FRAction

[CSGibson]

I have an interesting convention that was invented by Ed Freeman, a Portland bridge pro, and I wanted to share it and solicit thoughts.

 

The name of the convention is FRAction, or Freeman's Action over NT

 

The idea behind the convention is that a competent declarer will usually get a 60% for declaring 1NT, so it is in the best interest of the defenders to have a way to dislodge him from that contract. The convention is only played in the passout seat over a 1 NT opener.

 

2♣ is any 3 suited hand including clubs

2♦ is any 3 suited hand without clubs

2♥ & 2♠ are natural

X is any two suited hand, usually about 10 HCP or better, but sometimes with a well-spotted 8 count

 

An example:

 

[hv=s=sjtxxhqtxxdxxckjx]133|100|[/hv]

This is a typical 2♣ bid in the system

 

Using it has achieved some surprisingly good results, especially when you are able to pass the X for penalties

[Mbodell]

Is it only played when pass out hand is a passed hand or is it also played on 1NT - P - P?

 

It seems like it would have least downside if played only when a passed hand.

[CSGibson]

it is played after any 1NT-pass-pass auction. The three suited calls, which are the most frequently made calls when using the system, are usually expected to be hands that are less good than hands that would X.

[1eyedjack]

I have an interesting convention that was invented by Ed Freeman, a Portland bridge pro

I thought that "convention" and "Portand bridge ♣" were anathema to one another.

The idea behind the convention is that a competent declarer will usually get a 60% for declaring 1NT

Is this generally regarded as uncontentious? Are we allowed to assume competent defenders as well as a competent declarer?

Presumably existing defences (other than FRAction) must be pretty effective, in that case, as their methods that disturb the other 40% of pairs who are denied the chance of playing in 1NT are already rating to beat them. Or am I missing something there? But that being the case, the argument in favour of FRAction should be judged against other prevailing defences.

 

Still, I agree that it is interesting. I wonder whether the strength of the 1NT opener is relevant to its effectiveness. Against a 10-12 1NT you may want to reserve the double (in protective seat) to show general strength, either to penalise the opener or to develop constructive continuations if someone bids again.

[glen]

2♦ is any 3 suited hand without clubs

This is like the "clubs and a higher suit" description (is there a lower suit?).

 

Isn't the "any 3 suited hand without clubs" 2♦ just three suited ♦s+♥s+♠s since that is the only one possible without ♣s?

[mycroft]

See Lionel over NT for another idea (in particular, X=Spades and another, 4-4+, 11+HCP . Lots of 1NT-X-p-p and 1NT-p-p-X; p-p, and they tend to be more successful with 11 opposite 10 than with 16 opposite 6).

 

Marty Bergen's DONT philosophy is the same - if there's any shape out there, 1NT AP is odds-on to be a good score. So get in there if you have any safety.

 

I know several people who say "the only people who play 1NT white at matchpoints are us." I'm not that extreme, but I will do my best to dislodge them. Yeah, I've got my share of 800s (and worse yet, 200s into partscore). I'm still up.

 

Michael.

[awm]

I'd like to see some analysis of MP results for declaring 1NT... personally I feel that I often get a good result on defense against a 1NT contract.

 

Also note that while it may be true that as Mycroft says (quoting Bergen): "if there's any shape out there, 1NT AP is odds-on to be a good score" these 4432 patterns that people want to bid on don't really look like shape to me.

 

And while I may be due a 60% board for declaring 1NT at MP, I bet my MP score when opponents bid DONT over me is way higher. :unsure:

[EricK]

This is what I know of as Cansino except the penalty double has been replaced by the two suited double.