Are you switching to multi 2D overcall of 1N under GCC

[steve2005]

As of May 1, 2015 in ACBLland under the GCC you could overcall 1N with 2♦ showing a 1 suited hand with a major. If you were playing Cappelletti you would then use 2♣ to show both majors and bid 3♣/3♦ with a minor 1-suiter. 2♥/2♠ remains a 2-suiter with a side minor.

 

I was wondering if people were making the switch.

 

Also possible is to use double as a minor-major 2-suiter with a longer minor (Woolsey).

[Vampyr]

Just as an aside, here Multi Landy is very popular and Cappelletti almost unheard of.

[jeffford76]

A large swath of the West Coast allows any defense to 1NT, even in otherwise GCC events. So you might want a choice for "I was already playing this."

[neilkaz]

Just as an aside, here Multi Landy is very popular and Cappelletti almost unheard of.

There's a reason for this as you know :)

[wank]

i'm sure no decent partnership was playing cappathingy anyway

[MrAce]

Capp is ...... I still play it on BBO simply because it has been popular among online players since the OKB and I am scared to ask people to play something that they are not familiar with. Seems like everyone from novice to worldclass players know it and that is why I play it. I agree that it is a very bad convention if not one of the worst ever.

[sfi]

The almost cult-like hatred of Cappelletti never ceases to amuse me. IMO it's a fine convention, and far better than swapping the meaning of 2C and 2D. Why? Whether or not you bid 2D to show equal length, much of the time the other side knows the complete major suit distribution the moment dummy hits. Even knowing dummy has equal length in the majors improves the opening lead.

 

I am certain I have gained far more over the years playing against "reverse Cappelletti", as it is called here, than lost by playing in the weaker major fit at the two level or by not being able to compete when we don't know where the suit is. It's not even close.

[paulg]

Just as an aside, here Multi Landy is very popular and Cappelletti almost unheard of.

Pottage is the more popular name of this defence in the UK. I believe it is more popular at clubs than tournaments.

[Vampyr]

Pottage is the more popular name of this defence in the UK.

 

Is it? I have never heard it.

[barmar]

The almost cult-like hatred of Cappelletti never ceases to amuse me. IMO it's a fine convention, and far better than swapping the meaning of 2C and 2D.

The problem with Capp isn't when you use it to show both majors. It's the use of 2Major to show a Major-minor 2-suiter, since that forces you to the 3 level if partner prefers a minor. And if your major is spades, 2♠ preempts partner from showing a 6-card heart suit.

 

These are why many players only use it over weak NT, you're not as concerned about getting too high.

[blackshoe]

Most people I know think DONT is the best defense to strong NT, but then most people I know play Cappelletti over both weak and strong because 1) "everybody" plays Cappelletti and 2) they don't want to have to deal with different defenses to different NT ranges.

 

Jerry Helms (one of the four people who lay claim to having independently invented "Cappelletti", the other three being Cappelletti himself, Hamilton, and yes, Pottage) recognized early on that the convention has problems, and came up with "Helms II", which others call "modified Cappelletti". Basically, 2♣ is either diamonds or a major-minor two suiter, 2♦ is both majors, and 2M is natural. Later, he and a couple of his regular partners came up with "HELLO" (Helms-Lohman) where 2♣ is again diamonds or a major-minor, 2♦ is hearts, 2♥ is both majors, 2♠ is natural, 2NT is clubs, 3♣ is both minors, and 3♦ is both majors, forcing. Max Hardy thought HELLO is the best defense against 1NT strong or weak. I don't know about that - there are so many defenses. But it does seem an improvement over the basic convention.

[Vampyr]

Yeah, would not play Cappelletti or Multi-Landy over a strong NT.

[helene_t]

You can play ml against weak and woolsey against strong. That is gcc compliant and reasinably easy to remember as it is only dbl that changes meaning

[RMB1]

Pottage is the more popular name of this defence in the UK.

Is it? I have never heard it.

 

Showing your age paulg :)

[Vampyr]

You can play ml against weak and woolsey against strong. That is gcc compliant and reasinably easy to remember as it is only dbl that changes meaning

 

I play X = ♥/♠, ♣/♦ or ♦, 2m=Mm, 2M natural over strong NT. I think this is something like Woolsey.

[TylerE]

HELLO is my preference if playing something complexish (It's actually a bit more complex than laid out above, there are sequences to show e.g strong two and one suiters)

 

If playing something simple I think Meckwell is strictly an improvement over DONT, and plain Landy is fine also.

[steve2005]

I play X = ♥/♠, ♣/♦ or ♦, 2m=Mm, 2M natural over strong NT. I think this is something like Woolsey.

X seems complicated but I guess you have it worked out :).

 

I would go X=majors, 2N=minors, 3m=1 suiter so my brain wouldn't cramp lol.

 

 

 

 

[barmar]

Most people I know think DONT is the best defense to strong NT, but then most people I know play Cappelletti over both weak and strong because 1) "everybody" plays Cappelletti and 2) they don't want to have to deal with different defenses to different NT ranges.

DONT's biggest advantage is its extreme simplicity. It's arguably the simplest defense that allows showing any 1- or 2-suiter, and furthermore allows playing in one of those suits on the 2 level. It has no two-way bids. I've always found it surprising that it wasn't one of the early NT defenses that were devised. Maybe it's because it took a while for players to give up on the penalty double.

 

These days I've switched to Meckwell.

[mycroft]

I played (and play) DONT for mumblety years against a strong NT, and I'm switching.

 

1) many of my partners are chickens and chickens shouldn't play DONT. There are much better conventions to sanely compete for the partscore than DONT if 1100 at Matchpoints scares you. Because:

2) DONT is designed to get you to a safe contract, not a good one. If it's your hand, and you have a major fit, you will almost never find it and go +90 or +110 into +110 or +140 unless you have a lower-suit misfit - and any possible correction will not be worse. This costs a lot - especially at matchpoints. If you're only overcalling on the hands that the people playing the "good, but needs strength and length for safety" systems are, you get the worst of both worlds.

3) It's supposed to be disruptive, but:

• when you have a single suit, almost always you double, and frequently never get to show it - so partner doesn't get to raise it. Almost always, if you would have "disturbed" their auction (i.e. it wasn't going to go 1NT-p-p if you didn't put your oar in), you're not going to get to show it.
  
• when you have two suits, half the time you're bidding 2♣. Only one in six two-suited hands bids a major (see 2).
  
• so unless you bid 2♠ (which isn't terribly comfortable, if you play it as the standard bad one-suiter spades rather than good), or the lucky three two-suiters, there's a trivial, non-disruptive, common-to-the-point-of-ubiquity, if not optimal defence: Ignore it (with XX as either cards or runout or never bid, your choice).
  

So where's the Disturbing?

 

Yes, you get in when others won't, and win when your contract beats 1NT-AP. Yes, you win when you bid 2♦, especially if others won't come in, or play their minor fit at the 3 level. Yes, 2♥ is magic, but every system worth noting has a call for both majors, so you're back against "either the other tables are passing in which case they have no major fit and we've warned them off a potential 3NT, or they're bidding their majors hand, and have better tools for finding the best contract than us."

 

I found myself saying "why don't I just keep my mouth shut and hope they misplay me for not actually having an overcall?" a lot; and that's catastrophic for DONT, too.

[blackshoe]

HELLO is my preference if playing something complexish (It's actually a bit more complex than laid out above, there are sequences to show e.g strong two and one suiters)

I figured my post was long enough already. B-)