[TimG]

In revisiting this today, I went to the Defense Database to see if there was anything similar already approved and noticed that there is a defense to a 2♠ opening which sows the minors (unspecified strength).

Quote

Versus 2S which shows the minors
Rating: 2 boards per segment/round
Double = Balanced 13-15 or 19+.
2NT = Balanced 16-18. Respond as to 2NT opening.
3C = Majors only 5-4 (3D asks for five-card suit).
3D = Majors 5+ - 5+, (4C = heart slam try, 4D = spade slam try).

3M = Natural (4C response = cuebid).

After: 2S - Double - 3 or 4 of a minor:
    Double = Responsive.
    Majors = Natural, non-forcing.
    Minors = Cuebid.

After: 2S - Pass - 2NT:
    Double = 14+ balanced or strong unbalanced.
    3-level bids = As over 2S directly.
After: 2S - Pass - 3 or 4 of a minor:
    Double = Takeout.

This does not seem to come close to meeting the standards of

Quote

All proposals must include:

  1. a complete description of the method, including responses and rebids and what happens in competition,
  2. a detailed defense including initial actions, responses to the initial actions (including in competition), actions after opening-P- bid/P (and responses there to), delayed actions such as opening-P-bid- P-P/bid

Submissions missing these details will not be approved.

Perhaps it was approved when the standards were less stringent. (It seems to me that defenses ought be modified to meet the new standards rather than be grandfathered.)

If I modified the above defense to handle a 2♦ opening which shows the majors, I would get something like:
________
Versus 2D which shows the minors
Double = Balanced 13-15 or 19+.
2NT = Balanced 16-18. Respond as to 2NT opening.
2H = Minors only 5-4 (2S asks for five-card suit).
2S = Minors 5+ - 5+, (3H = club slam try, 3S = diamond slam try).

3m = Natural (3M response = cuebid).

After: 2D - Double - 2 or 3 of a major:
Double = Responsive.
Minors = Natural, non-forcing.
Majors = Cuebid.

After: 2D - Pass - 2H:
Double = 13-15 balanced or strong unbalanced.
2N & 3-level bids = As over 2D directly.
After: 2D - Pass - 2 or 3 of a major:
Double = Takeout.
________

I'm guessing that such a submission would not even be considered by the C&C Committee. What are your thoughts about whether it is an adequate defense (by your definition, not by ACBL's definition)? What about the approved defense for the 2♠ opening?

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[awm]

One comment is that the 2♠ opening probably shows a 5-5 hand. In any case, playing in a minor suit is not a high scoring spot... so it makes sense to give up on playing in a minor suit after the opponents open 2♠ showing both minors. This frees 3♣ and 3♦ to show major-suit oriented hands etc.

I think the 2♦ opening showing both majors is different, both because majors are higher scoring and because the promised length to play at the two-level is presumably less. Here it is quite possible that the defending side can make four of a major, meaning that the defense should include ways to reach a major suit contract. This makes designing a defense potentially more difficult, and suggests a different approach from the one given for the 2♠=minors opening.

[TimG]

awm, on Jan 29 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

One comment is that the 2♠ opening probably shows a 5-5 hand. In any case, playing in a minor suit is not a high scoring spot... so it makes sense to give up on playing in a minor suit after the opponents open 2♠ showing both minors. This frees 3♣ and 3♦ to show major-suit oriented hands etc.

I think the 2♦ opening showing both majors is different, both because majors are higher scoring and because the promised length to play at the two-level is presumably less. Here it is quite possible that the defending side can make four of a major, meaning that the defense should include ways to reach a major suit contract. This makes designing a defense potentially more difficult, and suggests a different approach from the one given for the 2♠=minors opening.

What if the 2♦ opening does show 5+/5+ in the majors?

[rbforster]

All these fancy defenses, esp those with X=13-15 NT, should be a reminder to everyone that playing 2♥ as your weak opening for the majors would be a lot more effective. It's not like you want to pass 2♦ very often...

[DinDIP]

Rob F, on Jan 29 2010, 05:52 PM, said:

All these fancy defenses, esp those with X=13-15 NT, should be a reminder to everyone that playing 2♥ as your weak opening for the majors would be a lot more effective.  It's not like you want to pass 2♦ very often...

Rob's point is a very strong one (and what most pairs are doing when they can play such an opening) which is why I think it is foolish to have a defence to 2D Ekrens that is significantly different from the one you would use versus 2H Ekrens. And, if your purpose is to put together a defence to 2D that the ACBL might find acceptable then I think you'd be doing everyone a great service if the same defence -- with mnor adjustments -- could also be used against 2H. (I don't have any expectations that it will change their policy to ban anything that might frighten the horses but I think it makes it harder to justify their position intellectually.)

