Rate These Conventions

[eyhung]

I would be curious how people (experts) would rate cap against just playing natural over 1NT (which is what I prefer).

 

Also, if you play double of interference over 1NT as negative, doesn't this take care of most issues as well as lebensohl?

 

Bill

I always choose to play natural over cappelletti; I think natural is better technically and easier to remember. I do play DONT with some partners.

 

And negative doubles do not obviate the need for Lebensohl. Negative doubles show hands with values but no clear direction (generally no 5-card suit), Lebensohl helps with hands with clear direction (a 5+ card suit) but no values.

[neilkaz]

I would be curious how people (experts) would rate cap against just playing natural over 1NT (which is what I prefer).

 

Also, if you play double of interference over 1NT as negative, doesn't this take care of most issues as well as lebensohl?

 

Bill

I always choose to play natural over cappelletti; I think natural is better technically and easier to remember. I do play DONT with some partners.

 

And negative doubles do not obviate the need for Lebensohl. Negative doubles show hands with values but no clear direction (generally no 5-card suit), Lebensohl helps with hands with clear direction (a 5+ card suit) but no values.

We agree about Capp. I no longer list it in my profile and would rather play natural than Capp. I clearly prefer DONT although there certainly are better methods.

[mycroft]

Gambling 3N: 3 or maybe 4. A bad convention, but if you are going to open 3N, this isn't utterly hopeless

Naymats: 7 if only because it eliminates gambling 3N opening bids! I like a modifed version that is, imo, better for slam bidding while making life more difficult for the opps: 4C is a broken major, 4D is a no-loser major.It is important to have good follow-ups.

Gambling 3NT has problems however you play it - with 0 controls outside, it "never" gets left in, and even when it does, it's effectively double-dummy defence - and the opening lead is through the hand with controls. With 1 or 2 controls outside, responder leaving it in really is a gamble - I like it that way, but I enjoy rolling the dice more than most. Gambling 3S, if you can arrange your system around it and find a game where it's legal, is much better.

 

However, I like this description of Namyats, because:

Texas:10. S.A. Texas has some advantages...

...if only because it eliminates Gerber 4C!

 

DONT: 3. It is far better than cappelletti but inferior to any number of other methods. It's main attribute, apart from being better than the dreadful capp, is that it is very, very easy to play.

DONT is the worst defence to NT convention there is (well, okay, maybe not as bad as CRaSh or Suction); its only benefit is its safety - you can overcall with hands you would never think of overcalling with a different system, and have a good chance of not going for your life in a no-fit. In exchange you play the minor with minor-major double-fits, the double is ignorable and difficult to compete with if third hand does ignore it, and you frequently play 4-3s when there's a 5-2 (or 5-4!) available for fear of a misfit.

 

So, of course, most people who play it insist on 5-5 or a *good* 5-4 for overcalling. If you're going to be a chicken, at least play a system that rewards you for being a chicken! Ugh.

[mikeh]

Ogust is easy to memorise, you just say

 

5566 or

5656

 

and memorise the number. Then you agree where/when is it appropriate to actually have 5 cards for your preempt.

you play a different form of ogust than I am familiar with. I very much doubt that Mr. Ogust envisaged frequent 5 card weak two bids as part of his structure....not saying it's a bad idea....I don't play it the way you appear to suggest, so I can't comment....but I think Ogust was traditionally: bad hand and suit, good suit, bad hand, good hand bad suit, good hand with good suit....I always tried to think of it as 'good hands bid hearts', so that I wouldn't mix up the 3♦/♥ pairing.

[eyhung]

Ogust is easy to memorise, you just say

 

5566 or

5656

 

and memorise the number. Then you agree where/when is it appropriate to actually have 5 cards for your preempt.

you play a different form of ogust than I am familiar with. I very much doubt that Mr. Ogust envisaged frequent 5 card weak two bids as part of his structure....not saying it's a bad idea....I don't play it the way you appear to suggest, so I can't comment....but I think Ogust was traditionally: bad hand and suit, good suit, bad hand, good hand bad suit, good hand with good suit....I always tried to think of it as 'good hands bid hearts', so that I wouldn't mix up the 3♦/♥ pairing.

The way I learned Ogust was MINors are MINimum, 12123 (# of top honors).

 

Agree that Ogust originally didn't mean it as distinguishing between 5 vs 6 but with 4C Keycard over Weak Twos (01122) I think that's the best way to use Ogust. If you don't frequently open 5s I think feature-showing is a better treatment.

[gurgistan]

This thread was not meant to be abstract and I am glad some of you have commented upon just what conventions are actually useful.

 

I am suprised NAMYATS gets such a bad rep.

 

I also happy to discover that Ogust is not all that (who needs the headache of remembering its schema when you can play "features"? And it plays just as well. But then again there will always be those random parnters that play Ogust and not features).

