defensive bidding against NT CAPP vs DONT or natural or?
#1
Posted 2004-March-19, 17:46
I noticed most players prefer CAPP as defensive bidding against NT, some use both, depending on which seat. My regular partner and myself started out with CAPP and then switched to DONT.. DONT ask me why ) I would really like to know which is relatively the best to use and why, and if one can play both.. is one better against weak NT, than the other? I would appreciate anyone who can give me "expert" advice. Thanks in advance
#2
Posted 2004-March-19, 19:12
Ironic that this my first post: baptism of fire!
#3
Posted 2004-March-19, 19:27
yes we have changed to DONT, amazing how one remembers things with one's neck nestled in the guillotine ... the reason being that we came to the conclusion that the frequency of a CAPP penalty coupled with the frequency of it back-firing made a DONT defence more worthwhile IMHO (gotta practice these totally redundant and fatuous netabbreviations)......
waiting in morbid anticipation for other, no doubt more lucid, replies to aisha's post than mine....
#4
Posted 2004-March-19, 21:59
Against a weak NT, you will want to have a penalty double. And in a way CAPP and DONT can be combined:
X=Penalties.
2C=unspecified one-suiter as in CAPP.
2D=diamonds and another suit.
2H=hearts and (spades or clubs)
2S=spades and clubs.
#5
Posted 2004-March-20, 06:20
But if you want to play DONT, why dont you play Meckwell? It's a slight improvement imo:
Dbl = minor suit overcall OR 44+ ♥-♠
2♣ = 44+ ♣ and another suit
2♦ = 44+ ♦ and another suit
2M = natural (5+ card)
This will take possible transfers away when you can bid 2♥ right away. Also, when you dbl, opps will still have their Major suit fit, or we have time to find out a playable 2M contract
#6
Posted 2004-March-20, 06:44
It makes sense to use DONT against strong NT... this answers my question that both can be used depending on openers NT... we will take Meckwell into consideration, and see if we can make it work for us.
I still have not gotten an answer though about my other question: what is the better one to use in balancing position, and does it matter if opener's NT is weak or strong; i have seen players do that, and would like to know the advantages or disatvanges.
Good Saturday all
#7
Posted 2004-March-20, 11:44
In both direct and balancing positions, if you are a passed hand you can use Meckwell or DONT even vs a weak NT, as you can't have a penalty double in this case.
Perhaps CAPP by an unpassed hand vs weak NT and Meckwell in all other cases?
#8
Posted 2004-March-20, 14:18
#9
Posted 2004-March-20, 14:26
#10
Posted 2004-March-20, 14:55
X by non-passed hand = penalties, by passed hand = both minors
2♣ = ♥ + another which, if ♠, is longer (at least 5-4) (canape)
2♦ = ♠ + another which, if ♥, is longer (at least 5-4) (canape pass of 2♥)
2♥/2♠/3♣/3♦ = single-suited
2N = strong 2-suited (prefer to declare than double. Double unlikely to be passed out, and auction can get murky)
In the UK Cappelleti evolved originally in parallel under the name of Pottage. In my experience it has not really caught on in the last 20 years or so in face to face in the UK where weak NT is king. My experience may be flawed, of course.
Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mstr-mnding) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.
"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"
"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
#11
Posted 2004-March-20, 16:08
Mike
so much the better. If there is restlessness, I am pleased. Then let there
be ideas, and hard thought, and hard work.”
#12
Posted 2004-March-20, 16:28
How do you all feel about Brozel?
I think after all these conventions, my brain might explode, I may need an Aspro
Regards to all
Aisha
#13
Posted 2004-March-20, 16:41
The ability to differentiate which suit is longer for major/minor 2 suiters is an added value that I believe creates tremendous advantage. These bids allow the partnership to compete to the proper level, make sound judgements in game bidding and stay out of trouble when applicable. I see some players bidding 2H/2S with Jxxx of major and AKQxxx of minor and I would like to vomit.
My vote goes for straight capp with special double;
X=5+m/4M
2C=1 suit
2D=both M
2H=5+M/4+m
2S=5+M/4+m
Regards,
MAL
#14
Posted 2004-March-20, 16:59
Given my Druthers, I prefer to play a slightly modified version of "Lionel"
Lionel is very aggressive: We frequently intervene with 4-4 patterns.
Correspondingly, the structure is designed to maximize pressure on the opponents. Unlike some of the structures being described, we don't telegraph whether we have 4 or 5 card suits. It helps the opponents as much as it helps us.
Rather, we prefer to be able to make natural bids which maximizes the pressure on LHO.
