[sceptic]

Hi,

I am curious, I play both DONT and CAPP with various people.

what my question is, is, why bother, they seem to come up so infrequently (or maybe I am doing it wrong) is it worth the effort?

I have Landy on my profile, which though basic, seems great to me, the only other def to NT I have seeen that I like is Meckwell, though this is more of a strain on the brain.

Anyway the question is about frequency of DONT and CAPP and is it worth the bother is natural bidding better???????????????

[Walddk]

I agree with Justin: it's a good thing to have 2-suiters as your defence to 1NT. Capp is hopeless in my opinion (forced to the 3-level if you want to play in overcallers minor). I can live with DONT and Brozel, and even Landy because it's so simple.

Having said this, however, I strongly recommend two other defences to 1NT (15-17).

1. Meckwell
http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt41.htm

2. Woolsey
http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt36.htm

Roland

[inquiry]

Capp is crapp..... (I only play it when forced too at the gun point)....

DONT is ok.

I prefer Meckwell

[pclayton]

Capp - ugh

Playing it over strong NT's makes zero sense. We've even dropped it over weak NT's, and play Landy or just natural.

I've come to the realization that I don't even like DONT that much, but its far superior to Capp. Either Meckwell or Woolsey are far better than both.

[Chamaco]

pclayton, on Sep 21 2005, 03:29 PM, said:

I've come to the realization that I don't even like DONT that much, but its far superior to Capp. Either Meckwell or Woolsey are far better than both.

Phil,
I can see the merits of Meckwell defense, but I'd like to know the reasons why Woolsey's defence works better than DONT vs strong NT.

[Al_U_Card]

Other than the desire to be a technician, when you bid over a NT you are betting that your hand will take more tricks in trump than you will on defense (or rather get you a better result).

eg. The double is the part of DONT that says I have a 6 bagger and an outside entry. You can pass with 1 trick and I will lead my suit. I expect us to get 7 tricks on defense and am doubling to maximize the result. If you DONT have a trick, then pull the double and I will play in my suit, forcing them to guess about how to get their good score.......any system (even natural) judiciously applied will tend to work out well.

[paulg]

The only significant upside to Capp and DONT is that pickup partners generally have (at least) a limited understanding of them. The recommendation to use Landy is because ALL pickup partners can easily understand it and it prevents them misapplying other conventions.

As Roland implies, Woolsey is popular in Europe and gaining a number of converts in the UK, although the Astro/Aspro/Asptro family are still very popular as the regulations allowing a non-penalty double of a strong 1NT were only recently adopted.

Paul

[pclayton]

Chamaco, on Sep 21 2005, 07:33 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 21 2005, 03:29 PM, said:

I've come to the realization that I don't even like DONT that much, but its far superior to Capp. Either Meckwell or Woolsey are far better than both.

Phil,
I can see the merits of Meckwell defense, but I'd like to know the reasons why Woolsey's defence works better than DONT vs strong NT.

The problem with DONT is the suit lengths get garbled. Take (1N) - 2♦ (♦'s and a major). Do we have 5♦'s and 4 of the major? 5-5? What do we do with 5M and 4♦'s?

The Woolsey double (minor + major) and direct 2 of a major clarify the lengths nicely.

Of course with DONT, you get to show the minor single suiter at the 2 level. However, as I'm sure you've noticed in this day and age, a 2♣ overcall provides zero preemption to practiced opponents (they ignore it) and a 2♦ overcall doesn't get you much more. If you have a decent 6 bagger, and the vulnerability isn't red / white, try 3♣ or 3♦ playing Woolsey. This call is wide-range and is much more effective.

[Chamaco]

pclayton, on Sep 21 2005, 03:43 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Sep 21 2005, 07:33 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 21 2005, 03:29 PM, said:

I've come to the realization that I don't even like DONT that much, but its far superior to Capp. Either Meckwell or Woolsey are far better than both.

Phil,
I can see the merits of Meckwell defense, but I'd like to know the reasons why Woolsey's defence works better than DONT vs strong NT.

The problem with DONT is the suit lengths get garbled. Take (1N) - 2♦ (♦'s and a major). Do we have 5♦'s and 4 of the major? 5-5? What do we do with 5M and 4♦'s?

The Woolsey double (minor + major) and direct 2 of a major clarify the lengths nicely.

Of course with DONT, you get to show the minor single suiter at the 2 level. However, as I'm sure you've noticed in this day and age, a 2♣ overcall provides zero preemption to practiced opponents (they ignore it) and a 2♦ overcall doesn't get you much more. If you have a decent 6 bagger, and the vulnerability isn't red / white, try 3♣ or 3♦ playing Woolsey. This call is wide-range and is much more effective.

Ok, so what do you think of the scheme below, quite popular at the club I am playing ?

X = generic minor 1 suiter

2C = Landy

2D/H = xfer to H/S, can be M+m 2-suiter, can be strong

2S = raptor hand with spades

2NT = minors

3C/D = natural Raptor with 4 hearts

3H/S = preemptive

[ArcLight]

> I'm sure you've noticed in this day and age, a 2♣ overcall provides zero preemption to practiced opponents (they ignore it) and a 2♦ overcall doesn't get you much more.


How as the partner of the 1NT bidder how do you deal with the opponents bid of:


2♣ ? Double for Stayman? What about penalizing Clubs?

2♦? Doesn't that kill of Jacoby transfers? What do you do over 2 Diamonds?

