[bucky]

bluecalm, on May 14 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

I agree. Capp is probably the worst possible defense against NT (close contest with DONT but at least DONT is reasonable in reopening seat). No wc players use it.
If you want something reliable just copy from pairs who played in bb finals or something like that.

Simple reasonable choices are:
a)
2♣ majors
2♦ one major
2♥/2♠ nat + minor
dbl penalty (top Italians and Norwegians play it)

This (sometimes called Reverse Capp?) is clearly better IMO. However, last time I checked, it was not in GCC,although I never understood why. I suspect that would be one of the reasons why people play Capp as is...

[Jlall]

Elianna, on May 14 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

Here's another one:

2C=majors
2D=diamonds
2H=hearts
2S=spades

Yeah I just play landy if I get to choose and I'm happy with that.

[georgeac]

Jlall, on May 18 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

Elianna, on May 14 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

Here's another one:

2C=majors
2D=diamonds
2H=hearts
2S=spades

Yeah I just play landy if I get to choose and I'm happy with that.

i just switched from cappelleti to multi-landy. is multi-landy GCC? and do you think its better then just regular landy?

[aguahombre]

bucky, on May 18 2010, 03:05 PM, said:

bluecalm, on May 14 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

I agree. Capp is probably the worst possible defense against NT (close contest with DONT but at least DONT is reasonable in reopening seat). No wc players use it.
If you want something reliable just copy from pairs who played in bb finals or something like that.

Simple reasonable choices are:
a)
2♣ majors
2♦ one major
2♥/2♠ nat + minor
dbl penalty (top Italians and Norwegians play it)

This (sometimes called Reverse Capp?) is clearly better IMO. However, last time I checked, it was not in GCC,although I never understood why.

The wording is clear in the GCC. The reason is because this treatment, and CRASH, and other methods are collateral damage from getting rid of Jim Leary's Suction.

[Rodney26]

bluecalm, on May 14 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

Why is Capp so bad ?
1)2♦ majors is not effective because you can't ask for longer one and it's not preemptive enough (it's better to use 2♥ as majors if anything)
2)2♣ bid is garbage if they find a major you can't compete because you have no idea what partner have; even playing 2♣ = one major rest as in Capp would be much better but obviously it's not optimal;

Agree strongly on both points.

I'd add that the 2M bids put a lot of pressure on partner. Do you pull 2♠ when 2-4-4-3 to try to find a 8 or 9 card minor fit when you might be playing in a 4-2? Of course, you might then land in a 4-3 minor fit at the 3 level when partner had five or more spades. Do you invite with modest values and three spades? Can you afford to bid 2M and show your shape with a fairly strong hand, knowing partner is likely to pass?

I actually don't like any of the bids in Capp except I guess double and 2NT, and more and more I am souring on the penalty double.

[Elianna]

georgeac, on May 18 2010, 08:35 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 18 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

Elianna, on May 14 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

Here's another one:

2C=majors
2D=diamonds
2H=hearts
2S=spades

Yeah I just play landy if I get to choose and I'm happy with that.

i just switched from cappelleti to multi-landy. is multi-landy GCC? and do you think its better then just regular landy?

Basically, over 1NT, to be GCC all bids above (and including) 2D must show at least one known suit. So as I understand multi-landy to have 2D=multi as one of the possible bids, it would not be GCC (unless you live in a jurisdiction that makes it GCC).

I know you addressed the "which is better?" part of your question to Justin, and I won't attempt to address it.

[Jlall]

I think the advantages of:

1) Showing your major immediately before LHO can bid
2) Showing your major naturally so LHO doesn't get numerous chances to bid
3) Concealing whether you have a 1 suiter or 2 suiter to help you when you're declaring
4) Having a natural 2D bid

outweigh the benefit of showing a major+minor 2 suiter. I mean honestly if it goes 1N 2S p ? how often do you end in the minor? Partner has to have length in both minors, and a stiff/void spade. Even with 2344 partner will probably pass. Even if partner is something like 1543 I'd usually rather play a 5-1 spade fit at the 2 level than a 4-3 club fit at the 3 level.

So basically I don't like multi-landy more than just landy. But I am in a minority on that one. If you want to use 2D as something like a bad 2M overcall that is fine, or even diamonds and a major (big difference here is that you can play the minor at the two level rather than the 3 level, and it's a known minor). I am quite fond of penalty doubles but you can play X as 5m 4M if you like that.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I am quite fond of penalty doubles but you can play X as 5m 4M if you like that.

