[Winstonm]

ArcLight, on Dec 3 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

Winston,
Mike Lawrence has a booklet (56 pages) explaining DONT.  The 2NT bid shows the "BIG" hand.

But its very rare that it comes up, and probably most people even know about it.


People have posted they dont like DONT because it might not "disturb" that much.  But it doesn't expose you to horrible penalties like some of the other conventions becaus eit keeps you lower and allows the opps to compete in a suit part score.
Bidding to the 3 level in a minor can result in some severe penalties on occasion.

In his CD on conventions, Mike Lawrence wrote something to the effect of "it doesn't matter that much which convention you use, as long as you use some convention against the opponents No Trump".  He rated DONT 2.5 out of 5, and didn't present any other, he may have liked its simplicity.

I used to play DONT and abondoned it because the results did not justify its usage, although I admit I did not use 2N to show big 2-suiters as in my opinion that is just too high to be when RHO has a good hand and you have no guarantee of a fit.

I assume Lawrence rated DONT as a 2.5 because of its second seat flaws. One huge drawback of DONT is the 1-suited double: this removes exactly zero room from the opponents bidding space. Playing DONT, any time you find yourself with a holding such as KQJxxx, AKJ10xx, QJ109xx or the like in any suit (except a weak spade hand), you neither can bid the suit to compete nor displace bidding room from the opponents - in fact, with the 1-suited double you have actually increased the number of bids for your oppenents; now they can assign a meaning to redouble and to pass, while still retaining the integrity of their entire bidding structure.

I know, before anyone hoots, you get to bid 2S naturally - but only with weakish hands. Good spade hands still have to double first.

I stand by my convictions: DONT should be DONT-C. Disturn Opponents No Trump Contract - pass out seat. If I remember correctly, and although he didn't say so precisely, Larry Cohen implied this as well in his LOTT book by talking about disturbing the opponents when the auction was 1N-P-P-?, because too often they were happy with their contract.

Winston

[ArcLight]

Winston,
What defense against NT would you suggest? (one that pick up pards will be familiar with and can be used in most venues)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Mike Lawrence wrote on his Conventions CDs

"I am not saying DONT is a wonderful convention.
I am saying you should be prepared to bid when the opponents open 1NT.
If you dont like DONT try something else"

His primary advice is that you use somthing other than natural bidding over a strong NT.

He cautions that it should not be used against weak NTs.

And that its purpose is to interfere, not reach the best contract.
"the main goal is to hinder their bidding"

Soem have posted they don't think that it doesnt do that well, via 2 Clubs or Dbl, which will be the most common bids.

[Winstonm]

ArcLight, on Dec 3 2005, 06:43 PM, said:

Winston,
What defense against NT would you suggest?  (one that pick up pards will be familiar with and can be used in most venues)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Mike Lawrence wrote on his Conventions CDs

"I am not saying DONT is a wonderful convention.
I am saying you should be prepared to bid when the opponents open 1NT.
If you dont like DONT try something else"

His primary advice is that you use somthing other than natural bidding over a strong NT.

He cautions that it should not be used against weak NTs.

And that its purpose is to interfere, not reach the best contract.
"the main goal is to hinder their bidding"

Soem have posted they don't think that it doesnt do that well, via 2 Clubs or Dbl, which will be the most common bids.

The primary purpose of bidding against NT in direct seat is to interfere with the opponents' machinery - their bidding tools - but you have to do this with some degree of sanity and safety.

I would work backwards: 2S takes most room and removes 2-level Stayman and Jacoby. 2H is next and takes away 2-level Stayman and Jacoby unless Stolen Bid is used. 2D then removes 2-level Stayman but may not remove Jacoby if opps use Stolen Bid.
2C and double remove nothing.

So it would seem that whatever you use, make sure you can bid 2H and 2S a lot of the time - this means no system that requires double or 2C as a 1-suiter if the suit is hearts/spades.

Maybe a modified DONT would work...never thought about it.

Against Strong NTs, Immediate seat.

