ELC with both majors

[gnasher]

As I understand it, low-level ELC normally applies only when you double a major and then convert clubs or notrumps to diamonds. That is

1M dbl pass 1NT/2

♣

pass 2

♦

showing 4OM and 5♦ without promising extras.

 

What do you think of doing the same thing with 4-5 in the majors after one of a minor? That is, these sequences:

1

♣

dbl pass 1

♦

pass 1

♥

 

1

♦

dbl pass 2

♣

pass 2

♥

 

1m dbl pass 1NT

pass 2

♥

[SteveMoe]

Help me bid a 17-19 Hearts hand (or 18-20 etc...)

Not sure how to make the strong hand auctions work here.

[kenrexford]

Some do this, but I find it dubious, personally.

 

The main reasons, IMO, are major focus and level commitment. If I I have 4M/5+♦, I feel the need toget the major on the table. Sure, I could bid the diamonds and then back in with a double, but I dislike that, largely because I am introducing diamonds at the two-level.

 

With 4♠/6♥, I can put a major on the table with 1♥. Sure -- I may have to back in to get spades on the table later, but at least one major is out there. Plus, with my first call at the one-level, the auction is better, and partner has an easier time introducing spades himself.

[paulg]

If your preference is to double with 5-4 majors rather than overcall, then it seems sensible especially with five hearts and four spades.

 

However viewing experts on vugraph my impression is that they tend to overcall rather than double on 5-4 hands when (I feel) there is a choice.

[lalldonn]

I think it's dubious any time you can overcall without raising the level. Just as it would be to play 1♣ x p 1♠ p 2♦ as ELC when you could have just bid 1♦. It's the two level overcall that makes you fear missing the second suit more than the one level overcall.

 

But my opinion may be biased since I have always hated that convention anyway.

[dake50]

What do you think of taking 5H-4S hands out of T/O Dbl?

Using instead a MM (akin to Michaels but 4-5) call?

The painful auction is Overcall 1H then guess to Dbl

4x spades back into the auction. Separate that (eg. Raptor).

Overcalling 1S then showing 2H ain't 5-5 as Michaels wasn't chosen,

so 5-4 even 6-4. Unlikely to be shut out as S-prefer is asked.

Where's the need for ELC?

[rhm]

I do not think it is winning Bridge to overcall hearts over a minor when you have 4 cards in spades unless there is an extreme disparity between the majors.

The risk of loosing your spade fit is as high here as in other ELC sequences.

It is a bit inconsistent that few people would show a heart overcall over a notrump opening when they have four cards in spades as well, but do not mind doing this over a minor suit opening.

When I play ELC it always applies to length in the middle unbid suit.

It seems to work fine in practice. Also the negative inference when you overcall in the middle unbid suit that you will not have 4 cards in an unbid major is sometimes useful.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

There is nothing inconsistent in this, rhm, because the issue is level.

[rhm]

There is nothing inconsistent in this, rhm, because the issue is level.

 

So the bidding goes

 

(1m) - 1♥ - (3m or 4m) - P

(P) - ?

 

or

 

(1m) - 1♥ - (1NT) - P

(P) - ?

 

or

 

(1♦)-1♥-(3♣) - P

(P) - ?

 

All are fairly common follow-ups after a 1♥ overcall and I would feel much more uncomfortable sitting there with an opening bid and 4 cards in spades than after a DBL.

Frankly I can not see how level will help you here and anyway what matters is the level when the bidding comes back to you after you made your first bid.

This you never know. Also my lower limits for a takeout DBL are higher than for a one-level overcall, which helps in the above sequences.

Getting in both majors immediately when hearts are longer seems to me definitely superior.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

OK, then play ELC there. Go for it. My point remains, however, in that the auction is different if you must start at the two level. This is important to us, and hence our logic is not inconsistent. You might find it faulty, and I might disagree, but I and others are not inconsistent.

 

As a curiosity, i would guess that ELC types in this situation have an affinity for Flannery, whereas the opposite is true as well. A guess.

[han]

I don't play ELC except for takeout doubles of their weak 2M openings. If I did play it, I still wouldn't play it in these auctions. I think Rexford has the reasons right. Doubling 1H instead of overcalling 2D when you have 4♠5♦ is very different from doubling 1♣ instead of overcalling 1♥ when you hold 4♠5♥.

 

However, after reading some posts of Fred (link?) I now play this auction:

 

 

1X dbl pass 1NT

pass 2Y

 

as a minimal takeout with a 5-card suit. Again this strikes me as more important when Y is a minor.

[lalldonn]

It is a bit inconsistent that few people would show a heart overcall over a notrump opening when they have four cards in spades as well, but do not mind doing this over a minor suit opening.

