[Wackojack]

Anybody out there who can suggest a system of responses and follow-up bids for an opening bid in 2 of a major with a 4 card suit and 5 or 6 card minor say 11-16HCP? How common is this opening and does it have a name?

[inquiry]

My understanding is this is called Velociraptor (since raptor 1NT overcall shows a 4 card major and a longer minor, the name springs from that).

A reasonable follow up is new suits by partner is pass/correct. And 2NT by partner is an asking bid. Opener bids his minor with a minimum opening, and bids hearts with a maximum and clubs, and bids spades with a maximum and diamonds.

To be fair, I am not sure what the hcp range on Velociraptor might be, my assumption was that it was weak, not the 11-16 hcp you suggest.

This bid should be fairly rare, as I think it would be a brown sticker, but maybe someone who is up on this stuff could confirm that. To any extent, I don't think this is very playable especially if it contains opening strength.

[Echognome]

inquiry, on May 21 2007, 09:30 AM, said:

My understanding is this is called Velociraptor (since raptor 1NT overcall shows a 4 card major and a longer minor, the name springs from that).

A reasonable follow up is new suits by partner is pass/correct. And 2NT by partner is an asking bid. Opener bids his minor with a minimum opening, and bids hearts with a maximum and clubs, and bids spades with a maximum and diamonds.

To be fair, I am not sure what the hcp range on Velociraptor might be, my assumption was that it was weak, not the 11-16 hcp you suggest.

This bid should be fairly rare, as I think it would be a brown sticker, but maybe someone who is up on this stuff could confirm that. To any extent, I don't think this is very playable especially if it contains opening strength.

Well it certainly would get awards for having one of the cooler names.

As far as legality, in the EBU it would be legal at level 2 (read legal at all but the strictest beginner events), since it shows 4 cards in the bid suit at the 2-level. It would obviously be alertable.

I don't know its legality in the ACBL or the WBF, so I'll leave that to others.

[ulven]

I played this very opening some years back. ACBL was ok, we made it all the way to the Spingold semi (SweDanes / Wash DC 2002).

2M was 10-14 4-card M & 5+m. Responses:
2S = NF w/5+suit
2NT = FG®
3/4C = p/c
3D = FG w/4+supp & SHO m
3oM = INV w/6+suit
3M = mild INV w/4+supp
3NT = mild INV w/44+ in m’s & SHO M
4C = p/c
4D = 5+M-supp w/SHO oM
2NT = INV bph (3M = corr M w/max).

After 2M-2NT:
3C = 5+D
3D = 5422/7411
3H = 5+C & SHO oM
3S = 5C431D
3N = 6C421D
4C = 6C430D
After 3D then 3H asks down-the-line (3x = 22, 4m = 11)
After 3H then 3S asks (5431/6421/6430).

After 2M-(D):
Pass may be STR, RD asks for m, 2N is R and new is NAT NF.

We didn't have a fancy name for it. Worked pretty well, but occasional misfits cost. Didn't have any invite without support so over-/underbid those. Not a huge problem.

We were never caught doubled on a misfit and we played it for the duration of our partnership which was about 4 years, both on national and open team level.

/Ulf

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on May 21 2007, 01:21 PM, said:

I don't know its legality in the ACBL or the WBF, so I'll leave that to others.

http://www.acbl.org/...vChart12_03.pdf


ALLOWED * * OPENING BIDS

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

-------------------------------------

So if BOTH suits are known, it's legal. Looks like if it's an 'unknown minor' it is not GCC legal.

You know, it would be amusing to have 2♦=6 diamonds + 4 spades, 2♥=6 hearts + 4 spades, and 2♠ = 6 clubs and 4 spades. Hearts? Who cares about hearts?

But I don't think that's what you were thinking of.

[Double !]

FWIW: I played 2M as showing 11-15 with 4M and 6+clubs as part of a precision partnership for matchpoints (to avoid losing the 4-4 major suit fix when responder/advancer didn't have sufficient values to respond 2D/2C)a really long time ago. We really didn't develop much in the way of follow-ups and, fortunately, didn't lose much by not having weak 2M available. We lost much more due to limited bridge skills. (This predated the publication of Matchpoint Precision: I am old--lololol). Nobody objected, the TD didn't say anything. But, I am impressed and mused to learn that the treatment is called "Velociraptor".....just confirms what I've said for a while, that "I'm a bidding dinosaur!".lolololol.


DHL

[rbforster]

jtfanclub, on May 21 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

6.  OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

So if BOTH suits are known, it's legal.  Looks like if it's an 'unknown minor' it is not GCC legal.

The part of GCC you quote is relevant to artificial bids showing two suits, maybe 2♦ for specifically ♥+♣ or something.

Natural opening bids, which under GCC include 4 card majors, are always allowed. Basically Wackojack's suggestion is to play canape openings of 2M. They are just as legal as canape openings at the one level I should think (which is to say viewed as odd, but probably tolerated. YMMV with regard to any particular director in the ACBL, as always).

Furthermore, specialized followups like a 2N asking bid or pass/correct responses are allowed as well (under "artificial and conventional calls after a 2♣+ opening") since this opening is not "weak" (weak 2 bids have restricted conventional followups if they are too wide-ranging or might have only a 4 card suit).