Dble=Clubs and another, emphasis on clubs 45 or 46 (you aren't interfering here so the reason to bid is to indicate a lead or to compete with a prettty good hand.)
2C=diamonds and another, emphasis on diamonds, 45 or 46. (Same reasoning as above.)
2D=Majors (Takes away Stayman. Remember, 2C is necessary in 4-suit trx to invite NT, so removing Stayman when holding majors has value.)
2H/2S=natural. (Most effective destructive bids.)

This may already by some convetion I don't know of - just seems to me a logical way to attack this problem. Shouldn't be hard for a pick-up pard to grasp, although I can't put a name tag on it.

You give up the 1-suited minors, which do not create much of a problem for opps anyway, and gain by being able to compete 2 suited in the minors while still blocking the opps with 2H and 2S.

Another loss - which is not much loss IMO if at all - is that 54 major minor hands have to be bid as 1-suiters: these hands, unless real strong, really don't need to be poking thier noses into a 1N auction anyway.

I would still use DONT as originally proposed in pass out seat - I think it is an excellent "scramble" tool to get opps out of precisely a 1N passed out contract.

Winston

[P_Marlowe]

ArcLight, on Dec 3 2005, 06:43 PM, said:

Winston,
What defense against NT would you suggest?  (one that pick up pards will be familiar with and can be used in most venues)

Hi,

with pick up partners, either you use a popular
convention or you bid natural or PASS.

The point is, what ever Mike Lawrence writes,
it's main focus are regular partnerships.

So use DONT, Landy or
Cappelletti (Multi Landy, Hamilton)
Using the last one, just ask, what 2C
shows, mayor or single suiter.

And be content, if you cant reach your optimal
contract.

Marlowe

PS: Against strong NT I play a destrutive version of Lionel,
similar to DONT, but Lionel focuses on the mayors.
Against weak NT I play a contructive version of LIonel.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Dec 4 2005, 10:38 PM, said:

Against Strong NTs, Immediate seat.

Dble=Clubs and another, emphasis on clubs 45 or 46 (you aren't interfering here so the reason to bid is to indicate a lead or to compete with a prettty good hand.)
2C=diamonds and another, emphasis on diamonds, 45 or 46. (Same reasoning as above.)
2D=Majors (Takes away Stayman. Remember, 2C is necessary in 4-suit trx to invite NT, so removing Stayman when holding majors has value.)
2H/2S=natural. (Most effective destructive bids.)

This structure looks terrible...

Comment 1: You are competing against a strong NT. Accordingly, you want to priortize jamming their auctions above your own constructive bidding. This leads to

Comment 2: Your low level bids are transfers:

Double = Clubs
Clubs = Diamonds
Diamonds = Majors

Transfers are all fine and dandy during constructive bidding sequences. They are very helpful in sorting out ranges and the like. Transfers are miserable in contested auctions because they give the opponents three bites at the apple... Your defensive system significantly increases the bidding space available to the opponents. Good opponents will be able to penalty double you when its right and still be able to describe their hands.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Dec 4 2005, 10:38 PM, said:

Against Strong NTs, Immediate seat.

Dble=Clubs and another, emphasis on clubs 45 or 46 (you aren't interfering here so the reason to bid is to indicate a lead or to compete with a prettty good hand.)
2C=diamonds and another, emphasis on diamonds, 45 or 46. (Same reasoning as above.)
2D=Majors (Takes away Stayman. Remember, 2C is necessary in 4-suit trx to invite NT, so removing Stayman when holding majors has value.)
2H/2S=natural. (Most effective destructive bids.)

This structure looks terrible...

Comment 1: You are competing against a strong NT. Accordingly, you want to priortize jamming their auctions above your own constructive bidding. This leads to

Comment 2: Your low level bids are transfers:

Double = Clubs
Clubs = Diamonds
Diamonds = Majors

Transfers are all fine and dandy during constructive bidding sequences. They are very helpful in sorting out ranges and the like. Transfers are miserable in contested auctions because they give the opponents three bites at the apple... Your defensive system significantly increases the bidding space available to the opponents. Good opponents will be able to penalty double you when its right and still be able to describe their hands.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Dec 4 2005, 05:53 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 4 2005, 10:38 PM, said:

Against Strong NTs, Immediate seat.

