Introducing a new convention: Lee Two Diamonds

[hrothgar]

The numeric one has been away for a long time.

 

His initial post has been constructive.

I see no reason to immediately dig up old dirt.

[kwiktrix]

Not having the free time to peruse your 187 page tome (is it available as an ePub on Amazon?) covering one infrequent eponymous bid (note that other major conventions named after their 'inventors' were named by 3rd parties, Jacoby and Stayman did not name their own conventions), I can't help but notice that you don't have a Section relating to "Dealing with Interference". Since responder doesn't know what opener has until opener rebids, what does responder do in the following auction, one that would be not be unusual after a 2D opening?

 

2D (3C) ??

 

Give responder (H=A/K):

1) x Hxx Hxxxx Hxxx

2) xx xxx Hxxxx Hxx

3) x Hxxxx Hxx Hxxx

4) x Hxxx Hxxxx xxx

 

What do you respond in each case? 3H or 3D or P?

 

Now give opener the 64M hand (which based on the overcall is more likely than not in each of these four cases), and continue the auction after your response:

 

2D (3C) ?? (5C)

 

Wow - I wish I'd opened 1M. At least responder could have added some value to the auction...

 

In fairness, you appear to have invested a considerable amount of time in developing a self-named conventional bid that occurs far less frequently than either a multi 2D (with 5+M) or a simple weak 2D (with 5+D), yet supersedes very descriptive openings like 1M (or 1oM canape), 2D, 3D, or 2N. I applaud the effort.

 

Unfortunately, I won't use it - besides the lack of any tangible benefit within any system I've ever played, it doesn't even come close to being legal for GCC or Mid-Chart play in the ACBL, either as an opening bid or a direct overcall over 1N.

 

Kurt

[Vampyr]

Not having the free time to peruse your 187 page tome (is it available as an ePub on Amazon?) covering one infrequent eponymous bid (note that other major conventions named after their 'inventors' were named by 3rd parties, Jacoby and Stayman did not name their own conventions), I can't help but notice that you don't have a Section relating to "Dealing with Interference". Since responder doesn't know what opener has until opener rebids, what does responder do in the following auction, one that would be not be unusual after a 2D opening?

 

2D (3C) ??

 

Give responder (H=A/K):

1) x Hxx Hxxxx Hxxx

2) xx xxx Hxxxx Hxx

3) x Hxxxx Hxx Hxxx

4) x Hxxx Hxxxx xxx

 

What do you respond in each case? 3H or 3D or P?

 

Now give opener the 64M hand (which based on the overcall is more likely than not in each of these four cases), and continue the auction after your response:

 

2D (3C) ?? (5C)

 

Wow - I wish I'd opened 1M. At least responder could have added some value to the auction...

 

In fairness, you appear to have invested a considerable amount of time in developing a self-named conventional bid that occurs far less frequently than either a multi 2D (with 5+M) or a simple weak 2D (with 5+D), yet supersedes very descriptive openings like 1M (or 1oM canape), 2D, 3D, or 2N. I applaud the effort.

 

Unfortunately, I won't use it - besides the lack of any tangible benefit within any system I've ever played, it doesn't even come close to being legal for GCC or Mid-Chart play in the ACBL, either as an opening bid or a direct overcall over 1N.

 

Kurt

 

Surely you can play any method you like over an opening 1NT, even in the ACBL?

[sfi]

Surely you can play any method you like over an opening 1NT, even in the ACBL?

 

That's just crazy talk. It's only recently that you could use a devastating weapon like 2D = single-suited major.

[Zelandakh]

That's just crazy talk. It's only recently that you could use a devastating weapon like 2D = single-suited major.

It is not that much longer that the EBU has allowed such weirdness as conventional (non-penalty) doubles against 1NT. David Stevenson's 1NT defence list used to provide a reference as to which defences were legal under the GCC and EBU Level 3 to assist with this.

[kwiktrix]

Surely you can play any method you like over an opening 1NT, even in the ACBL?

Over 1N, it was only as recently as AUG2016 that 2D could even be a true 'multi' (either major). Otherwise it has to have at least one known anchor suit. And for Dan's edification that's 100% known - not 76%...

