[michel444]

this the scratch note /

--there are many convention to defensive biding over 1 NT //
in most system
the 1NT opening have a range of 3 HPC
I will devide them in 3 group
mini NT 10-12 HCP
weak NT 12-14 13-15
strong NT 14-16 15-17 16-18
in some system the range is 4

1N 10-13 balanced danish Trend //
11-14 Moscito Scream Spread …
1N 12-15 balanced, no major // Mock /

1N 15-18 balanced Majeure Cinquieme //

1N 16-19 balanced Efos Opening Bids //

1N 17-20 Roman Club //
1N 19-22 balanced Romex /

more gape (5)

1N 10-14 balanced with 4-5 spades /German Moscito /
1N 12-16 balanced //Bernier Club /
1N 13-15 3325/3334 //
--16-17 balanced /// Ace club, Blue Team Club // //Neapolitan Club /


The very old school

second chair : Double Stronger then first chair (Penalty)
2 of a suit 2 Level overcall with good (or solid suit+) /
if we go back the mini NT and weak NT have a low range so Penalty Double make sense you side may have a game !
The strong NT 14+ give little expectation to find Game .
So we try to compet for a playable part score
if we don't compet the likely oction
is
--a:1NT pass pass pass
– b:1NT pass 2NT pass //
pass / 3NT …..
--c: 1NT pass 2x ….
d:-- 1 NT pass 3NT
in the 2 first case you want to interfer .
Responder have a problem .
In case c: you likely to bid the suit he use to trasnfer remove from him the stayman

(1 NT) 2♦ (no mater what 2♦ mean responder have a problem
he canot bid 2 ♣ (Stayman)) how does he bid a 5 cards with bad hand or limit /

before going on
---I will list some of them in alphabetical order. the description after the list. //
--Astro //
--Brozzel //
--Crash over 1nt //
--Capeliti //
--D.O.N.T. //
--Hamilton //
– Landy
--Polish //
– woolsey //

to be coninued

[mikeh]

Cappelletti is the same as Hamilton. Just two players claiming they invented the same defence

Plus your list of notrump ranges is incomplete

I’ve played

10-12
11-13
11-14
12-14
13-15
14-16
15-17

Currently either 14-16 or, in my other partnership, 11-13 nv and 14-16 vul.

And back when I was a beginner, 16-18

As for defences, there are quite a few you don’t mention

For example, against strong notrumps I have played suction. I’ve also played molson. I currently play multi-landy, also known as woolsey (which you did list). I haven’t tried Meckwell, but that seems pretty good as well

Against weak notrump we play a method which I’ve never seen labelled: 2C majors, 2D and 2H are transfers, 2S single suited minor, 2N both minors, x 15+ hcp, may be shaded with a good lead.

Somehow I get the impression that you have a very high opinion of your bridge knowledge, but I’m not sure it’s warranted.

Plus, if one is looking at defences to notrump openings, one should also consider defences to defences

In my partnership 22 years ago we had several pages of notes on how we, the side that opened 1N (then 10-12 or 15-17) bid against their defences. For example, there’s a huge difference between how one should defend against say brozel, where the suits are known, or against suction, where the suit or suits aren’t known.

Of course, today few play methods in which they identify their suits, other than 2C showing the majors (part of several systems that have ambiguity for other actions) because creating ambiguity tends to disrupt the efficient exchange of information. Most experienced partnerships have some of their best and most coherent constructive methods after they start 1N….it’s theoretically easy to design a good method since opener’s hand is more tightly defined, immediately, than with most other opening bids.

I think it much better to talk about concepts such as disruption of communication and how some methods are more effective at that than others than it is to simply list a bunch of conventions, some of which haven’t been played by good players in decades.

For example, I’ve not encountered Landy or brozel or Astro being played by any expert pair in some 20 years.

