[keylime]

Is the Woolsey defense GCC or Mid-Chart gang?

[pclayton]

keylime, on Sep 21 2005, 08:48 AM, said:

Is the Woolsey defense GCC or Mid-Chart gang?

Its mid chart but the districts in Southern Cal allow all defenses to 1N openings.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

The biggest problem with Capp is the penalty double

Wish that it were so ... The biggest problem is the 2♣ bid which can get your fit buried if responder bids. The next problem is it is using the worst possible bid, 2♦ to show the majors. 2♣ is better since you can ensure getting to the better major if advancer has equal length. 2♥ is better since it's harder for the opponents to defend against something likely to be passed. Penalty double limiting the hands you can show is near the bottom of the list of deficiencies, and is occasionally an advantage.
Modified capp variants are better because just about anything is better. But then they are not really "Capp".

Capp is horrible. I'd rather play Landy than Capp. I think I'd rather play natural than Capp.

I'm partial to Lionel (aka Grano-Astro), http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt31.htm, & Woolsey.

[Free]

Lionel has the biggest advantage that both suits are known.
DONT is very frequent but misses the best fit a lot.
Meckwell is just a little less frequent than DONT, has a natural 2♥, and misses the best fit a lot less than DONT.
Woolsey is good in finding the best fit.
Astro/aspro/asptro/... is also fine, but not used for disturbing as much as other methods.
Landy sucks.
Capp is rubish.

I prefer Meckwell vs strong NT or some form of Astro vs weak NT.

[whereagles]

I know I'm alone on this one, but I stand firm on my belief that methods to overcall 1NT should include at least a bid or two to show balanced hands. This is because those are the ones that do come up every now and then.

Dont, capp, brozel, meckwell and all that stuff never come up, unless you start overcalling on unsuitable hands, in which case you might as well make an overcall which shows a balanced hand.

The advantage of overcalling on balanced hands is that you immediately show at least 3 places to play, contrary to two-suited ones which show only two places, but are often made with 3 playable suits (it's either that or pass 1NT..). Pard has to guess opposite the two-suited overcall, whereas opposite the balanced overcall he has less of a guess.

Opposite a strong NT you can mobilize dbl, 2♣ and 2♦ to show balanced hands, reserving a natural 2M for competitive purposes. Opposite a weak NT can only spare the 2m bids. But there's still a lot you can do.

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Sep 22 2005, 12:11 PM, said:

I know I'm alone on this one.

Just for once I will agree with you. Balanced hands have no errand. The hand with shape has.

Roland

[whereagles]

That balanced hands have no business butting-in is common sense, I know. But common sense has been proved wrong on occasion, and I think this is one such case

[helene_t]

It's sometimes said that you must play DONT at matchpoints because the objective is to avoid defending 1NT. That's something I don't understand.

DONT is minor-oriented, i.e. with two-suited hands you show the lower suit first which means that you may miss a major suit fit, especially if opps compete.

This means that you might score +90 instead of +50 or -50 instead of -90. More important at MP than at IMPs, of course. But it also means that you may score -200 instead of -120, -100 instead of -90, +90 instead of +100. I would think that it doesn't really matter in the long run.

+90 instead of -90 is great at IMPs as well, but I would say that especially at MPs you need a major-oriented defense to get the +110 instead of +100. (Of course if you play in a heterogenous field with many weak pairs and/or many pairs not playing 15-17 1NT, +110 and +100 may be the same MPs).

Also, DONT has almost zero preemptive impact since the most frequent calls are dbl and 2♣.

I like Woolsey, but if you play multi/muiderberg it's impractical because you can't use it with a passed hand. In that case you may play
dbl: 5♦4♣ or 5♠4♥
2♣: 5♣4x
2♦: 5♦4M
2♥: 5♥4♠
so you can show all the distributional hands that couldn't preempt.

[whereagles]

Helene: one of the points of taking opps out of 1NT is that defending 1NT is often a sticky business. Lots of guesses, chances for misunderstandings, little information and the occasional bad luck plague that contract's defense.

I much prefer to overcall and be the master of my own destiny, even if that means going for -300 every now and then

[Gerben42]

For those interested see my latest Blog-post on DONT.

[jillybean]

Gerben42, on Sep 22 2005, 03:54 AM, said:

For those interested see my latest Blog-post on DONT.

Can you post a link to it please

tyvm
jb

[jillybean]

Ah, thanks..its early

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Sep 22 2005, 01:10 PM, said:

Seems to be balanced hands are also "unsuitable."