 

However, the ACBL allows any 'non-destructive' method as a defense to an artificial opening. So defenses to strong 1C or 2C (or even any short club that does not meet the exacting 4=4=3=2 natural standard) can be as aggressive as one desires. In my case, I like super-canapé 1M with psycho-suction 1N-2N.

[mycroft]

Of course, in 1990, you could play any defence you wanted to natural 1NT openers on the GCC...

 

And, yes, you can play anything you like after *your side* has opened a natural 1NT (barring the evil ones. Expect that with the revisions, that will go away, because you will no longer be allowed to open the evil ones).

[32519]

AN EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER ONE

 

Let us take a look at what the teams participating in the 2011 Bermuda Bowl used the 2♦ bid for. With 22 teams participating and three pairs per team gives us 66 convention cards to scrutinize. The players were the top representatives from their respective countries and therefore whatever they used the 2♦ bid for was considered to be a reasonable barometer as to what others can expect to use it for. Below is a summary of what was found:

 

25 = Multi (this was predominantly the “weak only” version)

17 = Natural Weak 2♦

4 = Ekrens

3 = Flannery

5 = Mexican

2 = Precision

5 = ACOL 2

5 = Other

66

 

This same data can be represented differently:

25.8% = Natural Weak 2♦

22.7% = Value showing bid (Flannery, Mexican, Precision, ACOL 2)

48.5% = Sub Total

43.9% = Multi / Ekrens

7.6% = Other

100.0% = Total

 

 

 

 

With 25 pairs playing Multi, it is necessary to also look at what the 2♥ and 2♠ bids were used for.

 

32 = Weak 2♥

9 = Constructive 2♥

14 = Some form of Muiderberg (5X♥ / 4+m)

2 = Precision

9 = Other

66 = Total

 

35 = Weak 2♠

8 = Constructive 2♠

15 = Some form of Muiderberg (5X♠ / 4+m)

8 = Other

66 = Total

 

These figures make for some interesting reading. The 25 pairs with Multi on their convention cards were predominantly playing the “weak only” version. The 2♦ bid showed a weak two in either major. The 2♥ and 2♠ bids respectively were being used for either, a constructive (sound) opening, or showing a two-suited hand.

 

Richard Pavlicek has compared opening bid choices in 65 major events from 1996 to 2012. Source data consists of 66,652 results (33,326 deals) from vugraph archives of the Vanderbilt, Spingold, U.S. Championship and World Team Championship. For each comparison, results are shown in four time spans: past four years, past eight years, past 12 years, and all data (17 years). Changing percentages and/or winners over time sometimes reveals a trend. Among this data is a comparison of what the 2♦ bid was used for.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what he found:

 

1. Flannery versus not

 

Year Winner Boards IMP Percent WLT Percent

2009-2012 Flannery 54 159-96 = 62.35 23-17-14 = 55.56

2005-2012 Flannery 74 221-143 = 60.71 30-27-17 = 52.03

2001-2012 Flannery 91 255-179 = 58.76 36-34-21 = 51.10

1996-2012 Flannery 109 314-224 = 58.36 42-41-26 = 50.46

 

2. Multi versus not

 

Year Winner Boards IMP Percent WLT Percent

2009-2012 Not 97 223-199 = 52.84 33-35-29 = 48.97

2005-2012 Multi 165 371-362 = 50.61 61-55-49 = 51.82

2001-2012 Multi 237 548-476 = 53.52 92-76-69 = 53.38

1996-2012 Multi 293 695-642 = 51.98 109-102-82 = 51.19

 

3. Weak 2♦ versus not

 

Year Winner Boards IMP Percent WLT Percent

2009-2012 Weak 2D 88 268-167 = 61.61 43-27-18 = 59.09

2005-2012 Weak 2D 139 377-297 = 55.93 59-46-34 = 54.68

2001-2012 Weak 2D 178 481-309 = 60.89 82-49-47 = 59.27

1996-2012 Weak 2D 211 552-388 = 58.72 96-64-51 = 57.58

Of these three tables, the one “Multi versus not,” shows a very interesting trend. There is a steady decline in the number of hands being opened Multi in the events from which this data was gathered. But even more interesting is the fact that over the four most recent years, 2009-2012, Multi openings were an overall loser. This must surely be ascribed to the fact that more and more top-class players are exploiting all the inherent weaknesses of the Multi to their advantage. Players are no longer wary of the bid. Also defences against it are becoming more sophisticated.

