ELC with both majors

[rhm]

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.

 

You may not like my arguments and may not find them convincing. I can live with that, but this is something very different to calling them dishonest.

This attribute is out of place.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

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.

......

......

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

 

It was not a lesson, but if you prefer not to be replied when you write something and try to make your case look stronger with exaggerated examples then thats fine. I say exaggerated because basically some of your auctions are not common at all and the concerns in some of them are exaggerated while some other conditions were conveniently skipped. (such as pd decided to pass when he had a chance to take an action, regardless of what name you want to call his actions)

 

About responsive doubles;

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/Commonly_Used_Conventions/responsivedoubles.pdf

 

http://www.bridgebum.com/responsive_double.php

 

http://www.gabrial-ui.com/about_bridge/conventions/RESPONSI.HTM

 

http://richmondbridge.net/PDF/handouts/resp_double.pdf

 

http://bridgetips.wordpress.com/doubles-for-fun-and-profit/responsive-double/

 

http://www.sfvbridgeacademy.com/Web%20Conventions/Responsive%20Doubles.htm

 

And the list goes on and on...i will leave it to others to decide if a double is called "responsive double" only if pd starts with DBL or not. Thats not what these sources say. There seems to be a style difference in some of them, where one says it applies only after they support and other says not neccesarrily. But both seems to agree that responsive doubles are used after an overcall. Anyway, if it is going to make you feel better, then call it something else.

 

I am neither against ELC nor starting with DBL with 4-5 majors. I am not ignoring the problems either. I just disagreed with 2 of your choice of examples. I also never said a responsive doube would % 100 solve your issues. I was merely stating my disagreement with your examples, never said anything about ELC. Also when i said "you want to control the auction" it was directed to your concerns had you decided to start with overcall. It was not directed at your choice of starting with DBL. although i prefer overcall i am perfectly fine with starting DBL.

[dave_w]

I dislike ultra-weak overcalls for this and other reasons. I prefer sound overcalls.

What you like might not be relevant. You could easily be damaging your ability to improve as a bridge player. Most (?) of the top players overcall very aggressively (Meckstroth, Lauria especially). It's probably just winning bridge. Liking it or not shouldn't really matter.

 

I propose that your dislike for weak overcalls is self fulfilling. If you respond to an overcall as if it were sound (when it's not) then you will get bad results with weak overcalls. Thus you'll like sound overcalls and get better results with them. To improve you'd need to do a lot of hard work in changing how you respond to an overcall (and it's a subtle change which is the hardest) and then seeing if weak overcalls get better results.

 

Sorry for the thread hijack. And also for unsolicited advice on how to improve at this complex game - that's just rude.

[kenrexford]

What you like might not be relevant. You could easily be damaging your ability to improve as a bridge player. Most (?) of the top players overcall very aggressively (Meckstroth, Lauria especially). It's probably just winning bridge. Liking it or not shouldn't really matter.

 

I propose that your dislike for weak overcalls is self fulfilling. If you respond to an overcall as if it were sound (when it's not) then you will get bad results with weak overcalls. Thus you'll like sound overcalls and get better results with them. To improve you'd need to do a lot of hard work in changing how you respond to an overcall (and it's a subtle change which is the hardest) and then seeing if weak overcalls get better results.

 

Sorry for the thread hijack. And also for unsolicited advice on how to improve at this complex game - that's just rude.

For many years I used a method where overcalls were 0+. I have thus tried both styles for over a decade each. My own conclusion is that overcalls as sound works better. I may be wrong, but not from inexperienced position.

[gnasher]

i will leave it to others to decide if a double is called "responsive double" only if pd starts with DBL or not. Thats not what these sources say.

 

The term "responsive double" has different meanings in different places. In North America it is often used for both (1x) dbl (2x) dbl and (1x) 1y (2x) dbl, whereas in England, for example, it covers only the first sequence.

[Zelandakh]

What you like might not be relevant. You could easily be damaging your ability to improve as a bridge player. Most (?) of the top players overcall very aggressively (Meckstroth, Lauria especially). It's probably just winning bridge. Liking it or not shouldn't really matter.

 

My experience rather mirrors Ken's. I used to overcall extremely aggressively at the one level. Over time I have made these overcalls sounder. While it may be for world class players with (almost) perfect judgement that a very light overcall style is optimum, for normal players it is (imho) much simpler if these overcalls are generally constructive. Many of the very light overcalls that Lauria perpetrates would be a jump overcall for me. There are pros and cons to that but I think it is unquestionable that including fewer hand types within the one level overcalls helps those competitive auctions that become constructive.

[JLOGIC]

Grunch but:

 

It does seem like a lot of people I talked to play 1m X p 1N p 2M as non forcing, and there is a very good argument for it in that if you have a double and bid type hand you can start with a cuebid (or a jump) since you already have the values for game. It makes sense to me, though I have this agreement only with 1 partner.

 

I do not like the idea of doing this over 1D or 2C though, since partner is 0+ and it would be useful to be able to show extras without forcing.

[JLOGIC]

My experience rather mirrors Ken's. I used to overcall extremely aggressively at the one level. Over time I have made these overcalls sounder. While it may be for world class players with (almost) perfect judgement that a very light overcall style is optimum, for normal players it is (imho) much simpler if these overcalls are generally constructive. Many of the very light overcalls that Lauria perpetrates would be a jump overcall for me. There are pros and cons to that but I think it is unquestionable that including fewer hand types within the one level overcalls helps those competitive auctions that become constructive.