3C shows both minors
2NT shows an offensively oriented 2-suited hand
2S shows a single suited hand with Spades
2H shows a single suited hand with hearts
2D shows Diamonds and Hearts
2C shows Clubs and Hearts
X shows Spades and another suit
#15
Posted 2004-March-20, 18:22
I guess thats why we often play together. Cappelletti is imho an inferior method of competing against any strength NT. Why? Look at this sequence:
(1N) 2C* (2S)
2C* (or X depending on which flavour you are using), shows some single suiter. You now have NO idea whether you have a fit with partner or not. Can you compete to the three level? Who knows! Maybe you even have a game on extreme shape. How to get there? Far better to show your suits. Capp also leads to a lot of UI problems in auctions like the one mentioned.
I have also had great fun bidding 2S on
x xxx xxxx xxxxx when the opps compete with a Cappelletti 2C over my partner's weak nt.
Personally I think you can't beat Asptro. Lionel is fine as well. Dont is ok against strong nt, suspect against weak nt.
#16
Posted 2004-March-20, 20:47
"Vs Strong: X forces 2C, either m or M's or good hand. 2m=nat + side M. 2N=good with 55+ H+m. 2M=nat.
Vs Weak: X=14+, 2C=S+(H or C), 2D=D+M, 2M=NAT, 2NT=onesuiter, 3C=55+ C+H, 3D=55+ D+H, 3H=55+M's, 3S=55+ S+D. By PH, use Strong NT defense."
No matter against strong or weak NT, their 2 major bidding always natural. I think that's their uniqueness.
#17
Posted 2004-March-21, 04:47
aisha759, on Mar 21 2004, 12:28 AM, said:
How do you all feel about Brozel?
I think after all these conventions, my brain might explode, I may need an Aspro
Regards to all
Aisha
#18
Posted 2004-March-21, 14:29
aisha759, on Mar 19 2004, 05:46 PM, said:
Others are handling the what-to-play suggestion, but there's another question implicit here:
In many places I've played, it is true that Cappelletti/Hamilton is the most popular to defense to opponents' notrump openings. This is true despite what many believe to be its technical inferiority, to any number of alternatives. It appears to me that few experts play this convention with other experts, and I can't recall seeing too many bidding theorists advocate its use over strong notrumps.
Why? In the case of some bad (let's accept for the moment that the theorists, at least, largely believe Capp to be bad over a strong notrump) methods, it's probably a combination of inertia and simplicity. Inertia, for example, may be what keeps people playing standard attitude, when it is generally conceded that upside-down is superior (albeit only slightly so). Simplicity keeps people playing Blackwood when RKC is conceded to be better, and RKC 4NT when RKC kickback is better.
But why Capp? It wasn't the first reasonable system of interference (Brozel preceded it, didn't it? And wouldn't you rather play Brozel, if you could only choose among these two and your partner was comfortable with both?), it is more complex than some good systems, it is inferior to many systems, yet it thrives. Any thoughts?
#19
Posted 2004-March-22, 05:38
The basic guidance for overcalling opponents NT is:
1. vs Strong NT (14+ p) - destructive
2. vs Weak NT (15- p) - constructive
View the above, DONT and Meckwell perfectly fit 1., while for 2. almost all schemes including penalty double look fine.
My preference against weak NT is so called Geneva convention:
DBL = 13+ balanced, or minor 1 suiter or both majors 15+ p
2♣/♦ = ultra transfer for ♥/♠ with almost opening hand, no upper limit
2♥ = both majors limited (around good 8 to bad 14 points)
2♠ - natural weak (abt 10- p)
2NT...... - free as per you wish
Kind regards
Rado
#20
Posted 2004-March-22, 17:04
This question was mainly a sort of a poll i wanted to take, so that slothy and myself (my regular p) could come to some sort of agreement, because i was insisting CAPP was better, as so many players i watched seemed to use it.. he made his point.
Another topic we have a problem with is Lebenshol; and we seem to argue on that also...... I have my notes which tell me one thing, and his notes tell him something else.... i know there is only ONE lebenshol, and can also be used against weak 2 openings... 2NT after interference to 1NT opening, forces partner to bid 3♣ that's the simplest to remember.... could someone just reinforce the sequences for me, so i can compare it with my notes... i know its so much easier to find a site and read thru it, but i love the communication process which goes on in this forum, and the feedback i get is more convincing and more personal...
Thank you all in advance for taking the time ( this is just the beginning, i have many more questions ) most of my queries are for non-regular partherships though, as regular partners can modify conventions up to a certain point.
Regards,
Aisha