[pilowsky]

How does this approach fit in the universe of NT overcalls? (Martel & Mahmoud; 2013)

NOTE 14: DEFENSE VS NT
DBL = Penalty
2♣ = ♠ + ♥. Advancer's 2♦ asks for longer M (♥ with equal length)
2♦ = Natural + a major (2N asks major and range)
2M = Natural (3♣ response is a strong raise)
3M = WK NV, STR VUL

[Douglas43]

You might find Bridge Bum helpful: Bridge Bidding Conventions (bridgebum.com)

Astro<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Brozel<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Cappelletti (Hamilton)<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">DONT<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Gates Double<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Landy<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Meckwell Defense to 1NT Multi-Landy (Woolsey)<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Pinpoint Astro<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Ripstra<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Roche<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">SCUM<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Suction

[sfi]

This might help: https://blakjak.org/def_1nt01.htm

[michel444]

 mikeh, on 2022-October-08, 16:31, said:

Cappelletti is the same as Hamilton. Just two players claiming they invented the same defence

Plus your list of notrump ranges is incomplete

I’ve played

10-12
11-13
11-14
12-14
13-15
14-16
15-17

Currently either 14-16 or, in my other partnership, 11-13 nv and 14-16 vul.

And back when I was a beginner, 16-18

As for defences, there are quite a few you don’t mention

For example, against strong notrumps I have played suction. I’ve also played molson. I currently play multi-landy, also known as woolsey (which you did list). I haven’t tried Meckwell, but that seems pretty good as well

Against weak notrump we play a method which I’ve never seen labelled: 2C majors, 2D and 2H are transfers, 2S single suited minor, 2N both minors, x 15+ hcp, may be shaded with a good lead.

Somehow I get the impression that you have a very high opinion of your bridge knowledge, but I’m not sure it’s warranted.

Plus, if one is looking at defences to notrump openings, one should also consider defences to defences

In my partnership 22 years ago we had several pages of notes on how we, the side that opened 1N (then 10-12 or 15-17) bid against their defences. For example, there’s a huge difference between how one should defend against say brozel, where the suits are known, or against suction, where the suit or suits aren’t known.

Of course, today few play methods in which they identify their suits, other than 2C showing the majors (part of several systems that have ambiguity for other actions) because creating ambiguity tends to disrupt the efficient exchange of information. Most experienced partnerships have some of their best and most coherent constructive methods after they start 1N….it’s theoretically easy to design a good method since opener’s hand is more tightly defined, immediately, than with most other opening bids.

I think it much better to talk about concepts such as disruption of communication and how some methods are more effective at that than others than it is to simply list a bunch of conventions, some of which haven’t been played by good players in decades.

For example, I’ve not encountered Landy or brozel or Astro being played by any expert pair in some 20 years.

Mikeh !
Thank you very much for you comment
this is" this the scratch note /""
writen on the top of this article I did not finished to write it it was just a beginning of an unfishened article .
I do't know everything and i am not trying to produce a new system .
everyday is a lesson and my focuse is very bad,,
Thank you again
michel

[michel444]

 pilowsky, on 2022-October-08, 20:24, said:

How does this approach fit in the universe of NT overcalls? (Martel & Mahmoud; 2013)

NOTE 14: DEFENSE VS NT
DBL = Penalty
2♣ = ♠ + ♥. Advancer's 2♦ asks for longer M (♥ with equal length)
2♦ = Natural + a major (2N asks major and range)
2M = Natural (3♣ response is a strong raise)
3M = WK NV, STR VUL

Thank you ! Zia have changed .. i played with him in the 80's before he was famous
Michel

[michel444]

 sfi, on 2022-October-09, 03:24, said:

This might help: https://blakjak.org/def_1nt01.htm

Thank you very much !
a very good reprensentation of all system .
i thought there are only a Dozen seem there are much more..

[michel444]

 Douglas43, on 2022-October-09, 02:53, said:

You might find Bridge Bum helpful: Bridge Bidding Conventions (bridgebum.com)

Astro<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Brozel<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Cappelletti (Hamilton)<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">DONT<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Gates Double<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Landy<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Meckwell Defense to 1NT Multi-Landy (Woolsey)<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Pinpoint Astro<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Ripstra<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Roche<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">SCUM<br style="border-radius: 0px !important;">Suction

Thank you!
this 1 was already found before posting my scratch note
Michel

[AL78]

 mikeh, on 2022-October-08, 16:31, said:

For example, I’ve not encountered Landy or brozel or Astro being played by any expert pair in some 20 years.