 

Clearly the Multi as it was originally designed has lost its allure, now being used primarily as “weak only.” Yet the author still believes that a multi purpose bid which caters for different and/or awkward hand patterns which have a lower frequency of occurrence should still have a place in every bidding system. Grouping them together into a single bid makes the use of the bid more attractive. So what exactly are some of these hand patterns and how can they be included into a multi purpose bid? That is the subject of this book: The Multi Two Diamonds – Revisited and Reengineered as Lee Two Diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

Noone seriously believes that opening a Multi 2♦ is better than opening a natural Weak 2. The point of using the Multi is to be reclaim the 2M openings for another purpose. Many pairs believe that the overall package is then stronger than Weak 2M openings plus some 2♦ opening. But you should know this - it has been pointed out to you enough times. It is also notable that no pair is using your convention in one of the few events that would actually allow it (given that it is Brown Sticker).

[gwnn]

what about the Secret Bridge Olympics?

[johnu]

I am shocked that unlike fine wine, the Lee Two Diamonds convention is not more appealing with age.

[32519]

EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER 9

 

THE LEE 2♦ AS A DEFENCE TO THE OPPONENTS 1NT

 

Over the years literally dozens of different defences to the opponents 1NT opening bid have been developed. Most of these defences have two things in common, a) they attempt to describe as many different hand patterns as possible by the player sitting in the direct seat, and b) they are focused towards showing major suit 2-suited hands. The Lee 2♦ convention can be added to this long list of defensive agreements by making some minor adjustments as to what a 2♦ overcall of the 1NT bid promises, and then adding a meaning to what the following bids mean, a) double, b) 2♣, c) 2♥, d) 2♠ and e) 2NT. Any bid above 2NT would be considered to be a natural pre-empt based on suit quality and vulnerability.

 

Retentions, adjustments and additions to what a Lee 2♦ overcall means:

1. As the opponents have opened the bidding with 1NT, the natural weak 2♦ option falls away.

2. The strong major suit orientated hands and the strong minor suit orientated hands need to be separately identifiable to facilitate the continuation bidding. To this end a 2♦ overcall is reserved for all major suit orientated hands of opening strength or better, with some further adjustments and additions –

a. The big 6/4 hand pattern, 10-15 HCP is retained

b. Big 5/5 hand patterns, 10-15 HCP get included

c. Big 5/4 or 4/5 Flannery type hand patterns, 11-15 HCP get included

d. The big 4441 hand pattern, 16+ HCP is retained but with the following adjustments, a) it guarantees that the singleton is in either minor suit, and b) the HCP range gets lowered to 12+ HCP in order to raise the frequency of occurrence. When the singleton is in either major suit, the player in the direct seat may have no other choice than to defend.

All of the above hand patterns have been adjusted to meet the requirements of the Rule of Twenty.

3. The big 5/5 hand pattern in the minors, 14+ HCP is retained but it gets moved out of the 2♦ bid into the 2NT bid. Since the opponents have opened the bidding with 1NT, a natural overcall of 2NT is not required.

4. The natural Weak Two in Diamonds is not altogether lost, as, in the same way as the rest of the convention, partner is allowed to pass the 2♦ overcall with a hand that is completely useless outside of a diamond contract.

 

The meaning of the additional bids included into this defensive agreement to the opponents 1NT opening bid are –

1. Double = single suited hand in either minor suit. Partner is requested to bid 2♣ as pass/correct.

2. 2♣ = any 5/4 or better holding in a competitive hand better suited for offence than for defence, whether that be above or below opening strength values, but with this proviso – it guarantees that the 5-card suit is in either major. A 5/4 holding in the majors below opening strength values is also possible.

