[dougbennion]

I'm sure this topic has been done to death, but I have convinced myself this is THE ONE!! At least until the next one comes along .. :-) Or maybe it has already been suggested by someone else ... dunno ....

Capp sucks. The 2C bid isn't preemptive and loses the long suit in competition and is easily defended (X = stayman and transfers on ... duh ... zero cost whatsover), the 2D bid is ineffective with 5-4 majors, you cannot show clubs at the 2-level, and you cannot distinguish between a boring 5-card major and a thrilling 6+ card major.

With BEANO you have to give up a penalty double, but so what? I've been playing weak notrumps for 30 years and can count on two hands the number of times a double has cost me ... a decent runout system invariably gets the job done. What the heck, I cannot make a penalty double against any other opening below 4S, so what's the big deal? That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.


BEANO --->

2H/S = 6+ major

2D = 5 major and 4+ minor (like Capp 2H and 2S bids). Pass or correct principles, with 3C response = pass or correct in minors, and 2NT general query (3C = good heart hand, etc)

2C = 5-5 or 5-4 majors. 2D response (or stolen bid X of 2D) shows no preference, and 2H or 2S shows preference. Best fit is found for 5-4 holdings, way better than Capp where you can trash around in inferior heart fit.

X = long minor OR 5332 major OR very strong hand. Partner can pass I suppose with suitable hand, otherwise will normally bid 2C, pass or correct.

I'm sold.

[luis]

Sorry if it is not the kind of answer you like but the structure is nothing special,
dont, suction, lionel, there are a lot of similar ideas, and this has nothing new or
innovative.
Good luck anyway of course.

Luis

[DrTodd13]

Also there is JELLO:

(Woolsey) X = 4 major, 5 minor
2♣ = puppet to 2♦, either to play or major/minor two-suiter
2♦ = both majors
2♥ = 6♥
2♠ = 6♠

[han]

I agree with what Luis said.

In fact, I more or less played this in the past, when I made the obvious inversion to multi-landy to make sure that 2H and 2S were natural. It is also similar to Woolsey (especially if you invert the 2D vs 2M bids) and Meyerson over NT.

So I do think that you have your priorities straight, but I don't think that this structure is new enough to deserve a name like that.

[Sigi_BC84]

Hannie, on Apr 12 2006, 09:08 PM, said:

In fact, I more or less played this in the past, when I made the obvious inversion to multi-landy to make sure that 2H and 2S were natural. It is also similar to Woolsey (especially if you invert the 2D vs 2M bids) and Meyerson over NT.

As far as I can see, "Multi-Landy" and "Woolsey" are exactly the same. Why are you making a disctinction between the two?

--Sigi

[cherdano]

I will disagree with Luis and Han for once. While the structure is not revolutionary, I think the ability to distinguish between unbalanced (direct 2M) and unbalanced major hands is a new idea. In fact, if the double guarantuees 2-card support for all unbid suits (minor hands with shortness would have to bid 3m or pass, which is not so silly), it makes it easy for advancer to decide to play in his own suit.

Of course, I would feel better of making this point if you hadn't sold the idea of giving up a penalty double as something revolutionary...

Arend

[awm]

The hand you can't bid with these methods is the one with 5m + shorter major. One supposes you can double but you'll never find a major fit that way. This hand is easy to bid in DONT or Woolsey.

In general you have the following hand types you'd like to be able to show:

(1) Major one-suiter
(2) Minor one-suiter
(3) 5M and 4+m
(4) 5+m and 4M
(5) both majors at least 5-4
(6) Big hand (penalty double)

If you look at the various popular defenses:

DONT can show all hand types but (6) and get out at the 2-level in each case. However, there is much ambiguity in the two suiters about which suit is longer, and which is the other suit when so many bids show "this minor and some higher suit." This can get you to the "wrong" fit at times. Also, many of the bids are not as preemptive as they could be (for example one-suited major hands start with double).

