defensive bidding against NT

[aisha759]

:rolleyes: Hello all you experts out there! I hope you can help me with my question.

I noticed most players prefer CAPP as defensive bidding against NT, some use both, depending on which seat. My regular partner and myself started out with CAPP and then switched to DONT.. DONT ask me why :)) I would really like to know which is relatively the best to use and why, and if one can play both.. is one better against weak NT, than the other? I would appreciate anyone who can give me "expert" advice. Thanks in advance :P

[slothy]

:angry: As the (self-appointed) expert who happens to be your regular partner, Aisha...since when did we chagne our defence to DONT????????? :o :rolleyes:

 

Ironic that this my first post: baptism of fire!

[slothy]

At the risk of turning my regular partnership into an ex-partnership i feel duty-bound to rescind what i have just said...whatever amendment that may have been in the US constitution??

 

yes we have changed to DONT, amazing how one remembers things with one's neck nestled in the guillotine ... the reason being that we came to the conclusion that the frequency of a CAPP penalty coupled with the frequency of it back-firing made a DONT defence more worthwhile IMHO (gotta practice these totally redundant and fatuous netabbreviations)......

 

waiting in morbid anticipation for other, no doubt more lucid, replies to aisha's post than mine....

[mikestar]

DONT would be my choice over a strong NT--we won't have game on power and disturbing their auction as ofter as we can safely is imporortant. The penamlty double just isn't that frequent and partner often can't leave it in when it does happen.

 

Against a weak NT, you will want to have a penalty double. And in a way CAPP and DONT can be combined:

 

X=Penalties.

2C=unspecified one-suiter as in CAPP.

2D=diamonds and another suit.

2H=hearts and (spades or clubs)

2S=spades and clubs.

[Free]

Mikestar said what had to be said I think: against strong NT, a penalty dbl will not occur very much, so it's better to use disrupting methods. Against weak NT, you need a penalty dbl... So in general, DONT has more hands it can show, so DONT is a better disruptive method, so better against strong NT. Against weak NT, I think CAPP is better.

 

But if you want to play DONT, why dont you play Meckwell? It's a slight improvement imo:

 

Dbl = minor suit overcall OR 44+ ♥-♠

2♣ = 44+ ♣ and another suit

2♦ = 44+ ♦ and another suit

2M = natural (5+ card)

 

This will take possible transfers away when you can bid 2♥ right away. Also, when you dbl, opps will still have their Major suit fit, or we have time to find out a playable 2M contract :rolleyes:

[aisha759]

Thank you Mikestar and Free, and hope Slothy reads this too (he being my regular partner) :angry:

It makes sense to use DONT against strong NT... this answers my question that both can be used depending on openers NT... we will take Meckwell into consideration, and see if we can make it work for us.

I still have not gotten an answer though about my other question: what is the better one to use in balancing position, and does it matter if opener's NT is weak or strong; i have seen players do that, and would like to know the advantages or disatvanges.

Good Saturday all

:rolleyes:

[mikestar]

I agree with Free that Meckwell is a technical improvment over DONT. In the balancing seat, you can use the same methods as in the direct seat with some strength adjustment (especially vs weak NT).

 

In both direct and balancing positions, if you are a passed hand you can use Meckwell or DONT even vs a weak NT, as you can't have a penalty double in this case.

 

Perhaps CAPP by an unpassed hand vs weak NT and Meckwell in all other cases?

[slothy]

Adding this in my quest to become an intermediate poster - principal of 'fast arrival'

[aisha759]

Thank you again for a very clear explanation.... i still have so many questions, about so many different things, but i'll leave that for some other time, whilst i master my capps and donts and meckwells :)

[1eyedjack]

Just a suggestion, v weak NT I have played "Asptro" for some time and am reasonably happy with the results.

 

X by non-passed hand = penalties, by passed hand = both minors

2♣ = ♥ + another which, if ♠, is longer (at least 5-4) (canape)

2♦ = ♠ + another which, if ♥, is longer (at least 5-4) (canape pass of 2♥)

2♥/2♠/3♣/3♦ = single-suited

2N = strong 2-suited (prefer to declare than double. Double unlikely to be passed out, and auction can get murky)

 

In the UK Cappelleti evolved originally in parallel under the name of Pottage. In my experience it has not really caught on in the last 20 years or so in face to face in the UK where weak NT is king. My experience may be flawed, of course.

