What Is Name for This Notrump Defense

[RuflRabbit]

Over 1NT:

 

2♣ = majors

2♦ = ♦ and a major

2♥ = ♥

2♠ = ♠

 

Anyone know what this is called, if it has a name?

 

Thanks!

[Stephen Tu]

According to David Stevenson's page, allegedly "Randy". A modification of Landy I suppose.

[RuflRabbit]

According to David Stevenson's page, allegedly "Randy". A modification of Landy I suppose.

 

Thanks, Stephen. I can't seem to find it referred to that way anywhere else. Wonder where D Stevenson got it from?

[PhilG007]

Over 1NT:

 

2♣ = majors

2♦ = ♦ and a major

2♥ = ♥

2♠ = ♠

 

Anyone know what this is called, if it has a name?

 

Thanks!

 

It looks like Astro Over the years there has been a proliferation of devices specifically aimed at

countering a !NT opening In addition to Astro there is also ASPRO ASPTRO BECKER BERGEN OVER NT

BROZEL CANSINO CAPPALETTI OVER NT RIPSTRA Its really just a matter of personal taste.....and of course

partnership agreement

[torgums]

The best method is the second revision of Cappaletti.

 

2 ♠ shows single suit spades

2 ♥ shows single suit hearts

3 ♣ shows single suit clubs

2 ♦ shows both major suits

Double shows both minor suits

 

2 ♣ relay bid to 2 ♦

over the relay

pass shows single suit diamonds

2 ♥ shows hearts and a minor

2 ♠ shows spades and a minor

if the major suit is not playable

Bid 2 NT to ask which minor

 

The advantage is getting the single suit major into the auction before responder has a chance to bid.

 

The first revision employed an illegal bid. The ACBL rescinded the ruling but this version had been published by that time.

[pescetom]

The best method is the second revision of Cappaletti.

 

2 ♠ shows single suit spades

2 ♥ shows single suit hearts

3 ♣ shows single suit clubs

2 ♦ shows both major suits

Double shows both minor suits

 

2 ♣ relay bid to 2 ♦

over the relay

pass shows single suit diamonds

2 ♥ shows hearts and a minor

2 ♠ shows spades and a minor

if the major suit is not playable

Bid 2 NT to ask which minor

 

The advantage is getting the single suit major into the auction before responder has a chance to bid.

 

The first revision employed an illegal bid. The ACBL rescinded the ruling but this version had been published by that time.

 

At first sight, it still has the same major defect as the original Cappelletti - 2♦ is a poor way to show both majors.

And the 2♣ relay gives a whole series of opportunities for opponents to exchange information and throw spanners in the works.

[blackshoe]

I prefer HELLO, aka "Helms 3". Jerry Helms claims to have independently invented "Cappeletti" at about the same time as Mike Cappeletti and Fred Hamilton and Julian Pottage.

 

2♣: diamonds or a major-minor two suiter.

2♦: hearts.

2♥: both majors.

2♠: spades.

2NT: clubs.

3♣: both minors.

3♦: both majors, forcing.

[johnu]

Over 1NT:

 

2♣ = majors

2♦ = ♦ and a major

2♥ = ♥

2♠ = ♠

 

Anyone know what this is called, if it has a name?

 

Thanks!

Three of the bids are the same as Landy.

2♣ = majors

2♥ = ♥

2♠ = ♠

 

2♦ = ♦ and a major is the same as the DONT 2♦, although other conventions may have the same definition as well.

[johnu]

At first sight, it still has the same major defect as the original Cappelletti - 2♦ is a poor way to show both majors.

And the 2♣ relay gives a whole series of opportunities for opponents to exchange information and throw spanners in the works.

Exactly why is 2♣ a better way to show both majors than 2♦? Sometimes you have unequal lengths in the majors, 4=5, 5=4, 6=5, 5=6.

 

If you use 2♦ to show both majors, when partner has equal length in both majors, 2=2 or 3=3, they have to guess what major to take preference. If they guess wrong, you may end up playing a 4-2 or 4-3 fit instead of a superior 5-2 or 5-3 fit.

 

If you use 2♣ to show both majors, responder can bid 2♦ to ask overcaller to bid their best suit and you will get to your best fit.

[thepossum]

Maybe this something of a commentary on the state of Bridge these days.

What a wonderfully entertaining thread - everyone having fun I hope :)

 

Q "Anyone know what this is called, if it has a name?" - using a convention you dont know :)

 

A1 Allegedly Randy, a modification of Landy I suppose - along with BANDY, CANDY, DANDY, etc

A2 It looks like Astro - but there are ASPRO ASPTRO BECKER BERGEN OVER NT

BROZEL CANSINO CAPPALETTI OVER NT RIPSTRA - this answer is a classic :)

A3 Capelletti revision 2 is the best - how many revisions are there :)

A4 I prefer HELLO

A5 Three of the bids are Landy but one is like DONT - very amusing. This must be DANDY or LONT or LDONT

etc.

 

Seeing as there is now an anything goes mentality and anyone can essentially make up their own conventions on the fly, I will, from now on, be playing POSSUM over 1NT which is basically what I feel like at the time

[PhilG007]

Of course,whatever device you choose to use to counter a 1 NT opening,it should be borne in mind that in doing so,

you are giving away your distribution. Its a two edged sword. If your side fails to buy the contract,you have given declarer valuable

information which could rebound against you. You have to weigh up the pro's and con's of these gadgets and decide whether in the

long term they are going to be an asset or a liability.

[Zelandakh]

The best method is the second revision of Cappaletti.

"Best"? Seriously? I would rate Multi-Landy above this as using 2♣ instead of 2♦ for the majors is a major improvement. There are also some complex methods of interest. Have you seen this one for example?

 

X = 4+ hearts: ♥ + (longer/stronger)♠ or 4♥ + longer minor; or ♥ + ♦ + ♣

2♣ = 4+ spades: ♠ + (longer/stronger)♥ or 4♠ + longer minor; or ♠ + ♥ + ♦

2♦ = ♥ or ♠

2♥ = 5+♥ + minor

2♠ = 5+♠ + minor

2NT = ♣ + ♦

 

Of course what is "best" depends a lot on so many things, not least of which is the range of the NT opening being employed. The defence in the OP is a reasonable method for B-I players wanting a simple option that can be used against all NT ranges, something which cannot be said for your "best" solution.

[RuflRabbit]

"The defence in the OP is a reasonable method for B-I players wanting a simple option"

 

Zia-Rosenberg will be glad to know they've made it into B-I. :)

[Zelandakh]

Zia-Rosenberg will be glad to know they've made it into B-I. :)

In the last CC I have for Zia and Michael they use this defence only as an unpassed hand against a weak NT and use instead Meckwell (X = ♣ or ♦ or ♥ + ♠; 2m = m + M; 2M = nat) against a strong NT or after an initial pass. The point being made here is that the stated defence is relatively simple and can potentially be played against all NT ranges, making it a reasonable method for BI pairs. The world class players can make up their own minds and do not need my (or your) advice to come to a decision.