Which defence do you play to the 1NT opening and why?

[Zelandakh]

Something like....

You have no call to show a major in this scheme and this is generally regarded as a very important hand type. You could take away 2♦ for that purpose and make the double diamonds + a rounded suit. That would certainly give you a call for all one and two suited hands, albeit with the usual caveat of not being able to differentiate lengths at all between those two suits.

[Zelandakh]

Against a limited (i.e., a rnage with a high of no more than 15) 1NT, you should NEVER give up the penalty double.

Fans of Lionel and various other popular defences would disagree with you. Something to consider is that the number of hands with 11hcp opposite 11hcp is considerably greater than 16 opposite 6, so it is not necessarily the case that you get fewer penalties when not playing a penalty double. What the penalty double does provide is an upper bound on the strength of an overcall and that is certainly useful.

[Dinarius]

You have no call to show a major in this scheme and this is generally regarded as a very important hand type. You could take away 2♦ for that purpose and make the double diamonds + a rounded suit. That would certainly give you a call for all one and two suited hands, albeit with the usual caveat of not being able to differentiate lengths at all between those two suits.

 

By which I take it you mean no call to show a single-suited major, such as the 2D bid in Multi-Landy?

 

Yes, you're correct.

 

So, Dbl could be Minors, as I've stated above, OR a single suited ♥ or ♠. Advancer, chooses his favoured Minor and now I correct to the long major. Make sense?

 

Also, by using Dbl for the Minors, Advancer can now use 2NT as a forward moving inquiry bid.

 

So, in summary.....

 

Dbl = Minors or long ♥ or long ♠. If it's a Major, doubler corrects after Advancer has chosen his Minor.

2♣ = Majors (with 2♦ relay)

2♦ = ♦ and ♥

2♥ = ♥ and ♣

2♠ = ♠ and ♦ or ♣

 

2NT is Advancer's inquiry bid.

 

D.

[Zelandakh]

Dbl = Minors or long ♥ or long ♠. If it's a Major, doubler corrects after Advancer has chosen his Minor.

2♣ = Majors (with 2♦ relay)

2♦ = ♦ and ♥

2♥ = ♥ and ♣

2♠ = ♠ and ♦ or ♣

I still think you are far better off switching your "1M" and "reds" hands, so:-

 

Dbl = Minors; or ♦ and ♥

2♣ = Majors (with 2♦ relay)

2♦ = long ♥ or long ♠

2♥ = ♥ and ♣

2♠ = ♠ and ♦ or ♣

 

It is not optimal, since you cannot differentiate between 5M4m and 4M5m, but this ought to be playable. Incidentally, if it is the idea of being able to stop in 2m opposite both minors that is encouraging you, I should point out that there are a few defences that include this hand type in a 2♣ overcall and one of these might also be of interest to you.

[Dinarius]

I still think you are far better off switching your "1M" and "reds" hands, so:-

 

Dbl = Minors; or ♦ and ♥

2♣ = Majors (with 2♦ relay)

2♦ = long ♥ or long ♠

2♥ = ♥ and ♣

2♠ = ♠ and ♦ or ♣

 

It is not optimal, since you cannot differentiate between 5M4m and 4M5m, but this ought to be playable. Incidentally, if it is the idea of being able to stop in 2m opposite both minors that is encouraging you, I should point out that there are a few defences that include this hand type in a 2♣ overcall and one of these might also be of interest to you.

 

The reason I stuck with it is that unlike, say, Multi Landy, the overcaller holding a long major is guaranteed to be playing the hand. With ML, the long suit can be on the table.

 

Either way, I hope I'm onto something! :rolleyes:

 

What are those defences to which you refer?

 

Thanks.

 

D.

[Jinksy]

Plus, and this is not based on any data, merely a suspicion, that there is a correlation, not a 100% correlation, between willingness to play complex methods over 1N and aggression, and a corresponding correlation between wanting to keep it simple and being conservative. I ask Arend not to take offence...I do not include him in my database :D And I am generally conservative, but like gadgets over their notrump (and that is actually an area where I am more on the aggressive side, I think).

 

I bid hyper-aggressively in competition, for what that's worth. I'm not wedded to Landy, but I haven't found anything simple enough to be playable in infrequent partnerships (which all of mine are) that I prefer.

[Dinarius]

Question: Could I play what I've outlined above, or would it have to be certified legal first?

 

How do these things work?

 

Thanks.

 

D.

[ggwhiz]

Against weak notrumps we play front of card as if we opened a strong notrump with 4-suit transfers and double is followed by transfers, lebensohl, negative double etc.

 

The key to me is transfers that give you a 2nd kick at the can, I once picked up ♠Ax, ♥Axxxxxx, ♦AKQx, ♣void and transferred to hearts.

 

Partner passed 2♦! But the weak notrumper bid 3♣ so I bounced into the diamond slam opposite partners heart void and long diamonds, and 4♥ failed at the other table.

 

That was a back door miracle but Mikeh also plays methods against a weak notrump that almost guarantee a 2nd opportunity to bid your shapely hands.

 

We play the same thing against strong notrumps with a double instead showing a 1-suiter strong enough to play for penalty but only because we wanted the bid to come up for practice where we play against very few weak notrumps.

[cnelsen]

A regular partner and I have been trying "preferential treatment" with a some success.

[BillPatch]

Question: Could I play what I've outlined above, or would it have to be certified legal first?

