Defense to Flannery and 5-4 Ekren?

[Charlie]

What do you suggest a defense to Flannery and 5/4 Ekren?
I'm currently using one similiar to Dixon to defend Flannery, ie
X=13-15 or 19+
2NT=16-18
2H=3 suited takeout
2S=minors
3m=natural, opening strength

This, however, sounds very unattractive to me. I play a rather light
overcall, and against Flannery which promises opening strength I want
to screw them with overcalls.

And how about 5/4 Ekren? Chris Ryall suggests 2M=natural - however
against 5/4 this comes up far less often.

[Stuart M Newberger]

Post by Charlie
What do you suggest a defense to Flannery and 5/4 Ekren?
I'm currently using one similiar to Dixon to defend Flannery, ie
X=13-15 or 19+
2NT=16-18
2H=3 suited takeout
2S=minors
3m=natural, opening strength
This, however, sounds very unattractive to me. I play a rather light
overcall, and against Flannery which promises opening strength I want
to screw them with overcalls.
And how about 5/4 Ekren? Chris Ryall suggests 2M=natural - however
against 5/4 this comes up far less often.

I have always played (I think it was from Root and Pavlicek )that a
double shows cards (15-18 nt strength) ,2h=3 suit takeout
,2s=spades,2nt=both minors,3c or 3d natural.It has worked well because
it hasnt come up in years -maybe I am unlucky(or not enough people use
Flannery where I play.Regards,Stuart M Newberger

[John Schuler]

On 14 Jul 2005 21:18:38 -0700, "Stuart M Newberger"

Post by Stuart M Newberger

Post by Charlie
What do you suggest a defense to Flannery and 5/4 Ekren?
I'm currently using one similiar to Dixon to defend Flannery, ie
X=13-15 or 19+
2NT=16-18
2H=3 suited takeout
2S=minors
3m=natural, opening strength
This, however, sounds very unattractive to me. I play a rather light
overcall, and against Flannery which promises opening strength I want
to screw them with overcalls.
And how about 5/4 Ekren? Chris Ryall suggests 2M=natural - however
against 5/4 this comes up far less often.

I have always played (I think it was from Root and Pavlicek )that a
double shows cards (15-18 nt strength) ,2h=3 suit takeout
,2s=spades,2nt=both minors,3c or 3d natural.It has worked well because
it hasnt come up in years -maybe I am unlucky(or not enough people use
Flannery where I play.Regards,Stuart M Newberger

Michael Crawford and I spent a LOT of time constructing a defense to a
1H Ekrens bid. Our theory was that we should attempt to penalize them
if at all possible to compensate for the inevitable bad result we
would get when the 2H opener disrupted our constructive bidding. It
was important to strike a balance between punishing them and still
retaining good constructive methods.

It turned out there was a general principle at work here - when
defending a weak 2 suited bid where the opener has bid one of his
suits (2H), a double should show defenese in the higher ranking suit -
spades, in this case. The complete structure:

#
# Defense to Ekrens 2H opener (4-5 H, 4-5 S, weak)
#
(2H) ?
P could have hearts
X penalty of Spades, 12+
2S minors, 12+, subsequent major bids by either pard shows
a stopper
2N 15-18.
3m natural
3M 6+, like an intermediate overcall.
3N long minor type
-
(2H) X (2S) X = penalty
-
(2H) P (P) ?
as in defending weak 2 heart bid
X takeout
2N 15-18
etc
-
(2H) P (2S) ?
as in defending weak 2 spade bid (pass w spades)
2N 15-18
etc
-
(2H) P (2S) P
(P) ?
X = takeout, must have hearts
2N = minors, weaker than direct 2S
3m = natural, weaker than direct 2S
3H = 5+ hearts

[Chris Ryall]

John Schuler wrote on "Defense to Flannery and 5-4 Ekren?"

Post by John Schuler
It turned out there was a general principle at work here - when
defending a weak 2 suited bid where the opener has bid one of his suits
(2H), a double should show defenese in the higher ranking suit -

...

Post by John Schuler
2M = natural is clearcut vs Ekrens, 2S natural is clear vs Flannery.
Bid their possible 4-carders naturally at the 2-level. Against both, I
play X = tko of spades. Nick Hughes, Sydney

That's nice! One authoritatively has double as spades, and for the other
has it short in the suit. There's clearly much theory to be discussed
here, (and you guy's shouldn't cut together online until we've teased
this one out).

fwiw:
Bjorn Ekren is of the opinion that 2H{both majors} is easier to defend.
Please all not he *doesn't like* this 2H being called an Ekren variant.

Interesting. Can we take ...

..2NT natural, stops, source of trick
3m natural
3M natural, good suit .. .. as common ground?

We still need to look at double, and whether 2S is natural or both
minors. I've played 2H 4-4 assumed fit for nearly 5 years now and will
come in a bit later with experience from the other side.

[John Schuler]

Post by Chris Ryall
John Schuler wrote on "Defense to Flannery and 5-4 Ekren?"

Post by John Schuler
It turned out there was a general principle at work here - when
defending a weak 2 suited bid where the opener has bid one of his suits
(2H), a double should show defenese in the higher ranking suit -

...

Post by John Schuler
2M = natural is clearcut vs Ekrens, 2S natural is clear vs Flannery.
Bid their possible 4-carders naturally at the 2-level. Against both, I
play X = tko of spades. Nick Hughes, Sydney

That's nice! One authoritatively has double as spades, and for the other
has it short in the suit. There's clearly much theory to be discussed
here, (and you guy's shouldn't cut together online until we've teased
this one out).