CAPP can be abused to show all the hand types, however there are several problems. You can't get out at the two-level in the minor on any of the two-suited hands including a minor, or on the club one-suiter. Also you can't distinguish the longer suit in the 5-4 hand patterns, and the major suit bids are not as preemptive as they could be (start with 2♣). There are alternate ways to play CAPP where you discard the opportunity to show certain hand types in exchange for more clarity about which suit is longer (for example 2M overcall always has 5cM and 4+m, and you can't show 5+m and 4M hands). There is also "reversed CAPP" where you have 2M natural and bid 2♣ with the major-minor two-suiters, which helps with the preemptiveness problem.

Woolsey can show all the hand types except (2) and (6) with some chance at getting out at the two-level. On hand type (2) you can bid 3-minor. In addition, you can always figure out which suit is longer on the two-suited patterns. There is some ambiguity about which major is held on the 5+m/4M hand types, and if you want to play a minor opposite 5M/4+m hands you have to go to the three-level. The major suit overcalls hands (1) are not as effective as they could be (have to go through multi 2♦).

Lionel allows you to show all hand types except (2) and (6) and get out at the two-level. There is often ambiguity about which suit is longer on the two-suited hands; however, there is never ambiguity about which major is held (unlike DONT or Woolsey).

BEANO allows you to show all hand types except (4), and the manner in which (6) is shown is ambiguous which greatly reduces its effectiveness (note that playing DONT or Woolsey or Lionel you could always add strong hands to the double, you just don't get to defend so much). There will not be ambiguity about which suit is longer or which is held. The bid showing diamonds (double first) is not as preemptive as it could be.

My personal favorite, Meyerson, is sort of "reverse" Woolsey. The strengths and weaknesses are similar, except that you get to show diamonds (half of (2)) at the two-level, and the direct major suit bids are more preemptive (bid the suit). You lose some preemptiveness on the 5M/4+m hands (double instead of bid the suit) but there are positives to this exchange as well (more frequent doubles that partner can pass, ability to play in 2♥ when overcaller has 5♠+4m and partner has a long heart suit).

[han]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 12 2006, 03:16 PM, said:

Hannie, on Apr 12 2006, 09:08 PM, said:

In fact, I more or less played this in the past, when I made the obvious inversion to multi-landy to make sure that 2H and 2S were natural. It is also similar to Woolsey (especially if you invert the 2D vs 2M bids) and Meyerson over NT.

As far as I can see, "Multi-Landy" and "Woolsey" are exactly the same. Why are you making a disctinction between the two?

--Sigi

That depends on how you define Woolsey, I believe that there are two versions. One uses the double as penalty, and I think that one is exactly the same as the usual multi-landy. The other one uses double for hands with a 5+ minor and a 4-card major. I was thinking about that structure when I wrote the response.

[han]

cherdano, on Apr 12 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

I will disagree with Luis and Han for once.

This is an official warning Arend. Stop disagreeing with me, it is not appreciated.

[luis]

cherdano, on Apr 12 2006, 08:19 PM, said:

I will disagree with Luis and Han for once. While the structure is not revolutionary, I think the ability to distinguish between unbalanced (direct 2M) and unbalanced major hands is a new idea. In fact, if the double guarantuees 2-card support for all unbid suits (minor hands with shortness would have to bid 3m or pass, which is not so silly), it makes it easy for advancer to decide to play in his own suit.

Of course, I would feel better of making this point if you hadn't sold the idea of giving up a penalty double as something revolutionary...

Arend

Let me disagree with you for once too Arend :-)

You say the ability to distinguish balanced and unbalanced is a good thing. I think that an obstructive system with the ability to make the distinction is a contradiction, it can be very nice in a constructive scheme but if you plan to be obstructive you will only help the opponents. Declarer will know the whole hand when he plays it, making the treatment horrible.

Luis

[joshs]

Just a personal observation about woolsey:

Its my opinion, without having kept close count, that the auction:
1N-x-p-2D(what is your major) is rare. I would guess that you bid 2D under 10% of the time.

Consequently,
a. it may make some sense to include more minor 1 suiters in the x. Certainly with 6+ diamonds you are well placed, since you can pass partner's 2D bid (the main issue of including this hand occurs at higher levels if partner wants to compete).
With 6 clubs and a reasonably good hand you can afford to bid x and then 3C if necessary (or rarely bid a 3 card major).

