[bigbenvic]

IMO the issue here is that East made a lazy bid of 5♦ when he had a much more inclusive bid of 4♥ to make, given he has decided not to pass 4♦!

I think I would bid 2♥ after the 1♦ response, it show a big hand and a good suit. I'd love for it to show a Diamond fit (but that is not practical) but I may be able to bid Diamonds later in the auction and partner might work out my 6-4 shape. The benefit I see here in 2♥ is that it takes away space from south who may not butt in with his spade suit now, at least I've made it harder for them than 1♥ does.

What would 4♥ be after 1♦?

One bid should set Hearts as trumps (2♥, 3♥ or 4♥) and if that's 3♥ maybe 4 could be this type of hand?

[rhm]

Fluffy, on 2016-October-18, 13:16, said:

You are more likely to lose 5-3 heart fit than 4-4 spade fit when you have 4-5 majors. Overcalling on that hand is auto for me, your treatment is playable, but I don't think it is worth it.

You are missing the point.
The issue is not missing 5-3 hearts versus missing a 4-4 spades.
The issue is missing a 5-3 hearts against any spade fit.

Assume the bidding starts

(1♣) - DBL -(3♣)-?
versus
(1♣)-1♥-(3♣) - ?

In the first auction advancer can compete with moderate values. Bidding a major will not be forcing
In the second one advancer will need substantially more to bid spades even if he has five or six.
Some would play 3♠ passable, more would play it forcing or game forcing. But advancer will need a good hand in either case. If advancer is not strong enough you could miss a ten card spade fit easily.
Similar arguments apply if responder makes any other club raise.

Even if responder bids 1NT (or 2NT) over 1♥ advancer will often not be strong enough to bid a spade suit.

Rainer Herrmann

[Kaitlyn S]

rhm, on 2016-October-19, 09:44, said:

You are missing the point.
The issue is not missing 5-3 hearts versus missing a 4-4 spades.
The issue is missing a 5-3 hearts against any spade fit.

Assume the bidding starts

(1♣) - DBL -(3♣)-?
versus
(1♣)-1♥-(3♣) - ?

In the first auction advancer can compete with moderate values. Bidding a major will not be forcing
In the second one advancer will need substantially more to bid spades even if he has five or six.

But if you are doubling with 4-5-1-3, what does advancer do with diamonds? If advancer is passive, you don't compete when you have a "normal" takeout double, but if advancer is active, you almost have to bid 3H now which (a) shows extras or (b) is flying blind at the 3 level if you use ELC, in which case you need to bid four hearts or cue bid with the double and correct hand.

The overcallers don't necessarily lose spades. The 1H overcall is limited so the overcaller can balance and correct 3D to 3H. This is relatively safe unless the opponents are in the habit of bidding 3C with lots of cards in the majors, or having a misunderstanding about what 3C shows.

This brings up an interesting ethical argument. If the opponents don't know your style, and they likely don't in a matchpoint pairs event, you are taking unfair advantage of them because they could take advantage of your style and bid 3C without enough clubs knowing you're likely to get into a bad contract, but they don't know that, letting you balance almost without risk.

[MrAce]

rhm, on 2016-October-19, 09:44, said:

You are missing the point.
The issue is not missing 5-3 hearts versus missing a 4-4 spades.
The issue is missing a 5-3 hearts against any spade fit.

Assume the bidding starts

(1♣) - DBL -(3♣)-?
versus
(1♣)-1♥-(3♣) - ?



Rainer Herrmann

Overcaller is allowed to balance.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2016-October-19, 12:07, said:

Overcaller is allowed to balance.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-19, 11:17, said:

But if you are doubling with 4-5-1-3, what does advancer do with diamonds? If advancer is passive, you don't compete when you have a "normal" takeout double, but if advancer is active, you almost have to bid 3H now which (a) shows extras or (b) is flying blind at the 3 level if you use ELC, in which case you need to bid four hearts or cue bid with the double and correct hand.

The overcallers don't necessarily lose spades. The 1H overcall is limited so the overcaller can balance and correct 3D to 3H. This is relatively safe unless the opponents are in the habit of bidding 3C with lots of cards in the majors, or having a misunderstanding about what 3C shows.

No, you do not necessarily loose spades.
But what a statement!
Not to loose spades, you suggest first to overcall on a five card suit, then to balance and then to correct. Three actions on limited values where advancer has promised nothing.
If you do this to me I would suspect something else than 4♠=5♥=2♦=2♣ and opening bid values.
And what is better about this then doubling in the first place and correcting a low level diamond response to hearts?

I admit that the lowest unbid minor is suspect when you play ELC.
What this amounts to is that if advancer comes in freely with the lowest unbid minor suit at a high level he should have a good suit because support is not guaranteed.
Yes we could loose our minor suit fit that way when opponents preempt, but the music is with the majors. Better to loose a diamond fit than a spade fit.
At a low level advancer will get corrected by takeout doubler.

Quote

This brings up an interesting ethical argument. If the opponents don't know your style, and they likely don't in a matchpoint pairs event, you are taking unfair advantage of them because they could take advantage of your style and bid 3C without enough clubs knowing you're likely to get into a bad contract, but they don't know that, letting you balance almost without risk.

