Cappelletti

[smerriman]

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=SAT832HAK92DAJ94C&d=w&v=n&a=1N!(15-17)2C!(Single suited)P]200|300[/hv]

What's your plan for the auction?

 

(IMPs, but would MPs be different?)

[FelicityR]

Heaven knows? Trusting partner has his/her bid - and his/her suit is probably, but not necessarily ♣ - even with 16 HCPs points 3NT from your side could be awkward due to entry problems. East must have a Yarborough here. Bidding 2♦ as a relay could come unstuck if partner's suit is ♦s as he/she could pass - lol! Bidding 2♠ is telling a lie as it should be a 6 card suit.

 

As I said, 'heaven knows'. Bidding anything or even passing (yes, even passing!) could be right or wrong here.

[pescetom]

Another good reason to play Multilandy B-)

But I would bid 2♦, you have little choice and if he passes there may well be only 10 tricks anyway.

[apollo1201]

It is probably one of the many hands why some of my US friends call this system Crapelletti 🤣

 

Partner is minimal given W and I have some 32 HCPs, and is likely to have a good suit therefore, C presumably.

 

Maybe we can bid a 2NT (balanced) game try. Partner, minimal, will bid their suit at the 3 level.

 

If C, probably safer to pass as it will be hard to bring 9 tricks in NT. Either he has AKJ, AQJ but no entry so the suit is dead, or KQJ, QJTxxx with one or two side entries, so I can establish the suit but not run it while in’the meantime opener will probably have 5 tricks.

 

If sth else than C, waouh. I will try (but I don’t know if I’ll be able😉) to reach 6 scientifically.

 

At MPs, I’d really consider passing, though.

[Gerardo]

2NT if available.

 

3NT over 3♣, go bonkers over others.

[smerriman]

Points go to the 2NT bidders.

 

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=SAT832HAK92DAJ94C&w=SKQ9HQJ3DT3CAKJ96&n=S5H64DKQ87652CQT4&d=w&v=n&a=1N2CP2DPPP]400|300[/hv]

If you bid 2♦, you feel slightly embarrassed in claiming all 13 tricks a few seconds later - though not as much as if you took it for granted that partner had clubs, and decided to pass 2♣. (This was a robot challenge, and I'll admit I did the latter :( )

 

My first thought was that this was just a freak hand, and attempting to find it would be outweighed by all the times partner really did have clubs.

 

But in retrospect, I came to the same conclusion as the last two posters above - 2NT ostensibly shows a balanced hand and asks partner to bid game with a maximum. But you know partner can't have a maximum, so will correct to their suit. If this is clubs, you're in the same spot as if you bid 2♦; if not, you're gold.

 

Like Felicity said, a number of different bids came through my mind - except somehow I didn't contemplate 2NT at all!

[sfi]

Isn't 2NT asking for the suit standard? I'll pass the expected 3C or just bid 6 over anything else.

 

I don't understand the comments about how other systems handle this better - almost none of them get to show clubs naturally at the two-level so it doesn't much matter on this hand.

[smerriman]

Isn't 2NT asking for the suit standard?

It's such a rare bid I haven't really considered it before. Of the first 6 links from Google results:

 

- BridgeBum does not list 2NT at all

- Wikipedia does not list 2NT at all (only 2NT as a second bid after the standard 2♦ relay)

- This PDF and this page both say it shows 11+ points and support for all four suits, inviting game

- Pattaya Bridge does not list 2NT at all

 

So, I'm not sure about "standard".

[pescetom]

I don't understand the commenta about how other systems handle this better

Just looking at this hand with a few popular systems:

- natural interference will bid 2D or 3D and find the fit

- Multilandy will bid 3D and find the fit

- DONT will bid DBL and then 2D and find the fit.

 

Yes Multilandy is no good with a modest six card minor and no four card major, but I think that's an acceptable price for a high frequency of precise location of major fits.

[Vampyr]

Just looking at this hand with a few popular systems:

- natural interference will bid 2D or 3D and find the fit

- Multilandy will bid 3D and find the fit

- DONT will bid DBL and then 2D and find the fit.

 

Yes Multilandy is no good with a modest six card minor and no four card major, but I think that's an acceptable price for a high frequency of precise location of major fits.

 

Playing Multilandy over a strong NT there are many potential 2- or 3-way uses of double. For instance 4-card major and a longer minor or diamonds. At least you get 1 minor in LOL.

[sfi]

Just looking at this hand with a few popular systems:

- natural interference will bid 2D or 3D and find the fit

- Multilandy will bid 3D and find the fit

- DONT will bid DBL and then 2D and find the fit.

So your point is that if you play Cappelletti badly it's worse in this situation? Fair enough I suppose, but that's frequently true no matter what the convention.