[Trpltrbl]

Capp against Weak NT, Meckwell in Passout seat. All others I play something I don't even know the name of. But it seems to work.

 

Mike :)

[aisha759]

1eyedjack, is apstro similar to astro? It seems a bit familiar to me.

How do you all feel about Brozel?

I think after all these conventions, my brain might explode, I may need an Aspro :)

 

Regards to all

Aisha

[Yzerman]

I personally prefer CAPP, with some conditions. Substitute the double to show the 5+minor/4 Major hand, as well as the what some refer to as "reverse capp" or "mod capp" in which 2H/2S are single suits and 2C includes 5+major/4+minor. Personally, I think the capp double to show "cards" does not add value and is infrequent (as per MikeStar).

 

The ability to differentiate which suit is longer for major/minor 2 suiters is an added value that I believe creates tremendous advantage. These bids allow the partnership to compete to the proper level, make sound judgements in game bidding and stay out of trouble when applicable. I see some players bidding 2H/2S with Jxxx of major and AKQxxx of minor and I would like to vomit.

 

My vote goes for straight capp with special double;

 

X=5+m/4M

2C=1 suit

2D=both M

2H=5+M/4+m

2S=5+M/4+m

 

Regards,

MAL

[hrothgar]

Guess I'm in the minority, because I'm not fond of Capelletti

 

Given my Druthers, I prefer to play a slightly modified version of "Lionel"

Lionel is very aggressive: We frequently intervene with 4-4 patterns.

 

Correspondingly, the structure is designed to maximize pressure on the opponents. Unlike some of the structures being described, we don't telegraph whether we have 4 or 5 card suits. It helps the opponents as much as it helps us.

 

Rather, we prefer to be able to make natural bids which maximizes the pressure on LHO.

 

 

 

3C shows both minors

2NT shows an offensively oriented 2-suited hand

2S shows a single suited hand with Spades

2H shows a single suited hand with hearts

2D shows Diamonds and Hearts

2C shows Clubs and Hearts

X shows Spades and another suit

[the hog]

"Guess I'm in the minority, because I'm not fond of Capelletti"

 

I guess thats why we often play together. Cappelletti is imho an inferior method of competing against any strength NT. Why? Look at this sequence:

(1N) 2C* (2S)

 

2C* (or X depending on which flavour you are using), shows some single suiter. You now have NO idea whether you have a fit with partner or not. Can you compete to the three level? Who knows! Maybe you even have a game on extreme shape. How to get there? Far better to show your suits. Capp also leads to a lot of UI problems in auctions like the one mentioned.

 

I have also had great fun bidding 2S on

x xxx xxxx xxxxx when the opps compete with a Cappelletti 2C over my partner's weak nt.

 

Personally I think you can't beat Asptro. Lionel is fine as well. Dont is ok against strong nt, suspect against weak nt.

[cnszsun]

The following is quoted from Meckwell's CC:

 

"Vs Strong: X forces 2C, either m or M's or good hand. 2m=nat + side M. 2N=good with 55+ H+m. 2M=nat.

Vs Weak: X=14+, 2C=S+(H or C), 2D=D+M, 2M=NAT, 2NT=onesuiter, 3C=55+ C+H, 3D=55+ D+H, 3H=55+M's, 3S=55+ S+D. By PH, use Strong NT defense."

 

No matter against strong or weak NT, their 2 major bidding always natural. I think that's their uniqueness.

[mishovnbg]

1eyedjack, is apstro similar to astro? It seems a bit familiar to me.

How do you all feel about Brozel?

I think after all these conventions, my brain might explode, I may need an Aspro :unsure:

 

Regards to all

Aisha

 

-------------------------------------------------

Hi Aisha!

 

 

------

The best convention you can use is which you and your partner know and understand. There is no such thing like good bidding after nat 1NT, it take too much of bidding space, for any side - the reason why so many conventions here exists, competitive or not. If you feel yourself not advanced enough, my advice is to use Astro/Aspro, because it give you clear picture about majors and most common game/score. If you can handle more complicate way of bidding, best is Meckwell convention, because you can compete with any suit at cheapest level, avoiding penalties when possible. Give up playing penalty doubles vs weak NT - they will not play 1NT, penalty over 2 of suit is under question, defense depend of chance, while you lose tempo to describe own distribution and can lose own contract.

