2 Diamonds opening showing 4-4 in mayors

[xx1943]

Hi all,

 

is there anyone, who can give informations about opening 2 ♦ with 44 in myaors and 11-15 HCP?

 

1) Has the convention a name?

2) Is this convention allowed by ACBL?

3) Do you have experience with this convention?

4) If yes to #3, how do you like it? What are the merits, which are the drawbacks?

5) Do you know a list of the subsequent bidding, after this opening.

 

Many thanks

 

Al

[awm]

I've seen a lot of precision players using a version of this; basically 2♦ could be either of the precision 2♦ (4414 / 4405 but not the (43)15 shapes some add in) OR flannery (45xx).

 

This is ACBL legal (on the general chart) because 2♦ may be used to show both majors with a minimum of 10 hcp.

 

My experience has been that using 2♦ to show both majors where EITHER can be longer is not a good treatment. The problem is that partner frequently has 3-3 in the majors and doesn't know what to bid. But in this treatment, if the majors are unequal hearts are always longer.

 

Haven't played this myself, but it seems to be superior to playing flannery or precision 2♦ straightaway. Personally I rather like having a weak 2♦ available.

[Double !]

I have a reasonable amount of experience with this bid.

 

It doesn't have a name to my knowledge, and I have not read anything about it in what bridge literature I have. I just sort of came up with the idea of almost exactly the same bid as what you have described as part of a home-grown system that I had been playing online for about a year. I think I am going to adjust the range to 11-15 (it had been 12-15/16)

 

It is acbl legal according to criteria that Adam stated.

 

I implemented this 2 Diamond bid (NOT mini-roman/ not 4441) in an effort to reduce system fixes (missing 4-4 major suit fits) due to playing a weak NT or wider range (13-16) 1NT opening. Think of the 2-diamond bid as being a weak NT with 4-4 in the majors.

 

IMO, the benefits of this bid are, it is fully descriptive, it's not that infrequent, and partner can/should have a reasonably good idea about how far to compete. The major suit contracts are played by the closed hand, and responses to the 2D opening can be as natural or complicated as you wish (your choice), and the bid may be passed with weak hand with long diamonds (5+) if need be. 2NT and jumps to 3M by responder are natural and game invitational as we played it.

 

The liabilities are the potential for a system fix when P does not have a 4-card major and insufficient strength to invite to 3NT (via a simple 2NT). On these occasions you might be playing in a 4-3 major fit (not too bad if responder is short in the other M) when the field is in 1NT. The other liability is the loss of the 2D bid for some other purpose. You can make this a 2-way opener (min. hand with 4-4 in majors or strong, balanced hand- you choose range.) But you then lose the option of passing 2D. Other than a couple of times when we played in poor 4-3

2-level major contracts when the field was either playing in 1NT or defending a contract, we didn't have any significant difficulties. It just takes some shifting in mind-set, especially if one is used to strong NT openings.

 

It is important to agree on the meanings of 1) a 3 club response [we played 3C = to play 3C], and a 3D response [ = invitational to 3NT with a broken 6-card diamond suit needing a filler high honor from partner to make 3NT a good prospect (remember: think P opened a weak NT with 4-4 in majors)]. You also have to agree on action should opps dbl.

 

The closest things to it that I've read were the F-word convention which is 4-5 in the Majors, and Ekren/ presumed fit 4-4 which is not acbl-legal.

 

DHL

[errline]

Heh, what a timely post.

 

I wrote up a version of this a few weeks ago just to see if I thought it could be made to work. Here is what I came up with. I'd be really interested in input, esecially from Double! since you have experience with something similar. :-)

 

Designed to be used with a weak NT -- my ranges were 10+ to 13 1/2 NV, and 12-14 all other positions; but it would work fine with 12-14 or whatever. So that means minimum 4-4-(23) hands would be opened 1NT, not 2D.

 

So that makes it 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors, or mini-Roman shape with minor suit shortness and 4-4 in the majors.

 

Advantages:

1. Show both majors and find fits right away in minimum unbalanced hands.

2. Preemptive -- hope to have the auction 2♦ - P/X - 3♠ fairly often. Especially true when combined with weak NT; we will open higher than the competition quite often.

3. Opening 1M and then bidding the other major shows some extras.

4. Fewer bidding problems on 4522 Flannery hands (still might have problems on good 14 or 15 counts; might just have to reverse decent 15 counts).

 

Opening specifications:

 

2D = 4-4, 4-5, 5-4 or 5-5 in majors, 10+ to 14- HCP.

 

If 4-4 will be three-suiter short in one minor (e.g. Mini-Roman hand with both majors); if balanced we would have opened 1NT or passed.

 

If 5-5 it should be at best a "bad 5-loser hand". Shouldn't open 5-5's 2D with too much playing strength.

 

Open 14 HCP 4-5-2-2's or 14 HCP with stiff honors when appropriate; don't open good 14 counts.

 

KQTxx AQ9xx xx x is too good, open 1♠.

 

KQxxx KTxxx K9 x is a bad 5-loser hand, open 2♦.

 

KJxxx AJxxx Kx J is 6-loser 13-count, open 1♦.

