[Deevan]

About 10 years ago, when playing high level competition, I have come across opponent's who played a convention that a certain opening bid, I think it was 2D opening; showed 4-4 or more in both Majors and less than an opening one level bid values.

Does anyone know the name of this convention and where can I find more details about it?

It is not very common in North America. Apparantly, it is, or it was more common in Europe.

Thanks in advance

[jdonn]

Ekren I believe?

[rbforster]

Ekrens is 2D for the majors, weak. Personally I like 2H for the same hands myself.

[hrothgar]

Deevan, on Mar 5 2010, 09:51 PM, said:

About 10 years ago, when playing high level competition, I have come across opponent's who played a convention that a certain opening bid, I think it was 2D opening; showed 4-4 or more in both Majors and less than an opening one level bid values.

Does anyone know the name of this convention and where can I find more details about it?

It is not very common in North America. Apparantly, it is, or it was more common in Europe.

Thanks in advance

Before you get too excited about the method, the ACBL has ruling that this opening is inherently destructive and banned it at all levels of competition.

[paulg]

hrothgar, on Mar 5 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

Before you get too excited about the method, the ACBL has ruling that this opening is inherently destructive and banned it at all levels of competition.

Although the 2♥ variant is permitted at Mid Chart if it promises 5-5 (or better) or, in 6-board or longer rounds, 5-4 distribution (defense).

[Fluffy]

Scannian is the name I know, I use it with a strong 22-23 variant but 5-4 at least.

It happens very very little, maybe once every 100 deals or so, and even then, if playing MPs me and dad won't using on marginal hands since putting ourselves away form the field has proven wrong in the past.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Mar 5 2010, 10:36 PM, said:

Scannian is the name I know, I use it with a strong 22-23 variant but 5-4 at least.

It happens very very little, maybe once every 100 deals or so, and even then, if playing MPs me and dad won't using on marginal hands since putting ourselves away form the field has proven wrong in the past.

Assumed fit methods like Ekrens are much more frequent than 1% of all hands.

As I recall, as Dealer, the Frelling 2♦ cropped up on something like 6.8% of all hands.

[Fluffy]

yeah I should reword it: we open less that 1/100 hands because we need a very pure hand for it.

[gwnn]

I LOVED the (2♦) 4-4 variant. it was great fun and we got great results from it. 5-4 comes up much rarer. I think it is not entirely sound but it worked great in all fields I played it in. in BB or the Cavendish it could be a net loser but not in many other fields.

[lmilne]

I played 2♥ as 4/4+ majors 5-10 for quite a while in matchpoints. Had some very good results over the years (playing relatively weak players) and very few disasters.

The only reason I don't play it these days is because my whole 2-level structure has changed. I used to play 2♣ strong, 2♦ weak 2 either major, 2♥ weak both majors and 2♠ weak 5 spades 4+ minor. Now I play 2♣ 18-19 bal 2♦ GF so 2♥ doesn't fit in there so well.

Would still be cool to play 2♦ GF or weak 2 in hearts to free up 2♥ weak both majors. We really did get some fun boards playing that. Judgement is required on the weaker (and balanced) hands...

[the hog]

It is called Ekrens. You can find a write up on Chris Ryall's website.
Basically there are 2 variants, one beginning with 2D and the other with 2H.

[Free]

It's called 'Ekren' as said by others.

You even have another variant where 2♣ is opened (containing some strong hands as well).

- opening 2♣ has the advantage you'll get to your best fit every time (2♦ waiting, or 2M with preference)
- opening 2♥ puts pressure and they only have 1 cuebid at 2-level
- opening 2♦ is the worst since it doesn't have any of the advantages mentioned above.

I prefer the 2♥ variant.

Basically the 2-level responses are pretty obvious. Responding 2NT is a relay, like you relay after a weak two. You have various ways of responding to that, here's what I like to play:
3♣ = any min (implies at least 5-4, we don't open minimums with 4-4)
...3♦ asks to bid the 5-card
......3M = 5+M (we bid 3♥ with 5-5)
3♦ = max, 4-4
3♥ = max, 4♥, 5+♠
3♠ = max, 4♠, 5+♥
3NT = max, 5521 (singleton unknown)
4m = 5-5M, 3m
With 6-5 you can start bidding 3M and repeat the 'short' M at 4-level in case partner signs off.

[gwnn]

Well I disagree with that Free

If you agree that it can be 4-4, it will be 4-4 ridiculously often. So the 2♦ relay does not gain all that much. But opps now have 1 more step. If it is at least 9 cards, then I agree that 2♣ is superior to 2♦.

I agree that 2♥ will be harder to defend against than 2♦ but I am very much fond of natural weak twos in majors. It is difficult for me to think of a structure that adequately compensates for this shortcoming.

[Free]

gwnn, on Mar 6 2010, 09:32 AM, said:

Well I disagree with that Free

If you agree that it can be 4-4, it will be 4-4 ridiculously often. So the 2♦ relay does not gain all that much. But opps now have 1 more step. If it is at least 9 cards, then I agree that 2♣ is superior to 2♦.

I agree that 2♥ will be harder to defend against than 2♦ but I am very much fond of natural weak twos in majors. It is difficult for me to think of a structure that adequately compensates for this shortcoming.

Look at it another way. What do you prefer:
- weak two's and 2♦ as both Majors
- 2♦ mini multi, 2♥ as both Majors and whatever you want as 2♠
- or something else: 2♦ as weak ♥ / 55+♠-m ; 2♥ both Majors ; 2♠ weak two

[gwnn]

I prefer the first one But I admit I would almost equally like the second one also (with 4♠+5m as 2♠)

[the hog]

A lot of work has been done on this by a group in Australia. The best variant by far is 2D as both Majors. It is not forcing and can be passed, thus putting a lot of pressure on the opps. 2C is not so good as you lose your strong 2C opening, and 2H, well....
Of course you should open 4-4 even with mins if nv, otherwise you lose the whole point of playing implied fit pre empts. Again this makes the opps guess.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Mar 5 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

Before you get too excited about the method, the ACBL has ruling that this opening is inherently destructive and banned it at all levels of competition.

oh? What's so difficult about defending it? Playing 2♥ as Erken I would agree, but not in 2♦.

[gwnn]

At least to me, it's quite clear that the 4-4 variant is "destructive" and I am not even sure what destructive exactly means. I think under almost all reasonable definitions 2d as 8+ cards in the majors weak is destructive. I might argue that promising 54 is semi-constructive since sometimes it will be difficult to tell pd about your hand later. But if you want to ban destructive methods, Ekren 2D is one of the clearest examples.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Mar 7 2010, 12:06 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 5 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

Before you get too excited about the method, the ACBL has ruling that this opening is inherently destructive and banned it at all levels of competition.

oh? What's so difficult about defending it? Playing 2♥ as Erken I would agree, but not in 2♦.

Simply put, ACBL members are too stupid to be able to understand penalty doubles.

When I was trying to get a defense approved to assumed fit methods that could be based on a 4-4 pattern in the primary suits, the Conventions Committee insisted that defenses needed to be based on takeout doubles.

I commented that I was happy to try to come up with a good defense based on a takeout double, however, I also noted that the defenses that were normally used against these methods in the UK, Scandinavia, etc. typically used penalty oriented doubles.

The Conventions Committee decided that it was unreasonable to be able to expect ACBL members to understand / apply penalty doubles, so they decided to ban the methods.

[hrothgar]

In an amusing development, check out the most recent issue of the International Bridge Press Association.

http://www.ibpa.com/542ab.pdf