[biggerclub]

vs. STR NT: I use a system I call inverted DONT (read about it in Hughes, The Competitive Auction or some such):

(1NT) and now:

2♣ = ♣s
2♦ = ♦s
2♥ = ♥s
2♠ = ♠s and
x = any 2 suiter (could be 4-4).

Note that the suit bids do not deny a second suit, just don't promise one.

When the OPPs open 1NT, I just want to bid. Something. Anything. This system lets me do that more often.

vs. WKNT:

I like x= penalty and Modified Hamilton (Hamilton is what Capelleti is called on the USA West Coast, I found out) . . . 2♣ = ♦s or MAJ/min; 2♦ = MAJs; 2♥ = ♥s and 2♠ = ♠s

Hughes (see above) recommends that x = balanced 13+ (the kind of hand we, in USA, would open a convenient minor) and I don't remember the rest of the system (and I gave the book to my partner).

[GrahamJson]

For what it is worth, I have always played Asptro; 2C=Hearts+another and 2D=Spadess+another. With both majors you show the shorter. Partner usually supports the major with 3+ cards! otherwise bids the next step. Overcaller then rebids his major with 5, passes with 5 cards in that suit or bids alower5 card suit. This gives you the greatest chance of finding a playable fit.

[Zelandakh]

Others have already answered the original question about why Capp and M-L typically require a 4 card minor on the side for their 2M overcalls. For the record I second the suggestion that M-L is a solid choice for a simple but effective method against 1NT. I prefer M-L (where 2♦ is specifically a major) to Reverse Capp (where 2♦ can be any suit) but you can play it either way and the differences are minor.

One advantage of going with M-L is that it is easy to add a little complexity to switch between effective strong and weak NT defences, by using X as 4M, 5+m as has already been suggested. Advancing this double works in precisely the same way as the 2♦ overcall, using pass/correct bids.

Graham has mentioned Asptro, which is a very popular defence in weak NT countries. Unfortunately it tends to be a lot more complicated than M-L in practise. A nice way of making it a little simpler is to mix it with M-L 2M calls, so that 2♣ contains the heart one-suiters but not the 5M4+m hands and similarly for 2♦ and spades. That loses the natural 2M overcalls (bad) but reduces the load on the 2m overalls (good).

Finally I will give my favourite defence, which is a mixture of the above defences. It is not recommended for beginners:

X = ♥ + ♦ + ♣ or 4♥, 5+m or ♥ + ♠ with longer/better spades (ie hearts + another)
2♣ = ♠ + ♥ + ♦ or 4♠, 5+m or ♠ + ♥ with longer/better hearts (ie spades + another)
2♦ = ♥ or ♠
2♥ = 5♥, 4+m
2♠ = 5 spades, 4+m
2NT = ♣ + ♦

The 2♦ and 2M overcalls work precisely the same way as in M-L. X and 2♣ work similarly to the 2m overcalls of Asptro except that a lot of pass/correct bids are used rather than an explicit relay.

If one plays in the USA, the problem with all of these methods is not the methiods themselves but rather the GCC. This is the main reason Capp is so popular, since most worthwhile defences are not allowed. If GCC-compliance is importance for you then your hands are tied to a large extent; if not then I would suggest moving to one of the alternatives as soon as you can.

[helene_t]

AWM has a nice defense which is simple and gcc compliant. It is landy but x is M+m. Now 2c is p/c asking for the five card suit while 2d asks for the major. You end in the same contract as woolsey except that you also have a natural 2d bid.

The disadvantage is that you bid one round slower with the 5M-4m hands

[daffydoc]

My preferred method is to play DONT in direct vs Strong and Multi Landy in balance( as this will bring penalty dbls back into the picture)with the balancer being allowed to dbl with 10-12 to protect pard who would have to have passed with 11-13. Against weak Multi Landy is my preferred method. daffydoc

[steve2005]

TylerE, on 2015-February-25, 16:20, said:

2♦ as a single suiter is not GCC.

ACBL board of directors may allow this in future.

however, this meaning is currently allowed in balancing seat as the prohibition only applies to direct overcalls.

So you could use in balance but its not advisable as would be so easy to have an oops and forget.

[Phil619]

I prefer Cappelletti to DONT. By definition 2♥ is ♥ and a minor. 2♠ is ♠s and a minor.

Yes, pass! If you have a solid 5 card suit, you may defeat 1NT. If partner has some values, he should re-open in 4th seat if openers partner has passed.