3. 2♥/2♠ = natural and a 6-card suit

4. 2NT = 5/5 in the minors, 14+ HCP

 

Let’s look at some typical auctions:

 

A takeout double of the 1NT opening bid shows a single suited hand in either minor. Partner is required to bid 2♣ as pass/correct, unless holding a single suited hand in the majors. Obviously major suits score better, and partner can choose to play in his own suit. The author does not want to be prescriptive to any partnership as to, a) the overall suit quality of the minor, and b) the overall hand strength required for the takeout double. The times when the opponents allow you to play in 2m will be few, and then more often than not, every time opener’s partner is very weak implying that between the doubler and his partner, a fair amount of the remaining HCP are held.

[Zelandakh]

The 2♦ overcall is way overloaded here. You cannot both play in the long major and sort out the right fit with both majors, which is going to come up a lot. You would be better off taking out the 5-4 and 5-5 major 2-suited hands into 2♣ (instead of splitting these by range), whereupon you are only playing a weaker form of Multi-Landy rather than something completely unworkable.

[32519]

CHAPTER 10

 

WHY ALSO A 7-CARD DIAMOND SUIT IN THE OPENING BID?

 

The hand below occurred during a club game at the beginning of 2014. The actual bidding and result are included:

___________________________________________________________

 

West North East South Hand 1 North

P P E-W Vul S AKJ543

P 2C P 3H H 7

P 3S P 4S D AKQT97

P 4NT P 5D West C -- East

P 5H P 5S S Q S T62

P P P H T8652 H AQ

D J65 D 842

C A532 South C QT874

S 987

H KJ943

5S North D 3 Made 6

Lead: D8 C KJ96 +480

___________________________________________________________

 

Our system agreements for the continuation bidding structure after a 2♣ opening bid are briefly summarised as follows –

• 2♦ = any positive response, 4-7 HCP

• 2♥ = the so-called “double-negative,” 0-3 HCP

• 2♠ = natural, 5-card suit, 8+ HCP

• 2N = natural, balanced, 8-10 HCP

• 3♣ = natural, 5-card suit, 8+ HCP

• 3♦ = natural, 5-card suit, 8+ HCP

• 3♥ = natural, 5-card suit, 8+ HCP

• 3N = natural, balanced, 11-13 HCP, forcing to small slam

 

In the auction posted, 4NT was asking about keycards, 5♦ showed zero, 5♥ was asking about the ♠Q, and 5♠ was a signoff denying holding it. The hand was soon forgotten until a few weeks later a similar hand was picked up at another club game. This is what happened:

 

___________________________________________________________

 

West North East South Hand 2 North

P P 2C None Vul S J732

3C P P 3D H 98742

P 3H P 3S D --

P P P West C 8653 East

S 95 S 64

H KQ53 H JT6

D J D KQ873

C AQT972 South C KJ4

S AKQT8

H A

3S South D AT96542 Made 6

Lead: HK C -- +230

___________________________________________________________

 

Both contracts made 12 tricks, although slam was bid in neither. In hand 1 at least we reached game, not so with hand 2. Hand 2 was further muddied by West’s overcall. With both hands, at minimum you want to drive to game in either of your two suits. It was after hand 2 that we started sharing ideas with each other about how our system agreements need to be amended to adequately describe these big 2-suited hand types. We also embarked on a process of collecting actual hands from actual club games to see whether our amended system agreements would get us to the optimal contract. Our initial ideas have already undergone a number of further modifications as more actual hands exposed new problems in bidding them. At this point it needs to be emphasised that our current system agreements which follow for bidding these hand types is by no means final. They are presented here for two reasons, a) why the 2♦ opening bid may include a 7-card diamond suit, and b) for others to consider and develop further for possible inclusion into their own partnership agreements.

This is where we currently stand regarding big 2-suited hands which want to, at minimum, drive to game in either suit. Thus far it is always for a major/minor 2-suiter, and always at minimum a 6/5 holding.

