[kenrexford]

rhm, on 2012-August-09, 02:13, said:

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]

MrAce, on 2012-August-09, 05:02, said:

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]

MrAce, on 2012-August-09, 05:02, said:

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]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-09, 05:22, said:

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]

rhm, on 2012-August-09, 06:52, said:

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.

[rhm]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-09, 07:11, said:

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]

rhm, on 2012-August-09, 06:28, said:

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...sivedoubles.pdf

http://www.bridgebum...sive_double.php

http://www.gabrial-u...ns/RESPONSI.HTM

http://richmondbridg...resp_double.pdf

http://bridgetips.wo...ponsive-double/

http://www.sfvbridge...e%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]

kenrexford, on 2012-August-09, 05:22, said:

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]

dave_w, on 2012-August-14, 21:42, said:

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]

MrAce, on 2012-August-10, 13:16, said:

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]

dave_w, on 2012-August-14, 21:42, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-19, 08:55, said:

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]

JLOGIC, on 2012-September-19, 15:53, said:

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]

rhm, on 2012-September-21, 04:28, said:

(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]

rhm, on 2012-September-21, 04:28, said:

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.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

[Flem72]

bluecalm, on 2012-September-22, 10:16, said:

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?