[mikeh]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

2= I stated that X followed a new suit shows a strong hand.  Stronger than an ordinary overcall.  I also stated that if it was a single suited hand it was a very strong hand.  I never made any statement about it not being a flexible hand.

3= My sole argument with you and Josh re: X'ing then bidding a new suit is that Josh has stated that it does not show a stronger hand than a direct overcall.  I strongly disagree with this. 
I have not said that it can't be a flexible hand.  I have only said it must be a stronger hand than a direct overcall and that the less fliexible it is the stronger it should be.  This is to my understanding standard expert practice on this matter.

1.06 pm dec 21 you posted, and this is an exact quote:

'X followed by a new suit has !never! shown a flexible hand. It has always shown a strong single suited hand'

It is very difficult to hold a rational discussion with you when you deny stating something that remains posted on the thread.

[foo]

mikeh, on Dec 21 2007, 07:17 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

2= I stated that X followed a new suit shows a strong hand.  Stronger than an ordinary overcall.  I also stated that if it was a single suited hand it was a very strong hand.  I never made any statement about it not being a flexible hand.

3= My sole argument with you and Josh re: X'ing then bidding a new suit is that Josh has stated that it does not show a stronger hand than a direct overcall.  I strongly disagree with this. 
I have not said that it can't be a flexible hand.  I have only said it must be a stronger hand than a direct overcall and that the less fliexible it is the stronger it should be.  This is to my understanding standard expert practice on this matter.

1.06 pm dec 21 you posted, and this is an exact quote:

'X followed by a new suit has !never! shown a flexible hand. It has always shown a strong single suited hand'

It is very difficult to hold a rational discussion with you when you deny stating something that remains posted on the thread.

I obviously missed an edit. My apologies.

That was =supposed= to say that
a single suited hand that can't easily tolerate another strain has !never! shown anything less than a =very= strong hand.

EDIT: actually, it orginally read
"X'ing then bidding a new suit with a single suited hand has !never! shown anything less than a =very= strong hand." (I found the original).

Again, my apologies for missing the bad post in the heat of all this typing.


Now that we have that out of the way, can we deal with the actual issue?
This:
X'ing then bidding a new suit is a stronger sequence than simply bidding game.
vs
Josh's statement (as I presently understand it. Please correct me Josh If I have misunderstood or misrepresented your POV here).
X'ing then bidding a new suit is no more or no less strong then simply bidding game.

My POV here is that X'ing then bidding a new strain is stronger than directly bidding game, stronger than overcalling and then reversing, stronger than just about anything except X'ing then cuebidding Their suit.

[jdonn]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

There's your post saying that X, then bidding ♣'s is no stronger than simply bidding 5C.

"X'ing then bidding a new suit is that Josh has stated that it does not show a stronger hand than a direct overcall."

Do you think this accurately represents my discussion of a JUMP? Or must I tell you that when you say direct overcall, that means an overcall at the lowest level unless you say otherwise?

You'll do better in the future to not quote me or try to state my opinions at all, as you seem to be incapable of doing this without totally misrepresenting them. Much as I'm sure you do with those of the experts you speak of.

[foo]

jdonn, on Dec 21 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

There's your post saying that X, then bidding ♣'s is no stronger than simply bidding 5C.

"X'ing then bidding a new suit is that Josh has stated that it does not show a stronger hand than a direct overcall."

Do you think this accurately represents my discussion of a JUMP? Or must I tell you that when you say direct overcall, that means an overcall at the lowest level unless you say otherwise?

You'll do better in the future to not quote me or try to state my opinions at all, as you seem to be incapable of doing this without totally misrepresenting them. Much as I'm sure you do with those of the experts you speak of.

"direct game overcall" josh.

You stated that X'ing then bidding a new suit was not any stronger than a direct game overcall (X then 4C vs a direct 5C in this case).

You stated it was simply "a more flexible hand" and "merely a different hand type".
See the post of yours I cut and paste for verification.

My entire disagreement with you here is on this point.

By running through the sequences and matching them to hand types, I've tried to show that in actuality X'ing then bidding a suit is considerably stronger than simply bidding game. Even if holding something like a 64 for the sequence (since Reversing is pretty strong in and of itself and since X'er must be able, to paraphrase ArtK, "be able to handle any bid by Advancer".)

If we have reached agreement that X'ing then bidding a new suit is stronger than simply overcalling game directly, then we have reached consensus and there is no more need for debate.

[jdonn]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

"direct game overcall" josh.

jdonn, on Dec 21 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

3= My sole argument with you and Josh re: X'ing then bidding a new suit is that Josh has stated that it does not show a stronger hand than a direct overcall.

This was an unedited quote of you. I'm glad to see that by making edits much later without noting that they are edits, you are free to change your complete misrepresentation of my opinion to a different complete misrepresentation of my opinion with a technically correct factual aspect, as I never made a distinction between bidding game and not but merely between jumping and not.

What you said after editing is no more accurate than if you had said "direct CLUB overcall", since you have no reason to believe it has anything to do with what I meant.

I reiterate my advice in my prior post, at least as it pertains to me.

[han]

I know this is not standard in the US but in the Netherlands the structure posted by the OP is fairly standard (4C showing clubs and a major, 5C being the weakest club call). 5C is still constructive of course and the lower limit is slightly higher than what "we" need for a natural 4C call. Double followed by 5C is used for a strong club hand.

I'm getting a bit tired of jdonn's responses at foo, and I'm surprised jdonn isn't. I'd say just ignore foo.

[foo]

Hannie, on Dec 21 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

I know this is not standard in the US but in the Netherlands the structure posted by the OP is fairly standard (4C showing clubs and a major, 5C being the weakest club call).

5C is still constructive of course and the lower limit is slightly higher than what "we" need for a natural 4C call.

Double followed by 5C is used for a strong club hand.

Since you seem to have actual experience ATT playing the OP posted methods, what do you do with the OP advancing hand of
♠KJT2 ♥KQ32 ♦AJ4 ♣76
after (3D)-5C-pa-??

(I note that helene_t, another person I presume to have RW experience with the OP methods said "pass, but it's close")

[han]

I pass but I think it is close.

When I play bridge in the Netherlands I usually play these methods but I mostly play on BBO or in the US.

[Fluffy]

pclayton, on Dec 21 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

Foo, you are so full of crap.

5♣ is a real strong call, even if 4♣ is played as Roman. It's not some "2-way bid".

I don't know how the OP would play double followed by clubs, but presumably its a flexible hand, and not just a strong hand.

This is a very clear 6♣ call. Pard has a long powerful string of clubs and at least one of the missing aces. Assuming LHO has 7♦'s (not a lock I know) eithe pard or RHO has a singleton, so there's no worry in that suit.

5♦ is OK too, but I just don't think I have enough to make grand slam noises.

Can't agree more with everything Phil said.