Lol, aside from the fact that's because of level, and because safety is more important over a 1NT opening bid, some of us use 2♣ for majors over 1NT and can always get to an equal or longer fit. If I had a bid that guaranteed I get to my best fit with 4-5 in the majors over a minor suit opening I would use that too!

[kenrexford]

If you wat to talk inconsistency, then why the arbitrary decision to double with longer hearts than spades but not with longer spades than hearts?

 

Give yourself 6-4-2-1 shape. Using the logic I have seen, doubling allows you to spot either 4-4 major fit quickly but to then correct to spades if this fails. If you overcall 1♠, you preempt a heart fit discoverymore than if you overcall 1♥with 4♠/6♥. Doubling with 5+♠/4♥ would allow an inference that a 1♠ overcall tends to deny four hearts.

 

Of course, this seems to me like nonsense, but we are talking about consistency, apparently.

 

 

[gnasher]

If you wat to talk inconsistency, then why the arbitrary decision to double with longer hearts than spades but not with longer spades than hearts?

Because it's more convenient to overcall spades and then bid hearts than to overcall hearts and then bid spades. Hence with 5=4 there is less benefit to starting with double.

 

Also, if you double with 54xx and then convert partner's minor to spades, with 1=3 in the majors he will have nowhere to go; if you double with 45xx and then convert partner's minor to hearts, with 3=1 in the majors he can convert to 2♠.

 

Give yourself 6-4-2-1 shape.

I don't know why you keep talking about 6-4s. If there is a benefit to doubling on these shapes, it's obviously greater when the suits are 5-4 rather than 6-4.

Edited August 8, 2012 by gnasher

[phil_20686]

The main reason for overcalling with 54M hands, is that when partner has four card support he can bounce the auction higher than he can after a t/o double. After the opps have opened 1N preempting them is barely an issue.

[kenrexford]

Because it's more convenient to overcall spades and then bid hearts than to overcall hearts and then bid spades

 

I don't know why you keep talking about 6-4s. If there is a benefit to doubling on these shapes, it's obviously greater when the suits are 5-4 rather than 6-4.

 

Is doubling really that inconvenient? I mean:

 

1♣-1♥-2♣-P

P-X?

 

That does not seem very inconvenient. I mean, sure -- you have to grab a card in the lower section of the bidding box, where the red, green, and blue cards are often all jumbled up and messy, whereas grabbing the 2♥ card is very easy and smooth.

 

As to the 5-4's versus 6-4's, I concede your point, even if I am not sure what the point might be. Shift to 5-4's if you want. The issue is the same. However, there are some 5-4's that I would treat as 4-4's myself, like maybe xxxxx-AKJx. But, then I would not ELC to that "five-card" suit anyway.

 

Now, this does bring up a funny observation, namely that you might well have a delayed ELC occur. Overcall a major, double, and then convert to hearts if partner bids the other minor.

[gnasher]

Is doubling really that inconvenient? I mean:

 

1♣-1♥-2♣-P

P-X?

 

That does not seem very inconvenient. I mean, sure -- you have to grab a card in the lower section of the bidding box, where the red, green, and blue cards are often all jumbled up and messy, whereas grabbing the 2♥ card is very easy and smooth.

 

If you play that sequence as promising four spades, you can no longer double 2♣ on 3541, 3532 and 3631 shapes.

[rhm]

Is doubling really that inconvenient? I mean:

 

1♣-1♥-2♣-P

P-X?

 

When opponents are convenient enough to bid like this, overcalling 1♥ does not create insurmountable problems.

Unfortunately in the world I play these scenarios are more the exception than the rule.

Better players understand well that to win they must be more ambitious to create problems for their opponents in the contested auction.

 

I have given you above 3 sequences from opponents, who understand better what modern bidding warfare is about.

Now tell us how convenient it is to unearth your spade fit.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

The main reason for overcalling with 54M hands, is that when partner has four card support he can bounce the auction higher than he can after a t/o double. After the opps have opened 1N preempting them is barely an issue.

I do not doubt that you might be slightly better off by overcalling 1♥ provided your fit is in hearts.

Why tell the table about your side suits, when you have a fit in your primary suit.

Trouble of course starts when partner has length in your secondary suit and shortage in your primary suit.

If partner has a long major and you make a t/o double he can bounce the bidding in either major, though to be fair not quite as high in hearts.

Assuming you overcall 1♥ with 5 hearts and 4 spades, tell me how you bounce the bidding when partner has spades, which is at least as likely.

What is worse, you may well be at the loosing end if LHO bounces first the auction in their minor over 1♥. This is quite likely should you have a good spade fit.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

So the bidding goes

 

(1m) - 1♥ - (3m or 4m) - P

(P) - ?

 

or

 

(1m) - 1♥ - (1NT) - P

(P) - ?