Those are the three I have played most frequently. I feel a right noob now. :-)

[DavidKok]

For what it's worth, Landy is very popular here (even over multi-landy), especially over weak notrumps. Also technically there is a slight difference between Woolsey and multi-landy, in that Woolsey defines the double (5m4M) while multi-landy does not.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2022-October-12, 02:00, said:

For what it's worth, Landy is very popular here (even over multi-landy), especially over weak notrumps. Also technically there is a slight difference between Woolsey and multi-landy, in that Woolsey defines the double (5m4M) while multi-landy does not.

We play Multilandy and consider the 5m4M double as an optional extension (which is not on against weak NT). But that could just be ignorance, nobody here ever heard of Woolsey as a convention.
Many others play simple Landy, a few play transfers or some mixed scheme.

[mikeh]

As a general comment, echoing what has been said many times on BBF, after a strong 1N, the intervening side should prioritize obstruction of the opening side’s bidding rather than trying to reach making high level contracts. In contrast, game is still possible (to a much greater degree) after a weak 1N opening and, thus, the intervening side must give considerable weight to constructive bidding in addition to trying to disrupt the opponents’ bidding.

It is, I believe, for these reasons that modern defensive bidding over a strong notrump often initially conceals overcaller’s shape and (in many but not all) schemes assigns an artificial meaning to double while over weak notrump most schemes use a penalty oriented double and most schemes disclose at least one suit owned by overcaller.

The reason, again in my view, that conventions such as landy and brozel are rarely seen at the higher levels of the game is that, because they identify the suits held by overcaller, they are easy to counter, whether by allowing for constructive bidding or tagging overcaller for a penalty. Also, especially for landy, one is often stuck with a two suited hand that one cannot safely bid. The only two suiter one can bid and hope to play at the 2 level is both majors. One will hold a major-minor two suited hand four as often as holding both majors. While one can overcall 2M with a M-m hand and sometimes get away with it, on other occasions one belongs in the minor yet can’t safely find it.

In addition, a common attribute of most modern methods over the strong notrump is, as I said above, ambiguity. Ambiguity makes responder’s task more complex and difficult than after an old fashioned unambiguous overcall.

For example, after 1N (2D) showing an unspecified one major overcall, one cannot safely pass if one will not be happy if advancer also passes…opener will rarely, if ever, be able to balance.

And while rare, the ambiguity can create amusing positions. Not too long ago, my partner overcalled this ‘multi’ 2D and my RHO bid 2H….my void….we defended their 5-2 fit. Had partner overcalled 2H, we’d have played either 2H or 2H doubled, for a much worse result ( I had some 4045 modest hand). RHO couldn’t afford to pass since he expected us to have a 2S contract and was willing to compete to 3H if opener had hearts.

[michel444]

 pescetom, on 2022-October-12, 06:16, said:

We play Multilandy and consider the 5m4M double as an optional extension (which is not on against weak NT). But that could just be ignorance, nobody here ever heard of Woolsey as a convention.
Many others play simple Landy, a few play transfers or some mixed scheme.

as far as i know Woolsey and Multi Landy are the same
double of 1NT with 4M5m is part of Polish system
Capilet Hamilton and Potage are 3 name for same convention

[nullve]

I would ignore defences that don't distinguish between the following shapes at a reasonably low level:

* 5+S4H
* 4S5+H
* 6+M3-OM
* 5M4+m3-OM
* 4M5+m3-OM

None of the defences on your original list do that except the Woolsey defence with X = 4M5+m and maybe the Polish defence, whatever it is.

The only defences I can think of right now that do that while keeping the penalty double, are Asptro and my own ( ) defence. That makes them superior to Woolsey as Weak NT defences IMO.

