Defense to Ekrens

[Cascade]

I hope I have this right that a 2♦ opening bid is Ekrens showing both majors.

 

Anyway what defensive measures do you play?

 

I have been doubling with balanced or nearly balanced hands (possibly including a normal minimum minor suit overcall). If you do anything like this what is your minimum requirement for the double.

 

Here is the hand that inspired this question:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sa7ha8763d10984ca7]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(2♦) ?[/hv]

 

Do you have too many hearts to double or not enough strength or some combination thereof?

[Echognome]

Does anyone still play 2♦ for Ekrens? Yuck.

 

We've had the debate before about whether 2♣ or 2♥ is better. I prefer 2♣, but I'm sure almost everyone prefers either one of those to 2♦.

 

Over a 2♦ Ekrens, I would play more of a multi-like defense. Over a 2♥ Ekrens it's much harder.

[Guest Jlall]

This hand is both not good enough to X and has too many hearts (or rather too few of everything else).

[joshs]

I am slightly partial to:

x= 13+ balanced or close to balanced. X then 2N=16-18. x then the other major is natural, 5+ cards. x then x is takeout.

Over 2D-x-2M I play the same methods as over 1N-2M-? (so for me thats x-fer leb, but perhaps better minor leb is a better treatment here).

 

2H=Strong Club bid

2S=Strong Diamond bid

2N=Minors, medium hand or good defense

3m=Natural, Sound but Limited, usually 6 cards

3M=Shortage, both minors, good hand, extra offense

 

I think the hand in question is barely good enough to x with. But I didn't notice the vul.

 

Anyway, this treatment is not very common in the US. 2H for the majors is much more common. Being the conservative sort I like 2C for the majors best (sincet here is room to ask preference), and 2H 2'nd best and hate 2D for the majors (e.g. Capp)....

[BillHiggin]

I am slightly partial to:

x= 13+ balanced or close to balanced. X then 2N=16-18. x then the other major is natural, 5+ cards. x then x is takeout.

Over 2D-x-2M I play the same methods as over 1N-2M-? (so for me thats x-fer leb, but perhaps better minor leb is a better treatment here).

 

2H=Strong Club bid

2S=Strong Diamond bid

2N=Minors, medium hand or good defense

3m=Natural, Sound but Limited, usually 6 cards

3M=Shortage, both minors, good hand, extra offense

 

I think the hand in question is barely good enough to x with. But I didn't notice the vul.

 

Anyway, this treatment is not very common in the US. 2H for the majors is much more common. Being the conservative sort I like 2C for the majors best (sincet here is room to ask preference), and 2H 2'nd best and hate 2D for the majors (e.g. Capp)....

That is pretty much my preference. Based on "whatever we do over 1N (2D-capp) is what we do over (2D-ekrens)" where we pretend partner opened a 7-9 1N in front of the ekrens bid. Dealing with most preempts based on the expectation of that much strength opposite seems about right and at least gives partner a reference point to work from.

[lowerline]

I hope I have this right that a 2♦ opening bid is Ekrens showing both majors.

 

Anyway what defensive measures do you play?

 

I have been doubling with balanced or nearly balanced hands (possibly including a normal minimum minor suit overcall). If you do anything like this what is your minimum requirement for the double.

 

Here is the hand that inspired this question:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sa7ha8763d10984ca7]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(2♦) ?[/hv]

 

Do you have too many hearts to double or not enough strength or some combination thereof?

dbl = 12-15 balanced OR 18/19+

2M = fragment with 54 in the minors

2NT = 16-18 balanced

3x = good 6crd suit (13-17)

3NT = gambling

4♣ = minors (NF)

4♦ = minors (SI)

4M = to play

4NT = minors (not SI)

 

Hands not good enough to overcall 3x pass, but can bid a competitive 3x later.

 

The example hand is a clear pass (where are you going?).

