 |
The assumed fit principle is quite revolutionary compared to standard preempting methods. In traditional methods one pre-empts with a long suit and and trusts to that for ones's safety. The more aggresive pre-empters in the 1980's would assume that the cards not seen in the hand were evenly distributed, and bid on partner's assumed holding as well. (This also requires partner's agreement not to raise, just because he has those extra cards)! Some examples.. |
 K107652 J Q95 1053 |
Thus one saw an aggressive pre-empt of 3 hands such as this.
Some would say it was too strong! They perhaps hoped that heart
singleton might cause problems |
|
9852 7 QJ842 KJ5 |
Others went even further opening even a moth-eaten collection
such as this with 3! and hoping for 3 cards or more with partner.
This is about a 66% chance, so arguably a fair Bridge working bet. |
Similar "potential fit" theory underpins the assumed fit method of preempting. If you hold two four card suits then simulations indicate the chance of an eight card fit in one of them is around 60%, and rises to a healthy 78% if you are 5-4 or better. Total trick theory predicts that your opponents will rarely get rich doubling you in a such a fit at the two level. Indeed you are virtually always safe if non-vulnerable. Even if the fit isn't there the style is quite slippery and the judgement to extract a penalty may be a tricky one.
|
Q652 A1053 95 J53 |
The original "Ekren" 2 preempt appears to have been an
opening of 2 showing both majors, and causing a
great deal of grief to inexperienced opponents. |
|
An early adaption was to use a 2 opening for the same type.
There is debate as to which might be harder to defend. I originally assumed that
2 might cause problems for a strong balanced hand as
as it cannot safely pass. However Ekren points out that opener's partner is quite
likely to pass 2 without major fit, and play there undoubled.
It would seem that in experienced hands both have their problems. | |
|
K973 Q10862 92 85 |
Others modified these openings to a 5-4+ pattern, giving a 78+% chance
of eight card fit but a reduced frequency of only 2.6%. It depends on
whether you are a lion or a lamb. The EBU have (July 2000) enfeebled
the "Ekren" 2 type al "level 3" by
restricting it to this type. In my own view it is not worth playing in
this manifestation. |
There is no such restriction on the 2
opening which is considered 'natural' so long as it shows hearts.
So you could play this anywhere!
Have a look at my simulation results
on the chance of "safe" fit with these openings
Once you have decided to venture an assumed fit style there are some other interactions to consider, which will depend on your overall system. For example Ekrens does not combine well with full method Lucas two's, as there are then two openings possible with 5-4 both majors. Similarly a very mini no-trump of 9-12 (EBU level 4) will compete for this hand type on 4432's, perhaps not the 5-4's
Assumed fit technique can be extended down into the minors quite easily
and there is a twofold (or even sixfold) gain in frequency, albeit with
less preemption. Systems playing strong two bids will find conflict
with say their big 2 opening. Some jurisdictions
may allow a strong/weak combine to get you round
this (eg EBU level 4).
and Alf Cohen's
2/2, both asserting spades
(common, but not Bjørn's opening - Cf:"Lyric twos")
and Lyric 2
From Taiwan. Shows both red suits, and both majors respectively allowing
fast pre-emption from partner.
My own version suited for EBUland regulations.
Diamonds and a major, (twice as common).,
2 and 2 //
A complete constructive/interogative system opposite Flemish style opening.
Richard has managed to bundle in standard weak 2 handscombine
A fix to play assumed fit without disturbing your Multi 2
or weak twos
opening may force you to the three level.
From the Bridge-buff site. This is essentially a 3 suit scramble method
and they recommend it be anchored to a spade holding,
2, 2 and 2
From New Zealand add a 4/5 black suit hand to the Flemish styleMy advice would be to try either the original
2 or theoretically stronger
2 version of Ekren. The adventuous might
experiment with "rough"
2={diamonds+major}
which is twice as common, and twice as troublesome - for both sides!