What does that mean in practice? While it's possible to play X of 2H as a weak notrump or some strong hand, or as a BALish hand with strong notrump or better values (so that 2N is used for takeout), I think such approaches are fraught for two reasons:
1. They are unfamiliar and so the partnership needs to discuss and agree how many hearts Xer promises (might it be a doubleton? if so, does it promise an honour) and how many advancer needs to pass for penalties. Whatever combination you select, some possibly lucrative penalties will escape. And unfamiliar methods always impose some strain when they arise.
2. If advancer cannot pass, he needs a five-card to be able to bid safely, as Xer does not promise support for any other suit. What does he he do if he can't pass yet has no suit to bid safely? Partnerships need to discuss how they will scramble in such auctions.

These problems are magnified if the X might be a weak notrump as now advancer needs something like 9/10+HCP as well to be able to pass the double safely.

Takeout doubles, on the other hand, are both familiar and make advancer's actions easier (because Xer promises support for all unbid suits).

Consequently, our approach is to use essentially the same defence, based on the following principles:
A. We double for takeout of the suit(s) they have shown
B. We can bid their suit NAT if it is a M && if they might have only four cards. (Once they promise 5+cards in a suit we can no longer bid that suit naturally.)

Thus, over 2H Ekrens we play
X takeout of H, might be strong BALish or offshape (Leb, with S bids NAT, 3H = Q)
2S NAT (2N F, NS NF)
2N 15-17/18 (as over 2N opening)
3m NAT (3M stopper)
3H NAT (3S = Q)
3S NAT, too good for 2S
3N NAT, running tricks type of hand (X first with big BAL)
4m leaping Michaels, promising H+m when their suit unknown or equally likely
4N C+D, usually 65/66
P then X of S is takeout with a good hand (like a direct X of 2S) and Lebensohl applies (as game is still possible)

Over 2D Ekrens we play essentially the same, except that 2H is NAT (just like 2S over 2H).

Is this optimal? Clearly not: it's hard for 2nd to show a min opening bid with 55 in the minors; and we can miss out when both 2nd and 4th have a weak notrump but neither can X for takeout. But it is consistent with what we do over all such openings. And our experience is that having general principles that we always use, together with familiar methods, is way, way more effective than trying to ascertain the optimal defence for the many different gadgets that the opponents play and then trying to remember them all.

David
(who plays in Australia where many things are permitted)

[rbforster]

Rob F, on Jan 29 2010, 05:52 PM, said:

All these fancy defenses, esp those with X=13-15 NT, should be a reminder to everyone that playing 2♥ as your weak opening for the majors would be a lot more effective.  It's not like you want to pass 2♦ very often...

And if you want to play this here in the ACBL, I suggest adding a second hand type.

2♥ showing:

1) minimum opener with good 6-7 card heart suit, or
2) weak two strength with 5/4+ majors either way

This way 2♥ promises only 4+ hearts, neither promises nor denies another suit, and will fall under "natural" for almost any reasonable definition that allows one to open 1♥ canape (they haven't banned that yet have they? ). Furthermore, since the first option is relatively rare and also stronger, this leads to some nice effects:

1) you can pass with very weak hands since when you wanted be in spades, partner was weak and they are on for game
2) you can correct with intermediate hands to 2♠, and partner will bid again with hearts and let you then re-evaluate to bid game

Of course you can't bounce to 4♠ quite as fast/safely as usual, but you can still wreak some havoc on the early auctions. Depending on your style, you might also consider passing minimum 1♥ openers without a good suit, which, together with this style, makes the usually wide-ranging 1♥-1X-2♥ auction promise some extras by opener.

[gnasher]

DinDIP, on Jan 30 2010, 06:18 AM, said:

Rob F, on Jan 29 2010, 05:52 PM, said:

All these fancy defenses, esp those with X=13-15 NT, should be a reminder to everyone that playing 2♥ as your weak opening for the majors would be a lot more effective.  It's not like you want to pass 2♦ very often...

Rob's point is a very strong one (and what most pairs are doing when they can play such an opening) which is why I think it is foolish to have a defence to 2D Ekrens that is significantly different from the one you would use versus 2H Ekrens.

I don't understand this reasoning. You've just agreed that 2♦ has the weakness (compared to 2♥) that the extra space makes it easier to devise an effective defence. If so, we should exploit that weakness. Playing the same defence to both methods doesn't sound like a good way to do that.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Jan 29 2010, 09:56 PM, said:

Perhaps it was approved when the standards were less stringent. (It seems to me that defenses ought be modified to meet the new standards rather than be grandfathered.)

The defense in questions dates back to June 2004...

I, for one, would like to see a single solitary example of an "appropriate" defense that meets the new standards.

Players keep getting told that the defenses that they submit are insufficient. As far as I can tell, they web site hasn't been updated in close to two years.

I don't think that there is any such thing.
The entire system is a pathetic joke.

[TimG]

DinDIP, on Jan 30 2010, 12:18 AM, said:

Rob F, on Jan 29 2010, 05:52 PM, said:

All these fancy defenses, esp those with X=13-15 NT, should be a reminder to everyone that playing 2♥ as your weak opening for the majors would be a lot more effective.  It's not like you want to pass 2♦ very often...

