[keylime]

As many as you know, Larry is quite technical by nature, and therefore, the mind is spinning from sun up to sun down.

So, as usual, he likes to spring stuff on me, and I the good sport I am read it and most of the time like the concepts behind it.

Here's his latest creation: a NT defense. The one here is for strong NT's, the weak NT's one is about to see the light of day soon.

X -> forces 2C, to either play clubs, or a hand with both majors. If both majors, you xfer into the five card major.

2C -> forces 2D, to either play diamonds, or any major plus club hand

2D -> diamonds and a major

2H/S -> natural

2NT -> minors

Any thoughts?

[rogerclee]

I'll be the first to say that I like it. If you play in the ACBL, though, I think this is a midchart defense.

[jdonn]

rogerclee, on Jan 5 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

I'll be the first to say that I like it. If you play in the ACBL, though, I think this is a midchart defense.

I don't believe so, which bid? I thought the only requirement was that bids 2♦ and higher have to promise at least one known suit.

I think this is a decent defense. I wouldn't prefer it, but it's better than a number of things out there.

[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Jan 6 2008, 12:01 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Jan 5 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

I'll be the first to say that I like it. If you play in the ACBL, though, I think this is a midchart defense.

I don't believe so, which bid? I thought the only requirement was that bids 2♦ and higher have to promise at least one known suit.

I think this is a decent defense. I wouldn't prefer it, but it's better than a number of things out there.

I may have jumped the gun. I thought

"2C -> forces 2D, to either play diamonds, or any major plus club hand"

was midchart, but this doesn't make sense, since it would also ban Capp from being played.

[awm]

Well, say we compare against DONT since that's pretty standard defense w/o a penalty double.

It seems like both defenses have a way to bid any one-suited hand. Both defenses have a way to show diamonds and a major, but are ambiguous about which major is held. Both defenses have a way to show clubs and a major -- the new defense shows which major you have but you can't play clubs at the two-level, whereas DONT leaves the major ambiguous while letting you play clubs at the two-level.

You get some advantage by bidding your one-suited heart hands directly rather than via double. On the other hand, you give opponents more chances to get in the auction when you have clubs and a major (DONT you bid 2♣ which could well pass out, this defense you bid 2♣ and then partner bids 2♦ and then you bid 2M, giving opponents a lot of chances to double something).

Anyways, I think this method is a bit better than DONT, but pretty close. On the other hand, DONT is one of my least-favorite defenses. I'd much prefer to play any of Lionel, Woolsey, or Meyerson.

[gwnn]

isn't dont 2♣=clubs and something (possibly diamonds) ?

[benlessard]

Im pretty opinionated when it come to def VS NT.

1- the most imporant is that 2S & 2H should be natural... I think any system where 2M isnt natural is inferior. For me Capp is the dumbest conv i know (and i know many completly useless convention)

2- 2D is better as D+M then only D. If you have vlong diamond to strech to bid them at the 3 level is probably best anyway because your expectation to buy the hand in 2D arent great. Wanting to put them out of 1NT is an honorable goal in MP but to put them in 2M in 4-4 fit instead of letting them in 1Nt is painful. So in a sense the value of a 2D bid must be based on putting them out of 1Nt but with fair chance of buying the contract. With only D your chance to buy the contract are greatly diminished and start mostly at the 3 level. + the frequency of 4M+5D outweight the 6D hands.
However in balancing there is the lead directing to take into account. But even in balance my preference goes to D+M


The tough part is 2C and X. Many things are possible

both M
both m
m+M with no regards to length
long m
long m + 3/4 S
long m + 4H
X penalty
etc

What i like to play is to sacrifice the long m hands to make a distinction between 54,55 & 45,46

so
X = long M + other suit, (5M+m or both M)
2C= C+ shorter M or C+D (5C+4M or 6C+4M or both m)
2D= 5D 4M or 6D4M

if i make a comparaison I get.
--my method
yours

2Nt--both m with extra shapes or free for something else
both m

2S&2H -- to play
to play

2D--long D+shorter M
D+M but dont know if the D are same lenght or longer or shorter

2C--C+M (with longer C) or both m (lighter shape)
C+M (but dont know lenght) or long D

X--5M+m or both M (without lenght knowledge)
both M but you will be able to tell wich is longer (if opps dont compete) or Clubs.


The most important advantage of your method is to pinpoint wich M is longer if 5/4 with both M.
The smaller advantage is the ability to show long m (in transfers)

The advantage of my method is to pinpoint wich M or m is longer when holding Mm.

You method=
With both M there is 64,54,55,45,46 but some 64 are better bid as 1 suiter so the gain is with 5S+4H or 5H+4S + some of the 6S4H + 6H4S + one suiter long m

The gain with my method= 16 holding
With long S+D there is 55,54 since almost all 64 are better bid as 1 suiter.
With long H+D there is 55,54 since almost all 64 are better bid as 1 suiter.
With long S+C there is 55,54 since almost all 64 are better bid as 1 suiter.
With long H+C there is 55,54 since almost all 64 are better bid as 1 suiter.