However
my own experience is that assumed fit 2 is
great fun and comes up several times a session. You will need
to take the odd catastrophe philisophically, but bear in mind that the
Norwegians and Swedes play the method enthusiastically, and at teams!
Tip: You may wish to exclude 4441 and 5440 3-suiters from your openings. They tend to confuse parter, and are good hands with which to shut-up and later surprise declarer. "A defensive shape" as Reese once put it. Several experimeters seem to have reached this conclusion independently.
Traditional Ekren(s) 2 diamonds (also seen as 2 hearts) | |||||||||||
 |
Defined 2 or 2 = 5-10 points
with both majors. Some play 4/4, others 5/4.
Bjørn Ekren's original version which was 2
Responses vary Pass/correct into suitable major is ubiquitous. Other response styles perm from ..
It is important in such systems to agree what to do over intervention! I might use fit jumps in the minors in support (of unspecified major) Frequency 2.6% Pro points Frequent and preemptive, they say it works well in practice Against Licences 2 is considered "natural", 2 artificial/restricted {eg UK level-3 5-4 majors only}
Keywords fourside tight Defence See link for discussion amd further ideas The defense problem has come up a few times in r.g.b and Dane Lauge Schäffer recommends just his standard Multi defence (making allowance for the known bad break in any major). Remember that your game may be in a major. At least you'll play it properly! There was a good writeup of Ekren in Petter Olsen's Supernatural system. Another version on the Woodgrove site |
"Andrews" 2 clubs | |
|
|
Defined
2 = 4 spades exactly, and another 4+ suit Responses
pass: Does not promise length in clubs, a tactical bid made so opponent
cannot pass with good hands
2 : Pass/Correct, opener rebids 2S if his second suit is clubs2 : Non-Forcing, 5+ hearts2/3/4 : To play (sometimes may pick a 4-3 fit)2NT: Enquiry, with a weak hand opener bids his second suit, but with a max, bids 3 with hearts, 3NT with a minor
English junior Philip Andrews tried this out with success in the Prague junior internationals.
It is not UK legal as 2 |
"Bloody Mary" 2 diamonds | |
|
|
Defined 2 = 0-10 (!) points with diamonds and hearts 4-4 or better This is possible pre-date of Ekren reported from Tiawan in an r.g.b posting by B Yang Frequency about 6% Keywords Defence |
"Cohen" 2 clubs/diamonds | |
|
|
Defined These are similar to Andrews and Jammer in that they are anchored to spades
2
= 4+ spades, 3+ hearts, 3+ diamonds maximum 2 clubs2 = 4+ spades, 3+ hearts, 3+ clubs maximum 2 diamondsA 2NT response asks opener totransfer into longest suit, all else is natural. I'd have cautiously preferred to call the minor I hold rather than the one I don't, but this scheme means that the hidden hand is usually unknown, and introduces ambiguity into opponent's double. The main bridge merit of the scheme is grabbing posession of the spade suit. Seen played by Alf Cohen at London's legendary Young Chelsea club by Greg Soloman. Defence I'd play double of any assumed fit opening as penalty |
"DOBTO" - a complete two level method | |
|
|
Defined 2// = 5-9
points 4-4+ with the suit bid and a higher ranking suit. This extention was evolved by
Eric Debus of Leuven, Flanders , who claims some success with playing both in Belgium, and in the 199 Lille World
Championship. I have played a restricted version at pairs I term rough diamond but
went back to Multi taking the view that assumed fit works best with both suits defined.