 

-----------------------------------------------

Misho

[Shrike]

:unsure: I noticed most players prefer CAPP as defensive bidding against NT, some use both, depending on which seat.

Others are handling the what-to-play suggestion, but there's another question implicit here:

 

In many places I've played, it is true that Cappelletti/Hamilton is the most popular to defense to opponents' notrump openings. This is true despite what many believe to be its technical inferiority, to any number of alternatives. It appears to me that few experts play this convention with other experts, and I can't recall seeing too many bidding theorists advocate its use over strong notrumps.

 

Why? In the case of some bad (let's accept for the moment that the theorists, at least, largely believe Capp to be bad over a strong notrump) methods, it's probably a combination of inertia and simplicity. Inertia, for example, may be what keeps people playing standard attitude, when it is generally conceded that upside-down is superior (albeit only slightly so). Simplicity keeps people playing Blackwood when RKC is conceded to be better, and RKC 4NT when RKC kickback is better.

 

But why Capp? It wasn't the first reasonable system of interference (Brozel preceded it, didn't it? And wouldn't you rather play Brozel, if you could only choose among these two and your partner was comfortable with both?), it is more complex than some good systems, it is inferior to many systems, yet it thrives. Any thoughts?

[Rado]

hi Aisha and all,

The basic guidance for overcalling opponents NT is:

1. vs Strong NT (14+ p) - destructive

2. vs Weak NT (15- p) - constructive

 

View the above, DONT and Meckwell perfectly fit 1., while for 2. almost all schemes including penalty double look fine.

 

My preference against weak NT is so called Geneva convention:

 

DBL = 13+ balanced, or minor 1 suiter or both majors 15+ p

2♣/♦ = ultra transfer for ♥/♠ with almost opening hand, no upper limit

2♥ = both majors limited (around good 8 to bad 14 points)

2♠ - natural weak (abt 10- p)

2NT...... - free as per you wish

 

Kind regards

Rado

[aisha759]

I thank each and everyone of you for your feed back; i think i will stick to DONT, for now, even though some of the combinations i was given were quite useful, i will not confuse matters, until i am completely sure i can handle a few other conventions, depending on strength of opps NT opening..... I used to like Brozel very much, but i don't see many people using it, so i discarded it, and did the same with astro :)

This question was mainly a sort of a poll i wanted to take, so that slothy and myself (my regular p) could come to some sort of agreement, because i was insisting CAPP was better, as so many players i watched seemed to use it.. he made his point.

 

Another topic we have a problem with is Lebenshol; and we seem to argue on that also...... I have my notes which tell me one thing, and his notes tell him something else.... i know there is only ONE lebenshol, and can also be used against weak 2 openings... 2NT after interference to 1NT opening, forces partner to bid 3♣ that's the simplest to remember.... could someone just reinforce the sequences for me, so i can compare it with my notes... i know its so much easier to find a site and read thru it, but i love the communication process which goes on in this forum, and the feedback i get is more convincing and more personal...

 

Thank you all in advance for taking the time ( this is just the beginning, i have many more questions ;) ) most of my queries are for non-regular partherships though, as regular partners can modify conventions up to a certain point.

 

Regards,

Aisha

[mikestar]

The simplest and probably most commonly played Lebensohl version:

 

After 1NT-2X-2NT-3C:

 

3 of a lower ranking suit than X: signoff.

3X: GF Stayman, stopper in X.

3 of a higher ranking suit than X: invitational.

3NT: natural with stopper in X.

 

 

Bids directly over 1NT-2X:

 

Dbl: natural 2NT bid.

2 of any suit: signoff.

3 of any suit: natural GF.

3X GF Stayman without stopper in X.

3NT natural but no stopper in X.

 

 

This variant is "slow shows", some partnerships reverse the meanings of 3NT and the cuebid in the two contexts--this is called "fast shows".

 

Various forms of transfer Lebensohl are technically superior but involve more memory work for the partnership.

[Chamaco]

Whatever your defense vs strong NT and weak NT, I strongly suggest that against strong NT, in the BALANCING SEAT, you use the same defense used against vs weak NT, in order to be able to show that we have the balance of power despite opener bidding a strong NT.