[Al_U_Card]

pclayton, on Sep 21 2005, 10:43 AM, said:

The problem with DONT is the suit lengths get garbled. Take (1N) - 2♦ (♦'s and a major). Do we have 5♦'s and 4 of the major? 5-5? What do we do with 5M and 4♦'s?

The Woolsey double (minor + major) and direct 2 of a major clarify the lengths nicely.

I play MOLSON, where 2mi is 4+ with a longer (5+) major. 2Ma is 4+ with a longer minor. DBL is either a single suited hand or after the 2C relay for correction, 2D shows the majors and 2NT the minors (H or S being the single suit) Works quite well and is not too hard on the braincells.

[Winstonm]

I've never understood why partnerships chose a defensive NT system without consideration to seat - the objectives of bidding are quite different between 1N-?
and 1N-P-P-? DONT was designed to be used at matchpoints in fourth seat: 1N-P-P-? The objective was to find a relatively safe place to play and move the opponents from the high-scoring 1N.

Chosing what system to play IMO depends on what you are trying to accomplish by bidding, which seat you are in, and the form of scoring.

So my recommendation is: Simple in Second; Funky in Fourth. In second seat, I believe in emphasis on major suits and 1-suited hands; in fouth, any good 2-suited convention should do quite well.

Winston

[inquiry]

Any method that does not allow you to bid 2♥ and 2♠ with, well ♥'s and ♠'s is just wrong. This is the problem with Crapp.... er. capp (I wish they would learn to spell it correctly). This is a feature I really like about Meckwell...

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Sep 21 2005, 11:00 AM, said:

I've never understood why partnerships chose a defensive NT system without consideration to seat - the objectives of bidding are quite different between 1N-?
and 1N-P-P-? DONT was designed to be used at matchpoints in fourth seat: 1N-P-P-? The objective was to find a relatively safe place to play and move the opponents from the high-scoring 1N.

Chosing what system to play IMO depends on what you are trying to accomplish by bidding, which seat you are in, and the form of scoring.

Indeed, suit holdings of KJ9x and QJTx have greater effect depending on where they are relative to the NT bid. Both can be valuable in 2nd seat but only QJTx has merit in 4th seat. Just applying common sense to your system (positionally) makes a big difference.

[SoTired]

overcalling a strong 1NT has more dangers than overcalling a 1-of-a-suit opener. Responder is better placed to make a more accurate low level penalty dbl. Responder also knows very precisely the partnership assets.

So you usually don't interfere with run-of-the-mill overcalls. You need a good hand with a good suit. Or you can compensate your lack of high-cards with a distributional 2-suiter.

DONT is easy and nice against strong NT. You get both suits in at the 2-level. It is inadequate against weak NT, though. And you'll be robbed blind when playing against the 10-12 NT.

Capp (also called Hamilton) is more useful against weaker NT. Woolsey is a modified Capp.

There are better defenses, but for a beginner, DONT against strong NT and Capp against weak NT, is better than playing natural and will allow you to compete against their NT.

[han]

I don't agree with winstonm's and Al_u_Card's interpretations of DONT. DONT is designed to come in as frequently as possible while staying at the 2-level. You don't need any of that stuff that Al_u_Card talks about (1-loser suit and 1 side entry, bla bla bla). The objective is not to be able to pass the double, but to be able to enter the bidding with all 1-suiters and 2-suiters.

The biggest problem with Capp is the penalty double. When using double for penalty you simple cannot show as many different hand types. However, the argument that you cannot bid 2H with hearts or 2S with spades is a bit silly, just modify Capp:

Double: penalty.
2C: either diamonds or major + minor.
2D: both majors.
2H, 2S: natural.

I think that such a structure can still be useful against weak or mini-notrumps.

Of course, you can make the same change to DONT, this modification is called Meckwell. If you want to play Woolsey but still be able to bid 2M with a single suiter, just play:

Dbl= major+minor, stronger minor.
2C= both majors.
2D= major+minor, major at least as strong.
2H= hearts.
2S= spades.

A nice mix of the good parts of Meckwell and Woolsey. If only I could play bridge like they do...

[Chamaco]

Winstonm, on Sep 21 2005, 04:00 PM, said:

I've never understood why partnerships chose a defensive NT system without consideration to seat

I think that the system on in the balancing seat should be the same regardless of the NT range:

after

1NT-p-p- ?

The risks of passing (being stolen) and of bidding (being busted) are more or less the same regardless of whether 1NT is, say, 15-17 or 12-14 or 10-12.

So, even pairs who play Defense A vs strong NT and Defense B vs weak NT, should IMO revert to B even vs strong NT, in the balancing seat.

[Winstonm]

Quote

So you usually don't interfere with run-of-the-mill overcalls. You need a good hand with a good suit. Or you can compensate your lack of high-cards with a distributional 2-suiter.

Agree with the first sentence but must disagree with the second. Immediate seat is not where you want to be scrambling to find a playable fit - when the bidding starts 1N-P-P-? you may survive a 5/2 or 4/3 fit but in immediate seat the risk is simply too great. The best hands with which to compete in second seat are similar to a sturdy weak 2-bid with a suit good enough and long enough to discourage a penalty double: QJ109xx, x, xxx, KQx. This hand causes a lot of havoc with a simple 2S overcall, but any non-natural 1-suited call allows the opponents plenty of room to find their heart fit and level of play.

If I had to chose, I'd pick natural in second seat over DONT or Capp. If I wanted to use some form of 2-suiter/natural, Meckwell seems suitable.

Winston