I think Mike and I put more effort into a 2H Ekrens defense than the
probability of the bid suggested. We used simulations to "test"
various countermeasure schemes and are very comfortable with our
results. Perhaps the best defense for any pair is the one they're most
confrotable with despite any minor technical deficiencies...

Post by Chris Ryall
Bjorn Ekren is of the opinion that 2H{both majors} is easier to defend.
Please all not he *doesn't like* this 2H being called an Ekren variant.
Interesting. Can we take ...
..2NT natural, stops, source of trick
3m natural
3M natural, good suit .. .. as common ground?
We still need to look at double, and whether 2S is natural or both
minors. I've played 2H 4-4 assumed fit for nearly 5 years now and will
come in a bit later with experience from the other side.

[Chris Ryall]

John Schuler wrote on "Defense to Flannery and 5-4 Ekren?"

Post by John Schuler
I think Mike and I put more effort into a 2H Ekrens defense than the
probability of the bid suggested. We used simulations to "test" various
countermeasure schemes and are very comfortable with our results.
Perhaps the best defense for any pair is the one they're most
confrotable with despite any minor technical deficiencies...

...I was mulling whether to apply the word 'authoritative' to your
citation but decided in the spirit of polite debate to use it more
vaguely. I've always pre-announced 2H (NOT 'Ekrens' :)) at the start of
an encounter. But few opponents have a defence, or even bother to
quickly discuss.

My experience is that most 2nd hands will intend their x as takeout.
After that there's sometimes confusion. Very few manage to take the
juicy penalties that are on offer on about 20% of such excursions, they
prefer to head into 3NT, which then may go off on an 'informed' attack.

I think 'Schuler' defence has theoretical merit, (and delighted to hear
simulation and experience confirm that). So I intend to paste it into
the assumed fit collection. Most of the ideas I got from Scandinavia
were more focussed on 2D 'real Ekrens' (both show 44 majors: 54 is for
wimps!) The differences are interesting.

IMO The keys to pulping these impudent openings are both assessing that
it's your hand, and then that fit is at most 8 card. Playing bridge here
in the 'Wirral Hundred' I regularly give my opponents the chance to
multiply that 3 or even 5 fold! But they turn me down :))

Non-bridge ref: http://www.mikekemble.com/mside/wirral.html

[TPGI]

Post by Charlie
What do you suggest a defense to Flannery and 5/4 Ekren?
I'm currently using one similiar to Dixon to defend Flannery, ie
X=13-15 or 19+
2NT=16-18
2H=3 suited takeout
2S=minors
3m=natural, opening strength
This, however, sounds very unattractive to me. I play a rather light
overcall, and against Flannery which promises opening strength I want
to screw them with overcalls.
And how about 5/4 Ekren? Chris Ryall suggests 2M=natural - however
against 5/4 this comes up far less often.

2M = natural is clearcut vs Ekrens, 2S natural is clear vs Flannery. Bid
their possible 4-carders naturally at the 2-level.
Against both, I play X = tko of spades.

Nick Hughes, Sydney

[w***@yahoo.com]

Post by Charlie
What do you suggest a defense to Flannery and 5/4 Ekren?
I'm currently using one similiar to Dixon to defend Flannery, ie
X=13-15 or 19+
2NT=16-18
2H=3 suited takeout
2S=minors
3m=natural, opening strength

We play 2S as natural and 3H as for the Minors. I think that a natural
2S overcall has come up twice in almost ten years of playing. As
against that, it has worked very well both times. The 3H for minors
never seems to cause a problem, but you need a strong hand. We also
play

4C: Clubs and Spades and
4D: Diamonds and Spades, also very good hands.

Post by Charlie
This, however, sounds very unattractive to me. I play a rather light
overcall, and against Flannery which promises opening strength I want
to screw them with overcalls.

Responder has too much information for you to "screw them" very well. I
like constructive overcalls against such descriptive and limited
opening bids.

Post by Charlie
And how about 5/4 Ekren? Chris Ryall suggests 2M=natural - however
against 5/4 this comes up far less often.

Will in New Haven

[Chris Ryall]

Post by w***@yahoo.com
We play 2S as natural and 3H as for the Minors. I think that a natural
2S overcall has come up twice in almost ten years of playing. As
against that, it has worked very well both times. The 3H for minors
never seems to cause a problem, but you need a strong hand.

How do you show hearts (or is this Flannery with 5 defensive H's)?

v 2H assumed fit;

2S natural
3H natural (if rare)
3S strong both minors .. attracts?

But what is double?

[h***@yahoo.com]

one might contact lynn deas or beth palmer on this topic. if my memory
is correct, in the late 1980s they used a form of precision that
involved:

2d = multi, weak only
2h = both majors, 0-10 hcps
2s = weak preempt any suit

of all the obstructionist methods at the 2 level, this one seemed to me
to be the most coherent and well thought out. eventually, they played
this in the 1989 venice cup.

oddly enough, the author's recap of the venice cup final was that light
opening bids had a greater positive effect for the american women than
their madcap preempts (mostly mccallum and shuman, i think). but the
2h = both majors weak created a large number of positive swings for the
americans both in the semi-final against canada and in the final
against i don't remember :(

henrysun909