Dble=Clubs and another, emphasis on clubs 45 or 46 (you aren't interfering here so the reason to bid is to indicate a lead or to compete with a prettty good hand.)
2C=diamonds and another, emphasis on diamonds, 45 or 46. (Same reasoning as above.)
2D=Majors (Takes away Stayman.  Remember, 2C is necessary in 4-suit trx to invite NT, so removing Stayman when holding majors has value.)
2H/2S=natural.  (Most effective destructive bids.)

This structure looks terrible...

Comment 1: You are competing against a strong NT. Accordingly, you want to priortize jamming their auctions above your own constructive bidding. This leads to

Comment 2: Your low level bids are transfers:

Double = Clubs
Clubs = Diamonds
Diamonds = Majors

Transfers are all fine and dandy during constructive bidding sequences. They are very helpful in sorting out ranges and the like. Transfers are miserable in contested auctions because they give the opponents three bites at the apple... Your defensive system significantly increases the bidding space available to the opponents. Good opponents will be able to penalty double you when its right and still be able to describe their hands.

I thought it was pretty good for a 30-second invention.

Winston

[Free]

Just swap 2 meanings in DONT and you get Meckwell, which is imo better:

2♣ = ♣ and a Major (not ♣-♦, because responder now has a better chance to reach the best contract when he has to choose only between 2 suits instead of 3 to pull)
2♦ = ♦ and a Major
2M = natural
Dbl = one of the minors OR both Majors

So the 2♥ bid is swapped for the ♥ singlesuiter in the DONT-Dbl. Dbl doesn't take away bidding space, but if you have the Majors then opps usually don't have to say much anyway...

Note: it's a lot of fun when you have to alert almost every bid you make, but when you overcall 1NT with 2♥ and no alert appears, our opps usually wonder if we didn't forget to alert, and we can nicely explain "natural, what else?"

[Gerben42]

With a pickup partner I suggest the following defence against strong NT:
Natural, double for both majors. Simple, safe and sound.

With a regular partner agree if you are in it to just create noise or bid a decent contract of your own (I think at IMPs you should do the latter).

Lionel convention works well for first situation (creates noise like DONT)

Dbl = ♠ + x (or some big unbalanced hand)
2♣ = ♥ + ♣
2♦ = ♥ + ♦
2M = natural

Let's compare with DONT. Where DONT anchors on the lower of two suits, Lionel anchors on the higher of two suits. Notice the difference? Let's see.

1NT (Dbl for ♠ + X). Now you can find out about the lower suit and if you don't like that one, go back to ♠

1NT (2♣ = ♣ + X). Now if you want to go back to ♣ you must do so at the 3-level. So you just have to pass and miss your best fit.

**********

Another terrible thing about DONT is the double. It shows any 1-suiter. Now consider you have ♥. The opponents will sensibly just ignore you and bid Stayman and opener bids 2♠. Now what? You are now unable to tell partner you have ♥.

Compare 2♦ from the defence below (okay running ahead a bit here), showing either ♥ or ♠. LHO doubles to ask for a 4-card major, say. You still have ♥ and opener stiill responds 2♠. This gets passed around to partner who doubles, asking you to pass if you have ♠ (as if that's gonna happen) or bid 3♥ if you have those, so he implies a ♥ fit. Great, I can bid 3♥ and play in my 6 - 3 fit!

**********

For bidding own contracts better (good for bidding own contracts, my preferred strategy but need not be yours).
This defence is known as Jassem or Woolsey depending on where you are.

Dbl = 4-card major + 5-card minor
2♣ = ♥ + ♠
2♦ = ♥ or ♠
2M = 5+M 4+minor

**********

Final note: I think that anyone who claims from experience that he had great results with DONT is not lying, but simply playing against opponents who have not done their homework.