[pescetom]

 nullve, on 2022-October-13, 02:01, said:

I would ignore defences that don't distinguish between the following shapes at a reasonably low level:

* 5+S4H
* 4S5+H
* 6+M3-OM
* 5M4+m3-OM
* 4M5+m3-OM

None of the defences on your original list do that except the Woolsey defence with X = 4M5+m and maybe the Polish defence, whatever it is.

The only defences I can think of right now that do that while keeping the penalty double, are Asptro and my own ( ) defence. That makes them superior to Woolsey as Weak NT defences IMO.

David Oakley's version of Multilandy has a multiple meaning double which retains penalty as well as 4M5m,6m and even 5M. No idea how playable that is.

Back to the Woolsey discussion, I see from the wikipedia description that 2M promises a 5 (not 4) card side minor, which if exact is a significant difference from Multilandy.

[AL78]

 nullve, on 2022-October-13, 02:01, said:

I would ignore defences that don't distinguish between the following shapes at a reasonably low level:

* 5+S4H
* 4S5+H
* 6+M3-OM
* 5M4+m3-OM
* 4M5+m3-OM

None of the defences on your original list do that except the Woolsey defence with X = 4M5+m and maybe the Polish defence, whatever it is.

The only defences I can think of right now that do that while keeping the penalty double, are Asptro and my own ( ) defence. That makes them superior to Woolsey as Weak NT defences IMO.

What is your 1NT defence? Distinguishing between five different hand shapes at a reasonably low level (whatever counts as "reasonably") sounds hard to do.

My experience of playing various defences to 1NT is that whichever one you pick, you will wish you were playing another. Landy doesn't come up very often. Brozel loses the penalty double which is necessary in weak NT land (e.g. the UK). Astro is a good way to train yourself to make two level contracts in 4-3 or 5-2 poorly fitting hands which you have to do to avoid losing out to those who defend 1NT and get it down. Multi Landy I've had no success with because my partners either have memory issues with it or play a different version to the one I looked up. Natural overcalls are good for wishing you were playing a suited overcall such as Astro or its variants.

[Gilithin]

A good starting point for understanding and choosing a 1NT defence can be found at David Stevenson's web site. If you want something more exotic than these, a few additional options have been posted on BBF over the years. For the most part though, beginner's should probably start with Landy and branch out from there as they gain some experience. For solid intermediates and above, Multi-Landy is a fairly decent defence that is not too complicated and also played at the top level of the game.

[pescetom]

 AL78, on 2022-October-13, 05:24, said:

Multi Landy I've had no success with because my partners either have memory issues with it or play a different version to the one I looked up.

My experience is that weaker partners will remember the initial interferences but improvise the follow-ups, which can be disastrous. But then nobody forces us to play bridge with weak partners, even if the alternative is not playing bridge.

One scheme that is relatively low memory load and over strong NT looks like decent bang for buck in terms of obstruction/risk is Suction. I've never understood if it is little mentioned because my impression is wrong (occasionally an expert player has been scathing about it) or just because few play it (it was banned for many years at low level in ACBL and is little known in Europe).

[DavidKok]

Over here Suction is called 'Chameleon'. Personally I am not a fan of the treatment for a number of reasons. Firstly it is not safe for advancer to pass the suction bid, giving responder (partner of the 1NT opener) at least two bites at the apple. Secondly other than 2♣ holding both majors you are often forced to the 3-level with a two-suited hand, making it risky to use the bid on, for example, an under strength 5-4 that might have bid using a scheme that shows those suits at the 2-level. Thirdly the previous point also enforces that the relative frequency of the single-suited hand is much higher than the double-suited alternative, so opener and responder can play their defence to transfer overcalls without much risk, i.e. the disruptive power is lower than that of other overcall schemes. Lastly the fact that not a single suit is known means it is that much more difficult for advancer to recover if responder makes a call - if the auction goes (1NT)-2♦* (hearts, or spades+clubs)-(2♠)-?, do you assume hearts? What if responder bid 3♣* - transfer to diamonds?
All things considered I think Suction over strong NT is a comparatively poor tradeoff between frequency of use, ability to disrupt and safety.