 

Steven

[Free]

I play regularly against this type of openings (usually 2♣ or 2♥ however) as well as 2♣ interventions after 1NT openings showing both Majors, and in both cases I'm regularly robbed of a Major suit fit. This is why I think it's a good thing to be able to bid your Major naturally and constructive, even if RHO has them! If you have good trumps, at least you know the trump position from the start :)

[Trinidad]

Against Ekrens, I prefer to play Dbl as takeout of hearts (or strong) and everything else as natural. (OK, a jump to 3M asks for a stop.) In sixth seat, a Dbl is takeout of spades and 2NT shows both minors, suit bids are "balancing".

 

I think it is important to keep a bid of 2M as natural. Just because an opponent has shown a four card major, that doesn't mean that we have to give up on getting to 4M. In fact, if we get there, I will be ahead of the field since I know of the 4-1/5-0/4-0 trump break.

 

Against a Flannery 2♦ opening, it is fairly standard to play 2♠ as natural. And then the opponents have actually shown an opening bid. Against Ekrens, the odds that you belong in 4M are considerably higher (since the Ekrens bid is weaker than Flannery). Therefore, it is only logical to play 2M as natural when defending against Ekrens.

 

Rik

[JanM]

Does anyone still play 2♦ for Ekrens?  Yuck.

 

We've had the debate before about whether 2♣ or 2♥ is better.  I prefer 2♣, but I'm sure almost everyone prefers either one of those to 2♦.

Well, in the Bermuda Bowl, there are 9 pairs playing 2♦ as weak with both majors, 6 pairs playing 2♥ as weak with both Majors (that's including one pair that plays it as either Flannery or weak both majors) and none playing 2♣ as weak with both majors (unless they didn't put it on the front of the cards and I missed it in my first run through the backs, but I'm pretty sure about it).

 

In case anyone wonders whether this relates to country, the 9 2♦ pairs are 3 each from Australia and Chinese Taipei, and one each from Norway, Poland & US. The 6 2♥ pairs are from Argentina, Canada, China, Japan, Netherlands and Poland.

 

Thanks for the defense suggestions, as we're just working on that :lol:.

 

Over a 2♦ Ekrens, I would play more of a multi-like defense.  Over a 2♥ Ekrens it's much harder.

I agree, although I think I'd say it's impossible to play a 2-way type double over 2♥ both Majors (having tried to figure out a defense that would work against both and failed).

[skjaeran]

We double with a sound balanced/semibalanced opening. If minimum we tend to have at least 3-3 in the majors, can be less if stronger.

 

We play lebensohl after the double.

 

Later doubles by both hands are for penalties.

 

Overcalls are natural, 2NT is natural but minor oriented (often 2-2(54)).

 

What happens most frequently after an Ekren is that we double them, lead trumps and score more than we'd score in a game. The usual exception to this is thatthey have a good fit. Then advancer will have to take a decision at the 4-level (if it's our hand), and that's not always the easiest thing to get right.

[Cascade]

We double with a sound balanced/semibalanced opening. If minimum we tend to have at least 3-3 in the majors, can be less if stronger.

 

We play lebensohl after the double.

 

Later doubles by both hands are for penalties.

 

Overcalls are natural, 2NT is natural but minor oriented (often 2-2(54)).

 

What happens most frequently after an Ekren is that we double them, lead trumps and score more than we'd score in a game. The usual exception to this is thatthey have a good fit. Then advancer will have to take a decision at the 4-level (if it's our hand), and that's not always the easiest thing to get right.

My preliminary analysis suggested that fewer major cards were better for a balanced double e.g. the hand at the beginning of this post if I swap a small heart for a small club then it was more likely that 3NT was a reasonable contract.

 

However I guess if you aim your subsequent bidding on penalizing them then length in the majors is better.

[Echognome]

I agree with an aim towards penalizing. Presumed fit preempts can be ripped apart when they do not have the balanced of power. Unlike single-suited preempts, there is no guarantee of tricks from length. That 4-4 fit while useful for game, is not so useful when it turns out to be worth 3 tricks after opponents have led them 3 times.