With long D+S there is 64,54
with long D+H there is 64,54
With long C+S there is 64,54
With long C+H there is 64,54

So with 2 suiter you show about 2.5 holding I show 16.

Are the ability to show a single long m enough compensation for this ? im pretty sure no.

Of course holding a 5/4 2 suiter sometimes partner will choose right but the odds are at least 55% that he will get it wrong.

Some smaller points worth considering...
1-Some of the 6m+4M will be better bid as a single suiter for you but for me ill be forced to show 5m+4M.
2-your single suiter are in transfer wich is letting opps more wriggles.
3- you cannot raise your partner 2C bid + they can X lighter.
4- i can bid both m and play in any suit at the 2 level (useful when big misfit) while ur partner will be less tempted to pass your 2C or to bid 2M over 2C.

[Fluffy]

The flaw of the system is the innability to recompete when responder just sings off in his suit since you have no idea what partner has.

But normally after stepping into the strong NT you just forget about the deal so it is no biggie. But bear in mind you are favourite to lose when there are huge fits.

The example of what I am saying is this:

♠K1062
♥Q53
♦Q1074
♣A5


And it goes

(1NT)-2♣-(2♥)

Of course now you would love to compete in either spades or diamonds, so 2♠ pass or correct comes to mind.

But next deal you hold

♠KQ10742
♥Q52
♦3
♣J104

This is the problem with the multi bids, you lack knowdlegde when it gets competitive. And you have to determine wich bids are natural, or pass/correct, and every situation might be slightly different.

[whereagles]

I like this defense. It's sexy!! The dbl and 2♣ bids are particularly interesting.

I'll definitely try and make a variation of this defense to use vs. weak NT.

[whereagles]

benlessard, on Jan 6 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

For me Capp is the dumbest conv i know (and i know many completly useless convention)

it's so dumb even mike cappelletti doesn't use it!!!!

[rogerclee]

whereagles, on Jan 6 2008, 08:02 AM, said:

benlessard, on Jan 6 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

For me Capp is the dumbest conv i know (and i know many completly useless convention)

it's so dumb even mike cappelletti doesn't use it!!!!

Agree. When I play a weak NT, the first thing I want to be able to do is look at the opponents' card and see that they play Capp.

[TylerE]

Sounds like the proposed scheme is a near reinvention of Meckwell:

X - A single minor or both majors
2C - Clubs + M
2D - Dia + M
2M - Natural
2N - Minors

Which is not a bad scheme, and in fact my defense of choice if I have 30 seconds to discuss NT defense with pard.

Given my choice, I'd much rather play HELLO:

X - Penalty
2C - Relays to 2D, Diamonds or a Major/Minor
2D - Hearts
2H - Majors
2S - Spades
2N - Relays to 3 Clubs, either a club hand or a near-GF in one of the other suits
3C - Minors
3D - Majors, strong
3M - Long broken suit

[cherdano]

I like this one.

[keylime]

The weak NT defense is a fusion of Landy, transfers, and a Brozel overcall.

X - good hand
2C - majors
2D/H - xfers into H/S
2S - spades and a minor
2NT - minors

We do have names for both of the defenses already tentatively, but we are wondering if any have some unknown whiz bang wonder names for it.

With regards to the strong NT, currently we play Lionel and HELLO for strong and weak NT interference respectively. We have NOT yet agreed to implementing the proposed defenses yet because we wanted some scrutiny and nitpicking over what was generated first before I started writing in earnest 4th/6th seat actions when a third bid hits the table.

We firmly believe in major-centric defenses, and in specific suit 2 suiters when possible. Hence the strong liking of Lionel -> the anchor suit is a known entity early. So imagine my surprise when this was sprung upon me; this is a little different and bold in comparison to the systemic norms of Ultra. From previous partnerships, we both liked Meckwell quite a bit but since we have a philosophy to be "majors first", understandably the defenses we currently use have allure.

For the mid-chart fans, we are leaning towards Robinson and possibly Mohan respectively.

[benlessard]

Is it for imps or Mp or both ?

[pclayton]

I don't think I care for the 2♣ call. 2♣ does not hinder the opponents and frequently LHO will do something over it, leaving poor 4th hand without knowing your hand type and whether its right to compete.

Everything else looks ok.

[keylime]

Provisionally it's for all forms of scoring, but I wouldn't be surprised if we use the new creations at IMPs, and Lionel/HELLO at MPs.

[benlessard]

In Mp you should definitively avoid transfers. The X/delayed X just hurt too much + having the strong hand on lead aint that big advantage. But If you insist on transfer In Mp it make sense to use 2C/2D as suction. So IMHO a superior compromise would be

2C= D or both M
2D=H or S+m
2H=H+m
2S=S

2C=D or both M
2D=M+m (Wilcosz style)
2H=H
2S=S


for all around stick to Meckwell vs strong.