[wclucas42]

So The Defense Vs. No trump section of my card reads like this:

vs Strong

2♣: 6+ card suit
2♦: 5-4+ majors
2♥: 5+♥
2♠: 5+ ♠
Dbl: Penalty
Other: 2NT = minors (5-5)

vs Weak is blank as I haven't yet played against opponents that use a weak no trump.

Back in January prior to a match opponents were reviewing my card and asked something like Shouldn't your 2♥ and 2♠ over 1 NT also promise a minor? I said usually, because if I was 5-4 in the majors I would bid 2♦

Afterwards I googled, and found that the requirements for the bids vary from 4 of the minor to even 5 of the minor depending who is asked...

So If I am (5-3)-(3-2) with 10-12 points am I to just sit on my hands with a solid 5 card major, or worse bid it at the three level in second seat?

I think I am missing something, not the first time, so I was hoping someone might be able to help me clear it up.

Usual caveats apply: Not really wed to the convention open to other means like DONT. I learned it because it was turned on by default at some level of bidding card in iBridgeBaron. Being self taught with the internet as my primary tool I may be missing the obvious, and not realizing it.

Also what do people use against weak no trump, and why is more than one needed?

Thanks,

Bill

[suokko]

The thinking behind 2M promising side minor and 2♣ 6+ cards is that 5332 is too balanced to compete making defending better option. Of course if wanting to bid then without any other agreements it would be better to show 5332 as 6 card suit that 5 card with side suit.

[foobar]

Your existing methods should work just fine against both weak and strong NT. You may want to consider swapping the 2♣ / 2♦ bids (this allows responder to bid 2♦ to ask opener to name the longer major, etc.).

BTW, this convention isn't labelled as Cappelletti (which is one of the worst NT defence methods IMO).

[P_Marlowe]

Overcalling with 5332 should be avoided, and if your agreements
deny this option to you, this is useful.

Having 55 makes it safer at the cost of freq, req. only 54 increases
the freq., but partner should only go looking for the minor with 44,
so you will quite often endup in 51 fits, when a 5-3 would have existed.

Switching the meaning of 2C / 2D allowes for asking the overcaller, which
major is better, improving the safety for going in with 54 (even allowing
44), but switching may not GCC compliant ... I am not sure.

Against strong NT, it makes sense to use X as showing 5+ Minor, 4 Major,
discarding the penalty double.
Not having a penalty double against their strong NT is ok, it depends
a bit how often you encounter peoble psyching a strong NT opening
(a reasonable common idea green vs. red in 3rd position), I have rarely
seen this, but this may tell more about the quality of my opponents
than anythin else.

Discarding the penalyt meaning against weak NT is a topic, that has and
will start religious wars, the majority plays it, so it works.
Just have a firm understanding of the followup bidding, when you have made
a penalyt double.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: If you switch, the 1-suiter in 3D is usually just a major, a minor gets
bid direct on the 3 level, i.e. switching looses the option to have play 2D.

[mikeh]

The reason for using a different defence to a weak 1N than to a strong 1N relates to our goals.

The reality is that when an opp opens a 15-17 1N, game may be available for our side, but the odds suggest that more often than not, by a wide margin, the hand belongs to the opponents.

Accordingly our goals are aimed at finding playable partials for our side and/or disrupting their bidding mechanism. Almost all partnerships have their strong 1N sequences as their most clearly understood, playable, and effective part of their system, so allowing competent opps a free run after they start with 1N will rarely lead to a good outcome for our side.

Disruption of a strong notrump is actually afforded more weight than finding our partscore in a lot of methods....methods that employ ambiguity in their structure.

For example, suction is very difficult for partnerships to play against unless they have clear agreements....without going into detail, a typical suction overcall (such as 2♦) shows either the next suit up or the other 2 suits....so 2♦ shows a one-suited heart overcall or both black suits....now wtf does responder do with, say, long hearts or, say, a 4 card spade suit? There is even more damage done through advancer's actions, but I am straying off topic. The point is that there is good reason to want methods that are primarily destructive or obstructive of the opps' bidding when they start with a strong 1N.

In addition, the opportunities for a penalty double, tho present, are rare when one opp announces 15-17 balanced, so most sophisticated defensive methods use the double as artificial, expanding the types of hands with which one can compete.

Contrast this with a weak 1N....say 12-14, which is a common range.

Now while game chances aren't good, they are a heck of a lot better than after a strong 1N. The hand is less likely to belong to the weak 1N bidder than it would be were the notrump strong.

