Help
Cappelletti 2C and 2D bids are upside down.
Playing ACBL robot duplicate I noticed that sometime GIB would bid 2D ovec 1NT showing 5-5 in the majors but having only a 5-4. That could be a major problem if partner has a 2-2, 3-2 or 3-3 in the majors. Knowing that GIB can have a 5-4, Partner might not know which suit to choose. Since showing a single suiter will always need a relay suit, whether 2C to 2D or 2D to 2H, you dont lose anything by using 2C to show a major 2 suiter. You gain because, not being shure which suit to choose, Partner can now bid 2D saying... I dont know which suit to choose... you choose. That way you wont endup in a 4-2 fit while having a 5-2 fit or a 4-3 fit while having a 5-3 fit.
An even better system for overcalling over a strong 1NT is BETSY (Betting Enemy's Trump Suit Yourself)
2C (Stayman, Majors 5-4+) : 2D (can't choose, you choose)
2D => 2H
2H => 2S
2S (Strong 2 suiter, bid them up à la DONT)
2NT (Minors 5-5)
X => 2C, on 2C...
Pass (C's)
2D (D/6+, to play)
2H (H/4 & minor/6+) : 2NT (show minor)
2S (S/4 & minor/6+) : 2NT (show minor)
Page 1 of 1
Cappelletti Overcall on strong 1NT
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,575
- Joined: 2004-March-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:UK
Posted 2014-June-09, 23:16
Hi Baraka, and welcome to the forums.
Yes, as you have noticed, GIB plays standard Cappelletti, and has you have also observed, standard Cappelletti can be improved upon..
The programmers have to make unenviable compromises when programming GIB system. There are numerous other examples, not just Cappelletti, where standard methods can be improved upon by departing from standard. However there is an incentive to program GIB to play a method that is familiar to the widest population of possible customers. Even assuming that the decision were made to improve on Cappelletti, not all would agree on the most appropriate improvement. Your suggested scheme is just one of several possible improvements.
Personally I agree with you that Cappelletti should be ditched in favour of something better, but that is a personal view and my voice quite rightly carries no more weight than that of any other individual, and there are large numbers out there who are comfortable with standard Cappelletti.
One popular improvement is to swap the standard meanings of 2C and 2D overcalls. This comes with a cost: that with standard Cappelletti you could attempt to show a Diamond single-suited hand without necessarily committing to the 3 level. That price is considered by some (myself included) to be one worth paying in the interests of distinguishing the better major of a major 2-suited hand.
Your BETSY method is more complex. It may be a theoretical improvement yet again, but complexity itself is a disincentive, and to overcome that overhead the improvement would have to be that much greater in order to justify its adoption.
This is not accurate. You do lose something, and that something is the ability to play in 2D with a Diamond single-suiter. It may not be a BIG something, but let us at least acknowledge it.
With BETSY I also note that you give up the opportunity to play a penalty double of 1N. Whether a penalty double of 1N is a worthwhile on grounds of frequency is debatable, but hands do crop up however rarely where it is beneficial.
On the matter of complexity, BETSY does have one advantage of simplicity in that there is no need to change any meanings of bids depending on whether or not overcaller is a passed-hand. This may be an advantage of any method that gives up the penalty double. In the wider world it has a disadvantage that not all players play a strong 1N opener and a penalty double by a non-passed hand has elevated importance against weak 1N. But that is a side issue as GIB has to assume that opponents are playing GIB which is a strong 1N.
I am not convinced that BETSY as described by you is optimal. Suppose you made 2H/2S simply natural overcalls rather than transferring into them via 2D/2H?
The downsides would be:
1) You give up on the opportunity to include both weak and strong hands in the overcall showing the major.
2) You give up on having the 1N opener on lead
The upsides would be
3) You free up 2D for some other use
4) Fast arrival to 2M is more pre-emptive, giving opponents fewer opportunities to compete (including doubling the transfer or cue bidding your suit at 2 level).
Yes, as you have noticed, GIB plays standard Cappelletti, and has you have also observed, standard Cappelletti can be improved upon..
