DONT and CAPP

[whereagles]

I know I'm alone on this one, but I stand firm on my belief that methods to overcall 1NT should include at least a bid or two to show balanced hands. This is because those are the ones that do come up every now and then.

 

Dont, capp, brozel, meckwell and all that stuff never come up, unless you start overcalling on unsuitable hands, in which case you might as well make an overcall which shows a balanced hand.

 

The advantage of overcalling on balanced hands is that you immediately show at least 3 places to play, contrary to two-suited ones which show only two places, but are often made with 3 playable suits (it's either that or pass 1NT..). Pard has to guess opposite the two-suited overcall, whereas opposite the balanced overcall he has less of a guess.

 

Opposite a strong NT you can mobilize dbl, 2♣ and 2♦ to show balanced hands, reserving a natural 2M for competitive purposes. Opposite a weak NT can only spare the 2m bids. But there's still a lot you can do.

[Walddk]

I know I'm alone on this one.

Just for once I will agree with you. Balanced hands have no errand. The hand with shape has.

 

Roland

[whereagles]

That balanced hands have no business butting-in is common sense, I know. But common sense has been proved wrong on occasion, and I think this is one such case :)

[helene_t]

It's sometimes said that you must play DONT at matchpoints because the objective is to avoid defending 1NT. That's something I don't understand.

 

DONT is minor-oriented, i.e. with two-suited hands you show the lower suit first which means that you may miss a major suit fit, especially if opps compete.

 

This means that you might score +90 instead of +50 or -50 instead of -90. More important at MP than at IMPs, of course. But it also means that you may score -200 instead of -120, -100 instead of -90, +90 instead of +100. I would think that it doesn't really matter in the long run.

 

+90 instead of -90 is great at IMPs as well, but I would say that especially at MPs you need a major-oriented defense to get the +110 instead of +100. (Of course if you play in a heterogenous field with many weak pairs and/or many pairs not playing 15-17 1NT, +110 and +100 may be the same MPs).

 

Also, DONT has almost zero preemptive impact since the most frequent calls are dbl and 2♣.

 

I like Woolsey, but if you play multi/muiderberg it's impractical because you can't use it with a passed hand. In that case you may play

dbl: 5♦4♣ or 5♠4♥

2♣: 5♣4x

2♦: 5♦4M

2♥: 5♥4♠

so you can show all the distributional hands that couldn't preempt.

[whereagles]

Helene: one of the points of taking opps out of 1NT is that defending 1NT is often a sticky business. Lots of guesses, chances for misunderstandings, little information and the occasional bad luck plague that contract's defense.

 

I much prefer to overcall and be the master of my own destiny, even if that means going for -300 every now and then :)

[Gerben42]

For those interested see my latest Blog-post on DONT.

[Guest Jlall]

Dont, capp, brozel, meckwell and all that stuff never come up, unless you start overcalling on unsuitable hands

Seems to be balanced hands are also "unsuitable." Assuming you avoid going for a number (unlikely with a balanced hand) and you ARE able to scramble into your best fit (unlikely) and you do make your contract, wouldn't you have probably beaten 1N?

[jillybean]

For those interested see my latest Blog-post on DONT.

Can you post a link to it please

 

tyvm

jb

:)

[Guest Jlall]

It's in his signature, just click on the link.

[jillybean]

Ah, thanks..its early :)

[whereagles]

Seems to be balanced hands are also "unsuitable."

 

Assuming you avoid going for a number (unlikely with a balanced hand) and you ARE able to scramble into your best fit (unlikely) and you do make your contract, wouldn't you have probably beaten 1N?

I didn't mean "unsuitable" as "risky". I meant that if the overcall is supposed to be two-suited, then making it on a 44 is making it on an unsuitable hand. If you see what I mean...

 

Anyway, as to scrambing into the best fit leading to same result as letting opps play in 1NT, I don't think that's true, for a number of reasons.

[mikeh]

It is amazing how popular Capp is, since no-one seems to like it. We have politicians like that: they get elected, but nobody admits to voting for them :)

 

I agree that Capp is awful. The 2♣ bid is a horror: it asumes (to be effective) that responder passes so as to allow a nice, quiet auction. The major overcalls are even worse: advancer has to go fishing at the 3-level if he doesn't fit the major.