We therefore need to pay more attention to constructive bidding over their weak 1N than over their strong 1N. A method whose main goal is obstruction will not lend itself well to constructive bidding, and vice versa.

Furthermore, when an opp opens a weak 1N, the chances that we can extract a penalty are far greater than over a strong 1N, so most sophisticated defensive methods incorporate a direct seat unpassed double as a strong hand.

It is possible, and probably a good idea for inexperienced players, to play the same methods over the 2 types, but such will in the long run prove to be sub-optimal. However, if you rarely play against a weak 1N, you may find that the memory cost of playing two methods are too expensive.

Finally, if you do choose to use different methods, make sure that you and partner are on the same page in terms of is this a weak or strong 1N?

12-14 is easy, as is 15-17. What about 14-16? (I say: strong)

What about 13-15?

I have a very simple rule, which I confess may be less than the best, but which is easy and eliminates the need for discussion at the table. If their range includes 15 hcp, I treat it as strong. It may well be that using 16 as the number is better, but 15 has worked well for me.

Thus 13-15, which used to be a common precision range, is treated as strong. I haven't seen anyone play that range in many, many years, which is probably why I haven't encountered any issues with my rule.

[Bbradley62]

If you say you play Cappelletti, you should check out the "Stock Convention Cards" on BBO and look at how that box is filled out on the "GIB 2/1" card. It should be made clear that your 2♣ bid shows any suit, not specifically clubs, and 2♥/2♠ should show the suit bid plus an unspecified minor. (2N response by partner asks you to bid your minor at the 3 level.)

[TylerE]

foobar, on 2015-February-25, 14:59, said:

Your existing methods should work just fine against both weak and strong NT. You may want to consider swapping the 2♣ / 2♦ bids (this allows responder to bid 2♦ to ask opener to name the longer major, etc.).

2♦ as a single suiter is not GCC.

That said, I'd advise scrapping Crapaletti (err...Cappelletti) and just playing Landy:

X = Penalty
2♣ = majors (advancers 2♦ = you pick)
everything else natural.

[wclucas42]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-25, 15:21, said:

If you say you play Cappelletti, you should check out the "Stock Convention Cards" on BBO and look at how that box is filled out on the "GIB 2/1" card. It should be made clear that your 2♣ bid shows any suit, not specifically clubs, and 2♥/2♠ should show the suit bid plus an unspecified minor. (2N response by partner asks you to bid your minor at the 3 level.)

I agree the 6+ card suit is vague, I have updated it to read 6+ any suit. I also updated the other ones, but they are the crux of this thread...

Would you believe me if I told you I referenced the stock convention cards to fill out my first card... Well that and this: http://www.acbl.org/...onvention-card/

It was last September before my first club game. One of the regulars was giving me some pointers. One of the things strongly urged was to identify the number of cards your partner would expect you to hold. So I went through and added the lengths of the holdings where possible... So in NO TRUMP OPENING BIDS my 3 level responses are also a jumbled mess. (i.e. 3♥: Splinter 1- ♥ 31(54)). At the time I could see how that information is useful when you are bouncing from partner to partner each week so I made the changes. A dozen sessions in, I am convinced I could just scribble convention names all over the card and everyone there would know what my bid means. Heck they usually do without even looking at the card, and when they aren't sure I get a question like "Is that Cap?" However, I don't look at the card much either so inertia has set in, but the GIB card is cleaner...

[wclucas42]

suokko, on 2015-February-25, 14:51, said:

The thinking behind 2M promising side minor and 2♣ 6+ cards is that 5332 is too balanced to compete making defending better option. Of course if wanting to bid then without any other agreements it would be better to show 5332 as 6 card suit that 5 card with side suit.

Thanks, this makes sense. Sometimes I just want to be a pest though, and I was using the higher strain bids to do so.

[trevahound]

I don't think Cappelletti is efficient or wise vs str NT, but if that's your preference you can trivially play it and keep 2M as natural (doesn't promise a minor on the side). Instead of 2♣ meaning any one single suit, use 2♣ as one minor, or a M/m two suiter. This leaves 2M as natural (I'm a big fan of that regardless of the rest of our structure), and with the M/m two suiter you start with 2♣, pard puppets to 2♦ (to play if partner's suit is diamonds, else waiting), and you rebid 2M over that. Pard can respond 2nt to that if he wants your minor (or, alternately, you could agree that 3♣ by partner is pass or correct).

Mike makes some excellent points about what we're trying to accomplish vs various NT ranges, and how that should affect the methods we select. Reread his post.