[Kalvan14]

Gerben42, on Dec 5 2005, 05:33 AM, said:

Final note: I think that anyone who claims from experience that he had great results with DONT is not lying, but simply playing against opponents who have not done their homework.

Guns are not dangerous, people are

[Robert]

Hi Kalvan14

I have often commented that 'if' I can see it, I can kill it. My eyesight is not nearly as good as the eyesight I had during my military service. In those years, I could read an eyechart at 20 feet that most people needed to be at 15 feet to read.

I was on my Brigade rifle team, what makes you think that a rifle in my hands was not a dangerous weapon? I hit 28 targets in a row at 350 meters(400 yards?) in basic training, 'before' I learned 'how to shoot' on my Brigade rifle team.

One unofficial recuiting slogan goes, "Join the Army, see the world, meet new people and get paid to kill them." I did know some Marines that volunteered for Vietnam duty just to get the additional 'combat pay.'

Guns in the hands of many people are dangerous 'because' they do not know how to handle them safely. Many(most?) people in civilian life get killed by 'empty' weapons.

The first thing that I do when I get a weapon is to check to see 'if' it is loaded. I also never 'point' a weapon 'unless' I intend to fire it.

"Halt, who is there?" was not idle chit/chat during those years. My company lost four men 'dead' to the U.S. Airforce's trigger happy guards at the Airfoce missile site near my Army missile site in scenic Okinawa during the late 60s/early 70s.

I had a 20 round clip for my M-14 and 'deadly force use' was authorized. I was not planning to wound anyone like they do in the movies.

My drill instructer in basic told me 'not' to point my weapon unless I intended on shooting someone or something.

Every time we left the 'firing line' in basic, a few people managed to 'not see' the live round still in the chamber of their rifle. They did not notice that there was 'no sunlight' when they looked down their rifle barrel.

I have also seen people 'checking' to see if their rifle was loaded by 'looking' down the barrel from the end that the lead pellets depart. Never tried that myself.

My father was a 20 year Navy vet. I did my time in the U.S. Army.

Best regards,
Robert

[hrothgar]

Mark me down as another Lionel fan...

All of the overcalls are "natural". If I bid Hearts, I have Hearts. If I bid Spades, I have Spades. This places a lot more pressure on the opponents.

I like the emphasis on the Heart suit. Life is easy if we hold Spades. We always have the option of introducing our suit at the same level. Using a double to show a Spade suit is safe (although not preemptive). In contrast, its easy to shut out a Heart suit. Therefore its imperative to clarify our heart holding as early as possible.

I don't want to kick off the whole Shaprio-Reese cheating argument again. However, I always found it interesting that the signally system supposed focused on Heart length. If they were cheating, Heart length is an interest choice...

[hrothgar]

Robert, on Dec 6 2005, 08:15 PM, said:

Hi Kalvan14

I have often commented that 'if' I can see it, I can kill it. My eyesight is not nearly as good as the eyesight I had during my military service. In those years, I could read an eyechart at 20 feet that most people needed to be at 15 feet to read.

I was on my Brigade rifle team, what makes you think that a rifle in my hands was not a dangerous weapon? I hit 28 targets in a row at 350 meters(400 yards?) in basic training, 'before' I learned 'how to shoot' on my Brigade rifle team.

One unofficial recuiting slogan goes, "Join the Army, see the world, meet new people and get paid to kill them." I did know some Marines that volunteered for Vietnam duty just to get the additional 'combat pay.'

Guns in the hands of many people are dangerous 'because' they do not know how to handle them safely. Many(most?) people in civilian life get killed by 'empty' weapons.

The first thing that I do when I get a weapon is to check to see 'if' it is loaded. I also never 'point' a weapon 'unless' I intend to fire it.

"Halt, who is there?" was not idle chit/chat during those years. My company lost four men 'dead' to the U.S. Airforce's trigger happy guards at the Airfoce missile site near my Army missile site in scenic Okinawa during the late 60s/early 70s.