 

How do these things work?

 

Thanks.

 

D.

Where do you wish to play? Some tournaments in BBO? Ireland? Great Britain? Elsewhere in Europe? ACBL adopted a new reg this summer so "Anything Goes," in terms of conventions over a natural no trump opening, so your convention is legal in the major North American countries and Bermuda. If you specify another location, it is likely that someone else can come back with the answer within 24 hours.

[Dinarius]

I play in Ireland.

 

Thanks.

 

D.

[manudude03]

Yeah, anything goes in Ireland as far as NT defenses go.

[kugw]

Has anyone tried playing Lionel?

x = spades & other 44

2C = clubs & hearts 44

2D = diamonds & hearts 44

2maj = 5 suit

2NT = minors

[BillPatch]

Has anyone tried playing Lionel?

x = spades & other 44

2C = clubs & hearts 44

2D = diamonds & hearts 44

2maj = 5 suit

2NT = minors

The Granovetters play Lionel and swear by it. See their books. By the way the ACBL Bulletin review article in 2010 recommends getting into the auction over 1NT when you do not have a balanced hand. If you must overcall on 4432 hands, use DONT, Meckwell, or the method described in that article by Grue.

[Zelandakh]

If you must overcall on 4432 hands, use DONT, Meckwell, or the method described in that article by Grue.

I would suggest using a 3-suited method if overcalling on 4432 hands. Bringing the 3-card suit into the equation gives slightly more safety.

[kugw]

I would suggest using a 3-suited method if overcalling on 4432 hands. Bringing the 3-card suit into the equation gives slightly more safety.

 

What article is this please?

[WesleyC]

A couple of years ago I wanted to answer this question for myself, so I checked the convention cards of the top pairs in the world (I'm not 100% but I think I used the top 6 teams from Bali Bermuda Bowl).

 

The one (almost) constant was that 17/18 pairs used a bid to show both majors, and this bid was usually 2C (although I forget the exact numbers there). The only pair that didn't have a way to specifically show majors was Meckwell (who play Meckwell!).

[helene_t]

The only pair that didn't have a way to specifically show majors was Meckwell (who play Meckwell!).

They have a way to show majors also, it is just that they don't show them immediately. Dbl followed by a conversion of partner's 2♣ to 2♥ shows majors.

[kugw]

I would suggest using a 3-suited method if overcalling on 4432 hands. Bringing the 3-card suit into the equation gives slightly more safety.

If the 3 card suit is spades them you can certainly use the double and play in hopefully you 43 fit and not your 33 fit.

[Zelandakh]

What article is this please?

I am sorry but I do not unbderstand this question.

 

If the 3 card suit is spades them you can certainly use the double and play in hopefully you 43 fit and not your 33 fit.

As I recall your suggestion was Lionel, which ordinarily does not allow a double to be made with 3 spades. The comment I was replying to referred to DONT; there it is also difficult (and usually undesirable) to play in a 4-3 spade fit after a double.

[Charlie Yu]

Do you really need X to show minors? Minors are hardly worth showing anyway, unless you are 55+, in which U2NT work just fine.

I suggest:

2H/2S/3C/3D nat

X for H+m

2C for S+m

2D for both M

[helene_t]

I mostly play Landy but against weak NT the nebolous 2M overcall often hurts us. Having a way to distinguish between good and bad overcalls would be usefull and having 6-card vs 5-card overcalls would be useful also. Playing ML you have to chose which of the two you use.

 

gwnn suggested combining Meierson with ML so

x= major/minor two-suiter

2♣=majors

2♦=bad major suit one-suited

2M=good, one-suited

 

This way you don't have the penalty double and it was actually intended to be used against strong nt mainly, but I think it would make more sense against weak nt where the distinction between good and bad overcalls is more important.

 

Obviously you should play this against 13-15 and 14-16 notrump. Against 15-17 and stronger play something with shape only such as Meierson, and against weak nt play something with penalty double such a Apstro :)

[mgoetze]

Obviously you should play this against 13-15 and 14-16 notrump. Against 15-17 and stronger play something with shape only such as Meierson, and against weak nt play something with penalty double such a Apstro :)

Do you really think it's a good idea to treat 14-16 differently than 15-17? Especially given that many people who write 15-17 on their card may in reality be playing decent 14 to bad 17.

[cherdano]

Do you really think it's a good idea to treat 14-16 differently than 15-17?

Yes.

Especially given that many people who write 15-17 on their card may in reality be playing decent 14 to bad 17.

Whereas many people who write 14-16 on their cards may in reality be playing great 12-ok 16.

[mgoetze]

Whereas many people who write 14-16 on their cards may in reality be playing great 12-ok 16.

Perhaps, but I doubt it's as common. I mean, when I play 15-17, I don't let it dissuade me from opening nice 11 point balanced hands (think 4432 shape, I'm not talking about those hands with a 6-card minor). Then when I have a nice 14, I think, gee, my 1NT rebid will be a wide-ranging 11-14, is partner going to be optimistic enough to account for my hand? Maybe I'd better just open 1NT instead. On the other hand, when I play 14-16, I still tend to stay away from opening balanced 10s. If I have a nice 13, I'll think, OK, I'll have the top end of my 11-13 range (for 1NT rebid or equivalent), but partner will be able to manage that just fine - so I don't upgrade.

 

Maybe it's just me and everyone else varies their minimum opening by a full point depending on their 1NT range.