[Mbodell]

biggerclub, on 2015-February-26, 06:44, said:

vs. STR NT: I use a system I call inverted DONT (read about it in Hughes, The Competitive Auction or some such):
(1NT) and now:
2♣ = ♣s
2♦ = ♦s
2♥ = ♥s
2♠ = ♠s and
x = any 2 suiter (could be 4-4).
Note that the suit bids do not deny a second suit, just don't promise one.
When the OPPs open 1NT, I just want to bid. Something. Anything. This system lets me do that more often.

Hmm, I play inverted DONT with some partners but it is a bit different. X is single suited clubs, or 2 suits that aren't clubs (partner bids 2 clubs mostly unless they have their own very long suit). 2♣ is clubs and a higher, 2♦ and up are natural.

helene_t, on 2015-February-26, 11:40, said:

AWM has a nice defense which is simple and gcc compliant. It is landy but x is M+m. Now 2c is p/c asking for the five card suit while 2d asks for the major. You end in the same contract as woolsey except that you also have a natural 2d bid.

The disadvantage is that you bid one round slower with the 5M-4m hands

Indeed. See for instance from my above post for a similar description of that quite good defense:

Mbodell, on 2015-February-26, 02:29, said:

...
And if you make all of the above switches you move from capp to meyerson as a defense to NT....

[helene_t]

Biggerclub, if you double with any two-suiter and responder doesn't like clubs, it may go:

x-2♦
2♥-?

and now advancer doesn't know if doubler has clubs or spades. Mbodell's system solves this.

There is another disadvantage of doubling with two suits: if partner passes you won't know which of the two suits to lead. If double shows a single suiter, then partner will pass when he thinks it is fine for you to lead your long suit no matter which it is.

[wclucas42]

Wow, thanks everyone for the replies... Work took a turn for the busy yesterday, and I haven't been able to sit down and catch up yet. I'm hoping to over the weekend. I appreciate everyone's time and thoughts, it's what makes this such a great resource.

Thanks again,

Bill

[steve2005]

biggerclub, on 2015-February-26, 06:44, said:

vs. STR NT: I use a system I call inverted DONT (read about it in Hughes, The Competitive Auction or some such):

(1NT) and now:
2♣ = ♣s
2♦ = ♦s
2♥ = ♥s
2♠ = ♠s and
x = any 2 suiter (could be 4-4).

I've seen a system like this, it doesn't overcall on 4-4 2suiters but I suppose you could use it that way.

But it did use 2N for ♣/♥ 2 suiters. This makes it easier to find other fits at the 2 level. Was supposedly used by Bergen before DONT

[biggerclub]

steve2005, on 2015-February-28, 16:21, said:

I've seen a system like this, it doesn't overcall on 4-4 2suiters but I suppose you could use it that way.

NV v VUL and against certain weak pairs, I am coming in over their NT until they learn how to x for penalty. Especially against the "experts" who play "all low level x's are takeout." I play mostly MPs, however.

[sfi]

biggerclub, on 2015-February-28, 22:00, said:

NV v VUL and against certain weak pairs, I am coming in over their NT until they learn how to x for penalty. Especially against the "experts" who play "all low level x's are takeout."

Come on in, the water's warm. If you think that playing takeout doubles means you're less likely to be penalised, you're very much mistaken.

[biggerclub]

sfi, on 2015-February-28, 23:14, said:

Come on in, the water's warm. If you think that playing takeout doubles means you're less likely to be penalised, you're very much mistaken.

I am satisfied with my results so far. I'm adaptable.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-25, 17:19, said:

I used Cappelletti for many years and do nor remember its causing any problems. Has it caused problems for you?

Gib plays it so most of us have plenty of experience although admittedly with a suboptimal implementation in which overcallers suit is usually lost if they interfere over our 2c. But I think that will often happen even with good follow up agreements.

In my experience they usually interfere over 2c so with a single suiter it has very little upside to bid at all.

If responder is going to pass you would probably be happy to defend 1nt with a six card suit to lead. So single suiters should either pass or make a natural overcall that obstructs them and allows p to compete.

[Lovera]

I find this topic much interesting yet for different ways to manage this convention. Has i have already said i use Stayman system that rules interfence vs 1NT(16-18) so:(31) ♠ QJ10874 ♥ QJ76 ♦ K9 ♣ 2 1NT-2♣ ;(32) ♠ K103 ♥ AJ7 ♦ QJ43 ♣ AQ6 1NT-X ;(33) ♠ KJ85 ♥ Q1096 ♦ 7 ♣ AQ84 1NT-2♣ ;(34) ♠ KQ83 ♥ QJ10973 ♦ 7 ♣ A4 p-p-1NT-2♣. As you may see X occurs when hand is "pair" of force to that one of 1NT and is balanced whilest 2♣ when unbalanced than, to integrate, 2♦(=heart+spade), 2♥ and 2♠(=Major+minor) should be weak.