[Bbradley62]

Is this South hand consistent with the modern treatment of this convention?

---

[Bbradley62]

Note: On the next hand, GIB bid 2♠ Capp in the direct seat holding ♠T98762 and ♣AQ64

[1eyedjack]

This has been a constant and regular forum moan since we'll before version 30. Far more prevalent than, say, the absence of Drury. I cannot recall an instance where any of those moans was met with any response whatever (from BBO), despite that other "bugs" were acknowledged.

Of course, while the forum moans may be frequent, regular, and dating back a long time, there are only a handful of regular complainers who comment in the forums. Perhaps BBO has other lines of input.

[iandayre]

They have the Robot Reports. You can e-mail them a copy of any hand starting the same way as copying a hand on HandViewer. I have started doing that since the last update.

[Bbradley62]

Honestly, my post is really as simple as the question I asked. I have not been at a f2f duplicate bridge table in 18 years, and back then I knew Capp as showing 5+/5+, and I'm asking whether current popular usage is less rigid than that, since I wouldn't know.

[Mbodell]

Yes, that is a fine 2♠ call. When I play this convention I expect 5/4 either way, more often 5 in the major, but with a good reason (like a good suit or a stronger hand) I can have only 4 in the major. Here you have the 6/4 pattern as one good reason. If the diamond suit were good and the spade suit bad I'd treat it as a one suiter in diamonds. Here the spade suit is good and the diamond suit is bad so treating it as a S/m 2-suiter is fine. It also easily meets Mel's rule (7 losers, 2 longest suits = 10, 10-7 >= 2 so bid). Not everyone would choose to bid here, but I think it is the right call playing this convention.

[Stephen Tu]

I really don't think bidding Capp 2M on 4-5+ is a good idea, I'd never agree to play it that way. Then again I'd never agree to play Capp in the first place with anyone but a bot who can't negotiate.

The problem is advancer is super often dealt something like 2443, and over 2S is in a quandary over whether to let 2S be, or possibly convert to a 4-3 fit a level higher. It's much easier to sit if the 2M promises 5. Also much easier to respond if the call promises 5-5, although that cuts down on frequency a lot so it's a tradeoff.

To show 4-5+, something like Woolsey works infinitely better.