Assuming you avoid going for a number (unlikely with a balanced hand) and you ARE able to scramble into your best fit (unlikely) and you do make your contract, wouldn't you have probably beaten 1N?

I didn't mean "unsuitable" as "risky". I meant that if the overcall is supposed to be two-suited, then making it on a 44 is making it on an unsuitable hand. If you see what I mean...

Anyway, as to scrambing into the best fit leading to same result as letting opps play in 1NT, I don't think that's true, for a number of reasons.

[mikeh]

It is amazing how popular Capp is, since no-one seems to like it. We have politicians like that: they get elected, but nobody admits to voting for them

I agree that Capp is awful. The 2♣ bid is a horror: it asumes (to be effective) that responder passes so as to allow a nice, quiet auction. The major overcalls are even worse: advancer has to go fishing at the 3-level if he doesn't fit the major.

DONT is not the best ever invented, but it is probably the best combination of simplicity and effectiveness currently available, so I usually suggest DONT when playing with a casual partner. It at least maximizes the chance of finding a playable spot at the 2-level.

I like Suction because it is effective and tough to play against: it is surprising how many expert pairs do not have a good defence against it.

Molson is ok: I play it (or old fashioned Astro) when suction is barred. In addition to the suit bids showing that suit and a longer major/minor, the double shows either ♣ or ♥ or ♠ or both majors. Advancer will, if given the chance, usually bid 2♣, if willing to play 2♣ opposite a ♣ suit. Overcaller can then bid 2♦ with both majors or his major with a one suiter.

In my view, all good pairs have coherent, effective bidding schemes when they open 1N, no matter what range is shown. Methods that allow the opps frequent uncontested auctions are therefore likely to lose in the long run compared to methods that get you into their auctions.

Furthermore, methods that possess, in their early stages, ambiguity about the suit(s) held will frequently show a gain because they introduce doubt into the opps' valuation of their holdings.

Of course, one tries to combine some degree of risk-reduction, which is why balanced hands PASS.

[awm]

I think a lot of people underestimate the value of a natural 2♦ bid. It eliminates stayman from the opponents' arsenal; playing typical (lebensohl) methods it's no longer possible for them to show an invitational hand with a four-card major. It also forces them to play major suit contracts from the "wrong" side, with overcaller's partner now likely to get off to an excellent lead. And while 2♦ may not take up a huge amount of space, partner can freely compete to 3♦ (or higher!) with the appropriate hand.

There was a period of time when I experimented a lot with defenses to notrump, starting from the typical dont/capp, experimenting with reversed dont and modified capp, and then playing some lionel and some woolsey. For the past four years I have played one defense almost exclusively against strong NT, and it's one of the first conventions I insist upon in a newly forming partnership (not a pickup, but a partnership I expect to play in repeatedly). We've obtained very many good results from this method, and almost no bad ones. The defense is as follows:

Meyerson vs. Notrump (you can call it modified woolsey, modified robinson, or modified^2 capp if you prefer):

2♠, 2♥, 2♦: natural, generally single-suited
2♣: landy, for the majors
X: two-suited hand with a major and a minor (5-4 or better, either suit can be longer)

The only real "innovation" here is the double. Basically it's takeout. It has many nice aspects, in particular allowing us to double subsequent transfer or stayman bids from responder to show a fit for that suit, giving us a very good probability of finding a fit when the auction remains competitive. Without competition, we will always reach the same contract as woolsey except for the option of playing in advancer's heart suit when doubler has 5♠ and a minor (this has been a huge win on several occasions). The (non-competitive) advances are:

2♣ = "please bid a five card suit, or pass with 5♣+4cM"
2♦ = "please bid your major"
2♥/♠ = "I want to play in this suit"
2NT = game force asking bid (very rare)

After the 2♣/2♦ asking responses, various follow-ups are available to get to doubler's other suit, or to invite game.

[MickyB]

I'd sooner have 2♣ as 5-4 majors or 6 diamonds, 2♦ response says pass with diamonds or bid your longer major...works fine unless responder is 2425 exactly. In fact, in that case you can bid 2♥ pass or correct as you can cope with competing to 3♦ - opps must have a spade fit.

Unlike most here, I think DONT is worse than Capp. After all, Capp is pretty close to Multi-Landy which I quite like, so I can't dislike it too much

Playing with a pick-up, I'd just go for Landy or maybe Woolsey.

[han]

2D, 2H and 2S all natural? I don't think I can remember that in the heat of battle.