 

DONT is not the best ever invented, but it is probably the best combination of simplicity and effectiveness currently available, so I usually suggest DONT when playing with a casual partner. It at least maximizes the chance of finding a playable spot at the 2-level.

 

I like Suction because it is effective and tough to play against: it is surprising how many expert pairs do not have a good defence against it.

 

Molson is ok: I play it (or old fashioned Astro) when suction is barred. In addition to the suit bids showing that suit and a longer major/minor, the double shows either ♣ or ♥ or ♠ or both majors. Advancer will, if given the chance, usually bid 2♣, if willing to play 2♣ opposite a ♣ suit. Overcaller can then bid 2♦ with both majors or his major with a one suiter.

 

In my view, all good pairs have coherent, effective bidding schemes when they open 1N, no matter what range is shown. Methods that allow the opps frequent uncontested auctions are therefore likely to lose in the long run compared to methods that get you into their auctions.

 

Furthermore, methods that possess, in their early stages, ambiguity about the suit(s) held will frequently show a gain because they introduce doubt into the opps' valuation of their holdings.

 

Of course, one tries to combine some degree of risk-reduction, which is why balanced hands PASS.

[awm]

I think a lot of people underestimate the value of a natural 2♦ bid. It eliminates stayman from the opponents' arsenal; playing typical (lebensohl) methods it's no longer possible for them to show an invitational hand with a four-card major. It also forces them to play major suit contracts from the "wrong" side, with overcaller's partner now likely to get off to an excellent lead. And while 2♦ may not take up a huge amount of space, partner can freely compete to 3♦ (or higher!) with the appropriate hand.

 

There was a period of time when I experimented a lot with defenses to notrump, starting from the typical dont/capp, experimenting with reversed dont and modified capp, and then playing some lionel and some woolsey. For the past four years I have played one defense almost exclusively against strong NT, and it's one of the first conventions I insist upon in a newly forming partnership (not a pickup, but a partnership I expect to play in repeatedly). We've obtained very many good results from this method, and almost no bad ones. The defense is as follows:

 

Meyerson vs. Notrump (you can call it modified woolsey, modified robinson, or modified^2 capp if you prefer):

 

2♠, 2♥, 2♦: natural, generally single-suited

2♣: landy, for the majors

X: two-suited hand with a major and a minor (5-4 or better, either suit can be longer)

 

The only real "innovation" here is the double. Basically it's takeout. It has many nice aspects, in particular allowing us to double subsequent transfer or stayman bids from responder to show a fit for that suit, giving us a very good probability of finding a fit when the auction remains competitive. Without competition, we will always reach the same contract as woolsey except for the option of playing in advancer's heart suit when doubler has 5♠ and a minor (this has been a huge win on several occasions). The (non-competitive) advances are:

 

2♣ = "please bid a five card suit, or pass with 5♣+4cM"

2♦ = "please bid your major"

2♥/♠ = "I want to play in this suit"

2NT = game force asking bid (very rare)

 

After the 2♣/2♦ asking responses, various follow-ups are available to get to doubler's other suit, or to invite game.

[Guest Jlall]

It seems like in your method vs woolsey you gain:

 

Natural 2D.

Ability to play 2m opposite th 5M-4+m hand type

 

You lose:

 

Ability to diffentiate between 5-4 Mm and 4-5 Mm hands.

 

There are some other minor things on both sides, but these seem to be the main things right?

[MickyB]

I'd sooner have 2♣ as 5-4 majors or 6 diamonds, 2♦ response says pass with diamonds or bid your longer major...works fine unless responder is 2425 exactly. In fact, in that case you can bid 2♥ pass or correct as you can cope with competing to 3♦ - opps must have a spade fit.

 

Unlike most here, I think DONT is worse than Capp. After all, Capp is pretty close to Multi-Landy which I quite like, so I can't dislike it too much :P

 

Playing with a pick-up, I'd just go for Landy or maybe Woolsey.

[han]

2D, 2H and 2S all natural? I don't think I can remember that in the heat of battle.