[Finch]

Obviously BBO is very US-dominated, so all the US players replying are probably giving an accurate reflection of what is played, but it's a good idea to look at someone's flag before making assumptions as to what they play.

 

As an example, Texas transfers (as a 4D/4H response to 1NT) and Smollen are virtually unknown in the UK. (I learnt recently that in France the 2D/2H transfer responses are called 'Texas' which perhaps explains some of the extreme enthusiasm for them from others on this thread.)

[babalu1997]

But the OP asked how commonly they're played on BBO.  99% of the players on BBO are not experts, or even advanced, despite what they say in their profiles.

 

If you sit opposite a random BBO player, I'd expect that the only one of those conventions likely to be in their profile is Capp (I have no idea why this is so much more common than DONT, which is just as simple and obviously better -- maybe intermediates think they really need the penalty double that hardly ever comes up).

DONT is a better defense to the 15-17 nt but very few play it and among those who do you will find many who do not undertastand the 2d relay after the 2c inteference

 

but here is a quote from mike cappelletii where he states that he designed the convention as a defense to ks`s weak nt, 12-14 range.

 

ks is nolonger popular but the conventions stuck, for those of us who play ks the players at large do get beaten by the capp convention.

 

"When I started playing bridge, the convention Brozel was very popular as a defense to 1NT. At the same time, however, the Kaplan- Sheinwold system was coming into vogue, and the weak 1NT it uses was robbing us blind. We needed a penalty double, but in Brozel, double showed a one-suited hand. So I thought 'Why not make double for penalty, and let 2 show the single-suiter?'" Thus, Cappelletti was born."

 

quoted from: http://www.clairebridge.com/defensevsnt.htm

[awm]

In terms of what people play most...

 

Capp is probably the most popular

DONT is probably second

 

Almost everyone on BBO seems to play one or both of these defenses. It's not just a USA thing either as best I can tell. In fact I think enough people play some form of RKCB that Capp might be more popular than "standard blackwood" in people's profiles.

 

Texas transfers and smolen are pretty popular among advanced or better USA players, but I don't know how widely they are played overseas. Overall they are less common than Capp/DONT (and stayman and blackwood) but ahead of the rest of the list.

 

The others are less common among "random" players on BBO. Of the ones listed, Lebensohl is easily the most useful and also probably the one that finds its way onto the most expert convention cards (although there are also some variants like transfer lebensohl and rubensohl). Most experts prefer other defenses to notrump than Capp and DONT (multi-landy or woolsey are very popular).

 

Personally I like sandwich notrump a lot. I suspect some of this is MP vs. IMP bias; the light two-suited takeout hands come up a lot more frequently and are often positive MP swings. The strong NT overcall may not even be a net win at MP when you make the call (you get a lot of -200s into making partials their way), but the strong NT occasionally picks up a substantial positive IMP swing (find a game you'd miss otherwise) whereas most of the wins from the sandwich call are partscore swings at maximum.

[neilkaz]

OK my opinion of usefulness to those who play typical BBO Adv/Exp N.Am 2/1 style

 

Lebensohl - 10. Very nice but I prefer transfer leb after NT (consult Larry Cohen's site) and I think a huge value is after X of opp's weak 2 and also is nice after reverses.

 

Ogust - 3 .. I prefer and find it easier to evaluate after feature but I don't make too many 5 card weak 2's unless in 3rd and even then PD's so often make unfortunate continuations so being semi-disciplined I like feature better than Ogust.

 

Sandwich 1N - 2... Strong NT...15++ to 19- is better IMHO for IMPs as players bid and respond ever lighter.

 

Cappelletti - 1 .. almost anything is better vs a strong NT (15-17) and I side with those who don't need a penalty X vs a good pair that can escape or leave you guessing whether to X 2 whatever or try your own contract.

 

DONT - 6 ..easy to use but don't abuse with junk and I prefer methods where I can call a natural 2M and get my suit(s) in quickly to compete(block/interfere)

 

Gambling 3N - 3.. puke but not much else is better.

 

Smolen Transfers - 9... easy to use but don't forget and also has slam try benefits if you really know it.

 

Texas Transfers - 9 .. so nice and the only drawback is that they are less risky to X for a lead than jacoby (noting the last time I xx'd an x of a jacoby 2♦ transfer I made 2 vul OT) so there are some implications. Anyhow combining Jacoby and Texas allows you to 1) take all RKC's via Texas. .. Texas then 4NT RKC..Texas then 5 level exclusion RKC. Jacoby then 4NT quant with 5 trumps. Jacoby then 5 level responds keycards with RKC (obviously your hand is such that PD can use this). Jacoby then jump to 4M is mild slam invite.

 

Namyats - 3 .. not super bad but needs 3NT to be 4 level minor suit transfers and many hands in modern style can be opened 1M.

[Bbradley62]

Obviously BBO is very US-dominated...

This is not at all the impression I get when playing in the MBC. Does BBO produce membership stats?

