[johnu]

sfi, on 2023-October-22, 06:48, said:

I haven't gotten much support in the past, but I think the 2D to show no preference is very poor. It's really common that we declare the hand when we open 1NT and they interfere. Most times when they have this sequence (2C majors - 2D equal length), I have used the distributional information to gain extra tricks. I would prefer to play 2D for the majors than 2C, just for this reason.

If advancer is 3-3 in the majors, getting to a 5-3 instead of a 4-3 trump fit will usually far outweigh any defender advantage in knowing overcaller's major suit distribution.

And when advancer is 2-2 in the majors, getting to a 5-2 results in a reasonable contract, as opposed to a possible 4-2 contract that violates Burn's law of total trumps,

Quote

When you are declarer, the total number of trumps held by your side should be greater than the total number of trumps held by your opponents.

[sfi]

johnu, on 2023-October-23, 19:23, said:

If advancer is 3-3 in the majors, getting to a 5-3 instead of a 4-3 trump fit will usually far outweigh any defender advantage in knowing overcaller's major suit distribution.

And when advancer is 2-2 in the majors, getting to a 5-2 results in a reasonable contract, as opposed to a possible 4-2 contract that violates Burn's law of total trumps,

That has (obviously) not been my experience. 4-3 (and even the occasional 4-2) fits can play just fine, particularly when the opponents don't know you're in them. It's often easy to scramble enough tricks before they get the joke. Even as declarer, telling the defenders you have the same number of cards in each major suit can assist in their defence.

Cardplay really is much easier when you know the distribution. IMO, helping the opponents out is something you want to avoid doing when you don't gain enough in the exchange. This is one of those situations where I think you get a poor return, and I quite like it when opponents use it against me. If you like the convention, go ahead and play it - you just need to be aware that the opponents are listening as well.

[mikeh]

4=3 fits can play well if everything is splitting, which is often the case after they open 1N and responder doesn’t compete. But I’d far rather not play a 4-2 against good players

And if they’re so bad (or screw up) tat yet 4=2 plays ok, just think how well a 5=2 will play!

And a 5=3 will almost always play better than a 4=3 and virtually never be worse. So those who claim otherwise are, imo, fooling themselves

[sfi]

mikeh, on 2023-October-23, 21:44, said:

4=3 fits can play well if everything is splitting, which is often the case after they open 1N and responder doesn’t compete. But I’d far rather not play a 4-2 against good players

And if they’re so bad (or screw up) tat yet 4=2 plays ok, just think how well a 5=2 will play!

And a 5=3 will almost always play better than a 4=3 and virtually never be worse. So those who claim otherwise are, imo, fooling themselves

Of course I like having more trumps as much as the next person. I just don't think this particular tradeoff is worth it, which is why I don't play either of these methods unless my partner particularly wants to.

[Stephen Tu]

sfi, on 2023-October-23, 21:34, said:

That has (obviously) not been my experience. 4-3 (and even the occasional 4-2) fits can play just fine, particularly when the opponents don't know you're in them. It's often easy to scramble enough tricks before they get the joke. Even as declarer, telling the defenders you have the same number of cards in each major suit can assist in their defence.

Uh, if you are responding 2d to 2c majors with equal length, you rate to end as dummy, not declarer. So you are unlikely to assist much their defence for this reason. I personally would like to play in the suit with more trumps. You are like the only person I've ever heard of who thinks 2d for majors is better than 2c for majors.

[nullve]

sfi, on 2023-October-23, 21:34, said:

4-3 (and even the occasional 4-2) fits can play just fine, particularly when the opponents don't know you're in them.

If opps are reasonably aggressive bidders, then their last two passes in the auction

(1N)-2♦*-(P)-2M**
(P)-P-(P)

* both majors
** preference

both suggest 3+ cards in M. So a 4-3 M fit is likely what they'd both expect.

[Gilithin]

johnu, on 2023-October-23, 18:56, said:

The last 3 (2344(!), 2245(!!), 2254(!!)) actually show how ridiculous it is to leave the contract in 2♠ instead of bidding 2NT to find a minor suit fit.

