![]() |
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.. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thus one saw an aggressive pre-empt of 3![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Others went even further opening even a moth-eaten collection
such as this with 3![]() |
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.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The original "Ekren" 2![]() ![]() |
An early adaption was to use a 2![]() ![]() ![]() | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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![]() |
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).
My 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![]() ![]() 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 ![]() ![]() 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![]() Responses
pass: Does not promise length in clubs, a tactical bid made so opponent
cannot pass with good hands
2 ![]() 2 ![]() 2/3/4 ![]() 2NT: Enquiry, with a weak hand opener bids his second suit, but with a max, bids 3 ![]() 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![]() 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
![]() 2 ![]() A 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![]() ![]() ![]() 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![]() 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 ![]()
2 3 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 3NT to play 4 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]()
Frequency 2.6% (weak moïty) |
Frelling Twos | |
![]() |
Defined Closely related to Flemish/Smeg twos 2 ![]() 2 ![]() 2 ![]() Frelling 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 ![]() ![]() Defence See link for discussion amd further ideas Licences considered "natural" |
Frequent Twos | |
![]() |
Defined 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 ![]() 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
![]() 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![]() 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![]() 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![]() Responses 2 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 2NT=shape enquiry: 3 ![]() ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 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![]() 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 ![]() ![]()
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![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 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![]() ![]() Frequency Around 17%. But note that the 2 ![]() ![]() 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.
![]() |
www.chrisryall.net/bridge/weak.two/assumed-fit.htm © Chris Ryall 1987-2008
|