Eric calls his system D.O.B.T.O standing for "Disturb Opponents Before They Open". (perhaps the alternative Flemish acronym didn't look so nice), and says it is predicated upon the American D.O.N.T method over 1NT. I prefer to classify it with this group because of its 4-4 nature. This is high risk/high payoff pairs stuff in my opinion but it gets in hard and fast at the two level, working because of the roughly 85% likelihood of a 4-4 fit. You will also gain on leads agains their contracts but lose thay most dilectible of contracts of 1NT not vulnerable - you takes your choice! See also New Zealand's Smeg twos below as an extention Note that all assumed fit bids work more powerfully when you hold the suit bid. Otherwise a second hand opponent can afford to pass with marginal hands and come in later. Frequency very high - up to 16% of hands!Pro points The frequency! Against Occasional -1100 scores Licences considered "natural"! Keywords fourside tight Defence See link for discussion amd further ideas |
Flemish style | |||
|
|
Defined 2 = 5-10 points with both majors
or a big hand. I have had reports of this style from Johan Longueville and Steven Gielen, both of Belgium, and this writeup comes from an Email from Steven, who plays 2 as either game forcing, 23-4 no-trump or the weak both major hand.
He says this is presently (1998) pretty popular there. The follow up system seems pretty
complicated to me, but then the opening is not uncommon. In response to this chimera:
2 3 / =
forcing with 6 card suit3 / = preemptive3NT to play 4 / =
splinter (with 4/4+ in majors)4 / to play
Frequency 2.6% (weak moïty) |
Frelling Twos | |
|
|
Defined Closely related to Flemish/Smeg twos 2 = diamonds and a major - 4+/4+ weak (common and a nuisance)2 = both majors 4+/4+ *or* 4 hearts and 5+ clubs2 = Spades (4+) and clubs (5+), or Weak two (6) in spadesFrelling openings deny 4441/5400 shape A "Flemish" variant: A strong point of Frelling twos is their unusually complete
constructive responses which I have pasted as received in a
separate page. Incorporation of a standard 2 Frelling responses were developed by Richard Willey, correspondent of rec.games.bridge "while hiking in Spain" Responses Complex: see separate pageFrequency 6% (2 ) to 19% (2)
Defence See link for discussion amd further ideas Licences considered "natural" |
Frequent Twos | |
|
|
Defined 2 to 2 show
suit bid and suit above 4/4 shape or better. Except
2=/
5-10 points, rule of 15 (both suit lengths + point total > 14)
I wondered whether to include this variant which uses assumed fit principles, but may take you
to a 3 "With waves a crashing down on us, the wind a blowing galesResponse Unknown Frequency 7.8% - perhaps not all that frequent! Pro points Previously illegal as non 5/4 in Britain they were 'acceptable in Australia' says correspondent, Sean Bentley. New EBU regulations define these as natural with 4 cards in the suit bid and non-strong .. level two. Against the 2 opening may force you too high
Licences considered "natural"! Defence See link for discussion amd further ideas |
Jammer | |
|
|
Defined
The Bridge
Buff site discusses assumed fit preempting at length, and looks at a series of "Jammer" styles.
Essentially you show ability to play in 3 suits, and usually anchor to a holding in one
specified suit. See Andrews and Cohen twos, which also assert spades.
They recommend 2
as
"playable in 3 suits including spades"Responses Scramble a fit. See the Bridge Buff link above Frequency high - up 20% but depends on style chosen Pro points As with DOBTO the idea is to force opponents to start at the 2 level Defence Bridge Buff recommend a mixed double/natural 2NT defence but as the main downside of such methods is lack of fit I'd suggest double be more penalty orientated and that you agree some way of counting trumps. Perhaps doubles 13+ and 4+ in the anchor suit in immediate position.
Thereafter double showing 4 cards over a bid suit and 3 cards under it, passes forcing.
Suits natural and 5+. A late 2NT as "takeout" (opener has shown some spades).
