Name your favourite anti-NT convention

[pclayton]

What amazes me is how some of these crappy conventions find their way into standard bidding. If you look at the conventions section under the acbl's website, you'll see DONT and Capp, but no other defenses to NT.

 

The only reason I can think of is when Capp came out in the late 70's, people were playing things like Ripstra, Astro and Brozel. These were supposed to be improvements over Landy (they aren't IMO). Capp added some options that these three lacked.

 

The masses tend to be about 20 years behind in this evolution. Maybe when I'm a senior, everyone will be complaining about Woolsey, and claiming how great Meyerson and Sher ( :angry: ) are.

[pclayton]

Since Meyerson has a NT convention, I propose Sher over NT (aka, Modified Meyerson):

 

x: Clubs Or a Major/Minor 2 suiter

2C Majors

2D/H/S Natural

 

After 1N-x-2C:

P=Clubs

2D=5+D and a 4 card major

2M=5+M and a 4 card minor

 

 

OK, I still like woolsey, at least in the direct seat...

Josh, you had your chance to name something after yourself but chose the ubiquitous name of "anti-BART". :angry:

 

I'm saving "CLAYTON" for something really cool (that I haven't invented yet). :D

[kfgauss]

Since Meyerson has a NT convention, I propose Sher over NT (aka, Modified Meyerson):

 

x: Clubs Or a Major/Minor 2 suiter

2C Majors

2D/H/S Natural

 

After 1N-x-2C:

P=Clubs

2D=5+D and a 4 card major

2M=5+M and a 4 card minor

 

 

OK, I still like woolsey, at least in the direct seat...

Are you basically just adding clubs to X as a "common abuse" (i.e. if pard bids 2D asking for a major, you'll bid 3C), or are you doing away with 5C-4M hands in the double (so pard always bids 2C, unless strong [edit: or with a long suit himself])?

 

Andy

[andych]

Could someone post a link for the top 3 hot picks tks .... :) :)

 

Woolsey (or multi landy)

Meckwell

Lionel

[awm]

Echognome gave the link to David Stevenson's website with an exhaustive list. Basically:

 

Multi-Landy:

 

X = penalty

2♣ = majors, now 2♦ by advancer asks which is longer/better

2♦ = one major (like multi 2♦ opening, similar followups)

2♥/♠ = the major suit bid, plus a minor

 

Woolsey:

 

Same as multi-landy, except X shows a 5+ card minor and 4-card major (thus 2♥/♠ always five cards or more in the major and a 4+ card minor). Then 2♣ by advancer is pass/correct and 2♦ asks for doubler's major (some play both 2-minor bids pass/correct).

 

Meckwell:

 

X = single-suited with a minor, or both major suits

2♣/♦ = the minor suit bid, plus a major

2♥/♠ = natural

 

Usually after the double, advancer bids 2♣ (pass/correct) and doubler passes with clubs, bids diamonds with diamonds, bids hearts with majors.

 

Lionel:

 

X = 4+♠ and a second suit (here 2♣ is pass/correct for the second suit)

2♣/2♦ = the bid suit plus hearts

2♥/2♠ = natural single-suited

[Double !]

i kind of like to play TRASH (TRAnsfer/SHape)

essentially it seems to be very much like if not the same as suction but it sounds better (trash vs. well, you know what I mean).

it is easy to remember (either 1 or 2+3: next suit or the two suits after the next one) and i like the transfer nature

If not TRASH, then simple transfer overcalls are fun

 

DHL

[han]

Don, I think transfer overcalls over 1NT is a HORRIBLE idea. Instead of allowing one double, you are allowing a direct double, a delayed double and a cuebid. TRASH is almost as bad imo. Still friends I hope (have to be careful these days :) ).

[zasanya]

Don, I think transfer overcalls over 1NT is a HORRIBLE idea. Instead of allowing one double, you are allowing a direct double, a delayed double and a cuebid. TRASH is almost as bad imo. Still friends I hope (have to be careful these days ;) ).

I understand that advantage of a transfer overcall in immediate seat is that forces the presumably strong nt opener to make a possibly favourable opening lead as he will be leading away from his honors.

Landy transfer in immediate position and Landy natural in 4th position is a popular treatment in our club.

[Double !]

Don, I think transfer overcalls over 1NT is a HORRIBLE idea. Instead of allowing one double, you are allowing a direct double, a delayed double and a cuebid. TRASH is almost as bad imo. Still friends I hope (have to be careful these days :angry: ).

of course still friends

 

Hannie, you might be correct about all of those potential liabilities. I enjoy the conventions (TRASH or Transfer Overcalls) for three reasons: 1) opening bidder is on lead, 2) it allows bidding many types of hands, and (most importantly?) 3) it's fun! This may be a poor reason for playing either, but I don;t know of any system of bids over opps 1NT that doesn't have many strengths as well as potential liabilities. IMO: it doesn't matter that much what defense you play (except, perhaps, for natural). What does matter is that you and P are on the same wavelength and that you don't have any misunderstandings due to use of the convention. More points are lost that way (or by letting me be declarer), or so it seems.

 

DHL

[andych]

I am unsure which one is best. But planning to pickup Meckwell, simply because it sounds cool to play sth of Meckwell :lol: :lol: . BTW is it really played by Meckwell as the name suggests?

 

Does Meckwell use this convention against both Strong NT and weak NT?

 

If I pop in a meckwell overcall vs opps NT, and opps ask me what is the point range, what is the standard answer? I could not answer "judgement tells" though it is what we usually do.... :lol: :lol:

[Double !]

Don, I think transfer overcalls over 1NT is a HORRIBLE idea. Instead of allowing one double, you are allowing a direct double, a delayed double and a cuebid. TRASH is almost as bad imo. Still friends I hope (have to be careful these days ;) ).

Han

Yes

In theory, each of these potential doubles could occur. And I could also listen to Partner's reaction.

And, how many partnerships do you know that have thoroughly discussed the subtle inferences between these different doubles? Does it show 4 or 5, not GI, GI, GF?

Does this (or any other intervention approach) come with potential risks. Of course, Yes. So does crossing the street (and taking Math Theory 101). More often than not the opps have hands that don't scream for clearcut action, and we've gotten in a first shot with chances for a second. I can't recall any major mp disasters during the times we've used either intervention, it is fun, and it is relatively easy to remember.

Then again, so is multi-Landy. So, IMO, just pick one in conjunction with your P and work on it and establish agreements. That's more important in my humble opinion.

 

Everyone have a nice evening:

 

DHL

[han]

Yes In theory, each of these potential doubles could occur. And I could also listen to Partner's reaction.

And, how many partnerships do you know that have thoroughly discussed the subtle inferences between these different doubles?

I would expect good partnerships to have an agreement about how a direct double differs from a delayed double. I agree that when playing against weak partnerships (which is not the same as weak players) transfers wouldn't be so bad.

 

 

Does this (or any other intervention approach) come with potential risks. Of course, Yes. So does crossing the street (and taking Math Theory 101).

 

Apart from the risk of being enlightened, taking math courses doesn't come with potential risks. ;)

 

So, IMO, just pick one in conjunction with your P and work on it and establish agreements. That's more important in my humble opinion.

 

You are absolutely right, this (and the fun factor) are by far the most important. But this thread is about which conventions we think are theoretically sound and which are not. For those who hope to play at a high level one day (such as myself) I'd say that transfers are a bad idea.