I had a 20 round clip for my M-14 and 'deadly force use' was authorized. I was not planning to wound anyone like they do in the movies.

My drill instructer in basic told me 'not' to point my weapon unless I intended on shooting someone or something.

Every time we left the 'firing line' in basic, a few people managed to 'not see' the live round still in the chamber of their rifle. They did not notice that there was 'no sunlight' when they looked down their rifle barrel.

I have also seen people 'checking' to see if their rifle was loaded by 'looking' down the barrel from the end that the lead pellets depart. Never tried that myself.

My father was a 20 year Navy vet. I did my time in the U.S. Army.

Best regards,
Robert

I'm so very impressed...

[Robert]

Hi hrothgar

Not that good, but not too bad either. Good times. Good people.

"War is hell." William T. Sherman

My father went down to enlist the day after Pearl Harbor. All six brothers from his family served in WWII. My mothers only brother enlisted in the navy. My grandfather made torpedoes for the navy during WWII.

Most of my high school group enlisted when we came of age.

Duty, honor, country.

Fortunately, the ultimate sacifice was not required from my group.

We were lucky. Many did not come back. Many came back with fewer body parts.

Some came back with shattered lives.

I will raise my glass of fruit juice and salute the proud company that preceded and

followed my family.

Bless them all.

Best regards,
Robert

[Kalvan14]

Kalvan14, on Dec 6 2005, 02:04 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Dec 5 2005, 05:33 AM, said:

Final note: I think that anyone who claims from experience that he had great results with DONT is not lying, but simply playing against opponents who have not done their homework.

Guns are not dangerous, people are

Robert,
my post was a quote from the NRA campaign.
Since we are in a bridge forum, I would have expected that the unriddling would have been easy: there are no "good" or "bad" convention, in absolute terms. There are "good" and "bad" players: if you are a good player, you choose the convention that better fit your style, and they will work, for you.
If you are a bad player, 100 World Champions might pool together to prepare a bidding system for you, the best. And it will not work.

While your army record is certainly interesting, maybe it was not completely germane to the discussion.

[Robert]

Hi Kalvan14

I am glad that you can 'decide' what is 'germane' after you posted your message,

"Guns are not dangerous, people are."

I happen to agree with many NRA positions and disagree with some others.

If you post "something off topic" and do not expect any reply, you might want to

remember that my mind reading ability is somewhat limited.

I left my super powers along with my cape in a secret compartment.

Why can you change the subject and I am not allowed to reply?

If your comment was serious, you might expect a serious answer. If it was

meant to be funny, you might also expect to get a 'funny' reply.

If you can explain how, "Guns are not dangerous, people are." is germane to this

thread, I will of course offer a heartfelt apology. LOL

Best regards,
Robert

[Rebound]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.....

Now, don't laugh (too much lol) but for some time now I have played something very simple - as the marketing line in the computer biz goes, "it just works." In direct seat, suit bids are transfers, natural in 4th seat, doubles, as back in the day, are penalty. Yeah, I know it's simplistic, and against half-way competent oppontents provides some extra bidding room, but it is easy and it works. I'm sure there are numerous reasons why this may be viewed as an inferior method, but I like it and seem to have good results with it. Just my 2 cents FWIW.

[Gerben42]

Very simple (natural) in fact my third favorite convention against 1NT, in front of all these other stuff people came up with , as long as it doesn't include penalty dbl of strong NT.

[Chamaco]

Rebound, on Dec 7 2005, 01:00 PM, said:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.....

Now, don't laugh (too much lol) but for some time now I have played something very simple - as the marketing line in the computer biz goes, "it just works." In direct seat, suit bids are transfers,

at my club, they play

2D/2H = xfer to H/S, either 1 suiter or 2 suiter + a minor

X = long minor
2C = Landy

2S = 4S + unknown longer minor
3m = 4H + longer minor bid

2NT = minors 2suiter

[Robert]

Hi Rebound

I happen to play those basic methods with one partner of mine as our weak NT defense. I agree that it is simple and seems to work.

Regards,
Robert