This is plain nonsense.
If your overcall in hearts can conceal spades you have at least as much of an obligation to tell your opponents.
There is no standard in this area, if at all only regional tendencies.
In Bridge the US does not rule the world, neither by results nor by force and they do not set the standards.
I have sometimes the impression when people claim different treatments as better and some opponents run out of arguments this sort of argument tends to come up.
They try to take the moral high ground and give the impression the alternative suggestion has some unethical tinge assigned to it.
I consider this not only unfair but itself an unethical way of arguing.

Rainer Herrmann

[Kaitlyn S]

rhm, on 2016-October-20, 04:06, said:

No, you do not necessarily loose spades.
But what a statement!
Not to loose spades, you suggest first to overcall on a five card suit, then to balance and then to correct. Three actions on limited values where advancer has promised nothing.
If you do this to me I would suspect something else than 4♠=5♥=2♦=2♣ and opening bid values.
And what is better about this then doubling in the first place and correcting a low level diamond response to hearts?

Rainer, I am admittedly not an expert. I unashamedly post what I think about an auction, realizing that if I'm saying something crazy, that the experts are going to correct me and I can improve my own game.

rhm, on 2016-October-20, 04:06, said:

I admit that the lowest unbid minor is suspect when you play ELC.
What this amounts to is that if advancer comes in freely with the lowest unbid minor suit at a high level he should have a good suit because support is not guaranteed.
Yes we could loose our minor suit fit that way when opponents preempt, but the music is with the majors. Better to loose a diamond fit than a spade fit.
At a low level advancer will get corrected by takeout doubler.

So I presume 2D is a low level. If it goes 1C X 2C 2D you will bid 2H. What do you do differently with the big hand with hearts (the one where I would double and correct to show a hand too good to overcall?) Please realize that I am not attacking your ideas, I really want to know. I personally don't like ELC because I don't see how it can work, but it's possible that nobody decent has shown me how it can work. Here's your chance.

rhm, on 2016-October-20, 04:06, said:

This is plain nonsense.
If your overcall in hearts can conceal spades you have at least as much of an obligation to tell your opponents.

You are stating that if my partner overcalls 1H, I should alert, saying "could have a four card spade suit"? I've never heard anybody do that, and frequently they do have four spades. Perhaps you are saying that in your area where ELC is common (I am making an assumption here) I should alert a 1H overcall as possibly having 4S, but here where it is more common to overcall, you should alert your 1H overcall as not having four spades?

rhm, on 2016-October-20, 04:06, said:

There is no standard in this area, if at all only regional tendencies.
In Bridge the US does not rule the world, neither by results nor by force and they do not set the standards.

The Bridge World magazine that is essentially American has ELC as an option (not the default) in Bridge World Standard 2001 so they recognize that many pairs will want to play it. (They mention correcting a club advance to diamonds.)

rhm, on 2016-October-20, 04:06, said:

I have sometimes the impression when people claim different treatments as better and some opponents run out of arguments this sort of argument tends to come up.
They try to take the moral high ground and give the impression the alternative suggestion has some unethical tinge assigned to it.
I consider this not only unfair but itself an unethical way of arguing.

If you read what I said, you will note that it was my way of bidding that may have an unfair advantage. Wow! Right from the get-go you read my post and assumed that I was attacking you, and that in case my bridge argument didn't work, I would use the ethical argument. And while I might use that argument for odd-even signalling where the argument has strong merit (that ever so slight hitch when you don't hold any odd cards), if I bring it up about a bidding situation, I am stating it for theoretical value and not to prove the superiority of one system over another.

But looking closely at what I said, I noted that an opponent who knew my style (that I might balance with spades and without diamonds after a heart overcall) could take advantage of my style by bidding 3C without enough clubs, which would punish me for automatically balancing assuming that my partner was short in clubs. So you have to understand my dismay when you claim that I unethically tried to use the ethical argument against your methods when in fact I was discussing my own.

I sincerely hope that you will realize that if I write a post that seems to put down your method of bidding, it is because me as an improving player just can't see how it works, and are hoping that if your methods are sound, answering my concerns will show that a method that seems unsound to me has some merit. As there are many decent foreign players here on BBO, it would be far better if I understood ELC and other concepts that are more commonly used outside the USA than to say I don't understand them, I don't like them, and I don't want to play them!

I presume there will be times in the future that I will appear to question the merits of your methods. Please understand that it only means that I don't understand them, and while there might be merit, I am not advanced enough to see them. You actually did answer some of my concerns in your post by saying that you tend to ignore the other minor when advancing a takeout double unless you are at a low enough level to correct. You'll note that I have one more question from above (the 1C x 2C 2D P ? what do you do with a big hand with hearts?) Yes, some of my posts when I don't understand a method may seem attacking, but please understand that this is not my intent.

[Winstonm]

I know I am jumping in to this thread late but without reading the other comments my take is that West should bid 4H instead of bidding more diamonds. The East double and bid in old Standard meant about 17 count. Once he raises the diamond bid (which could have been made on a 3=bagger and a bust) he shows quite a bit extra. Knowing there is about a 20 hand opposite, bidding to the 4 level should be an easy 4H bid.