The only hands with less than 4-4 in the majors that frequently bid 2D are:
(43)(15)
(53)41 (1 club)
(41)(44) (this is rare since the opps usually don't lose their 9/10 card card major suit fit, so either partner's major is your stiff or you should be bidding to the 3 level before opener can bid his 5 card major)
(42)(43) and a very good hand. Usually you are happy to bid 2C p/c and know you are in an 8 card fit.

[Flame]

Its not about what system can show more hand types, but what system show the right hand types, and how effective is the way to show them in term of cometitive continuation.

[luis]

Flame, on Apr 12 2006, 10:14 PM, said:

Its not about what system can show more hand types, but what system show the right hand types, and how effective is the way to show them in term of cometitive continuation.

Again wrong,
He is advertising the method as "obstructive" then distinguishin hand types is irrelevant, what you want is to be able to enter as many auctions as you can as safe as you can.
That is the real purpose of an obstructive method, to enter many auctions and bid quickly to a relative safe level as high as you can.
In terms of obstructiveness I think DONT is better than the method suggested, you can bid with any 4-4 hand so you will be bidding more.

Luis

[joshs]

There are many different goals in designing a structure over the Opps Strong 1N Opener.

the goals include:

a. get to your best suit,
b. from the correct side
c. stay low
d. don't push them into a 2 level contract thats better than 1N for them
e. be able to bid as often as possible with some safety
f. occasionally be able to bid distributional games, almost always in the majors


For most of the reasons, the emphasis is always on the majors, but you might want to indicate if you have another place to play in case you don't have a 7 card fit in the major

Also, I would much rather compete to 2D holding 4351 shape than 1354 shape because with the later shape, you have two ways of losing:
a. not getting to a good spot
b. pushing the opps into their major suit fit which they wouldn't have found

There isn't much discussion about the correct side issue, but it a big deal.

In general you want to:
a. have the player with the most points outside of trumps declare the hand. That usually means the hand plays better from the short side, on average.
b. Have the strong hand on lead.

Consequently methods like a multi 2D response (woolsey) or x-fer overcalls are much more effective in direct seat than in balancing seat. I think that playing 2D as a major (in direct chair) is worth about 1 trick on average over bidding the suit immediately, due to the siding issue. I rather have that trick and suffer some minor competative disadvantage of
a. giving the opps a x of 2D
d. responder, on occasion, not knowing what partner suit is (he isn't on lead against 3N in any case)

Similary, 2C for the majors is really powerful. It not only gets you to your best fit, it occurs on hands where its harder for the opps to out-bid us, so our getting to our best spot is even more important, and in the direct seat, you usually put the NT bidder on lead, which is an added benefit.

Just keep in mind, some of these benefits are lost in the balancing seat, so you might well want to play a different method. For instance woolsey in direct, and meckwell in balancing is a reasonable compromise.

[luke warm]

when i can find someone to play it, i like

x=c and d or d only
2c=d and h or h only
2d=h and s or s only
2h=s and c or c only
2s=s and d
2nt=c and h

[dougbennion]

Wow. Now I remember why I don't hang around here, too many dickwads without a sense of humor.

There was one good suggestion .. the double guaranteeing at least 2 cards per suit; thanks for that.

Other than that ... get a life and I'm outahere again ....

[Free]

Don't take these comments too seriously, seems like you don't have any sense of humor...

I don't see what the big advantage of this structure is actually... It's basicly multi-landy with 2M bids in the 2♦ overcall and the other way around. What are the advantages? Whenever you have a Major suit, you don't show it immediatly unless it's a 6+ card.

I can understand that when you see a new system you can like it a lot. But then you should think if it's not just a rush. I'm also very enthousiastic if I see some systems, but then I let it rest, analyse if it really is that much better, and after a while I usually get my feet back on the ground and realise that it's not thàt great anyway.

What I think is one of the better structures (especially against weak NT):
Dbl = depending on NT range
2♣ = 4+♥ and another suit, can be 5-3 or 44+
2♦ = 4+♠ and another suit, can be 5-3 or 44+
2M = 6+M