Opening 2 major with 4 cards and 5 or 6 in a minor

[Wackojack]

Anybody out there who can suggest a system of responses and follow-up bids for an opening bid in 2 of a major with a 4 card suit and 5 or 6 card minor say 11-16HCP? How common is this opening and does it have a name?

[inquiry]

My understanding is this is called Velociraptor (since raptor 1NT overcall shows a 4 card major and a longer minor, the name springs from that).

 

A reasonable follow up is new suits by partner is pass/correct. And 2NT by partner is an asking bid. Opener bids his minor with a minimum opening, and bids hearts with a maximum and clubs, and bids spades with a maximum and diamonds.

 

To be fair, I am not sure what the hcp range on Velociraptor might be, my assumption was that it was weak, not the 11-16 hcp you suggest.

 

This bid should be fairly rare, as I think it would be a brown sticker, but maybe someone who is up on this stuff could confirm that. To any extent, I don't think this is very playable especially if it contains opening strength.

[Echognome]

My understanding is this is called Velociraptor (since raptor 1NT overcall shows a 4 card major and a longer minor, the name springs from that).

 

A reasonable follow up is new suits by partner is pass/correct. And 2NT by partner is an asking bid. Opener bids his minor with a minimum opening, and bids hearts with a maximum and clubs, and bids spades with a maximum and diamonds.

 

To be fair, I am not sure what the hcp range on Velociraptor might be, my assumption was that it was weak, not the 11-16 hcp you suggest.

 

This bid should be fairly rare, as I think it would be a brown sticker, but maybe someone who is up on this stuff could confirm that. To any extent, I don't think this is very playable especially if it contains opening strength.

Well it certainly would get awards for having one of the cooler names.

 

As far as legality, in the EBU it would be legal at level 2 (read legal at all but the strictest beginner events), since it shows 4 cards in the bid suit at the 2-level. It would obviously be alertable.

 

I don't know its legality in the ACBL or the WBF, so I'll leave that to others.

[ulven]

I played this very opening some years back. ACBL was ok, we made it all the way to the Spingold semi (SweDanes / Wash DC 2002).

 

2M was 10-14 4-card M & 5+m. Responses:

2S = NF w/5+suit

2NT = FG®

3/4C = p/c

3D = FG w/4+supp & SHO m

3oM = INV w/6+suit

3M = mild INV w/4+supp

3NT = mild INV w/44+ in m’s & SHO M

4C = p/c

4D = 5+M-supp w/SHO oM

2NT = INV bph (3M = corr M w/max).

 

After 2M-2NT:

3C = 5+D

3D = 5422/7411

3H = 5+C & SHO oM

3S = 5C431D

3N = 6C421D

4C = 6C430D

After 3D then 3H asks down-the-line (3x = 22, 4m = 11)

After 3H then 3S asks (5431/6421/6430).

 

After 2M-(D):

Pass may be STR, RD asks for m, 2N is R and new is NAT NF.

 

We didn't have a fancy name for it. Worked pretty well, but occasional misfits cost. Didn't have any invite without support so over-/underbid those. Not a huge problem.

 

We were never caught doubled on a misfit and we played it for the duration of our partnership which was about 4 years, both on national and open team level.

 

/Ulf

[jtfanclub]

I don't know its legality in the ACBL or the WBF, so I'll leave that to others.

http://www.acbl.org/documentLibrary/units/convChart12_03.pdf

 

 

ALLOWED * * OPENING BIDS

 

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

 

-------------------------------------

 

So if BOTH suits are known, it's legal. Looks like if it's an 'unknown minor' it is not GCC legal.

 

You know, it would be amusing to have 2♦=6 diamonds + 4 spades, 2♥=6 hearts + 4 spades, and 2♠ = 6 clubs and 4 spades. Hearts? Who cares about hearts?

 

But I don't think that's what you were thinking of.

[Double !]

FWIW: I played 2M as showing 11-15 with 4M and 6+clubs as part of a precision partnership for matchpoints (to avoid losing the 4-4 major suit fix when responder/advancer didn't have sufficient values to respond 2D/2C)a really long time ago. We really didn't develop much in the way of follow-ups and, fortunately, didn't lose much by not having weak 2M available. We lost much more due to limited bridge skills. (This predated the publication of Matchpoint Precision: I am old--lololol). Nobody objected, the TD didn't say anything. But, I am impressed and mused to learn that the treatment is called "Velociraptor".....just confirms what I've said for a while, that "I'm a bidding dinosaur!".lolololol.

 

 

DHL

[rbforster]

6.  OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

 

So if BOTH suits are known, it's legal.  Looks like if it's an 'unknown minor' it is not GCC legal.

The part of GCC you quote is relevant to artificial bids showing two suits, maybe 2♦ for specifically ♥+♣ or something.

 

Natural opening bids, which under GCC include 4 card majors, are always allowed. Basically Wackojack's suggestion is to play canape openings of 2M. They are just as legal as canape openings at the one level I should think (which is to say viewed as odd, but probably tolerated. YMMV with regard to any particular director in the ACBL, as always).