[jtfanclub]

Rob F, on May 21 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

The part of GCC you quote is relevant to artificial bids showing two suits, maybe 2♦ for specifically ♥+♣ or something.

Maybe you're right. The GCC isn't clear on it. This comes down to the Muilderberg question again- can you have a 2 level bid promise the suit called + an unknown suit?

I don't think you can. 'possible canape' is legal, but I don't think forced canape is. It may be natural, but it's also conventional.

[hrothgar]

The Frelling Two bid structure that I use features a 2♠ opening that shows either

1. a weak two bid in Spades or
2. a preemptive hand with 4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs (not 4=4=0=5 / 4=0=4=5)

Here's the response structure that I (currently) use

3♠ = 4+ Spades. Preemptive

3♥ = Natural, invitational

3♦ = Game invite in Spades
Forces 4♠ opposite a single suited hand
Range ask opposite a two suiter

3♣ = Pass or correct
With a single suited hand, opener will show a three card fragment

2NT = Asking bid

[helene_t]

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

This is not a BSC, and that for two reasons:
1) It shows at least 10 HCP
2) It shows a 4-card in a known suit.

[Gerben42]

Quote

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

Don't ask for logic please. NBOs can and do ban convention illogically.

Velociraptor is the same bid but below opening strength.

As for the question, as simpler response scheme than that of Ulf:

2NT: strong asking bid --> 3♣ min with ♣, 3♦ min with ♦, 3♥ max with ♣, 3♠ max with ♦

3♣: Pass or correct
3♦: Invite for the major
Other major: Natural forcing

BTW the name is mine I came up with it while playing against it versus Norwegian juniors (bloody annoying bid too)

[cherdano]

helene_t, on May 22 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

3 Steps:
1. Conventions are disallowed unless mentioned in the GCC.
2. Mention Mini-roman as allowed.
3. Don't mention any 2-suiters that do no promise 10 hcp.

[rbforster]

jtfanclub, on May 21 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

Maybe you're right.  The GCC isn't clear on it.  This comes down to the Muilderberg question again- can you have a 2 level bid promise the suit called + an unknown suit?

I don't think you can.  'possible canape' is legal, but I don't think forced canape is. 

GCC clear? Lol!

If for some reason one felt that promising a 2nd suit was troublesome, I developed some methods for weak bids that were either

1) 5+ in the suit bid and a 4+ side suit, or
2) 6+ in the suit bid with high standards on suit quality

For case (2), I would suggest either a 7222 shape unwilling to preempt at the 3 level, or a very good 6 card suit something like AQJTxx. In case (2), you can safely rebid your suit at the 3 level in response to a pass-or-correct or similar action by partner.

With this agreement, the bid is clearly natural and doesn't promise or deny a side suit. Pretty much the definition of a 5+ card weak 2 bid.

[mgoetze]

helene_t, on May 22 2007, 07:48 AM, said:

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

The bid in question is, obviously, destructive, whereas mini-roman is just self-destructive, which is OK.

(Note that I am using "destructive" in the ACBL sense of the word, not any usual sense.)

[MickyB]

Certainly legal in EBU+WBF.

Any response structure to a Dutch 2 (5M4+m weak) will work fine here. My preference is the same as Gerben's, except with 2♠:3♦ as INV+ with hearts and 2♠:3♥ as a generic invite to 4♠.

BTW, I think 11-16 is a bit of a wide range, and I suspect it will get you too high more often than 5M4+m would.

[paulg]

This does not look legal in the ACBL except at SuperChart.

The fact that there is a second suit means that this is not a natural call.

The lack of a known second suit is a problem at GCC.

It would be fine at Mid Chart if there were a defence available in the Defense Database.

It is fine at SuperChart (in the Spingold, etc.) as the opening values mean that it could not be considered a destructive convention.

I recommend you come to Scotland and practise, legally, here

Paul

[helene_t]

Hey, Jack is English, who cares about ACBL rules anyway.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on May 22 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

Why would the powers that be want to discourage their opponents from playing such a stupid convention?

[awm]

jdonn, on May 22 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 22 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

Why would the powers that be want to discourage their opponents from playing such a stupid convention?

Well it is randomizing... for example, I'm not allowed to play a convention where opening 3NT shows 6-8 balanced, even though it's obviously a dumb convention, just because I'll hand out tops and bottoms (well okay almost always tops) to the people who happen to play those particular boards against me.

Then again, maybe there should be rules against playing or bidding really badly for the same reason?

[cherdano]

awm, on May 22 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 22 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 22 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

How can this be illegal in the ACBL where everybody plays mini-roman, an opening that doesn't show length anywhere?

Why would the powers that be want to discourage their opponents from playing such a stupid convention?

Well it is randomizing... for example, I'm not allowed to play a convention where opening 3NT shows 6-8 balanced, even though it's obviously a dumb convention, just because I'll hand out tops and bottoms (well okay almost always tops) to the people who happen to play those particular boards against me.

Then again, maybe there should be rules against playing or bidding really badly for the same reason?

I agree, there should be PP's for all self-inflicted below average boards.