[Guest Jlall]

2D, 2H and 2S all natural? I don't think I can remember that in the heat of battle.

These highly artificial bids require a lot of memory work. Don't feel bad that it would be tough to remember :P

[barmar]

I didn't mean "unsuitable" as "risky". I meant that if the overcall is supposed to be two-suited, then making it on a 44 is making it on an unsuitable hand. If you see what I mean...

 

Anyway, as to scrambing into the best fit leading to same result as letting opps play in 1NT, I don't think that's true, for a number of reasons.

I like to make DONT two-suiter bids on weak 4-4 hands in the balancing seat. Partner has values over there, but since he didn't bid he presumably has a balanced hand, so we're likely to find a fit in one of my 4-card suits. But if we defend, partner will constantly be end-played into giving declarer tricks.

 

The main thing that DONT has going for it, besides being able to stop on the 2 level so you avoid big numbers, is it's just so damn simple. I've always been surprised that Capp is so much more popular than DONT in the online pick-up community. Is there any simpler convention to learn? At first (10 years ago) I thought it was just that Capp had been around longer than DONT, but by now that advantage should have worn out. I'm even more amazed when I pick up partners at NABCs and have to *teach* them DONT; it takes two seconds, and they always say "OK, that's easy enough."

[SoTired]

Much of this discussion concerns which method is "best." Personal biases seem quite prevalent. Other than a pickup partner where using DONT or Capp is the choice least likely to cause a misunderstanding, I think there are two main considerations when choosing a 1N defense:

 

1) Against strong NT that allows the defense to compete/interfere. Since it is unlikely the defense has a game, defined strength limits for the different bids is unnecessary. A safe partscore or safe interference to confound the offense is most important.

 

2) Against weak or mini NT when the hand may belong to the defense. Since game may be possible, strength limits need to be defined and methods to show strong hand types. Otherwise the weak and mini NTers will steal you blind.

 

Any one method that is adequate against strong NT cannot possibly be adequate against weak NT and especially against mini NT.

[awm]

It seems like in your method vs woolsey you gain:

 

Natural 2D.

Ability to play 2m opposite th 5M-4+m hand type

 

You lose:

 

Ability to diffentiate between 5-4 Mm and 4-5 Mm hands.

 

There are some other minor things on both sides, but these seem to be the main things right?

Advancer's bids are not actually structured the way you suggest. After:

 

1NT-X-Pass

 

The most frequent bid is 2♣. This asks for a five card suit, so doubler will normally bid 2♥ (for example) holding five hearts, even if also holding four or more clubs. In other words, the sequences are not a DONT-like scramble for an "acceptable" fit, but rather a "majors-first" Woolsey-like structure where the longer suit can normally be distinguished, but where you often have to go to the three-level to prefer a four-card minor over a five-card major.

 

If opening side remains silent after the initial 1NT bid, this method will essentially always reach the same (or a superior) contract to Woolsey

 

Comparing this method vs. Woolsey, the gains are:

 

Natural 2♦.

 

Natural 2♥/2♠ instead of "multi" (yes I know some will say this is a loss but I find that it is better for partner to know my suit in auctions that often continue with 2NT lebensohl and a minor suit signoff)

 

Ability to play 2♥ in advancer's long suit when the person in direct seat has 5♠+4m

 

The losses are:

 

Some ambiguity after the double, but really only when opponents continue bidding.

 

Double takes up less space than 2M (then again, we probably bid 2M direct more often than Woolsey does).

[Guest Jlall]

Oh I see, I misread. Yeah I like your way better.

[cherdano]

Adam, just as I thought all threads on 1NT defenses are boring since I've seen 'em all (or rather, I have seen most and the others are just minor variations), you post a really nice structure that I like immediately. Thanks!

Your reasoning about the natural 2♦ bid makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Arend

[Chamaco]

It seems like in your method vs woolsey you gain:

 

Natural 2D.

Ability to play 2m opposite the 5M-4+m hand type

 

You lose:

 

Ability to diffentiate between 5-4 Mm and 4-5 Mm hands.

 

There are some other minor things on both sides, but these seem to be the main things right?