There is more discussion and further ideas on my generic defences
page. Always bear in mind that these scrambles are imperfect - they may end up in 3-3
fit to your profit! |
Lyric 2 hearts | |
|
|
Defined 2 = "weak" hearts and spades 4-4 or better Another one from Tiawan reported by B Yang. It is said they played this one (identical to Western Ekren) in the 1980's. Frequency about 6% |
micro Roman | |
 |
Defined 2{suit-of-your-choice} = 4-9 and three suited. True 4441/5440 shapes are rare,
but if you relax to 4531 and other shapes to gain frequency the bid is brown stickered as
no suit is always 4+. You may of course counter by playing say 2
as 3 suited guaranteeing 4 spades, which is generally legal higher levels. Curiously
if the same opening guarantees 4 clubs it is level 2 (beginners) here in UK
as it is a "natural weak opening". Opening your shortage is a weaker method.
Responses Scramble a fit. My experience playing the similar Cansino 1NT defence has been that a fixed 4+ suit helps avoid those tricky 3-3 trump suits! Frequency high Pro points You have 3 landing points, and hard to penalise. Against Reese said (and I agree) that the 4441 hand is better defending. Keeps you out of 1NT which may be your contract, and hard to judge w.r.t 2/3NT. Defence See Jammer above ... Luis Argerich (Argentina) claims +4.5 IMP per hand on this one. I put this one here
as it is a 4 card pre-empt, scramble fit method (most of these methods are 2 suits). Best played
as 2
|
mini Precision | |
|
|
Defined 2 = Either 5 clubs and a major; or 6 clubs "weak"
Responses 2 asks for major (bid naturally) or 2NT/3 showing bad/good in clubs
2 / to play, inviting support with three cards.
2NT=shape enquiry: 3 min with clubs, and 3=major suit above, 3 max with clubs, 3NT = 7 clubs
3 GF with a 5 card major. 3H denies 3+ hearts, 3S shows 3+ hearts, 3NT denies a major, 4D = 3/4 majors
3 / = GF natural 6+ cards
Frequency High This is another dish from Eric Debus's bubbling Belgian pot. Tom Huybrechts emailed me and he plays
this in combination with 2
|
Rough diamond | |
|
|
Defined 2 = 5-9 points with diamonds and a major. This is a sub-set of the Flemish style I developed independently (not all that original)! Joan and I played it as 4/4 or {5/4} non-vulnerable only. With 5M4 hands we would open an undisciplined
major pre-empt and with 4M5 prefer this one.
Always with a view to the lead. The principle is that you can wriggle
a 4-4 fit in about 85% of hands. We purposely keep this one just
below our 1NT mini range, and play it at pairs when mini NT is active.
The usual comment about actually holding the suit bid applies {q.v above}
I would add that I have personally switched to the more direct
2
Responses Raise if you can, but be careful of that 4-4 fit
doubled at the 3 level. Diamonds can be raised more freely as they
are more likely 5 card. |
Smeg Twos | |
|
|
Defined 2 to 2 show
suit bid and suit above 4/4 shape or better. Except
2=4+5 "weak"
As the 2 Kieran says Smeg can be played so light that there is a gap between its upper range and an opening! The same principle is used constructively in the Dutch Lorenzo and the inference that passed partner has 8-11 points can be useful Response 2NT enquiry. (2 over 2. Other unshown suit generally "to play"
Frequency Around 17%. But note that the 2 =4/5 may be less common
than the very effective weak 2 it replaces - and carries more risk.
Good opponents will chose to defend often knowing they don't have the spades
Defence Double and lead trumps! Licences considered "natural" The term "smeg" is used by the character Rimmer in BBC's Red Dwarf series. It has smutty connotations. |
Further reading specific to Ekren (Norwegian translations)
Thanks to Michael O'Connor of Galway, Ireland for originally mentioning "Ekren" to me when he visited Wirral, to Espen Gisvold has put me right on the early history of the convention, and to Ulf Nillson for his Nordic advice on defence.
"" Style sheet control has failed.
Pages on this site should still be readable, but layout may be spoiled. Your
browser may be out of date, or style sheets disabled !!
|
www.chrisryall.net/bridge/weak.two/assumed-fit.htm © Chris Ryall 1987-2008
|
