[awm]

Here's a hand from the life master pairs in Atlanta. I held:

Scoring: MP

---

Lefthand opponent opens 1NT (15-17). Somewhat unfortunately, as it will turn out, we are playing Woolsey over this (a.k.a. Multi-Landy). Partner overcalls 2♦ showing "one major suit." RHO bids 2NT, alerted as lebensohl.

Okay, my bid. Seems pretty likely, at this point at least, that partner has spades. I have one spade. My hand is not particularly good, so I decide to pass. Opener completes the puppet to 3♣ and RHO bids 3♦ "to play." Nothing's really changed here, still seems like partner has to have spades, we might have a club fit (i.e. partner might have three opposite my six) but competing to the four level vulnerable on this hand seems like lunacy. So I pass, and 3♦ is the contract.

Here's the full hand:

Scoring: MP

---

Notice that we are cold for 4♥. The opponents can make three in either of their fits. RHO's choice to bid lebensohl and sign off in diamonds on his 6-5 hand is a bit off-center, but worked wonders on this hand.

I make the normal lead of my singleton spade. Partner can't read this as a singleton since it seems unbelievable declarer has FIVE spades, and ducks his ace. Declarer pitches a heart on the clubs and pulls trump, losing only the diamond ace and the spade ace for making five. Minus 150 is not a good matchpoint score.

So what do you think? Is this "just unlucky" or a good argument for natural overcalls on single-suited hands?

[inquiry]

Well, you might play something in between.

Dbl = both majors or a minor,
A minor is a minor and a major
2 of major is that major.

This allows you to bid 2M naturally, and is designed, I believe, to solve this kind of problem. IF you have just a minor, they are likely to outbid you anyway, but with double you got a chance to show it. Of course, I have seen people with a great major and a weak minor bid 2 of the minor, which muddys the water. In that case, just bid 2 of your major.

[flytoox]

I think pd should bid 3H over 3D. Yes, it is dangerous, but you donot go all way there to pass with such a hand, right? I would pass with your hand too. It is difficult.

[the hog]

This is a perfect example why methods like Cappelletti and similar are badly flawed. The Majors are what you are most likely to compete in. Therefore WHY have an ambiguous bid to show a Major. Good opponents will pre empt you as often as they can. 2 of a Major MUST be shown unambiguously.

Your partner cannot possibly bid over this auction; you were fixed by your methods.

[luke warm]

and another one that fits what i like to play ... 'course it might not be allowed, not sure... my bid is 2c, showing diamonds and hearts or hearts only

[han]

The are close to infinitely many conventions over 1NT. With a willing partner I would always choose the play 2M as natural. You can modify almost any system so that this is satisfied.

The fact that I prefer 2M as natural is not very convincing, but recall that Meckwell changed DONT exactly for this reason. Really, Meckwell is just DONT where you reverse the meanings of 2H and double followed by 2H.

If I remember correctly, modified Woolsey works like this:

Dbl: major-minor, longer minor.
2C: both majors.
2D: major-minor, longer major.
2H: natural.
2S: natural.

[Double !]

I personally believe that the bids that show 1-suited hands over 1NT should be reversed so that the know suit is clear for 1-suited hands and the "yet-to-be-determined" hand should be the 2-suiter. i.e. Modified capp: 2C = M-m 2-suiter and 2M is natural, or Modified DONT: DBL = unknown 2-suiter, and bid the one suit that you do have.
My personal preference has been for transfer overcalls, especially TRASH, however I don't believe that the "the next suit or the 2 suits above that" is legal over 1NT in acbl. Anything from 2D up has to have a defined suit. So, back to transfer overcalls. The point is, due to competition, partner of the overcaller needs to know what suit P holds to have any chance of making rational decisions when both sides are bidding.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I do like multi-Landy, with 2M showing five cards and a four-card minor and Dbl showing a four-card major (or simply four spades) and a longer minor, instead of a number of points - with 20 HCP for each side, it's easier to play 1N than to defend it. It is unfortunate that burying a nine-card spade fit turns out to be good for them, and if they had known they had spades, they would have bid 4♠ anyway.

However, I think that a double by overcaller at his second turn should show spades (except perhaps a double of a spade bid), and that that double should be mandatory in case advancer didn't pass (that is, overcaller's pass should in that case be forcing and show hearts) .

[coyot]

I think that you weren't as much fixed by your methods as you were fixed by opponent's methods. I mean, with the 6-5 sixcount against strong NT, I would be certainly TRYING to find a game contract. Anyway, what do you need to make 4SP? Any good 13 HCP .

I play good old DONT against strong notrump, but I would not condemn any other method. Even with Capelletti, it should be possible to reach 4♥ here - start with doubl e to show some sixcard - and if LHO bids 2♠, your partner with singleton spade can venture takeout double if he dares.

Of course, on this particular deal, a simple natural overcall does the job - but this is one of the rare cases where opps open 1NT 15-17 and you still have game. You will much more often just want to screw their bidding - and that's where the various two-suited conventions kick in and natural methods lose.