Advancer's bids are not actually structured the way you suggest. After:

 

1NT-X-Pass

 

The most frequent bid is 2♣. This asks for a five card suit, so doubler will normally bid 2♥ (for example) holding five hearts, even if also holding four or more clubs.

 

Adam, what does advancer bid when he is short in clubs ?

(this is related to the rebid scheme for overcaller: shall he pass a 2C advance if holding 5+ clubs?)

 

E.g.

 

xxxx-Kxxxx-QJx-x

 

a. Here, if advancer is short in clubs should he bid 2C asking for a 5 card suit ?

And if overcaller has 5+clubs, should he pass the 2C advance ?

 

 

b.(related to a): should 2D be pass/correct with C shortness ?

[Elianna]

Adam, what does advancer bid when he is short in clubs ?

(this is related to the rebid scheme for overcaller: shall he pass a 2C advance if holding 5+ clubs?)

 

E.g.

 

xxxx-Kxxxx-QJx-x

 

a. Here, if advancer is short in clubs should he bid 2C asking for a 5 card suit ?

And if overcaller has 5+clubs, should he pass the 2C advance ?

 

 

b.(related to a): should 2D be pass/correct with C shortness ?

Not Adam, but I play Meyerson.

 

If advancer just wishes to inquire as to the major, he needs to bid 2!d (as in Woolsey) which asks for the major. And then one can't tell if overcaller has a four or five card major suit. (A 2NT rebid by advancer asks for more info, and it's too late at night for me to remember the structure, but if I had to make a stab in the dark, we may play our old Woolsey structure, but I'm not sure, so I won't post it here. When Adam's less busy, I'm sure that he'll clarify this. :))

 

And for your other question: yes, overcaller with 5+ clubs MAY pass the 2C advance, but he isn't required to.

[awm]

Adam, what does advancer bid when he is short in clubs ?

(this is related to the rebid scheme for overcaller: shall he pass  a 2C advance if holding 5+ clubs?)

 

E.g.

 

xxxx-Kxxxx-QJx-x

 

a. Here, if advancer is short in clubs should he bid 2C asking for a 5 card suit ?

And if overcaller has 5+clubs, should he pass the 2C advance ?

 

 

b.(related to a): should 2D be pass/correct with C shortness ?

a.

 

Like most hands short in clubs, this example hand is an easy 2♦ advance, asking for partner's major. Admittedly I don't know whether partner's major is four or five, but it's pretty clear I'd rather play there than in clubs.

 

There do exist some "difficult" patterns where advancer is short in clubs and in one of the majors. Unfortunately these hands are often misfits and there isn't always much to be done. With two clubs I tend to bid 2♣ to start on these; otherwise I will often try a five-card major at the two-level (suggesting to play my own suit). Another option with some values (like say 10+ hcp) is to pass and hope to set 1NT.

 

b.

 

At one time I tried playing 2♦ pass/correct. The advantages of the current method include having 2♥ natural (suggesting a contract rather than pass/correct) and better game try sequences after the (forcing) 2♦ call. The vast majority of hands with short clubs can reasonably bid 2♦ as a major suit ask. Note that even if you have a huge diamond fit and end up playing in an eight-card major instead, this will often be the higher scoring spot. Also, when you have a huge diamond fit plus a major suit fit, your opponents usually don't shut up. :)

 

c. [in response to Elianna's post]

 

After 1NT-X-Pass-2♦; Pass-2M-Pass...

 

Advancer has the following continuations available...

 

2♠ = natural, suggests good spades and a partial fit for hearts

2NT = asking, generally an invite in the major, advancer bids 3♣/♦ natural with a min, or else 3♥/♠ to show a max with clubs/diamonds respectively. Tend to upgrade hands with a five card major holding fairly aggressively here (since usually you will end up playing in the major)

3♣ = pass/correct to the minor, rare perhaps but it does happen

 

After 1NT-X-Pass-2♣; Pass-2♦-Pass...

 

2♥ is pass/correct for the major

2♠ is natural

2NT = asking, doubler bids 3♣/♦ to show a minimum with hearts/spades respectively, or 3♥/♠ natural with a max

3♣ is natural and not very strong

 

After 1NT-X-Pass-2♣; Pass-2M-Pass, same followups as if advancer had bid 2♦