[Cyberyeti]

Since the EBU banned our weak 2s, we now play something different, an interesting hand came up today, can you do better than me in the bidding, and better than my partner in the play: (matchpoints)

---

So partner opens an Ekren 2♥ 44 or 54 either way with both majors, 4-8 points, you have this hand, your options:

Pass and just play 2♥

2N - partner will bid
3♣ with 5-4 either way minimum
3♦ 4-4 minimum
3M max, 5 of that major 4 of the other
3N max 44

3♣ natural, encouraging but not forcing

3N to play

Your choice ?

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-December-01, 13:06, said:

3♣ natural, encouraging but not forcing

Looks much like what I have.

The alternative is 3NT, but partner is not going to thank me if they lead diamonds.

[eagles123]

I would pass at MP.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2022-December-01, 13:55, said:

Looks much like what I have.

The alternative is 3NT, but partner is not going to thank me if they lead diamonds.

Partner will pass with a minimum, bid 3M with 5 of that major and a max, and bid 3N with a 44 max, they might bid 3♦ if really short in clubs but that would be undiscussed

[Cyberyeti]

eagles123, on 2022-December-01, 14:02, said:

I would pass at MP.

This is what I did at the table.

[mw64ahw]

I'm bidding 2NT, happy to play in the Moysian if Weak or even 3 clubs

[DavidKok]

I think pass is probably better than 3♣, but I haven't played Ekren so I am not at all confident in this call. Other calls seem inferior.

[eagles123]

Have to say I don't like the method much at all, seems like we're going to be guessing a lot of the time for not a huge amount of upside.

[Evies Dad]

How often will partner have help for you in Diamonds ?
Kxxx Qxxx Qxx xx

Risk 2NT query, pass if 3C comes back, and choose 3H, 3NT or 4H otherwise.

Or settle for 2H which looks to have good chances unless pard has 4 poor hearts.

[LBengtsson]

Ekren, eh? A bid I have played and have had played against me. As to what to bid here, Pass looks best. Partner is statistically more like to have 4♥/4 or 5♠/4♥ than 5♥/4♠. And also - especially my partner, lol - to have a minimum HCP count than a maximum.

The trouble with having the 3♣ bid as encouraging, not forcing, imo, is when using a weak opening bid like Ekren or any weak 2♦ bid like Multi, how encouraged/not encouraged does partner's hand have to be to bid again?

3♣ might get a better match point score than 2M, but you have to take more tricks in a ♣ contract to get a top. So that is why I am passing.

[Cyberyeti]

There is no right answer here, this was played in a 4.5 table movement so was played 4 times, in 2♥/3♣/3N NS and 4♦EW. All these contracts are double dummy makes, most should have made single dummy on the leads they got, but none of them did at the table, we got an average for 2♥-1 (we only had one below average board in 21 in a 75%+ set). Can you make the contract though ? Making anything for 110 or more would be all the matchpoints. I do not understand how 3♣ went off on a spade lead.

---

E leads the ♣2 against 2♥, you play the ace and W ruffs, returning the second smallest missing diamond. K or run to the J ?

And btw partner would love a diamond lead in 3N, it's a virtual claim, you might not like one so much, he was bidding 3N over 3♣ or 2N.

[Cyberyeti]

LBengtsson, on 2022-December-01, 22:54, said:

Ekren, eh? A bid I have played and have had played against me. As to what to bid here, Pass looks best. Partner is statistically more like to have 4♥/4 or 5♠/4♥ than 5♥/4♠. And also - especially my partner, lol - to have a minimum HCP count than a maximum.

The trouble with having the 3♣ bid as encouraging, not forcing, imo, is when using a weak opening bid like Ekren or any weak 2♦ bid like Multi, how encouraged/not encouraged does partner's hand have to be to bid again?

3♣ might get a better match point score than 2M, but you have to take more tricks in a ♣ contract to get a top. So that is why I am passing.

Our agreements are clear, you pass only with a minimum with no fit

[LBengtsson]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-December-02, 02:39, said:

Our agreements are clear, you pass only with a minimum with no fit

It is interesting that you are using a more defined HCP (4-8) than Bjorn's original Ekren system that said the range was 3-10 HCPs (Which I always thought was too wide a range imo, especially at red.) Though, to mitigate, Ekren can be a very difficult convention to bid against as opponents. So for every 'bad' result you get with using the Ekren convention, you do get more good results overall I think, the opponents bidding space limited by the 2♦ or 2♥ Ekren opening.

[Cyberyeti]

LBengtsson, on 2022-December-02, 04:57, said:

It is interesting that you are using a more defined HCP (4-8) than Bjorn's original Ekren system that said the range was 3-10 HCPs (Which I always thought was too wide a range imo, especially at red.) Though, to mitigate, Ekren can be a very difficult convention to bid against as opponents. So for every 'bad' result you get with using the Ekren convention, you do get more good results overall I think, the opponents bidding space limited by the 2♦ or 2♥ Ekren opening.

I don't see the point of opening an average hand 4-4 in the majors at the 2 level, and most 5-4 10 counts we open 1. This was my first session playing it, although partner has played it before.

[mw64ahw]

LBengtsson, on 2022-December-02, 04:57, said:

It is interesting that you are using a more defined HCP (4-8) than Bjorn's original Ekren system that said the range was 3-10 HCPs (Which I always thought was too wide a range imo, especially at red.) Though, to mitigate, Ekren can be a very difficult convention to bid against as opponents. So for every 'bad' result you get with using the Ekren convention, you do get more good results overall I think, the opponents bidding space limited by the 2♦ or 2♥ Ekren opening.

I missed the 4-8hcp, so a Pass for me as the 2NT bid would need a touch more.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-December-02, 02:35, said:

E leads the ♣2 against 2♥, you play the ace and W ruffs, returning the second smallest missing diamond. K or run to the J ?

And btw partner would love a diamond lead in 3N, it's a virtual claim, you might not like one so much, he was bidding 3N over 3♣ or 2N.

I would play K reasoning he was more likely to underlead A than Q in this situation, although I could well be wrong.

I take it this was mainly a weak NT field, otherwise I would have expected some auctions of P 1N 2C 2D 2N 3N p or similar (which leaves S as declarer, just like 3N or 2N-3N after Ekren).

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2022-December-02, 07:59, said:

I would play K reasoning he was more likely to underlead A than Q in this situation, although I could well be wrong.

I take it this was mainly a weak NT field, otherwise I would have expected some auctions of P 1N 2C 2D 2N 3N p or similar (which leaves S as declarer, just like 3N or 2N-3N after Ekren).

Weak NT field.

This is what partner did, I think it's wrong.

You have the inference that E led a club from Jxxx, most people with Qxxx(x), Jxxx in the minors and a minor suit lead suggested lead from the Q in preference to the J, hence I think you should play low.

[gszes]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-December-02, 08:08, said:

Weak NT field.

This is what partner did, I think it's wrong.

You have the inference that E led a club from Jxxx, most people with Qxxx(x), Jxxx in the minors and a minor suit lead suggested lead from the Q in preference to the J, hence I think you should play low.

I agree that playing low looks like a better shot but for different reasons. W KNOWS E does NOT have the AK of dia due to the opening lead. If W has the dia A it seems unnecessarily dangerous to underlead it and risk the (admittedly small) chance declarer has the singleton K. Attacking diamonds is the right defense when looking at all of those club winners so low from the Q is perfectly normal because what have you got to lose? I would pass 2h as 3n is too small a target.