[Chamaco]

awm, on Aug 1 2005, 04:41 PM, said:

Here's a hand from the life master pairs in Atlanta. I held:

Scoring: MP

---

Lefthand opponent opens 1NT (15-17). Somewhat unfortunately, as it will turn out, we are playing Woolsey over this (a.k.a. Multi-Landy).

--- cut ---

So what do you think? Is this "just unlucky" or a good argument for natural overcalls on single-suited hands?

If you like to know explicitly the suit(s) ove the overcaller you might as well play:

X = strong balanced or clubs. 2C is weak relay(nonforcing with C), 2D = strong relay, 2M = invitational
2C = 54+ in majors (Landy) or diamonds; 2D = weak relay (NF with D), 2M = invitational, 2NT = strong relay
2D = xfer to H (2S = weak, 2S inv., 2NT strong relay)
2H = xfer to spades (2S = weak, 2NT = strong relay)
2S = 4S + longer minor (2NT = relay, 3m = pass/correct)
2NT = minors
3m = natural long minor (usually 6 or a good 5) + 4 hearts

The xfer scheme gives the opponent a double shot (extra cue avaliable, availability of an easier way to double for penalty), but you avoid the problems of this hand.
On the other hand, bidding naturally almost invariably loses the 2nd suit.
Nothing is perfect.

[Fluffy]

You know its the method's fault, just cheack the rest of the boards and see if the methods were a possitive or negative issue for you.

[Winstonm]

IMO, many are misguided in the understanding of 2-suited takeout bids over 1N such as DONT and Cappaletti. I am of the opinion that the basis for these bids is to as often as possible with some degree of safety move the opponents from a comfortable spot - 1N. This means that these bids were designed to be used in the passout seat more so than immediate.

Immediate seat needs to give more information so partner can help judge what is the best action - and as it is a vulnerable position, it also requires more playing strength than a passout seat action.

I think Ron is correct in that Major suits are more important to emphasize, so any system that allows in second seat a natural major bid or shows both majors would be of value - the DONTs and Capps need to be utilized where they have the mose benefit: after 1N-P-P

Winston

[awm]

I'm not really looking for a new defense to notrump -- my preferred defense works exceptionally well and I have had many wins and no losses from that method. However, this particular partner didn't have much faith in my preferred methods and wanted to play the more "standard" woolsey defense.

Anyways, I know many people who like "unknown single suiter" defenses such as dont, cappelletti, and woolsey, and was wondering what they'd think of this disaster. It's also a rather amusing story.

Everyone seems to agree that bidding with my hand is crazy, and I think any method that requires partner to bid his suit at the three level (or randomly double some contract just to show which suit he has) is awful. If partner was willing to bid at the three level maybe partner should've destroyed the opponents' space more by bidding at the three level to begin with?

For those interested, my preferred method (Meyerson vs. Strong NT) is:

X = major+minor two suiter, either suit can be longer
2C = both majors (landy)
2D-2S = natural one-suited

Frequent wins include: Ability to bid with 4-5 hands, where partner can always distinguish the longer suit (contrast with capp/dont where you can't find the longer suit). Natural bids with any single suit at the two level except clubs (no "unknown suit" like capp/dont/woolsey, also a natural diamond bid is available at the two level). Ability to play in partner's major suit at the two-level when holding a two suiter (recently won a board in the national mixed BAM when I held five spades and four diamonds in direct seat and we played the hand in 2H by partner on her own six-bagger -- opponents overcalled 2S on my hand showing spades+minor and played there).

[inquiry]

awm, on Aug 2 2005, 12:58 PM, said:

For those interested, my preferred method (Meyerson vs. Strong NT) is:

X = major+minor two suiter, either suit can be longer
2C = both majors (landy)
2D-2S = natural one-suited

Just curious, how does this method (Meyerson) sit with the title of your post "I like natural bids over NT".

It has been decades since I have played pure natural bids over 1NT, but I would think natural would be...

DBL = I think I can beat you (or I am as strong as your are, balanced)
2C = I have clubs...
Of course the 2D, 2H and 2S are the same as your method.

[awm]

Well the title wasn't "I prefer to play natural over 1NT." People who like to play "natural systems" don't require ALL their bids to be natural (most still play stayman for example), they just don't like huge amounts of artificiality.

My point is that it's often better to bid your suits naturally than to make a bid that shows "some unknown suit" and leaves partner guessing if the opponents intervene. Since most of the popular defenses to notrump include some bids like this (dont double, capp 2C, woolsey 2D, meckwell double) I thought this was a reasonable point to make.

[MickyB]

Winstonm, on Aug 2 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

IMO, many are misguided in the understanding of 2-suited takeout bids over 1N such as DONT and Cappaletti. I am of the opinion that the basis for these bids is to as often as possible with some degree of safety move the opponents from a comfortable spot - 1N. This means that these bids were designed to be used in the passout seat more so than immediate.

Indeed. Bidding "destructively" at the 2 level over a 1NT opener is just pointless, unless opps don't play leb/rubensohl you will achieve nothing. Bids have to be aimed at stealing the part-score.