Brian Zaugg

[Vampyr]

foobar, on 2015-February-25, 14:59, said:

Your existing methods should work just fine against both weak and strong NT. You may want to consider swapping the 2♣ / 2♦ bids (this allows responder to bid 2♦ to ask opener to name the longer major, etc.).

BTW, this convention isn't labelled as Cappelletti (which is one of the worst NT defence methods IMO).

What is so wrong with Cappelletti? Yes, switching the 2♣ and 2♦ bids (producing Multi Landy) or in fact playing just about anything where 2♣ shows the majors is better, but I used Cappelletti for many years and do nor remember its causing any problems. Has it caused problems for you?

[wclucas42]

mikeh, on 2015-February-25, 15:14, said:

The reason for using a different defence to a weak 1N than to a strong 1N relates to our goals.

The reality is that when an opp opens a 15-17 1N, game may be available for our side, but the odds suggest that more often than not, by a wide margin, the hand belongs to the opponents.

Accordingly our goals are aimed at finding playable partials for our side and/or disrupting their bidding mechanism. Almost all partnerships have their strong 1N sequences as their most clearly understood, playable, and effective part of their system, so allowing competent opps a free run after they start with 1N will rarely lead to a good outcome for our side.

Disruption of a strong notrump is actually afforded more weight than finding our partscore in a lot of methods....methods that employ ambiguity in their structure.

For example, suction is very difficult for partnerships to play against unless they have clear agreements....without going into detail, a typical suction overcall (such as 2♦) shows either the next suit up or the other 2 suits....so 2♦ shows a one-suited heart overcall or both black suits....now wtf does responder do with, say, long hearts or, say, a 4 card spade suit? There is even more damage done through advancer's actions, but I am straying off topic. The point is that there is good reason to want methods that are primarily destructive or obstructive of the opps' bidding when they start with a strong 1N.

In addition, the opportunities for a penalty double, tho present, are rare when one opp announces 15-17 balanced, so most sophisticated defensive methods use the double as artificial, expanding the types of hands with which one can compete.

Contrast this with a weak 1N....say 12-14, which is a common range.

Now while game chances aren't good, they are a heck of a lot better than after a strong 1N. The hand is less likely to belong to the weak 1N bidder than it would be were the notrump strong.

We therefore need to pay more attention to constructive bidding over their weak 1N than over their strong 1N. A method whose main goal is obstruction will not lend itself well to constructive bidding, and vice versa.

Furthermore, when an opp opens a weak 1N, the chances that we can extract a penalty are far greater than over a strong 1N, so most sophisticated defensive methods incorporate a direct seat unpassed double as a strong hand.

It is possible, and probably a good idea for inexperienced players, to play the same methods over the 2 types, but such will in the long run prove to be sub-optimal. However, if you rarely play against a weak 1N, you may find that the memory cost of playing two methods are too expensive.

Finally, if you do choose to use different methods, make sure that you and partner are on the same page in terms of is this a weak or strong 1N?

12-14 is easy, as is 15-17. What about 14-16? (I say: strong)

What about 13-15?

I have a very simple rule, which I confess may be less than the best, but which is easy and eliminates the need for discussion at the table. If their range includes 15 hcp, I treat it as strong. It may well be that using 16 as the number is better, but 15 has worked well for me.

Thus 13-15, which used to be a common precision range, is treated as strong. I haven't seen anyone play that range in many, many years, which is probably why I haven't encountered any issues with my rule.

Thanks for taking the time to write the detailed response. Your comments about disrupting their auction cover a lot of my motivation. Even having the NT hand on the table seems to help. Missing the chance to be a pest because my minor wasn't long enough seemed a bit confusing, but that was covered elsewhere so no need to rehash it.

I have read about suction. I do like its simplicity and low memory load, but have never able to incorporate it. Its also not GCC apparently like rotating my club and diamond bids. I'm not really sure what that means, so there is my next thread.

I consider myself inexperienced, and the Wednesday night game, if we are lucky enough to have one, is usually a 2 table game for the same 12 people, So I haven't had a chance to see a lot of variation yet, but my first sectional is this Saturday. I am expecting it will be a learning experience.