 

Furthermore, specialized followups like a 2N asking bid or pass/correct responses are allowed as well (under "artificial and conventional calls after a 2♣+ opening") since this opening is not "weak" (weak 2 bids have restricted conventional followups if they are too wide-ranging or might have only a 4 card suit).

[jtfanclub]

The part of GCC you quote is relevant to artificial bids showing two suits, maybe 2♦ for specifically ♥+♣ or something.

Maybe you're right. The GCC isn't clear on it. This comes down to the Muilderberg question again- can you have a 2 level bid promise the suit called + an unknown suit?

 

I don't think you can. 'possible canape' is legal, but I don't think forced canape is. It may be natural, but it's also conventional.

[hrothgar]

The Frelling Two bid structure that I use features a 2♠ opening that shows either

 

1. a weak two bid in Spades or

2. a preemptive hand with 4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs (not 4=4=0=5 / 4=0=4=5)

 

Here's the response structure that I (currently) use

 

3♠ = 4+ Spades. Preemptive

 

3♥ = Natural, invitational

 

3♦ = Game invite in Spades

Forces 4♠ opposite a single suited hand

Range ask opposite a two suiter

 

3♣ = Pass or correct

With a single suited hand, opener will show a three card fragment

 

2NT = Asking bid

[helene_t]

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

 

This is not a BSC, and that for two reasons:

1) It shows at least 10 HCP

2) It shows a 4-card in a known suit.

[Gerben42]

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

 

Don't ask for logic please. NBOs can and do ban convention illogically.

 

Velociraptor is the same bid but below opening strength.

 

As for the question, as simpler response scheme than that of Ulf:

 

2NT: strong asking bid --> 3♣ min with ♣, 3♦ min with ♦, 3♥ max with ♣, 3♠ max with ♦

 

3♣: Pass or correct

3♦: Invite for the major

Other major: Natural forcing

 

BTW the name is mine :) I came up with it while playing against it versus Norwegian juniors (bloody annoying bid too)

[cherdano]

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

3 Steps:

1. Conventions are disallowed unless mentioned in the GCC.

2. Mention Mini-roman as allowed.

3. Don't mention any 2-suiters that do no promise 10 hcp.

[rbforster]

Maybe you're right.  The GCC isn't clear on it.  This comes down to the Muilderberg question again- can you have a 2 level bid promise the suit called + an unknown suit?

 

I don't think you can.  'possible canape' is legal, but I don't think forced canape is. 

GCC clear? Lol!

 

If for some reason one felt that promising a 2nd suit was troublesome, I developed some methods for weak bids that were either

 

1) 5+ in the suit bid and a 4+ side suit, or

2) 6+ in the suit bid with high standards on suit quality

 

For case (2), I would suggest either a 7222 shape unwilling to preempt at the 3 level, or a very good 6 card suit something like AQJTxx. In case (2), you can safely rebid your suit at the 3 level in response to a pass-or-correct or similar action by partner.

 

With this agreement, the bid is clearly natural and doesn't promise or deny a side suit. Pretty much the definition of a 5+ card weak 2 bid.

[mgoetze]

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

The bid in question is, obviously, destructive, whereas mini-roman is just self-destructive, which is OK.

 

(Note that I am using "destructive" in the ACBL sense of the word, not any usual sense.)

[MickyB]

Certainly legal in EBU+WBF.

 

Any response structure to a Dutch 2 (5M4+m weak) will work fine here. My preference is the same as Gerben's, except with 2♠:3♦ as INV+ with hearts and 2♠:3♥ as a generic invite to 4♠.

 

BTW, I think 11-16 is a bit of a wide range, and I suspect it will get you too high more often than 5M4+m would.

[paulg]

This does not look legal in the ACBL except at SuperChart.

 

The fact that there is a second suit means that this is not a natural call.

 

The lack of a known second suit is a problem at GCC.

 

It would be fine at Mid Chart if there were a defence available in the Defense Database.

 

It is fine at SuperChart (in the Spingold, etc.) as the opening values mean that it could not be considered a destructive convention.

 

I recommend you come to Scotland and practise, legally, here :(

 

Paul

[helene_t]

Hey, Jack is English, who cares about ACBL rules anyway.

[jdonn]

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

Why would the powers that be want to discourage their opponents from playing such a stupid convention? :)

[awm]

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

Why would the powers that be want to discourage their opponents from playing such a stupid convention? :)

Well it is randomizing... for example, I'm not allowed to play a convention where opening 3NT shows 6-8 balanced, even though it's obviously a dumb convention, just because I'll hand out tops and bottoms (well okay almost always tops) to the people who happen to play those particular boards against me.

 

Then again, maybe there should be rules against playing or bidding really badly for the same reason? :huh:

[cherdano]

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

Why would the powers that be want to discourage their opponents from playing such a stupid convention? :)

Well it is randomizing... for example, I'm not allowed to play a convention where opening 3NT shows 6-8 balanced, even though it's obviously a dumb convention, just because I'll hand out tops and bottoms (well okay almost always tops) to the people who happen to play those particular boards against me.