 

I am not sure whether opening 8-9 HCP 6-loser 5-5 hands is allowed per ACBL GCC (which specifies 10 HCP -- are you allowed to "upgrade" hands?). If not, it's a serious issue.

 

 

Responses:

 

Pass -- weak, no majors, long diamonds

2♥/♠ to play

2NT relay ask

3♣ natural -- NF, <3 in both majors and long clubs

3♦ invitational to game with 3-3 in majors

3♥/♠ preemptive, to play

3NT to play

4♣ splinter with 4+ in both majors

4♦ splinter with 4+ in both majors

4♥/♠ preemptive, to play

 

 

Resp to 2NT relay:

3♣ = 4x1 (or 4-4-(05)

3♦ ask shortness

3♥ = ♣

3♠ = ♦

3♥/♠ = set trump, force game, asks opener to bid short minor.

3NT/4♥/4♠ to play

 

3♦ = 5-5 in majors

3♥/♠ = set trump suit, force game, ask for cuebids (opener bids Serious 3NT to show good max)

4♥/4♠ to play. Not sure about responder's 3NT bid.

direct 4NT -- two suit key card for majors

 

3♥ = 4S-5H

3♠ = set trump suit, force spade game, ask for cue.

3NT/4♥/4♠ to play.

4♣/♦ = cuebid with hearts as trump.

direct 4NT -- two suit key card for majors

 

3♠ = 5S-4H

4♣/♦ = cuebid showing slam interest with spades as trump.

Others as over 3♥.

 

It seems like 3NT rebid could be used by opener to show a maximum 13-14 HCP 4-5-2-2 Flannery hand, perhaps.

[Double !]

I used to play a 2D opening as showing 5-bad 11 with 5-5 in majors (a Michaels' Cue Bid) until acbl ruled against it. The 2D showing 10+ with 4-4 in the majors appears to be GCC legal, and midchart permits an opening 2-bid with less than 10 hcp provided at least 5-4 distribution. I might just consider opening those hands with 2H.

 

At first glance, this multiple meaning 2 diamond bid that you propose seems to be trying to fit too many meanings into one bid, and would make it very difficult to accurately handle overcalls by opps, especially pre-emptive strikes. Responder would never know what kind of hand to play you for in competition because you offensive to defensive ratio, loser count and offensive potential would change somewhat with each alteration in distribution. And, your partner wouldn't know how to respond (e.g. whether or not to bid a 3-card major in comp.) until P knew which of these 3 hand-types you had. One aspect of the 2-D opener that I played was that it was a reasonably defined hand type (never a 4441) so that the opps bidding couldn't disrupt the bidding very much: P already knew pretty much what I had when I bid 2D, just a question of strength. But, I think you should work on your idea and try it out for a while online and see how it works.

[pigpenz]

one needs to go back and read bridge world circa 1980, when Larry Cohen used to play with Ron Gerard and they played what they called 1-2-3 suiters....at the Fresno Nationals in 1980 the HOG aka Ron Anderson created quite a stir against the use of these two suiters :P

[errline]

Thanks, D.

 

In general when playing a weak NT I like 2D as an 11-14ish mini-Roman; not because the hands themselves are difficult to handle, or because mini-Roman auctions hold any appeal (in fact I hate them), but for the added inferences about opener's 1m opener. The opening ensures that a 1m opening either contains considerable extras or that it's a 5 card suit in an unbalanced hand.

 

so, I had basically rejected using this idea. I just posted it because it was asked about. :P

[glen]

Perhaps the readers of this thread might know the answer to this question:

 

If one goes to: http://www.acbl.org/play/defenseDataBase.html

and then Clicks on "Versus a 2♥ opener which is weak with both majors", one gets:

 

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2c.htm

 

Here it says:

Rating:

2 boards per segment/round (5-5)

6 boards per segment/round (5-4)

Now if there was one rating I could understand it (minimum number of boards per segment for the convention to be ACBL legal) but what's the situation between the 2 and 6 boards per segment ratings?

[Double !]

Perhaps the readers of this thread might know the answer to this question:

 

If one goes to: http://www.acbl.org/play/defenseDataBase.html

and then Clicks on "Versus a 2♥ opener which is weak with both majors", one gets:

 

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2c.htm

 

Here it says:

Rating:

2 boards per segment/round (5-5)

6 boards per segment/round (5-4)

Now if there was one rating I could understand it (minimum number of boards per segment for the convention to be ACBL legal) but what's the situation between the 2 and 6 boards per segment ratings?

An implied amount of time a partnership would have to review and/ or discuss interventions or defenses i.e. pairs versus something like swiss teams?

[errline]

Perhaps the readers of this thread might know the answer to this question:

 

If one goes to:

Here it says:

Rating:

2 boards per segment/round (5-5)

6 boards per segment/round (5-4)

Now if there was one rating I could understand it (minimum number of boards per segment for the convention to be ACBL legal) but what's the situation between the 2 and 6 boards per segment ratings?

My guess was that this rating is the maximum number of times it could reasonably come up in a round 24 to 32 board matchpoint round or team game segment.

 

5-5's would be a lot less common than 5-4's, thus 2 times per round rather than 6. Those seem like reasonable numbers of times for those bids to come up if the opponents are really lucky.

 

I tried to find a definition but for me no other defense database links seem to work.