[pescetom]

So your point is that if you play Cappelletti badly it's worse in this situation?

 

No, my point is that Cappelletti has no standard mechanism to solve this situation and that even the improvised one suggested (2NT with a non-standard meaning) will lead to a poor contract (3NT) if interferer has the most likely holding (clubs).

Other systems are better in this situation independent of how well each is played.

[Vampyr]

So your point is that if you play Cappelletti badly it's worse in this situation? Fair enough I suppose, but that's frequently true no matter what the convention.

Quite. I would’ve considered 2NT to be a strong enquiry even without discussion.

[rmnka447]

I'm sorry, but I take my lumps in 2 ♦ passed out. If we are playing a convention, then I honor the agreement on how to bid. I don't jump to any conclusions about what partner holds.

 

But after the session, partner and I are going to have a conversation about bidding 2 ♣ for a 1 suiter on a preemptive hand.

 

I think North's proper bid is 3 ♦ preemptive. Then South can drive the auction from there.

[smerriman]

No, my point is that Cappelletti has no standard mechanism to solve this situation and that even the improvised one suggested (2NT with a non-standard meaning) will lead to a poor contract (3NT) if interferer has the most likely holding (clubs).

Based on my research above the "standard" meaning will never lead to 3NT if partner has clubs, given they don't have a maximum; it will lead to 3♣, same as if you bid 2♦. What is your interpretation of the standard meaning?

[smerriman]

But after the session, partner and I are going to have a conversation about bidding 2 ♣ for a 1 suiter on a preemptive hand.

 

I think North's proper bid is 3 ♦ preemptive. Then South can drive the auction from there.

That's a fair point, but give partner one diamond less and you have the same problem. What is the downside in bidding 2NT from your perspective?

[pescetom]

Based on my research above the "standard" meaning will never lead to 3NT if partner has clubs, given they don't have a maximum; it will lead to 3♣, same as if you bid 2♦. What is your interpretation of the standard meaning?

 

My interpretation is that it will lead to 3♣, which in turn will probably lead to 3NT as as gerardo suggested, the lesser of two evils.

[smerriman]

My interpretation is that it will lead to 3♣, which in turn will probably lead to 3NT as as gerardo suggested, the lesser of two evils.

Right, but whether or not you choose to pass 3♣ when partner is one-suited with clubs, or play 3NT, seems unrelated to any weakness in Cappeletti (and also unrelated to whether you respond 2♦ or 2NT). Won't that apply in any system?

[msjennifer]

Sir.we dislike cappelletti for quite a few reasons,We use LANDY and transfers in the 2nd seat and LANDY and Natural in the 4th seat In the 2nd seat 2S shows a diamond suit And 3C shows a club suit.(Responder may PASS or bid a game in clubs or invite with 4C) 2NT in 2nd or 4th seat shows both minors. ,I know that quite a few,if not all ,may not like this treatment.

[Cyberyeti]

I think North's proper bid is 3 ♦ preemptive. Then South can drive the auction from there.

 

This was my first thought, 2N is beyond obvious though

[Tramticket]

I think North's proper bid is 3 ♦ preemptive. Then South can drive the auction from there.

 

I agree as well.

 

The thing about Cappelletti is that you have two ways to show diamonds - you can jump to 3♦, or you can go through the 2♣ response. If you are not goimg to use 3♦ as a preempt, you may as well use 2♣ as just showing a six-card major and bid 3m directly with a minor (Multi-Landy style).

 

And yes, given your methods, I respond 2NT.

[pilowsky]

West has no business bidding 1NT it is a flaw in SAYC.They should favor their five card suit and bid one club forcing for round in the absence of interference! Not their contact anyway.

[johnu]

West has no business bidding 1NT it is a flaw in SAYC.They should favor their five card suit and bid one club forcing for round in the absence of interference! Not their contact anyway.

I would guess that a Bridge World Master Solvers panel would vote for 1NT about 95% of the time, maybe unanimously. Sometimes panelists misread the problem, or decide to bid using their own system instead of BWS which uses 15-17 HCP 1NT.

[pilowsky]

That's the trouble with guessing!

[Stephen Tu]

Maybe as a newbie you want to learn some stuff before trying to teach others.

 

Recommending anything but 1nt opening is absurd. After 1c you have no sensible rebid. Jump raising a major promises a 4th trump. 2nt is an overbid, 1nt an underbid. 2M raise is an underbid. 2c is supposed to usually have a sixth club and weaker in high cards.

 

John was underestimating/being sarcastic with 95%, should be unanimous.

 

Also, 1c is absolutely not forcing in SAYC. SAYC (or more generically SA, or 2/1; opp's system wasn't specified) is not a strong club system like Precision nor a forcing but not necessarily strong club system like Polish club.