• 3♠ = natural, 7-card suit, 6-11 HCP NV, 9-11 HCP V

• 3♥ = transfer to 3♠, big 2-suiter, spades and an undisclosed minor

• 3♦ = transfer to 3♥, one of two possible hand patterns

o a 7-card heart suit, 6-11 HCP NV, 9-11 HCP V, or

o a big 2-suiter, hearts and an undisclosed minor

• 3♣ = natural, 7-card suit, 6-11 HCP NV, 9-11 HCP V

• 2N = natural, 20-21 HCP, balanced

This scheme does have two downsides, a) we lose a natural 3♦ pre-empt which has a much higher frequency of occurrence than big 2-suited hands, and b) it allows the opponents to double the 3♦ bid to show holding the suit at no expense to themselves. The upside is that we don’t lose the 3♦ pre-empt altogether as the 7-card suit lands up in the 2♦ opening bid.

 

Let’s look at some more hands from actual club games and the further modifications which this scheme has already undergone.

___________________________________________________________

 

West North East South Hand 3 North

3H P 3S 4D None Vul S A86

5C P 5S P H Q8532

P P D 43

West C 972 East

S KQJ753 S T42

H J6 H AT74

D -- D 876

C AKQJ8 South C 654

S 9

H K9

5S East D AKQJT952 Made 5

Lead: DA C T3 +450

___________________________________________________________

 

On this hand the transfer opening bid worked well. East had a 3-card fit in both of opener’s suits and knew that the ♥A was covering one of the 2-cards outside of the big 2-suiter. A final contract of 5♦X only fails by 1 trick.

 

___________________________________________________________

 

West North East South Hand 4 North

P E-W Vul S AJT65

3D P 3H P H 9

4D P 4H P D 75

P P West C QT982 East

S K S 9742

H AK643 H 82

D AKQT98 D J43

C 5 South C AJ74

S Q83

H QJT75

4H East D 62 Down 1

Lead: HQ C K63 -100

___________________________________________________________

 

On this hand East tried for the heart game, knowing again that the ♣A was taking care of one of opener’s 2-cards outside of the big 2-suiter. The contract failed by one on a bad trump break, compounded by the fact that declarer was playing in a 5-2 trump fit.

___________________________________________________________

 

West North East South Hand 5 North

3H P 3S E-W Vul S AKQT763

P 4D P 5D H 3

P 6D P P D AQJ72

P West C -- East

S J8 S 954

H 94 H Q872

D T654 D K

C AKQ93 South C T8765

S 2

H AKJT65

6D North D 983 Made 6

Lead: CT C J42 +920

___________________________________________________________

 

Here South has an obvious preference for the diamond suit which North raised to 6♦ based on the club void. Only 7/14 tables managed to reach the slam.

The final two hands presented in this chapter are included to show the modifications which the original ideas have undergone. They too are actual hands from club games.

___________________________________________________________

 

West North East South Hand 6 North

P None Vul S T753

3H P 4C P H 98752

5C P P P D 52

West C A9 East

S AKJ864 S 9

H A H QT6

D AKT93 D J7

C 3 South C KQJT842

S Q2

H KJ43

5C East D Q864 Made 5

Lead: H3 C 765 +400

___________________________________________________________

 

In this hand, East, who can see a major catastrophe looming on obvious misfitting hands, breaks the transfer by bidding his own long suit. The premise is straightforward; the hand is going to be of little use to West in either a spade or diamond contract, whereas the West hand is going to be able to provide tricks for the East hand in the said suits. Despite holding only the measly ♣3, North raises to game as he can provide 5 top tricks in the three remaining suits.

 

___________________________________________________________

 

West North East South Hand 7 North

3H Both Vul S --

P P P H Q9876432

D QT53

West C 9 East

S KJ75 S 932

H AT5 H K

D K9842 D AJ76

C 6 South C Q7532

S AQT864

H J

3H South D -- Down 1

Lead: D2 C AKJT84 -100

___________________________________________________________

 

With this hand North has an 8-card heart suit but no guarantee that South’s other suit is diamonds, and passes. When dummy comes down declarer can see that the hand is a hopeless misfit. On the diamond lead the contract fails by 1 trick.

