to explore for the correct game/slam.

I'm sort of Goren era by age and I had forgotten this was so (I have his 1950 something book somewhere but don't want to verify this right now. It sounds right.). I have always thought that the suit rebid after the NT response to the X was a special case and should be allowed on not particularly strong hands but I think of this as a minority view unless we are playing elc, and as mentioned I am not so sure that even elc players allow the 2D rebid on shape alone. It does seem that at least with elc we need an escape from nt contracts.

[TylerE]

Wasn't the direct cuebid frequently played as strong takeout in those days?

[louisg]

Yes, but game forcing (possibly a one-suiter). There were hands too weak for the cuebid, but willing to force once partner showed values with 1NT. Those hands would either repeat the cuebid or jump, while a simple new suit over 1NT was based on shape.