 

or

 

(1♦)-1♥-(3♣) - P

(P) - ?

 

All are fairly common follow-ups after a 1♥ overcall and I would feel much more uncomfortable sitting there with an opening bid and 4 cards in spades than after a DBL.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

In most of your arguments you treat your pd as if he/she is someone disabled and can not bid his/her hand. I can easily see from your concerns that you are trying to maintain the control of bidding all by yourself and defending actions that takes care of pd's hand too, as if he/she was punished by TD from bidding for 1 round.

 

#3 is not common at all to start with. (Assuming it is wjs) But even if it happens people play responsive doubles for a reason :)

 

#1 I don't even understand why u brought this, again, train your pd to use responsive doubles. If he/she already knows then stop worrying about it, the hands that you actually may have something when he/she fails to use responsive double are very small target.

 

#2 is easy, you cue bid, this is not a giant hand ( you could have doubled 1 NT) Any pd who is capable of observing the auction can easily understand you can not have a giant, your side has at best 20 hcp if they made their bids with minimum, i would cue with confident 4-5 majors when 1 NT comes to me, even without any agreement, if i am annoyed to sell it out.

[kenrexford]

When opponents are convenient enough to bid like this, overcalling 1♥ does not create insurmountable problems.

Unfortunately in the world I play these scenarios are more Ithe exception than the rule.

Better players understand well that to win they must be more ambitious to create problems for their opponents in the contested auction.

 

I have given you above 3 sequences from opponents, who understand better what modern bidding warfare is about.

Now tell us how convenient it is to unearth your spade fit.

 

Rainer Herrmann

You are evading with an intellectually dishonest argument now. The issue starts with the convenience of a double as opposed to bidding 2H when longer in spades. You then give high auctions. How is doubling 3C or 4C less convenient than bidding 3H or 4H in these auctions? You focus instead on how tough doubling is, without discussing how difficult bidding the hearts would be.

 

But, i will offer a theory answer nonetheless. I dislike ultra-weak overcalls for this and other reasons. I prefer sound overcalls. I also tend intentionally to make jump overcalls into 5-card majors if i want to discourage partner from going into new strains. This is intentional, again. The end rfesult is not just that partner can more reliably bid or penalize or seek game in contested auctions, but it also gives partner encouragement to make dezcriptjve calls in other strains if i overcall rather tha n jump overcall. I.believe that this factor affects the analysis. It is not that my major overcall implies length already in an unbid major, although thedre actually is that subtle nuance, but rather that my overcalling style suggests suitability for a call, in the sense that i state an ability to handle it more safely.

 

Hence, i think aggressive ELC to be useful for a light overcalling style. But, for many reasons i use a style of overcalling that makes aggressive use of elc redundant and hence less useful.

[gnasher]

train your pd to use responsive doubles

 

I don't think responsive doubles completely solve this problem. You might have something like 13 opposite 8, perhaps with a 4-5 spade fit. Opposite today's overcalls, it's dangerous to make a responsive double on a potentially misfitting 8-count.

[rhm]

In most of your arguments you treat your pd as if he/she is someone disabled and can not bid his/her hand. I can easily see from your concerns that you are trying to maintain the control of bidding all by yourself and defending actions that takes care of pd's hand too, as if he/she was punished by TD from bidding for 1 round.

 

#3 is not common at all to start with. (Assuming it is wjs) But even if it happens people play responsive doubles for a reason :)

 

#1 I don't even understand why u brought this, again, train your pd to use responsive doubles. If he/she already knows then stop worrying about it, the hands that you actually may have something when he/she fails to use responsive double are very small target.

 

#2 is easy, you cue bid, this is not a giant hand ( you could have doubled 1 NT) Any pd who is capable of observing the auction can easily understand you can not have a giant, your side has at best 20 hcp if they made their bids with minimum, i would cue with confident 5-4 4-5 majors over a NT even without any agreement if i am annoyed to sell it out.

Thanks for your lessons.

But believe me I neither assume my partners to be retarded nor am I oblivious to the meaning of a responsive DBL.

There is a big difference between your unsubstantiated claims and making life easy for partner by describing your hand as well as possible to partner.

Describing your hand does the opposite of what you claim, you pass control in the bidding to partner, who is now in a much better position to take the right decision for the partnership.

Give partner, no matter what a genius he is, less scope for error and he will make less. Differently to what you insinuate, this is called cherishing your partner.

But since you seem to like to give lessons, bear in mind that the name "responsive" is there for a reason:

Responsive doubles occur only in response to a takeout double and not when you overcalled.

Now I understand that you do not need to play doubles by advancer here as penalty, particularly not on the first sequence I gave.

They are usually played as some sort of action double guaranteeing some sort of transferable values.