[wclucas42]

trevahound, on 2015-February-25, 17:11, said:

I don't think Cappelletti is efficient or wise vs str NT, but if that's your preference you can trivially play it and keep 2M as natural (doesn't promise a minor on the side). Instead of 2♣ meaning any one single suit, use 2♣ as one minor, or a M/m two suiter. This leaves 2M as natural (I'm a big fan of that regardless of the rest of our structure), and with the M/m two suiter you start with 2♣, pard puppets to 2♦ (to play if partner's suit is diamonds, else waiting), and you rebid 2M over that. Pard can respond 2nt to that if he wants your minor (or, alternately, you could agree that 3♣ by partner is pass or correct).

Mike makes some excellent points about what we're trying to accomplish vs various NT ranges, and how that should affect the methods we select. Reread his post.

Brian Zaugg

I wouldn't call it a preference as much as a habit, read the caveats section of my post. I think I have been, incorrectly, treating 2M as a natural overcall, and am considering just updating my card to show that... so considering your 2♣ M/m two suiter what does a 2♦ overcall show? I read Mike's post 4 times already and will probably do so again tomorrow.

[wclucas42]

foobar, on 2015-February-25, 14:59, said:

Your existing methods should work just fine against both weak and strong NT. You may want to consider swapping the 2♣ / 2♦ bids (this allows responder to bid 2♦ to ask opener to name the longer major, etc.).

P_Marlowe, on 2015-February-25, 15:13, said:

Switching the meaning of 2C / 2D allowes for asking the overcaller, which
major is better, improving the safety for going in with 54 (even allowing
44), but switching may not GCC compliant ... I am not sure.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: If you switch, the 1-suiter in 3D is usually just a major, a minor gets
bid direct on the 3 level, i.e. switching looses the option to have play 2D.

So we switch clubs and diamonds, and 2♣ shows 5-4 in the majors and 2♦ is 6+ any suit. I like the 2♦ ask for the major, but what is the ask for the single suit hands? Is it 2♥?

It wouldn't be any worse than (1NT) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦ - (P) - 3♣... Plus if you, as Marlowe suggests, just show your minor at the three level anyway because that is where you will end up than 2♦ is really long major with pass or correct. Just want to make sure I am getting it.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I am not sure about the GCC stuff, but want to move that to a separate thread...

[wclucas42]

P_Marlowe, on 2015-February-25, 15:13, said:

Against strong NT, it makes sense to use X as showing 5+ Minor, 4 Major,
discarding the penalty double.
Not having a penalty double against their strong NT is ok, it depends
a bit how often you encounter peoble psyching a strong NT opening
(a reasonable common idea green vs. red in 3rd position), I have rarely
seen this, but this may tell more about the quality of my opponents
than anythin else.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Up until now I was stuck with a take it or leave it position for the conventions I used. Now that I, hopefully, have this regular partner problem licked for the rest of the year, I can hopefully start making some adjustments. I am curious about how advancer would continue after this type of double.

Thanks,

[foobar]

wclucas42, on 2015-February-25, 18:12, said:

So we switch clubs and diamonds, and 2♣ shows 5-4 in the majors and 2♦ is 6+ any suit. I like the 2♦ ask for the major, but what is the ask for the single suit hands? Is it 2♥?

It wouldn't be any worse than (1NT) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦ - (P) - 3♣... Plus if you, as Marlowe suggests, just show your minor at the three level anyway because that is where you will end up than 2♦ is really long major with pass or correct. Just want to make sure I am getting it.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I am not sure about the GCC stuff, but want to move that to a separate thread...

From your original post, it appeared that 2♣ / 2♥ / 2♠ were all single suited and natural (but apparently it isn't the case). The idea was to replace 2♣ (natural) with 2♦ (natural) and swap 2♦ (majors) with 2♣ (majors).

In other words the suggested change is equivalent of Landy (2♣ for the majors), with the remaining bids natural.

[P_Marlowe]

wclucas42, on 2015-February-25, 18:12, said:

So we switch clubs and diamonds, and 2♣ shows 5-4 in the majors and 2♦ is 6+ any suit. I like the 2♦ ask for the major, but what is the ask for the single suit hands? Is it 2♥?

It wouldn't be any worse than (1NT) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦ - (P) - 3♣... Plus if you, as Marlowe suggests, just show your minor at the three level anyway because that is where you will end up than 2♦ is really long major with pass or correct. Just want to make sure I am getting it.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I am not sure about the GCC stuff, but want to move that to a separate thread...

After a 2D overcall, showing a single suited hand, 2H from partner is a so called pass or correct bid.
Partner will pass 2H, if he has hearts, or correct to 2S, if he has spades.
Similar a jump response to 3H, would be a pass or correct bid, it would show support for both majors.
You bid 3H, if you want to preempt.
Simplified: If partner showed a single suited hand, you play in his suite.