5-4 double is standard in Poland. I don't like this treatment. I much prefer penalty like you.
If I am forced to play it as 5-4 though i would prefer a treatment I found in Bessis's convention card. DBL is 5minor and 4-3 majors (so 3-4-1-5, 4-3-1-5, 3-4-5-1, 4-3-5-1 shapes are possible I guess also 4-4-0-5 and 3-4-(0-6) maybe). At least this way we are going to play in our major fit if we have one.

[georgeac]

thanks for the replies elianna and justin.

[fromageGB]

I think any method is poor if you have a penalty double. Justin's paraphrased comment "if you have a major and a minor just forget the minor" is correct.

However, if you are prepared to give up the penalty double, I like X = 5m + 4M , or both majors. Partner's replies are 2♣ denies a 4 card major, 2♦ = 4 spades but not 4 hearts, 2♥ = 4 hearts, does not deny spades. If no major fit is found responder just bids or passes his 5 card suit, and over 2♥ can bid 2♠ safely knowing parter can convert to your 5 card minor.

This means 5M + 4(+)m hands can be shown by bidding the minor. Partner can pass the minor or play in 2 of the major by bidding 2♥. I think showing the minor is a huge improvement on showing the major : you can play in 2m.

2♥ and 2♠ are natural single suiters.

I find it useful to be able to find 4/4 major fits.
We call this method "vertigo", EBU level 2 but don't know about the USA.

[fromageGB]

Incidentally, an amusing incident last week. My partner smoothly passed a NT with a 20 count, oppos took the 1NT out to 3♣, double ! When declarer looked at the traveller to find he had a botttom as everyone else (after an immediate double) rescued to 2♣ doubled, he complained that I hadn't alerted the initial pass !

[awm]

fromageGB, on May 27 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

I think any method is poor if you have a penalty double. Justin's paraphrased comment "if you have a major and a minor just forget the minor" is correct.

However, if you are prepared to give up the penalty double, I like X = 5m + 4M , or both majors. Partner's replies are 2♣ denies a 4 card major, 2♦ = 4 spades but not 4 hearts, 2♥ = 4 hearts, does not deny spades. If no major fit is found responder just bids or passes his 5 card suit, and over 2♥ can bid 2♠ safely knowing parter can convert to your 5 card minor.

This means 5M + 4(+)m hands can be shown by bidding the minor. Partner can pass the minor or play in 2 of the major by bidding 2♥. I think showing the minor is a huge improvement on showing the major : you can play in 2m.

2♥ and 2♠ are natural single suiters.

I find it useful to be able to find 4/4 major fits.
We call this method "vertigo", EBU level 2 but don't know about the USA.

This is allowed on the ACBL general chart.

On the other hand, I don't like it particularly much. Among the issues:

(1) I don't really like bidding a minor to show that minor and an unknown major, especially when the major is longer. You're still going to want to play in the major most of the time (and bidding the minor removed your preemptive effect), and the times you gain by getting to play 2m may be offset by times you play in 2m with a big major suit fit because partner was afraid you had the other major, or the times you let the opponents get a cheap bid in.

(2) It's easy to find your 4-4 major fits if you're always willing to play in 3m when you don't have one. The issue in this structure is that if you double with 5♣-4M you will end up in 3♣ when there's no 4-4 major fit, which is often very much too high. The same can happen with 4♠/5♦ opposite partner with 4+♥.

(3) There is a problem if you have 5m/4M hand and partner has a long heart suit. For example, say the auction starts with 1NT-(X)-Pass and advancer has 6♥. If he bids 2♥, you will pass when your have hearts (so you have a ten-card fit, can probably make 4♥, and played in a partial)... and you will pull when you don't have hearts (meaning you can't play 2♥ anymore, which is now probably your best partial). Of course, anything else he bids seems bad too.

(4) You don't have any call with a diamond one-suiter. It's actually pretty annoying to bid 2♦ on this hand, since it preempts the opponents transfers (makes them wrong-side a bunch of contracts). Of course, they could play "stolen bid" but then you can't ever be doubled for penalty (or takeout) so you can bid 2♦ on all kinds of junk and steal them blind.

[fromageGB]

Thanks Adam, some true and astute comments.

