Question about Cappelletti

[steve2005]

2♦ as a single suiter is not GCC.

ACBL board of directors may allow this in future.

 

however, this meaning is currently allowed in balancing seat as the prohibition only applies to direct overcalls.

 

So you could use in balance but its not advisable as would be so easy to have an oops and forget.

[Phil619]

I prefer Cappelletti to DONT. By definition 2♥ is ♥ and a minor. 2♠ is ♠s and a minor.

 

Yes, pass! If you have a solid 5 card suit, you may defeat 1NT. If partner has some values, he should re-open in 4th seat if openers partner has passed.

[Mbodell]

vs. STR NT: I use a system I call inverted DONT (read about it in Hughes, The Competitive Auction or some such):

(1NT) and now:

2♣ = ♣s

2♦ = ♦s

2♥ = ♥s

2♠ = ♠s and

x = any 2 suiter (could be 4-4).

Note that the suit bids do not deny a second suit, just don't promise one.

When the OPPs open 1NT, I just want to bid. Something. Anything. This system lets me do that more often.

 

Hmm, I play inverted DONT with some partners but it is a bit different. X is single suited clubs, or 2 suits that aren't clubs (partner bids 2 clubs mostly unless they have their own very long suit). 2♣ is clubs and a higher, 2♦ and up are natural.

 

AWM has a nice defense which is simple and gcc compliant. It is landy but x is M+m. Now 2c is p/c asking for the five card suit while 2d asks for the major. You end in the same contract as woolsey except that you also have a natural 2d bid.

 

The disadvantage is that you bid one round slower with the 5M-4m hands

 

Indeed. See for instance from my above post for a similar description of that quite good defense:

 

...

And if you make all of the above switches you move from capp to meyerson as a defense to NT....

[helene_t]

Biggerclub, if you double with any two-suiter and responder doesn't like clubs, it may go:

 

x-2♦

2♥-?

 

and now advancer doesn't know if doubler has clubs or spades. Mbodell's system solves this.

 

There is another disadvantage of doubling with two suits: if partner passes you won't know which of the two suits to lead. If double shows a single suiter, then partner will pass when he thinks it is fine for you to lead your long suit no matter which it is.

[wclucas42]

Wow, thanks everyone for the replies... Work took a turn for the busy yesterday, and I haven't been able to sit down and catch up yet. I'm hoping to over the weekend. I appreciate everyone's time and thoughts, it's what makes this such a great resource.

 

Thanks again,

 

Bill

 

 

 

[steve2005]

vs. STR NT: I use a system I call inverted DONT (read about it in Hughes, The Competitive Auction or some such):

 

(1NT) and now:

2♣ = ♣s

2♦ = ♦s

2♥ = ♥s

2♠ = ♠s and

x = any 2 suiter (could be 4-4).

I've seen a system like this, it doesn't overcall on 4-4 2suiters but I suppose you could use it that way.

 

But it did use 2N for ♣/♥ 2 suiters. This makes it easier to find other fits at the 2 level. Was supposedly used by Bergen before DONT

 

 

 

 

 

[biggerclub]

I've seen a system like this, it doesn't overcall on 4-4 2suiters but I suppose you could use it that way.

 

NV v VUL and against certain weak pairs, I am coming in over their NT until they learn how to x for penalty. Especially against the "experts" who play "all low level x's are takeout." I play mostly MPs, however.

[sfi]

NV v VUL and against certain weak pairs, I am coming in over their NT until they learn how to x for penalty. Especially against the "experts" who play "all low level x's are takeout."

 

Come on in, the water's warm. If you think that playing takeout doubles means you're less likely to be penalised, you're very much mistaken.

[biggerclub]

Come on in, the water's warm. If you think that playing takeout doubles means you're less likely to be penalised, you're very much mistaken.

 

I am satisfied with my results so far. I'm adaptable.

[helene_t]

I used Cappelletti for many years and do nor remember its causing any problems. Has it caused problems for you?

Gib plays it so most of us have plenty of experience although admittedly with a suboptimal implementation in which overcallers suit is usually lost if they interfere over our 2c. But I think that will often happen even with good follow up agreements.

 

In my experience they usually interfere over 2c so with a single suiter it has very little upside to bid at all.

 

If responder is going to pass you would probably be happy to defend 1nt with a six card suit to lead. So single suiters should either pass or make a natural overcall that obstructs them and allows p to compete.

[Lovera]

I find this topic much interesting yet for different ways to manage this convention. Has i have already said i use Stayman system that rules interfence vs 1NT(16-18) so:(31) ♠ QJ10874 ♥ QJ76 ♦ K9 ♣ 2 1NT-2♣ ;(32) ♠ K103 ♥ AJ7 ♦ QJ43 ♣ AQ6 1NT-X ;(33) ♠ KJ85 ♥ Q1096 ♦ 7 ♣ AQ84 1NT-2♣ ;(34) ♠ KQ83 ♥ QJ10973 ♦ 7 ♣ A4 p-p-1NT-2♣. As you may see X occurs when hand is "pair" of force to that one of 1NT and is balanced whilest 2♣ when unbalanced than, to integrate, 2♦(=heart+spade), 2♥ and 2♠(=Major+minor) should be weak.