It does not detract at all from the point you are making but a minor quibble here is that the advance structure I know is to bid 3♣ pass/correct to play in partner's minor, leaving 2NT as a constructive relay where partner can show their strength as well as just their minor.

[mikeh]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-24, 15:17, said:

It does not detract at all from the point you are making but a minor quibble here is that the advance structure I know is to bid 3♣ pass/correct to play in partner's minor, leaving 2NT as a constructive relay where partner can show their strength as well as just their minor.

Another quibble in opposition😀

While rare, occasionally advancer will hold a long minor of his own, with no fit for overcaller. Thus we play that advancer’s 3m is to play, with 2N reserved for asking for the minor.

It’s possible to switch this: 2N to puppet to 3C, which advancer will pass or correct,with a direct 3C being itself p/c as you suggest

Whether this approach (catering to advancer wanting to play in his own minor) is better or worse than using 2N as a strength relay comes down to personal experience. Me: I think the chances of reaching game in overcaller’s minor or playing in 3N are vanishingly low, so don’t cater to them. As for playing game in the major,I can simply invite by raising the major.

Meanwhile, when advancer is say 7321 with shortness in the other minor and opener’s major, playing in the long suit usually works best. Again, in my experience, bearing in mind that this is a low frequency layout

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2023-October-24, 16:55, said:

Another quibble in opposition😀

While rare, occasionally advancer will hold a long minor of his own, with no fit for overcaller. Thus we play that advancer’s 3m is to play, with 2N reserved for asking for the minor.

It’s possible to switch this: 2N to puppet to 3C, which advancer will pass or correct,with a direct 3C being itself p/c as you suggest

Whether this approach (catering to advancer wanting to play in his own minor) is better or worse than using 2N as a strength relay comes down to personal experience. Me: I think the chances of reaching game in overcaller’s minor or playing in 3N are vanishingly low, so don’t cater to them. As for playing game in the major,I can simply invite by raising the major.

Meanwhile, when advancer is say 7321 with shortness in the other minor and opener’s major, playing in the long suit usually works best. Again, in my experience, bearing in mind that this is a low frequency layout

For Michaels cue bids, I think having 2N as an invitational+ relay and 3C as a weak pass/correct is very useful (unless you want to go back to split-range Michaels, which has its downsides). It's true that it's not nearly as useful when opponents have opened a strong NT, but I don't really want to memorize different treatments for the two situations. Also, even opposite a weak or mini NT, it's also already a good deal more useful to have 2N as inv+ and 3C as weak pass/correct.

[mycroft]

I have no issue on overcalls. I play what partner wants, and play what the experts around me play if I get a preference.

Landy (not Multi-Landy) has two problems; one theoretical, and one practical. Mike has pointed out the theoretical; you get a lot of two-suiters, and not being able to disturb their NT with them is more often than not a bad thing. When the auction starts 1NT and is not contested, they will get to the right contract; and the information the contesting gives the opponents also goes to partner, who might just be on lead (not as often in strong NT-land, but still).

The practical one was pointed out by Anderson way back in his Lebensohl pamphlet - still an amazing book, and the best introductory reference to the convention out there. Because there's only one artificial call, because everything else is natural, the people who play it frequently forget and bid 2♣ with - a 6 card club suit. Probably less frequently now than before (nobody's teaching Landy to the new players, and the old die-hards are...; so those that do play it are doing so for a reason, and that minimizes the forgets), but Anderson suggests playing systems on over the Landy 2♣ (showing both majors! Double is Stayman!) and I don't think it's wrong.

Is X an awful convention over NT? Yes. Is there a great convention over NT? No; they're ahead when they open it, no matter what you do. Should you be determining your style of overcalls based on the convention you're playing? Absolutely. But is there enough of a reason not to play a particular defence, just because it's bad? No - not if the alternative is "partner forgets your new defence".(*)

And AL, I also played Brozel (with one partner), even over weak NTs. We agreed that the double was not only a one-suiter, but a good one-suiter, probably playable for 1 loser opposite Hx. And with some outside potential entries, at least against the weak NT. Sure, you don't get the power double any more - and I recommend it, not for the 1NTx-2 you're dreaming of, but to know "balance of strength" when they run - but the number of times 4th seat can pass the "I have 4-5 tricks, partner" double is right up there with the number of times 4th seat can pass the "I have a strong NT, partner" double. Different hands, to be sure, but not enough less that it's a bad strategy, just matchpoint swingy.