Rob's point is a very strong one (and what most pairs are doing when they can play such an opening) which is why I think it is foolish to have a defence to 2D Ekrens that is significantly different from the one you would use versus 2H Ekrens.

But, if the opponents do play the inferior (in your opinion) 2♦ = majors, don't you want to have the superior defense available?

Quote

And, if your purpose is to put together a defence to 2D that the ACBL might find acceptable then I think you'd be doing everyone a great service if the same defence -- with mnor adjustments -- could also be used against 2H.

As a player, I would imagine having different generic defenses based upon whether the suit opened is one of the suits shown.

Quote

David
(who plays in Australia where many things are permitted)

In Australia, are you allowed to refer to written defenses at the table (for certain methods). I imagine the considerations would be different if defenses had to be memorized rather than being available for reference.

[DinDIP]

TimG, on Jan 30 2010, 10:26 AM, said:

DinDIP, on Jan 30 2010, 12:18 AM, said:

Rob F, on Jan 29 2010, 05:52 PM, said:

All these fancy defenses, esp those with X=13-15 NT, should be a reminder to everyone that playing 2♥ as your weak opening for the majors would be a lot more effective.  It's not like you want to pass 2♦ very often...

Rob's point is a very strong one (and what most pairs are doing when they can play such an opening) which is why I think it is foolish to have a defence to 2D Ekrens that is significantly different from the one you would use versus 2H Ekrens.

But, if the opponents do play the inferior (in your opinion) 2♦ = majors, don't you want to have the superior defense available?

Quote

And, if your purpose is to put together a defence to 2D that the ACBL might find acceptable then I think you'd be doing everyone a great service if the same defence -- with mnor adjustments -- could also be used against 2H.

As a player, I would imagine having different generic defenses based upon whether the suit opened is one of the suits shown.

Quote

David
(who plays in Australia where many things are permitted)

In Australia, are you allowed to refer to written defenses at the table (for certain methods). I imagine the considerations would be different if defenses had to be memorized rather than being available for reference.

Tim and Andy (Gnasher) both ask a fair question: why not take advantage when the opponents use an inferior method to enhance our defence?

The answer is that we do but not by having a different approach. So, when they open 2D Ekrens we gain the option of a NAT 2H overcall that was not available when they opened 2H. Is that the best use of the extra space and the fact they haven't bid one of the suits they have? Probably not but our philosophy is to distinguish between openings (or other calls) that show one or more suits and those that don't. When they promise one or more suits, our X is takeout of that suit (those suits), irrespective of whether or not they have bid them. This applies when they open NAMYATS, make a TFR response to 1/2NT (or 1C or some other opening), make a Qraise, whatever. We know this isn't optimal: for example, when the auction goes
1S P 4D [Swiss: BAL raise, 16-18HCP]
we'd probably be better off playing X as a lead-directing call but our "meta-agreement" (as some might call it) is that X of their suit is always takeout if we are yet to enter the auction.

Tim's suggestion of having different generic defences based on whether or not they bid a suit they have is one way to differentiate between such conventions but not the criterion we use. When they don't promise a suit then we use different methods, but they depend on whether the opening is like a multi 2D (essentially one of two long suits), Myxo (weak in the next suit [say H] or weak in the next two suits [S+C] or strong in the bid suit [D] or . . . ), RCO (two-suiter, rank, colour, odd) or amorphous (things like Wilkosz [2D = weak two-suiter with at least one M]). Only for the latter do we use X as showing values, so methods based on doubling 2D Ekrens (but not 2H Ekrens) to show values would be out of kilter with our overall approach.

And, as Tim perceptively asked, one reason for this is that we are not allowed notes at the table (unless the opponents are playing a Yellow system [=HUM in WTO-speak]). Accordingly, our emphasis is on effective, easy to remember, familiar methods. And that's important: last week at Melbourne's leading club there were pairs playing 2H Ekrens, 2D Ekrens, 2C Ekrens or GF, 2C weak D or GF, 2D Multi, 2D Wilkosz, RCO two-suiters (2H = rank, 2S = colour, 2N = other), Muiderberg, Fantunes, Moscito with 1-level TFR openings, 2D = 4+D and 4+S, 2S = 4+S and 4+C, 2N = C+D (boring!), Polish Club, 3N as NAMYATS in either M, 3N as any solid suit, TFR responses to 1C, TFR responses to 1M and (in some ways hardest of all to defend against) 2D/2H/2S openings showing a singleton in the suit below and less than an opening hand. We didn't play against them all last week (and we won't ever play against Wilkosz as we're the only users) but we will play many of them over the coming three weeks (unless they're sitting in our direction) so we need to be able to cope with them all in an event with four-board rounds with only a pre-alert (if required). (I should add, especially for US readers, that many of the users are what would normally be described as LOLs, ordinary club players. They are happy to play these things; they are happy to defend when others play them. They don't always do so optimally but then they don't play the cards or bid them optimally either.)

David