(1) yes, you don't often play 2m because usually partner finds the major. However the big plus is that having got to the 2M spot, if partner doesn't like it (and he knows you guarantee a 5 card suit) he can happily convert to 3m, knowing of the fit. Of course if he prefers to play in the minor rather than hearts, he bids spades initially, and if that is not your suit you bid 3m.

This is a huge advantage over the common method of having guaranteed a major with the minor unknown. With that, where partner doesn't like the major he does not know whether he has a minor fit. So you are stuck.

If oppo does come in over the 2m by bidding 2M, we have the option of playing a paradox double (same as over a multi) saying "pass if that's your suit, or else I have support for your other major". But often the unknown major deters them.

(2) If partner has no 4 card major when you have 5♣4M, then of course you play in 2♣. You can also play in 2♦ any time partner does not have 4 hearts when you have 5♦4♥. But yes, sometimes you end up in 3m. But isn't this true of any 2-suited method that includes a minor ? At least with this method you stay in 2m a lot of the time.

(3) True. But it hasn't happened, and it must be rare. We hypothetically lose out on this one.

(4) We use 3m as a one suiter. Yes, you lose a natural 2♦, as you would if you played it as some other bid (such as both majors). But if you have a one-suiter minor I like to preempt them out of finding their major.

I agree no method is perfect, but having played this in different partnerships over the last couple of years I like it.

[Gerben42]

I would recommend to all B/I players following defense to a strong NT:

Dbl = Majors
2suit = Natural

Anything else will lead to misunderstandings and loss of points, nerves and confidence.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I would recommend to all B/I players following defense to a strong NT:

Dbl = Majors
2suit = Natural

Anything else will lead to misunderstandings and loss of points, nerves and confidence.

Yeah and that's probably quite a good option anyway (for sure much better than DONT, Capp and other crap around).

[jillybean]

how about..

HELLO (this is why my partner plays with other partners)

2♣ = diamonds or Mm 2 suiter
2♦ = hearts
2♥ = both majors
2♠ = spades
2N = clubs
3♣ = both minors
3♦ = both majors gf


Oh I see this was posted earlier.

[Gerben42]

jillybean, on May 28 2010, 04:54 AM, said:

how about..

HELLO (this is why my partner plays with other partners)
2♣ = diamonds or Mm 2 suiter

The problem is the "or". To really bid correctly after either-or-bids is should be left to those with years of experience. I learned it the hard way.

[hanp]

jillybean, on May 27 2010, 09:54 PM, said:

how about..

HELLO (this is why my partner plays with other partners)

2♣ = diamonds or Mm 2 suiter
2♦ = hearts
2♥ = both majors
2♠ = spades
2N = clubs
3♣ = both minors
3♦ = both majors gf


Oh I see this was posted earlier.

It has the same problem as Cappaletti.

[blackshoe]

IIRC, Helms suggested that one should assume the diamond holding, so...

2♣ = ♦ or Mm 2 suiter
........2♦
..............2M - the two suiter
..............2NT - asks for the minor.

I suppose this can get to be a problem if there's interference over 2♣ (other than X). Why is it a problem otherwise?

[nigel_k]

bluecalm, on May 15 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

2♣ majors
2♦ one major
2♥/2♠ nat + minor
dbl penalty (top Italians and Norwegians play it)

I can never remember the names of these things so let's call the above A, 2♣ majors and the rest natural is B and the one below is C.

2♣ hearts and another
2♦ spades and another
2♥/2♠ natural
dbl penalty
With both majors bid 2♦ with longer hearts and 2♣ otherwise

I think C comfortably beats A because you can play 2 of a major when overcaller has a five card suit and not otherwise. You can also play 2♦ when overcaller has four hearts and longer diamonds. And the single suited major hands show the suit imnmediately which is better in competition. The only loss is that you show just one major first when you have both. There's also the legality issue if you're unlucky enough to be playing in the ACBL.

It's harder to compare B and C because they have different ways to gain. Justin's points in favour of B are valid, i.e.:

- Showing your major naturally so LHO doesn't get numerous chances to bid
- Concealing whether you have a 1 suiter or 2 suiter to help you when you're declaring
- Having a natural 2D bid

On the other side:
- You can act with a four card major and five card minor.
- When you do have a five card major the first step response allows you to play your best fit a very large percentage of the time. Justin's points about responding to the two suited 2♥/♠ bids don't apply so much when it is 2♣/♦.
- The 2♥/♠ overcalls are better defined