 

The scheme presented here requires virtually no memory load other than the following, a) a 3-level opening bid in the black suits is natural, and b) a 3-level opening bid in the red suits is a transfer bid. After that everything is logical and straightforward.

 

To close off this chapter it needs to be repeated again: this scheme is by no means final. As more problem hands are encountered at the table it will undergo further refinement.

 

Anyone wishing to experiment with this scheme are encouraged to also gather actual hands with actual results and make any additional modifications to that which is presented here.

[Vampyr]

I am not promising to read your overlong post, but no one at all will read it unless you put the hands in diagrams. They are gibberish at present.

 

I will make one comment, though. Do not let the partner of the 2♣ bidder to bid NT naturally, or in fact any time NT is likely to be the final contract. Though you could plug a hole in your scheme by making it a ♥ positive.

[nullve]

I am not promising to read your overlong post, but no one at all will read it unless you put the hands in diagrams. They are gibberish at present.

I just discovered by accident that the diagrams are easily readable (in the editor window) if you click on the 'Reply' button on his post.

[Vampyr]

I just discovered by accident that the diagrams are easily readable (in the editor window) if you click on the 'Reply' button on his post.

 

No, nothing is easily readable on my device. He should use the hand diagrams.

[Vampyr]

No, nothing is easily readable on my device. He should use the hand diagrams.

 

Mods please delete.

[nullve]

Without the 10-15, 6M4OM option your 2♦ opening would obviously no longer be a BS. So why don't you open 1M with that? (Sorry if you've already explained.)

It was, at great length. As I recall the OP does not accept that his convention is any different from any other form of Multi and therefore treats it as such for system regulations, including explanations to the opps. :o :unsure: :ph34r:

I've re-read the whole thread several times and I still have no idea why 32519 opens 2♦ (Lee) instead of 1M with this hand type. But I also don't know what his 1M openings look like, so maybe he's including this hand type in 2♦ to fill a hole.

[32519]

I've re-read the whole thread several times and I still have no idea why 32519 opens 2♦ (Lee) instead of 1M with this hand type. But I also don't know what his 1M openings look like, so maybe he's including this hand type in 2♦ to fill a hole.

The 6M/4M hand pattern 10-15 HCP has a low frequency of occurrence. However if you know about it early enough in the auction, it assists in bidding games and/or slams with hands low in HCPs but a good distributional fit otherwise. Refer to the OP. There slam was reached on a combined HCP holding of only 18. I have plenty of actual hands where game was reached and making because the hand distribution was known, where others stopped short of game.

 

My 1M openings promise a 5-card suit. 5/4 Flannery type hands are all opened 1M. The 6M/4M hands get opened as part of this convention for the reasons stated above.

[32519]

Muiderberg also needs some rethinking!

 

EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER 1

• Depending upon which version of the Multi you play, up to 4 different hand patterns can be covered with a single bid

• This in turn frees up the 2♥, 2♠ and 2NT bids to be used for something else, the most popular being –

o Muiderberg Two-Bids which are descriptive and (supposedly) very effective. Supposedly, because experienced players have recognised that a Muiderberg 2♥ opening bid more often than not roadmaps a ♠ contract by the opponents who have been given a lot of information regarding the hand layout and HCP distribution. Consequently these players only incorporate a Muiderberg 2♠ into their bidding agreements, reserving the 2♥ bid for something else, of which 2♥ as weak promising both majors being very popular.

[32519]

EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER 6

 

CHAPTER 6

 

OPENER HAS THE BIG 4441 HAND PATTERN

 

The 4441 hand pattern is notoriously hard to bid, even for Acol players who open 4-card suits. Acol players are often taught to open the bidding with the middle suit, followed by the higher ranking suit, followed by the lower ranking suit. The problem with this approach is, you need three bids to describe your hand and by then you are often already on level-3. Acol players have another problem. In most natural bidding systems, opener’s first two bids, by far, contain the most amount of information that is imparted during the auction. These other natural systems incorporate a suit opening followed by a second bid in 1NT to show a fairly flat hand in the 12-14 HCP range. Acol players cannot do that because the suit openings and 1NT rebids are reversed. Acol incorporates a Weak NT, 12-14 HCP. A suit opening followed by a second bid in 1NT shows 15-16 HCP and a fairly flat hand. Therefore with the 4441 hand pattern in the 12-13 HCP range, Acol players are fixed, often being advised not to open the auction at all.