(*) Mea culpa here. I play HELLO with one partner (and over 1NT overcalls as well). It's enough similar to (Alberta modified) Cappelletti that I'm comfortable, but enough different that I forget sometimes. It's one of the three things on my "remind myself every session beforehand" list.

[AL78]

mycroft, on 2023-October-25, 09:27, said:

The practical one was pointed out by Anderson way back in his Lebensohl pamphlet - still an amazing book, and the best introductory reference to the convention out there. Because there's only one artificial call, because everything else is natural, the people who play it frequently forget and bid 2♣ with - a 6 card club suit.

I think this is an overrated concern. If your or your partner's memory is flaky this could happen with a number of conventions. As I mentioned earlier one partner initially agreed to play multi-Landy and we ended up going back to Landy which I have now found out was because she didn't know the continuations, but that doesn't in itself make multi-Landy a bad convention. I used to play the two suited overcall CRO where 3♣ shows the two other suits (i.e. not same colour or rank). I've heard this is a bad convention because of the risk of accidentally overcalling 3♣ when you have a WJO hand with clubs, but in the years I played it in the distant past this never happened even if it theoretically could.

[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2023-October-24, 16:55, said:

Another quibble in opposition😀

While rare, occasionally advancer will hold a long minor of his own, with no fit for overcaller. Thus we play that advancer’s 3m is to play, with 2N reserved for asking for the minor.

This seems perfectly fair to me. I wonder if the difference in emphasis comes in part from your living in a primarily SNT area and me having played the majority of my bridge in WNT fields. The other factor here is Muiderberg; if using the both together then I think it makes sense to use the same response structure for both and there I feel the P/C method is superior. Strangely I feel a similar split comes over Landy itself. The traditional advancing structure uses a 3♣ relay, which I have always thought was terrible. To me it makes much more sense to use 2♦ as a relay on both equal length and constructure hands with a 2NT or 3♣ follow-up over partner's 2M to replace the original relay. This is however much less of a factor over a SNT, so I can understand why so many do not make this minor change to improve their constructive auctions.

Finally, since there is something of a discussion going on regarding non-PenX methods, the standard one that has the best reputation in WNT land is Lionel, where X specifically shows spades. There is some reasonable theory as to why this type of double is the best alternative to Penalties over a WNT. That said, Penalties is still by far the most common meaning over a WNT and I do not see that changing any time soon. There are a number of good WNT defences using a PenX and Multi-Landy is one of those.

[nullve]

Jinksy, on 2023-October-22, 06:03, said:

2D showing a 6-card major
This has many ugly properties:

• By making a (nearly) entirely forcing bid, you're giving prepared opposition free double, as well as a free pass-then-bid which gives them a tonne of extra room to figure out eg how strong they are by playing X as values, and occasionally saves them from 'competing' in overcaller's suit.
  
• By specifying that the suit is 6-cards, you're helping partner but also the opponents know when to compete, and I contend that the latter is the more important factor, since it's right to bid 3-over-2 much more often than it's right to bid 3-over-3.
  
• Lastly and leastly, when the hand is played in 2S (after 1N 2D P 2H / P 2S P), you've helped the opponents defend by telling them declarer has the extra trump, and when it's played in 2H (after 1N 2D P 2H / P ), you've put the strong hand on lead, which is a slight upside, but your partnership also has its likely stronger hand as dummy, which is at least a big a downside.

Could construct deals illustrating how the overcalling side might suffer because these properties?

[johnu]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-24, 15:17, said:

It does not detract at all from the point you are making but a minor quibble here is that the advance structure I know is to bid 3♣ pass/correct to play in partner's minor, leaving 2NT as a constructive relay where partner can show their strength as well as just their minor.