Similar: If you make a 2H / 2S overcall, bidding 3C is a pass or correct bid.

In contrast aa 2NT respond is asking partner to clarify, what he holds, he should bid his
suit, if he showed a single suiter, or bid his 2nd suit with a 2-suiter, with min values
he tries to stay low, with max values he jumps.

I did not screen the following completly, but it gives an idea, how the convention works
http://web.mit.edu/m...lts/09/capp.pdf

Pass or Correct bids come up quite often, in various situations.

[Mbodell]

wclucas42, on 2015-February-25, 14:47, said:

So The Defense Vs. No trump section of my card reads like this:
vs Strong
2♣: 6+ card suit
2♦: 5-4+ majors
2♥: 5+♥
2♠: 5+ ♠
Dbl: Penalty
Other: 2NT = minors (5-5)

It is often better (at least with experience) to think less in terms of strict rules for bidding agreements and more in terms of what generally the bid shows and if that is how you'd express your hand. So the normal capp convention can be thought of as:

2♣ = unknown single suited hand
2♦ = both majors
2♥ = 2 suiter ♥+minor
2♠ = 2 suiter ♠+minor
Dbl = penalty
2nt = minors

All without length. You and partner may decide on length restrictions (IME the most common agreement is 6+ for single suiter, 54 either way for both majors, 5+M and 4+m for 2 suiters). And those restrictions might be extremely firm, or might just be guidelines. But thinking about this message helps you consider bidding with the following 2 hands:

AQTxxx x Ax xxxx
xxxxxx x Ax AQTx

Both hands are the same pattern and count. But you might well decide to describe the first hand as an unknown single suiter but the second hand as a 2 suiter with spades and a minor.

Consider also a hand like:

AQTx x Kxx AQTxx

You are quite likely not strong enough to X for penalty with a 15 count. You strongly prefer to have 5+♠ for your 2 suited spades and a minor, but with such a nice hand and extra strength bidding 2♠ showing a 2 suiter with spades and a minor doesn't seem so horrible to me.

And note a hand like:
AQxxxx - x AQxxxx

You have a 6 card suit, but again you are 2 suited, so you would use the 2 suited call, not the single suited call.

[Mbodell]

wclucas42, on 2015-February-25, 18:21, said:

Up until now I was stuck with a take it or leave it position for the conventions I used. Now that I, hopefully, have this regular partner problem licked for the rest of the year, I can hopefully start making some adjustments. I am curious about how advancer would continue after this type of double (edit: a X showing 5+m and 4M).

A common treatment might be:

- 2♣ means bid your longer suit: I.e., if you have 5+ clubs, pass, if you have 5+ diamonds, bid 2♦
- 2♦ means bid your major: I.e., if you have hearts, bid 2H, if you have spades bid 2S
- 2♥ means I don't care what you have, I happen to have enough hearts to suggest we play here
- 2♠ means I don't care what you have, I happen to have enough spaded to suggest we play here
- Also don't forget to consider pass which means I have enough defense to suggest we defend and set them (it is rare but really nice when this comes up)

I play in some partnerships that a X of the strong NT shows a major/minor 2 suiter (at least 5/4 either way) which is why I defined the 2♣ bid as your longer suit (because then sometimes the response to 2♣ is 2♥ or 2♠ if that was longer).

If you free up the X to cover 5/4 in either direction, you then can play 2M as natural single suiters. That is nice as you get those off your chest immediately. That also means you no longer need 2♣ for unknown single suiter as you can now play 2♦ and 3♣ are both natural single suiters (capp forces you to 3♣ for the single suiter in clubs anyways) and play 2♣ as both majors instead of 2♦. This is better because now with no preference partner can bid 2♦ over 2♣ letting the both majors hand pick the better major to play in.

And if you make all of the above switches you move from capp to meyerson as a defense to NT. It all starts with the X that P_Marlowe described (so you could start with capp except the Marlowe double and migrate slowly to this if you wanted).

[nekthen]

Cappeletti with the Club and Diamond suits switched is Multi Landy. I play this against weak NT. I use DONT against strong NT. This allows you to compete more safely at a lower level.

My definition of a strong NT is one that has a minimum hcp of 14. ie 13-15 is weak 14-16 is strong

I changed to this after a couple of disasters doubling a strong NT. Experience suggests that double for penalties is a must v weak NT but a wasted bid v strong NT

Two suited hands should be 5-5 against strong NT and a 6 card suit is a must for a DONT double