Precision players had a problem bidding 4315, 3415, 4414 or 4405 hand patterns, where the singleton or void is in diamonds. In the Precision system the 2♦ opening bid was dedicated to showing one of these hand patterns in the 11-15 HCP range. But the Precision system also has great difficulty in bidding 4441 hand patterns with 16+ HCP. The 16+ HCP hands get opened with 1♣, but the continuation bidding soon gets distorted as opener is unable to accurately describe his hand pattern. Many Precision players solved this problem by moving all the 11-15 HCP hands into the 1♦ bid and dedicating the 2♦ bid for all 4441 hand patterns with 16+ HCP, irrespective of where the singleton is.

Other systems were experiencing similar problems. The Roman System is believed to be the first system to dedicate a specific opening bid to show 3-suited hands. In this regard, the 2♦ bid was dedicated for 4441 or 4450 hand patterns in the 17-20 HCP range which deny a 5-card major.

The Blue Club System of the very successful Italian team, which won 13 of 16 successive world championships, dedicated the 2♦ opening bid to describe 4441 hand patterns (any shortness) in the 17-24 HCP range. The problem here is that hands which fell into this range are extremely rare, effectively wasting the 2♦ bid. Few players would include the bid in their system.

The Mini-Roman evolved from the Roman System, showing hands with normal opening strength, hands in the 11-15 HCP range or adjusted according to partnership agreement. This was far more popular, simply because the frequency of occurrence is much higher. However, most players shy away from dedicating a specific bid to the 4441 hand pattern because of its low frequency of occurrence.

Fertile minds keep looking for ways to address these shortcomings in any bidding system/partnership agreement. Perhaps this was part of the reasoning behind the creation of the once popular Multi 2♦ opening?

Before any new convention can be played anywhere, it either needs to, a) pass the definition of “Brown Sticker Conventions and Treatments” as defined by the World Bridge Federation, or b) be licensed and approved by the national bridge union of the country, or c) unless specifically exempted.

When the Multi 2♦ convention first appeared in the late 1960s, early 1970s, it failed the Brown Sticker definition. Undaunted Terence Reece is on record as the first to apply for a license to have the bid approved by the English Bridge Union in 1970. It was refused, but he and others never gave up, and four years later it was given a restricted license in 1974. The following was agreed upon:

“Multicoloured Two Diamonds opening bid

In view of the numbers of applications received for the licensing of this bid, the fact that it is now widely played in international events, and the amount of publicity which it has received, the committee decided on its own initiative to give it an ‘A’ license for a strictly limited period until the 31st December, 1975.”

The convention as licensed covered three types of holdings:

a. A weak two-bid in the majors

b. A balanced hand of either above or below a 2NT opening bid, by decision of the partnership

c. A Roman 2♦ type, with 4-4-4-1 shape, with 17-20 points if the singleton is in the minor suits, and with 21-23 points if the singleton is in the major suits

The ‘temporary’ license has never been revoked, but has been amended to allow the 2♦ opening to include other types of hands, including:

d. A one-suiter – 11 to 14 points

e. A one-suited Acol two-bid

f. A Flannery-type two-suited – 17+ points

 

The Multi 2♦ opening has also been given a specific exemption from the definition of a Brown Sticker Convention by the World Bridge Federation. This is how that exemption reads:

EXCEPTION: a two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types containing 16 high card points or more, or with equivalent values. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below.

 

This chapter covers how the big 4441 hand pattern is included into the 2♦ opening bid. Various continuation bidding structures were considered, bearing in mind that the 2♦ opening is forcing for one round without direct opposition intervention. The first two of these structures are merely mentioned without the inclusion of example auctions for the reader to evaluate for themselves should they dislike the third option favoured by the author.