 

There are a lot of top level players that are sound on their overcalls anyways (in USA I'm thinking levin, hamman, wooldridge types). Unless you are ridiculously sound I'm sure it's a fine style to play at any level. E.G I would overcall AQxxx Jxx xx xxx but I'm sure if you don't it is not a big deal either way.

[rhm]

Grunch but:

 

It does seem like a lot of people I talked to play 1m X p 1N p 2M as non forcing, and there is a very good argument for it in that if you have a double and bid type hand you can start with a cuebid (or a jump) since you already have the values for game. It makes sense to me, though I have this agreement only with 1 partner.

 

I do not like the idea of doing this over 1D or 2C though, since partner is 0+ and it would be useful to be able to show extras without forcing.

The trouble with this agreement is that at the point when you contemplate whether to double or overcall you do not know whether your partner will respond in a minor or with 1NT.

 

Playing ELC the sequence

 

(1♣) - DBL - 1♦

 

is not much of a problem, because 1♥ would show 4 spades and longer hearts while I think you can jump to 2♥ showing a strong overcall.

You would have to bid 2♥ over a one spade (instead of 1♦) response anyway.

 

(1♦) - DBL - 2♣,however, is different. 2♥ has to cover all hands, which are too weak to jump to 3♥ (long hearts with almost game in hand).

So 2♥ needs to cover strong overcalls in hearts and somewhat weaker hands with 4 spades and longer hearts.

Yet responder, who has limited his hand already, has rarely an impossible problem over that.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

(1♦) - DBL - 2♣,however, is different. 2♥ has to cover all hands, which are too weak to jump to 3♥ (long hearts with almost game in hand).

So 2♥ needs to cover strong overcalls in hearts and somewhat weaker hands with 4 spades and longer hearts.

Yet responder, who has limited his hand already, has rarely an impossible problem over that.

You could try to pass 2C with ELC hands in this sequence - not perfect but possible. Then you can not double on 4531 but can on 4522 maybe.

[PhilKing]

 

Playing ELC the sequence

 

(1♣) - DBL - 1♦

 

is not much of a problem, because 1♥ would show 4 spades and longer hearts while I think you can jump to 2♥ showing a strong overcall.

You would have to bid 2♥ over a one spade (instead of 1♦) response anyway.

 

 

It's not much of a problem, because partner never has four spades.

 

Jumping to 2♥ to show a good hand eg ♠AKx ♥AQxxx ♦Ajx ♣xx, would be disgusting. It shows six hearts and a powerhouse.

 

If one plays ELC, just relax and bid 1♥ with a 4522 13 count and with a 3532 19. After all, we open 1♥ with a very wide range so a six or seven point range should hardly be unplayable.

 

As long as you have your continuations sorted out, I firmly believe you can bid ELC on a wide range.

[JLOGIC]

I don't X/play ELC with the majors. That said, I would double 1D with Axxx JT9xx --- Axxx (make it the queen if that hand is too light for you) and I'd want to pull 1N to 2H. I think it is just a matter of luxury that you can play this way since 1N presumably shows enough values that you can cuebid or jump with a double and bid type hand.

[kayin801]

I play ELC after 1♦ openings by the opps and then over partner's 1NT or 2♣ we bid 2♦ to show the hand with both majors. We play 2♦ over 1♣ to show both majors. We're pretty satisfied with this treatment. Yes there could be problems with a big club raise of partner's 2♣ bid but if such a big hand comes up that 3♣ doesn't describe it we just improvise.

[bluecalm]

All hands where one side overcalled 1H and the other doubled with 4-5-x-y shape after 1m opening from 100k hand vugraph database (many minor events purged):

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/86311885/ELCpart0.lin

(open room always dbls)

 

Grand total of one swing (6 imps) was won because of spades being found after dbl and not being found after 1H overcall. This is not completely fair because maybe more such swings were missed on hands where both sides overcalled 1H (not included here) but still 1/46 doesn't look very convincing.

 

Enjoy :)

[Flem72]

All hands where one side overcalled 1H and the other doubled with 4-5-x-y shape after 1m opening from 100k hand vugraph database (many minor events purged):

https://dl.dropbox.c...85/ELCpart0.lin

(open room always dbls)

 

Grand total of one swing (6 imps) was won because of spades being found after dbl and not being found after 1H overcall. This is not completely fair because maybe more such swings were missed on hands where both sides overcalled 1H (not included here) but still 1/46 doesn't look very convincing.

 

Enjoy :)

 

Controlled for 4-5 Mike?

[JLOGIC]

All hands where one side overcalled 1H and the other doubled with 4-5-x-y shape after 1m opening from 100k hand vugraph database (many minor events purged):

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/86311885/ELCpart0.lin

(open room always dbls)

 

Grand total of one swing (6 imps) was won because of spades being found after dbl and not being found after 1H overcall. This is not completely fair because maybe more such swings were missed on hands where both sides overcalled 1H (not included here) but still 1/46 doesn't look very convincing.

 

Enjoy :)

 

Many of these are one person doubling a strong club for the majors FWIW

[bluecalm]

Yeah, maybe it would be more useful to pull hands where 1H was overcalled while there were 8 spades on the line to see if there are potential gain there and how often that happens. I will try that when I am back home.