But your assumption that whenever you have a problem an amorphous DBL ("Do something intelligent partner" , whatever that happens to be) will solve your problems is naive.

It is also anything but clear how many spades partner would actually show with these doubles nor what you will do when your heart overcall happens not to include 4 cards in spades.

If you bid spades even with 3 cards it is not difficult to see how this might work out when your partner has only four himself and if you don't, good luck when your partner has five.

 

In sequence 2 if you decide to overcall hearts when having spades it might be useful to assign such a meaning to the cuebid, but it requires special agreement.

Without prior agreement, there are many other ways you could use this bid for.

I prefer to have this bid available for hands unsuitable for a double (where I at least would not mind my partner passing the DBL), but hands where 2♥ would still be an underbid.

Good hands with a long broken heart suit are not at all uncommon.

 

Note, I have never claimed that ELC solves everything nor that there are no disadvantages using them.

But they address a real problem in standard bidding and I happen to see the tradeoff as okay.

You may disagree, but simply ignoring the problem is, well, ignorant.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

You are evading with an intellectually dishonest argument now. The issue starts with the convenience of a double as opposed to bidding 2H when longer in spades. You then give high auctions. How is doubling 3C or 4C less convenient than bidding 3H or 4H in these auctions? You focus instead on how tough doubling is, without discussing how difficult bidding the hearts would be.

 

But, i will offer a theory answer nonetheless. I dislike ultra-weak overcalls for this and other reasons. I prefer sound overcalls. I also tend intentionally to make jump overcalls into 5-card majors if i want to discourage partner from going into new strains. This is intentional, again. The end rfesult is not just that partner can more reliably bid or penalize or seek game in contested auctions, but it also gives partner encouragement to make dezcriptjve calls in other strains if i overcall rather tha n jump overcall. I.believe that this factor affects the analysis. It is not that my major overcall implies length already in an unbid major, although thedre actually is that subtle nuance, but rather that my overcalling style suggests suitability for a call, in the sense that i state an ability to handle it more safely.

 

Hence, i think aggressive ELC to be useful for a light overcalling style. But, for many reasons i use a style of overcalling that makes aggressive use of elc redundant and hence less useful.

Fair enough.

I admit of course that I will not always be able to show my extra length in hearts should the bidding escalate. I consider this the lesser evil.

But there is nothing dishonest in my arguments nor do your arguments have the high moral ground.

You may of course point out what is wrong with ELC and I may point out why I still like them and point out what is wrong with "standard bidding".

I agree that your overcalling style, hardly standard, may have much less need for ELC. Whatever you pick and choose it needs to fit.

In my style I feel uncomfortable overcalling holding 4 cards in an unbid major, not least because the bidding escalates nowadays more frequently,

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

Fair enough.

I admit of course that I will not always be able to show my extra length in hearts should the bidding escalate. I consider this the lesser evil.

But there is nothing dishonest in my arguments nor do your arguments have the high moral ground.

You may of course point out what is wrong with ELC and I may point out why I still like them and point out what is wrong with "standard bidding".

I agree that your overcalling style, hardly standard, may have much less need for ELC. Whatever you pick and choose it needs to fit.

In my style I feel uncomfortable overcalling holding 4 cards in an unbid major, not least because the bidding escalates nowadays more frequently,

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Although I appreciate the recognition of the principles, I don't understand this one sentence.

 

First of all, where are my arguments lacking in morals? That seems rather strange. I am not taking any moral high ground, nor was it intended. Rather, I was arguing logic and perspective.

 

Second, though, I don't understand why you cannot see the intellectual dishonesty in your relevant argument. You were countering my claim that a double operates as a convenient manner to introduce hearts when overcalling spades with 5♠/4♥ as conveniently as actually bidding the hearts after that start, in the context of my notation that ELC principles seem applicable to that situation as well, in theory, to be "consistent." You countered by opining that high-level interference breaks down my argument, by citing prior examples of how ELC works better for 5♥/4♠. However, it seems obvious that the preemptive auction affects the 5♥/4♠ and 5♠/4♥ options equally, in that both are preempted. When you end in that situation, then,doubling as takeout seems MORE convenient than bidding the hearts (in the 5♠/4♥ situation), as bidding is unilateral (fewer landing zones).

 

Thus, your argument would seem to be intellectually dishonest, in that you provide an argument in favor of ELC as an argument against extending ELC to a situation where either ELC or a reopening double works better than your method of bid-one-then-bid-the-other. Now, I suppose that it could be either intellectually dishonest or simply flawed and confused reasoning. However, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed competence in logic. I would accept, "Duh! You are right. I did not think that through!" or "You caught me!", but your response ofnot being intellectually dishonest but I am not o a moral high ground perplexes me, because I am now uncertain as to your thinking process.