Convention Name? 4-4 in Majors Weak

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[awm]

It's interesting reading Paul Marston complain about system regulations.

 

Realistically, Australia has some of the most lenient regulations of any major bridge organization. Yet Marston complaints that Australian youth bridge is not doing well.

 

If Marston's main point (system regulation is deterring young players from getting involved in bridge) held water, then you'd expect countries with very lenient regulations (i.e. Australia) to be doing better at attracting youth players (at least, better proportionate to the population or proportionate to the size of the bridge organization as a whole) than other countries with more strict regulations (i.e. the USA). While I don't have the statistics in front of me, it doesn't seem like this is really the case.

 

Anecdotally, there are a few young players who have lost interest in bridge due to system regulations. But before this ever happened, those young players had to be interested in bridge in the first place. I think the latter is the big stumbling block, and the aging tournament population is to some degree both cause and effect here.

[fred]

It's interesting reading Paul Marston complain about system regulations.

 

Realistically, Australia has some of the most lenient regulations of any major bridge organization. Yet Marston complaints that Australian youth bridge is not doing well.

 

If Marston's main point (system regulation is deterring young players from getting involved in bridge) held water, then you'd expect countries with very lenient regulations (i.e. Australia) to be doing better at attracting youth players (at least, better proportionate to the population or proportionate to the size of the bridge organization as a whole) than other countries with more strict regulations (i.e. the USA). While I don't have the statistics in front of me, it doesn't seem like this is really the case.

 

Anecdotally, there are a few young players who have lost interest in bridge due to system regulations. But before this ever happened, those young players had to be interested in bridge in the first place. I think the latter is the big stumbling block, and the aging tournament population is to some degree both cause and effect here.

Agree. IMO Marston's letter is transparently self-serving. To me he is obviously trying to get what he wants by creating a false linkage between this and a problem that is near and dear to all of our hearts (the uncertain future of bridge).

 

You hit the nail on the head: the key to solving this problem is to get more young people to try bridge in the first place.

 

I already wrote a letter to the editor of the IBPA Bulletin to that effect. It will be interesting to see if they print it in the next issue.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

Much as I am not a big fan of bidding regulations, I can't help but think that article took a relatively extreme position. As far as I can see, young people are not coming into the game in any significant numbers - so if they never make contact in the first place then the exact rules and regulations, be they good or bad, can't be that much of a factor.

 

When I was in my teens, we played cards at home - not Bridge, but most other things. Television still had only 3 channels and it stopped broadcasting late at night. Personal computers weren't invented. And a huge factor is that I went to a school where there was a teacher keen to be in charge of the bridge club. Of the 4 of us that represented our school that year, I know that at least one other is still playing (and writes for a regional newspaper). I know also that someone else from an earlier year went on to become the EBU's youth development officer for a while. So that one teacher had a huge effect on the game.

 

Marston mentions the fact that Chess still seems to have some healthy numbers of younger paticipants - but where I am schools still have chess clubs - I can't see any of them having bridge clubs. Maybe they do in some places - but not at the schools my kids have only relatively recently stopped attending.

 

If people want to argue that bidding regulations stifle development of bidding theory and may put off some from staying in the game - yeah - maybe. I'd really like to hear the opinion in this regard of some of the younger people who write on these forums.

 

Nick

[hrothgar]

It's interesting reading Paul Marston complain about system regulations.

 

Realistically, Australia has some of the most lenient regulations of any major bridge organization. Yet Marston complaints that Australian youth bridge is not doing well.

 

If Marston's main point (system regulation is deterring young players from getting involved in bridge) held water, then you'd expect countries with very lenient regulations (i.e. Australia) to be doing better at attracting youth players (at least, better proportionate to the population or proportionate to the size of the bridge organization as a whole) than other countries with more strict regulations (i.e. the USA). While I don't have the statistics in front of me, it doesn't seem like this is really the case.

 

Anecdotally, there are a few young players who have lost interest in bridge due to system regulations. But before this ever happened, those young players had to be interested in bridge in the first place. I think the latter is the big stumbling block, and the aging tournament population is to some degree both cause and effect here.

Agree. IMO Marston's letter is transparently self-serving. To me he is obviously trying to get what he wants by creating a false linkage between this and a problem that is near and dear to all of our hearts (the uncertain future of bridge).

 

You hit the nail on the head: the key to solving this problem is to get more young people to try bridge in the first place.

 

I already wrote a letter to the editor of the IBPA Bulletin to that effect. It will be interesting to see if they print it in the next issue.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

What's so amusing about this is that your argument and Paul's argument are (essentially) identical...

 

Paul is arguing that the Convention Regulations are overly complicated and the complexity / lack of logic is driving folks away...

 

You seem to be claiming that the Conventions themselves are overly complicated, and the complexity / incomprehensibility is driving folks away...

[blackshoe]

I wonder if there's a connection with "teachers keen to to be in charge of the bridge club". I know some teachers around here, some even who know how to play bridge. But they don't play very often, they don't play duplicate at all, and they aren't interested in being in charge of the bridge club. I've also discovered that it's pretty much true that if you can't get a teacher to back you, you aren't going to even get a foot in the door, if you're some random citizen who just wants to introduce school kids to bridge.

 

I think there's a place for "anything goes" games, but I don't think all games should be "bidding regulation free".