 

The reason is that when bidding goes

1NT-pass-pass-?

 

The situation is often the same regardless of the NT range: responder is either weak, or has something but not enough to bid; even when responder has something, often hcp are split and a partscore battle may be justified, especially at MP.

Obviously, if responder is broke, there is still possibility of bidding game espite strong NT opening, and at least a partscore.

In these cases , regardless of the NT strength, it is useful to have ways to compete *with a grain of salt*, but also ways to show that we have the balance of power.

 

Therefore I am against the use of purely disruptive methods (e.g. Dont/Meckwell) in the balancing seat vs strong NT.

This will be especially helpful when some opp opens a strong 1NT in the 3rd position stealing 1 or 2 hcp, to preempt our side.

[Gerben47]

I think Cappelletti is used so widely because of the system regulations in the ACBL. An obvious improvement would be to have 2♣ as both majors and 2♦ as an unspecified major (Multi Landy), but this is not allowed in the ACBL as 2♦ must have an anchor suit.

 

About the passout seat, I disagree. The essential difference between them opening weak NT and them opening strong NT is the likelyhood that the hand belongs to us. After 1NT (15-17) pass pass this likelyhood is small, after 1NT (12-14) pass pass it is much larger. In both cases their maximum is 23 HCP (15+8 or 12+11) but their minimum is lower in the weak NT case.

 

My suggestion is this:

In passout use the same system as in direct seat. After a strong NT this does not include a "points" double, after a weak NT it does.

 

Actually you also might want a third system: interference with a passed hand. Remember that your hand was not worth opening before so playing weak 2 bids you will not have a hand that will want to bid pass pass 1NT pass pass 2S (natural).

[Chamaco]

About the passout seat, I disagree. The essential difference between them opening weak NT and them opening strong NT is the likelyhood that the hand belongs to us.

This would be true if responder did not pass.

But if responder does passes, the 2 following sequences will often be similar:

 

1NT(12-14)-pass-pass-?

1NT(15-17)-pass-pass-?

 

In both cases, if you bid, sometimes you'll stumble in opps having 23-24 hands, some other times you'll get a good contract that would be missed otherwise.

 

The likelihood is about the same.

Actually, if our line has about 23-24 hcp, it will be much more likely that we have game vs the STRONG NT rather than vs the Weak NT, since all the defensive strength being in one hand it will be easier to read the hand, with marked finesses and frequent endplays.

 

I want to emphasize that the use of disruptive methods in a balancing seat, when opps already gave up the hopes for game, appears to me to be VERY inadequate: disruption should be used to prevent opps bidding the right game or slam, not when they are passing out, and this applies regardless of whether they opened a strong or weak NT (or 1 of a suit for what matters).

 

When opps are passing out, I believe one should be able to have ALL of the following options:

1. compete safely,

2. cooperate with partner in case game is there

3. cooperate with partner in case we can penalize 1NT or any other partscore.

 

Disruptive methods handle well only option 1, and in the balancing seat it is a serious handicap in my opinion.

This is why I advocatite using in the balancing seat cs Sttrong NT the same methods used vs weak NT: it has nothing to lose and much to gain.

(Please note that I DO NOT advocate reopening with ANY hand vs neither strong nor weak NT; this is a matter of judgement; I only say that *if you judge that reopening is wise*, then it is better to do so with your defense vs weak NT).

[mila85]

I don't like bidding over 1nt with anything. I prefer normal score than randomize the board.

I play DONT over strong nt but I rarely bid with 5-4 and never with 4-4. I played CAPP over weak nt.

I prefer to pass with a lot of hands and bid more precise with the others.

This is why I switched 2c and 2d in CAPP. I can't bid with every hand with diamonds but I can ask which major is better and I'm in better position when responder bids.

This is also why I don't like DONT. (1nt-2c-p-? What do you bid with Q Qxxx Qxxxx Qxx?)

 

I remember I played with unknown partner. He doubled strong 1nt in balancing seat. Because we didn't discussed it I passed it as natural. Down two in red was +500 and very good result. I wanted to play penalty dbl. in this position with my regular parner. Then I saw the movie.

1nt-p-p-dbl.

p - p - 2d - all pass

This was frequent bidding. Made +1 and -110 instead of +200.