The programmers have to make unenviable compromises when programming GIB system. There are numerous other examples, not just Cappelletti, where standard methods can be improved upon by departing from standard. However there is an incentive to program GIB to play a method that is familiar to the widest population of possible customers. Even assuming that the decision were made to improve on Cappelletti, not all would agree on the most appropriate improvement. Your suggested scheme is just one of several possible improvements.
Personally I agree with you that Cappelletti should be ditched in favour of something better, but that is a personal view and my voice quite rightly carries no more weight than that of any other individual, and there are large numbers out there who are comfortable with standard Cappelletti.
One popular improvement is to swap the standard meanings of 2C and 2D overcalls. This comes with a cost: that with standard Cappelletti you could attempt to show a Diamond single-suited hand without necessarily committing to the 3 level. That price is considered by some (myself included) to be one worth paying in the interests of distinguishing the better major of a major 2-suited hand.
Your BETSY method is more complex. It may be a theoretical improvement yet again, but complexity itself is a disincentive, and to overcome that overhead the improvement would have to be that much greater in order to justify its adoption.
Quote
Since showing a single suiter will always need a relay suit, whether 2C to 2D or 2D to 2H, you dont lose anything by using 2C to show a major 2 suiter
With BETSY I also note that you give up the opportunity to play a penalty double of 1N. Whether a penalty double of 1N is a worthwhile on grounds of frequency is debatable, but hands do crop up however rarely where it is beneficial.
On the matter of complexity, BETSY does have one advantage of simplicity in that there is no need to change any meanings of bids depending on whether or not overcaller is a passed-hand. This may be an advantage of any method that gives up the penalty double. In the wider world it has a disadvantage that not all players play a strong 1N opener and a penalty double by a non-passed hand has elevated importance against weak 1N. But that is a side issue as GIB has to assume that opponents are playing GIB which is a strong 1N.
I am not convinced that BETSY as described by you is optimal. Suppose you made 2H/2S simply natural overcalls rather than transferring into them via 2D/2H?
The downsides would be:
1) You give up on the opportunity to include both weak and strong hands in the overcall showing the major.
2) You give up on having the 1N opener on lead
The upsides would be
3) You free up 2D for some other use
4) Fast arrival to 2M is more pre-emptive, giving opponents fewer opportunities to compete (including doubling the transfer or cue bidding your suit at 2 level).
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.
Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. m
s
t
r-m
nd
ing) 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
Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. m
str-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
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2014-May-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2014-June-10, 07:53
1eyedjack, on 2014-June-09, 23:16, said:
Hi Baraka, and welcome to the forums.
Yes, as you have noticed, GIB plays standard Cappelletti, and has you have also observed, standard Cappelletti can be improved upon..
The programmers have to make unenviable compromises when programming GIB system. There are numerous other examples, not just Cappelletti, where standard methods can be improved upon by departing from standard. However there is an incentive to program GIB to play a method that is familiar to the widest population of possible customers. Even assuming that the decision were made to improve on Cappelletti, not all would agree on the most appropriate improvement. Your suggested scheme is just one of several possible improvements.
Personally I agree with you that Cappelletti should be ditched in favour of something better, but that is a personal view and my voice quite rightly carries no more weight than that of any other individual, and there are large numbers out there who are comfortable with standard Cappelletti.
One popular improvement is to swap the standard meanings of 2C and 2D overcalls. This comes with a cost: that with standard Cappelletti you could attempt to show a Diamond single-suited hand without necessarily committing to the 3 level. That price is considered by some (myself included) to be one worth paying in the interests of distinguishing the better major of a major 2-suited hand.
Your BETSY method is more complex. It may be a theoretical improvement yet again, but complexity itself is a disincentive, and to overcome that overhead the improvement would have to be that much greater in order to justify its adoption.
This is not accurate. You do lose something, and that something is the ability to play in 2D with a Diamond single-suiter. It may not be a BIG something, but let us at least acknowledge it.
With BETSY I also note that you give up the opportunity to play a penalty double of 1N. Whether a penalty double of 1N is a worthwhile on grounds of frequency is debatable, but hands do crop up however rarely where it is beneficial.