 

Then again, maybe there should be rules against playing or bidding really badly for the same reason? :huh:

I agree, there should be PP's for all self-inflicted below average boards.

[hrothgar]

Well it is randomizing... for example, I'm not allowed to play a convention where opening 3NT shows 6-8 balanced, even though it's obviously a dumb convention, just because I'll hand out tops and bottoms (well okay almost always tops) to the people who happen to play those particular boards against me.

Are you sure about this one? Given that we both live in North America, lets consider the legality of this method under the GCC

 

A 3NT opening that shows 6-8 balanced is a natural bid. Furthermore, this bid is not conventional. The bid does not need to be sanctioned by the GCC in order to be played.

 

Furthermore, the ACBL has not seen fit to ban this method. There are a number of cases where the ACBL has explictly banned certain methods. For example, a weak two suited opening that could be based on a 4-4 pattern has been described as destructive and banned. Furthermore, there ACBL has seen fit to use its power to regulate conventions to dissuade pairs from adopting certain natural methods that it disapproves of. (You can't use any conventions over a 1NT opening that could show 9 HCPs. You can't use any conventions after a wide ranging weak two bid)

 

I don't know of any explicit prohibition that would ban a 3NT opening based on 6-8 balanced. I have little doubt that folks would - probably - ban this if anyone started trying to play this seriously. However, I don't think that anyone has ever bothered to get around banning this one yet. For what its worth, I had one partner who tried to convince me to convince me that a white on red 2NT opening in 2nd seat should show 8- 10 balanced. He was convinced that that this had theoretical merit. As far as I could tell, this would have been completely legal. (this one was a bit too much, even for me)

 

The whole this is analogous to clause 4 under Allowed in the ACBL Midchart.

 

Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits.

 

This used to permit any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. However, once I started playing Frelling 2 bids in the ACBL and preemptiving with 4-4 patterns the COnventions Committee modified the sanction to neuter assumed fit methods.

[jtfanclub]

This used to permit any bid that showed 4+ cards in a known suit. However, once I started playing Frelling 2 bids in the ACBL and preemptiving with 4-4 patterns the COnventions Committee modified the sanction to neuter assumed fit methods.

[rant]Of course not. After all, if we made all of the mechanisms legal over a three card 1♣ that are legal over a Precision 1♣, the ACBL would have to find some other way to cheat in favor of Standard American[/rant]

 

In all seriousness, the General Convention Chart should just say 'all bids that show length in an unknown suit are banned unless specifically listed'. Even if there is a known 'anchor suit', if a bid also says that there's a second, unknown suit it's banned. Apparently, it scares people, or something.

 

 

Midchart speficially allows it- Hrothgar already pointed out the correct number.

[awm]

It's #1 under disallowed:

 

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods..

 

Admittedly this passage is very ambiguous and subject to interpretation. I think the basic idea though, is that there must be some reason to believe that a certain bid or agreement will improve my expected score on the board. There must be some substantial chance that this bid will lead to a contract which is either making or a good sacrifice against something the opposition can make. A bid which is simply destructive for the sake of being destructive, where I expect to go for a huge number and a lousy result most of the time (but where I introduce randomness for the sake of randomness) would be disallowed. I think this applies to the 6-8 point 3NT opening, or to automatically opening all weak hands in 3rd seat at the three-level (even if 4333) and so forth.

 

The general rule is that you "have to try to do well in the event" and that simply messing around for no reason (and randomizing the event) is not approved. This applies to designing your methods as well as to the play and defense. Of course, measuring intent is difficult -- hrothgar's former partner could argue that he really thought the 8-10 point 2NT opening would improve his results -- but at some point it becomes obvious that a convention is an attempt to randomize with a very poor expectation.

[redbird97]

I must play in a different circle. Not many people I play against play Mini-Roman

My question for the exotics is do you bother to pre alert and list reasonable suggested defenses? My experience in tournaments has been that people play these conventions for the "ambush value" of them. These methods are generally outlawed by the ACBL (which I am usually no friend of) as they are destructive. If you think about it, there is really not much of a need for opening some of these bids except for the fact that I am sure they are successful against LOL's.

[the hog]

I must play in a different circle. Not many people I play against play Mini-Roman

My question for the exotics is do you bother to pre alert and list reasonable suggested defenses? My experience in tournaments has been that people play these conventions for the "ambush value" of them. These methods are generally outlawed by the ACBL (which I am usually no friend of) as they are destructive. If you think about it, there is really not much of a need for opening some of these bids except for the fact that I am sure they are successful against LOL's.

Well, I will cast the cat amongst the pigeons here and ask, "Why can't I be allowed to play destructive methods in open competition?" As bridge is a game of bidding and card play, why can't I play methods designed to optimise my results by preventing the opponents from bidding to their best contract? I, for one, think this is perfectly legitimate.

 

As for providing defences, well I am not going to open that can of worms again.