The first of these alternatives can be used every time responder has a poor hand, defined as 0-7 HCP. Whenever the auction starts off as follows: 2♦-2M-2NT, the 2NT second bid by opener reveals the big 4441 hand pattern. After 2NT, a 3♣ second bid by responder announces a hand in the 0-7 HCP range. The continuation bidding now becomes Baron, with both partners bidding 4-card suits up the line in search of the first 4-4 fit. Often responder will make a judgement call to pass in a known 4-3 fit every time there is danger of the auction getting too high and no fit found. Conversely, after 2NT, a 3♦ second bid by responder announces a good hand, defined as 8+ HCP, and becomes game forcing. After 3♦, opener is requested to bid the suit containing the singleton if it is in a major suit. If the singleton is in a minor suit, opener’s next bid will be 3NT as that may well be the last making contract. With the singleton known (majors) or where it is (minors), the intention is not to be prescriptive to any partnership on how to reach the optimal game or possible slam contract, beyond saying the following –

• 3NT after 3M (the singleton) is to play. Responder has the singleton adequately covered

• 4M in the suit first bid by responder is to play on a known 4-4 fit

• 4m is in search of a safer contract, opener’s singleton is not adequately covered by responder

The second of these alternatives is to simply reverse the meaning of the 3♣ bid by responder i.e. every time responder bids 3♣ second time round he is announcing a hand containing 8+ HCP, which also becomes game forcing. As in the first alternative, opener is requested to bid the suit containing the singleton, or 3NT with a ♣ singleton. From that point forward the auction progresses as in the first alternative. With a hand in the 0-7 HCP range, responder bypasses 3♣ and starts bidding his lowest 4-card suits up the line. Obviously if opener removes the first suit bid by responder, that will be the suit containing the singleton.

The third option is the one favoured and which will be demonstrated in the example hands.

[PhilG007]

This hand comes from a club game. 2/21 tables bid slam in ♥ (6♠ can also make).

[hv=pc=n&w=saj86hajt964d2c72&e=skt972hq832dqjt4c&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp2d(%5Bsee%20note%201%5D)3cd(%5Bsee%20note%202%5D)4c(Pre-emptive%20raise)4h(%5Bsee%20note%203%5D)p5c(Void%20%5Bsee%20note%204%5D)p6hppp]266|200[/hv]

Notes on the bidding:

1. The 2♦ is a new convention: Lee 2♦, promising one of the following hand patterns -

a) A natural 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP

b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP

c) A big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP

d) A big 5-5 holding in the minors, 14+ HCP

2. When North overcalled 3♣ East knew that West was either a) a natural ♦ pre-empt, or b) 6-4 in the majors. On both accounts East had good support for whichever hand pattern West had opened. So the X was obviously for takeout into whatever West held.

3. 4♥ was showing the 6-card suit

4. 5♣ showed a void in the suit inviting the slam if West's holding was doubleton ♣ and singleton ♦ in the minor suits. Reverse the minor suit holding and West would signoff in 5♥.

 

Now that you have bid the slam, you have to make it. Do you finesse for the ♥K or do you play to drop it?

 

Its been said that great players never finesse unless they have to. They prefer to find out the shape of the opposing hands first

and only then make a decision whether to finesse or not. We have experts here so how would they play the hand as declarer?

[JonnyQuest]

 

The finesse is 50-50 and the drop is 26%, even with the info given by the auction and whatever info is given by the opening lead.

 

The "onside" drop is immaterial. It's the stiff King "offside" that is the concern. Which is 13%.

 

Short of a complete brain-fart by mistakenly playing the Ace, I'm always finessing.

[32519]

The "onside" drop is immaterial. It's the stiff King "offside" that is the concern. Which is 13%.

 

Short of a complete brain-fart by mistakenly playing the Ace, I'm always finessing.

 

I got some homework for you. Forget about playing the % game (13% here from your post). Start collecting actual data from actual hand records from actual tournaments/club games you have participated in where the king is stiff "offside" in situations similar to the OP. I do, and was surprised to see the high percentage for a stiff king. The end result from actual data collected? Until the numbers start swinging in the opposite direction, finessing no longer features in the equation.