I use 3♣ and 3♦ as natural and non forcing. Your method has merit, but I also use 2NT to ask for the minor after a major suit Michael's cuebid, so there's symmetry there, and some simplicity in using 2NT as the same meaning. I suppose you could use 2NT as a relay after Michael's too.

I can't remember the last time when I wished I was playing something more complicated than 2NT asking for the minor.

[Chas_P]

Blooman (a combination of the author's last names) allows you to make a natural overcall of 1NT and still have the ability to compete with two-suited hands. The convention is based on the proven premise that a single-suited hand of six cards or longer will occur much more often than a two-suited hand of 5-5 or longer. We observe the law of total tricks at all times (nine trumps required to commit to the three level).
Here's the scheme:
After a 1NT opener, 2♣ , 2♦ , 2♥ and 2♠ are natural bids, showing at least six cards in the suit. An overcall of 2NT shows the minors.
A double of 1NT is a relay to 2♣ , after which (if the opponents pass):
2♦ : = Hearts and Spades.
2♥ : = Hearts and a Minor suit.
2♠ : = Spades and a Minor suit.
Advancer (partner of the overcaller) may bid 2NT over 2♥ or 2♠ to request that the overcaller bid his minor.
We base our convention in part on an examination of 10,000 randomly dealt hands, which produced 491 two-suiters.
The natural bids of 2♣ , 2♦ , 2♥ and 2♠ occur nearly four times as often as two-suited hands, so we bid the one-suiters immediately. Thus, we are able to interfere with the opponents' bidding more often and they are unable to block us from bidding our one-suited hands.
Interference
When the opponents transfer to hearts over partner's double and we hold two or more hearts, we know that partner has five spades and an unknown minor.
For example, if partner doubles a 1NT opener and your right-hand opponent transfers to hearts with a bid of 2♦ :
Double: = three-card spade support.
2♠ : = four or more spades.
2NT: = at least four cards in each minor with fewer than three spades.
When the opponents transfer to spades over partner's double of 1NT and we hold two or more spades, we know that partner has five hearts and an unknown minor. Therefore:
Double: = three-card heart support.
2NT: = at least four cards in each minor with fewer than three hearts.
3♥ : = four or more hearts.
If partner of the 1NT opener transfers to a minor after partner's double, a double by advancer shows at least four cards in each major, e.g.,
West North East South
1 NT Dbl (1) 2♠ (2) Dbl (3)
(1) Two-suiter with at least one major.
(2) Transfer to clubs.
(3) At least four-card support for each major.

[Gilithin]

Chas_P, on 2023-October-28, 19:31, said:

Blooman

You realise there are defences out there that allow you to differentiate between the lengths of Mm and MM 2-suiters at the simple cost of not being able to play in 2♣? You have to be able to play in 2♣ quite often and have it be right before you start to show a profit. And that is before we even get to the performance of this method over a Weak NT. Chas Pooman?

[Chas_P]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-28, 22:56, said:

You realise there are defences out there that allow you to differentiate between the lengths of Mm and MM 2-suiters at the simple cost of not being able to play in 2♣? You have to be able to play in 2♣ quite often and have it be right before you start to show a profit. And that is before we even get to the performance of this method over a Weak NT. Chas Pooman?

There are numerous defenses out there. I only offered Blooman FWIW. Play whatever you and your partner like.

[pilowsky]

I recently played against a pair that pre-alerted: "We play reverse Cappelletti, reverse Bergen, reverse Drury and UDCA."
I assumed eating must be a problem for them.

[Chas_P]

pilowsky, on 2023-October-29, 18:11, said:

I recently played against a pair that pre-alerted: "We play reverse Cappelletti, reverse Bergen, reverse Drury and UDCA."
I assumed eating must be a problem for them.

They probably also played sideways Binglestein but weren't compelled to alert it.

[Gilithin]

pilowsky, on 2023-October-29, 18:11, said:

I recently played against a pair that pre-alerted: "We play reverse Cappelletti, reverse Bergen, reverse Drury and UDCA."
I assumed eating must be a problem for them.

The really need to learn Reverse Benji, Denial Cue Bids and inverted suit preference signals.