On the matter of complexity, BETSY does have one advantage of simplicity in that there is no need to change any meanings of bids depending on whether or not overcaller is a passed-hand. This may be an advantage of any method that gives up the penalty double. In the wider world it has a disadvantage that not all players play a strong 1N opener and a penalty double by a non-passed hand has elevated importance against weak 1N. But that is a side issue as GIB has to assume that opponents are playing GIB which is a strong 1N.
I am not convinced that BETSY as described by you is optimal. Suppose you made 2H/2S simply natural overcalls rather than transferring into them via 2D/2H?
The downsides would be:
1) You give up on the opportunity to include both weak and strong hands in the overcall showing the major.
2) You give up on having the 1N opener on lead
The upsides would be
3) You free up 2D for some other use
4) Fast arrival to 2M is more pre-emptive, giving opponents fewer opportunities to compete (including doubling the transfer or cue bidding your suit at 2 level).
Yes, as you have noticed, GIB plays standard Cappelletti, and has you have also observed, standard Cappelletti can be improved upon..
The programmers have to make unenviable compromises when programming GIB system. There are numerous other examples, not just Cappelletti, where standard methods can be improved upon by departing from standard. However there is an incentive to program GIB to play a method that is familiar to the widest population of possible customers. Even assuming that the decision were made to improve on Cappelletti, not all would agree on the most appropriate improvement. Your suggested scheme is just one of several possible improvements.
Personally I agree with you that Cappelletti should be ditched in favour of something better, but that is a personal view and my voice quite rightly carries no more weight than that of any other individual, and there are large numbers out there who are comfortable with standard Cappelletti.
One popular improvement is to swap the standard meanings of 2C and 2D overcalls. This comes with a cost: that with standard Cappelletti you could attempt to show a Diamond single-suited hand without necessarily committing to the 3 level. That price is considered by some (myself included) to be one worth paying in the interests of distinguishing the better major of a major 2-suited hand.
Your BETSY method is more complex. It may be a theoretical improvement yet again, but complexity itself is a disincentive, and to overcome that overhead the improvement would have to be that much greater in order to justify its adoption.
This is not accurate. You do lose something, and that something is the ability to play in 2D with a Diamond single-suiter. It may not be a BIG something, but let us at least acknowledge it.
With BETSY I also note that you give up the opportunity to play a penalty double of 1N. Whether a penalty double of 1N is a worthwhile on grounds of frequency is debatable, but hands do crop up however rarely where it is beneficial.
On the matter of complexity, BETSY does have one advantage of simplicity in that there is no need to change any meanings of bids depending on whether or not overcaller is a passed-hand. This may be an advantage of any method that gives up the penalty double. In the wider world it has a disadvantage that not all players play a strong 1N opener and a penalty double by a non-passed hand has elevated importance against weak 1N. But that is a side issue as GIB has to assume that opponents are playing GIB which is a strong 1N.
I am not convinced that BETSY as described by you is optimal. Suppose you made 2H/2S simply natural overcalls rather than transferring into them via 2D/2H?
The downsides would be:
1) You give up on the opportunity to include both weak and strong hands in the overcall showing the major.
2) You give up on having the 1N opener on lead
The upsides would be
3) You free up 2D for some other use
4) Fast arrival to 2M is more pre-emptive, giving opponents fewer opportunities to compete (including doubling the transfer or cue bidding your suit at 2 level).
Hi,
As for BETSY I mentionned it just out of curiosity. I dont expect the GIB programmers to implement it.
As for inverting the meaning of 2C and 2D in Cappelletti, it's not that far off !
If you play RJOs (Roman Jump Overcalls) on a 3C or 3D opening preempt by the opps...
2H, 3S and 3NT are to play.
4C (RJO)shows the majors. If Partner does not have a clear choise, he bids 4D to say you choose.
4D (RJO)shows a one suiter. Partner bids 2H to show a bust and 2S otherwise.
So, RJOs and Cappelletti with 2C and 2D inverted are in line. Easyer on memory. But I dont expect to change the world
Page 1 of 1