[Stephen Tu]

Scoring: IMP

---

RHO opens
(3c)-?

what's your plan?

[Fluffy]

double and bid 3NT over partner's 3♠. over 4♠ I don't know yet.

[Codo]

Agree with the famous player who posts first and pass when partner insist in 4 ♠.

[whereagles]

Playing ELC, I'd bid as Gonzalo, except that I'd pull 4♠ to 5♦.

Not playing ELC, prefer 3NT. That seems better than having to guess over a possible 4♠ response to dbl.

But then again, this is one of the cases where it's better to be lucky than good.

[MFA]

whereagles, on Mar 2 2009, 06:08 AM, said:

Playing ELC, I'd bid as Gonzalo, except that I'd pull 4♠ to 5♦.

Pull 4♠ to 5♦ on AKxx?

I agree with X and Fluffy's plan. But I think we have to move forward after 4♠ from partner, but it's a very difficult situation. Sign me up for an optimistic 5NT, pulling 6♦ to 6♥.

[Hanoi5]

X and 3NT over 3♠ and 4NT over 4♠. Hearts are a BIG problem here for partner might bid spades with 5 to the Jack while also having 4 hearts to the 9. Not an easy problem.

[Fluffy]

with 54 in the majors he will normally bid 4♣.

[mtvesuvius]

X then 3NT over partner's 3♠.
I don't play ELC usually, but I think X then 4NT over 4♠ would work decent... Partner shouldn't be 5-4, but 5-3 is possible.

[whereagles]

MFA, on Mar 2 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

whereagles, on Mar 2 2009, 06:08 AM, said:

Playing ELC, I'd bid as Gonzalo, except that I'd pull 4♠ to 5♦.

Pull 4♠ to 5♦ on AKxx?

When one plays ELC, one doesn't usually double with 1-suiters. Hence, a pull to 5♦ shows the reds.

[whereagles]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 2 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

I don't play ELC usually, but I think X then 4NT over 4♠ would work decent...

I wouldn't do that unless I specifically had the agreement that dbl + pull to 4NT is NATURAL. (I actually have it defined in my partnership as RKCB for spades.)

[jdonn]

Aside from the same shock as others about rebidding 5♦ on a four card suit, isn't the whole point of ELC that it doesn't show extras, not that you do it on a good 21?

I double and rebid hearts over 3♠ or 4♠ to show extras with tolerance for the other suits.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Mar 2 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

1. Aside from the same shock as others about rebidding 5♦ on a four card suit,

2. isn't the whole point of ELC that it doesn't show extras, not that you do it on a good 21?

1. I see you're easily impressed

2. ELC doesn't always mean you have but a minimum. It depends on the hand. For instance, with ELC, you shouldn't dbl with the above 2542 shape and less than 18 or so hcp. The reason is you need to be able to withstand a pull of spades to 5♦ and you don't wanna do that with inadequate playing strength. A 12-17 hand with 2542 shape simply bids 3♥ (or 3♦ if 2452).

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Mar 2 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 2 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

1. Aside from the same shock as others about rebidding 5♦ on a four card suit,

2. isn't the whole point of ELC that it doesn't show extras, not that you do it on a good 21?

1. I see you're easily impressed

2. ELC doesn't always mean you have but a minimum. It depends on the hand. For instance, with ELC, you shouldn't dbl with the above 2542 shape and less than 18 or so hcp. The reason is you need to be able to withstand a pull of spades to 5♦ and you don't wanna do that with inadequate playing strength. A 12-17 hand with 2542 shape simply bids 3♥ (or 3♦ if 2452).

A public note.. when quoting someone... DO NOT change the way the quote was stated. This is as good an example as any, Jdonn did not enumerate his ideas 1 and 2. So to quote him, the text should have read...

jdonn, on Mar 2 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Aside from the same shock as others about rebidding 5♦ on a four card suit, isn't the whole point of ELC that it doesn't show extras, not that you do it on a good 21?

Not the way it was "hacked up" in the post I am quoting. After posting the quote correctly, one can then try to parse it, anyway one wants too, but PLEASE do not put words, or organizaitons into the mouths of others.

This is not meant to single out whereagles, others have been doing this as well, but rather to point out that such editting of the words of others as a direct quote is not acceptable.. a quote should be just that, a quote. This one just happened to be easy to spot given it was right under the actual quote and there was no "numerical list" in the original post it jumps off the page.

As soon as i can find a good way to post comemnts about quoting others somewhere in the rules of this site, I will put this info there. There must be ways to express the ideas in the post I am quoting without chaning the original wording being addressed.... perhaps multiple quotes (I do sometimes add ellipse ... or {snip} to show stuff has been deleted from an original quote, I think that is ok.

[qwery_hi]

The fundamental issue is multi-level replies are not there in this forums. If we had them, there would be little need for quoting.

[gnasher]

whereagles, on Mar 2 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

Playing ELC, I'd bid as Gonzalo, except that I'd pull 4♠ to 5♦.

What does the "E" in "ELC" stand for?

[flytoox]

3N looks good to me. IF I dbl, pd is very likely to bid 4S which I really dont like.

[oldman5757]

very good problem. A pragmatic 3NT has some appeal, but the hand is just too good for that, so I agree with X, followed by 3NT over 3♠. What to do over 4♠ is the issue, and I agree with 5♥. 4NT would be RKCB for ♠, and 5 ♦ really should show 5+. If 4♠ was making, chances are reasonable that 5♥ is also, and 5♥ keeps slam in the picture if P thinks he has a perfecto. Who knows.

[whereagles]

'E' stands for Equal

ELC = equal level correction

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Mar 3 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

'E' stands for Equal

ELC = equal level correction

If I may, why do you think gnasher asked you that question. Did you notice you are "converting" to a HIGHER level, not to the "equal level"?

[whereagles]

Well, maybe ELC isn't the best way to describe it. What I mean is that, after a pree, dbl + suit isn't a 1 suiter, period.