[CSGibson]

Personally, this is how I rate the conventions (first frequency, then usefulness, with the first number being thepercentage of BBO users I think would play the convention divided by 10)

 

Lebensohl: 3/9. There are some auctions I'd prefer 2N to be 2 places to play, but Lebensohl is very useful.

 

Ogust: 3/8. This is obviously relative to your preempting style. I do not play disciplined preempts & my partners often need Ogust

 

Sandwich NT: 2/1. I strongly prefer natural NT overcalls by an unpassed hand.

 

Capp: 6/3. It's not as good as some other stuff, sure, but I do think it's playable, especially against a weak NT.

 

DONT: 6/5. I would prefer to only play this against a strong NT.

 

Gambling 3N: 4/4. Would be lower, except it seems to work well against pairs without clear defenses to this convention.

 

Smolen: 4/9. I don't see any downside to this convention.

 

Texas Transfers: 6/6. Not that there's many better treatments, but you could get by without it easily enough, too.

 

Namyats: 1/6. Personally, I like to preempt/bid 4 of a major on all sorts of hands, especially in my precision partnership - it turns out that it's hard to play against someone who opens at the 4 level a lot. This at least helps partner sort hands out.

[shevek]

Lebensohl - 5, hangover from when X was penalty. Transfers better

Ogust - 4, I never admit to a bad suit

Sandwich 1N - hangover from when opener had 13+ and responder 6+

Cappelletti - 6, okay but prefer Multi.

DONT - 4, good way to miss fits, prefer X = pen

Gambling 3N - 6, wrong-siding but seems to do okay

Smolen Transfers - 5, rare

Texas Transfers - 6, okay I guess

Namyats - 3, 4C/D natural are favourites, big earners

[blackshoe]

Kantar 3NT is probably better than Namyats, but it's not GCC legal.

[Siegmund]

Kantar 3NT is probably better than Namyats, but it's not GCC legal.

 

Yes it is. (To be GCC legal, it has to promise a *solid* major, and textbook Kantar 3NT does. A 'Kantaresque' 3NT where it's merely any good 4M preempt isn't.)

[blackshoe]

Apparently we have read different textbooks. :blink:

[barmar]

But the OP asked how commonly they're played on BBO.  99% of the players on BBO are not experts, or even advanced, despite what they say in their profiles.

 

If you sit opposite a random BBO player, I'd expect that the only one of those conventions likely to be in their profile is Capp (I have no idea why this is so much more common than DONT, which is just as simple and obviously better -- maybe intermediates think they really need the penalty double that hardly ever comes up).

DONT is a better defense to the 15-17 nt but very few play it and among those who do you will find many who do not undertastand the 2d relay after the 2c inteference

 

but here is a quote from mike cappelletii where he states that he designed the convention as a defense to ks`s weak nt, 12-14 range.

 

ks is nolonger popular but the conventions stuck, for those of us who play ks the players at large do get beaten by the capp convention.

 

"When I started playing bridge, the convention Brozel was very popular as a defense to 1NT. At the same time, however, the Kaplan- Sheinwold system was coming into vogue, and the weak 1NT it uses was robbing us blind. We needed a penalty double, but in Brozel, double showed a one-suited hand. So I thought 'Why not make double for penalty, and let 2 show the single-suiter?'" Thus, Cappelletti was born."

 

quoted from: http://www.clairebridge.com/defensevsnt.htm

I have no problem playing Capp over weak NT, I do that with many partners. I was talking about strong NT.

 

Maybe that's the reason so many players just play Capp: they don't want to have this conditional in their profile. Especially when playing with a pick-up partner, you probably won't have a chance to discuss where you draw the line between weak and strong NT.

 

I've recently played Meckwell a few times, but I don't think the bids came up during those sessions. This seems like a good compromise between natural and DONT: you get the preemption of bidding your major immediately, plus the ability to show two-suiters on the 2 level.

[neilkaz]

Can someone give me a good link to Meckwell Defence to NT please? I know the basics, but can't find any details anywhere about continuations.

 

Thx ,, neilkaz ,,

[barmar]

Dbl = single minor or both majors. Advancer bids 2♣. Overcaller passes with clubs, corrects to 2♦ with diamonds, or bids 2♥ with both majors, and then advancer passes or corrects to his better major.

2♣ = ♣+major. Advancer passes with club preference, bids 2♦ with long diamonds, or 2♥ p/c to overcaller's major.

2♦ = ♦+major. Advancer bids similarly to 2♣, but would have to go all the way to 3♣ to show his own clubs.

2♥/2♠ = natural

2NT = minors. Responder picks one.

[pooltuna]

Obviously BBO is very US-dominated, so all the US players replying are probably giving an accurate reflection of what is played, but it's a good idea to look at someone's flag before making assumptions as to what they play.

 

[snip]

What do you consider dominating at 8:45AM Saturday CDT I checked and only 10% of online BBO players had a US flag.