[benlessard]

Quote

I found these 2 sentences ironic given the choice of defence. Is the main disadvantage of this method not that you cannot show which major is longer?

When C+H/C+S
D+H/D+S i can show wich suit is longer. When both m or both M i cannot. Using 2C for MM allow you to know wich one is longer, but its 1 case vs 4 cases.

Edit also note that with 33 and even 22 in the MM I can bid 2M over the X to suggest playing in the long M.

(1Nt)--X--p--??

2245 since i know partner going to have both M fairly frequently i can bid 2H and he will pass with 5H and bid 2S with 54??

So its not totally true that i cannot know witch is longer.

[Vampyr]

I have long been considering switching to Multi-Landy in most of my partnerships. Does anyone have opinions on the significance of having neither single-suit minors at the 2-level nor 2-suiters with minor at any level?

[Phil]

I play Woolsey and I generally like it.

2♣ for the majors is pretty nice, since you will always play the in your best strain major.
2♦ as one major tends to mess up even the good pairs in the room. This is more beneficial than showing a natural 2M, and is nearly as preemptive.
2M as M + m is fine.

Its the Woolsey Double that tends to be a bother. It is not preemptive at all and there is less benefit to competing at the two level when we have a long minor + a major. It seems there is a fair chance the opponents are about to play in your major, and you give them more tools to compete to their best partial. Sometimes just passing the hand out is best.

Many like penalty doubles over 1N, and that might be better, but I'm thinking there is a better use for the double and I don't want to plunk down $11.99 for Rexford's book.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I have long been considering switching to Multi-Landy in most of my partnerships. Does anyone have opinions on the significance of having neither single-suit minors at the 2-level nor 2-suiters with minor at any level?

I play "Woolsey" with mose people and multi-landy with the other part. I love it.
I am undecided as to penalty double, I tend to like it and playing is as 15+ with at least 3-3 majors or some very strong one suited hand.
You could also put strong two suiters 5M-5m to 2D if you don't want your 2M bid to be passed.

I know several very good players want to have 2M natural after 1NT but I don't get why. It makes you play from the wrong hand 100% of the time (while 2D gives you a chance right side as well as pass 2D sometimes) and make it impossible to effectively compete with 5M-4+m two suiter.
What I don't like about Meckwell and BZ defense is that you don't have one bid to show majors which imo is the most important tool in the box against 1nt.

It's real shame if ACBL doesn't allow multi-landy/Woolsey defenses as they're the most popular defenses to 1NT in top-level bridge as well as standard among amateur players in some parts of the world (like Poland).

[kenrexford]

1. For those who want to be able to bid 2M as natural and immediately, using 2♣ as any two suits except not both minors allows this, what I call "Crunched Cappelletti."

2. For those who want to preserve a double as penalty, you can do that while also being able to describe all two-suited hands, both one-suited majors, and sometimes which of the major or minor in a major-minor two-suiter is longer, all at an efficient level.

The key to all of this, IMO, is the 2♣ overcall being one or both majors, and understanding the fairly simple unwind to this. And, by "one major," using the "Crunched Cappelletti" version where a "one-suiter with spades" actually means a spade-minor two-suiter (only one major, but a two-suiter hand), and the same for hearts as "one major" with a minor.

Consider this at its most basic level. Yoy and partner decide to play simple "Backwards Cappelletti." So:

2♣ = one or both majors (if one, with a minor)
2♦ = diamonds
2♥ = hearts
2♠ = spades
3♣ = clubs

So, partner bids 2♣. The simplest option for Advancer is 2♦ for spade preference or 2♥ for heart preference. If Overcaller's 2♣ was bid with both majors, Overcaller now knows which major to bid. If Overcaller's 2♣ was based on one major (and a minor) and Advancer prefers the "right major," then Overcaller plays there. If Overcaller's 2♣ was based upon one major (and a minor) but Advancer picks the "wrong major," then Overcaller will always bid his own major instead (after 2♦ for spade preference will bid 2♥; after 2♥ for heart preference will bid 2♠), after which the auction is identical to Cappelletti, just one round later. E.g.,

(1NT)-2♣!-(P)-2♦(prefers spades to hearts)
(P)-2♥(hearts and a minor)

This is functionally identical to:

(1NT)-2♥(hearts and a minor)

There is just a round of silliness in the middle.

[nigel_k]

My preference in order:

Astro (I don't know the terminology but one where you can usually play the longer major)
Landy
Multi-Landy
Lionel
DONT

For those, not ranked I don't know what they are or they are too bad to mention. I play against weak NT a lot. Against strong NT, the methods without a penalty double become relatively more attractive but it's still close and I'd prefer to use the same defence against both.

[Elianna]

 gwnn, on 2012-February-22, 02:22, said:

Two premises:

2♣ for majors is really good.
2M natural is really good too.

If you agree with these two, the following are good to great defences (in no particular order of my preference):

-Meyerson: X shows a 4+ card major and a 4+ card minor, 2D is natural

In Meyerson, X shows a 5+/4+ Major/minor hand, either one could be longer. So what you said is not WRONG (because they both could be 4+), it's just that at least one will be 5+.

[gwnn]

 Elianna, on 2012-February-22, 13:25, said:

In Meyerson, X shows a 5+/4+ Major/minor hand, either one could be longer. So what you said is not WRONG (because they both could be 4+), it's just that at least one will be 5+.

yes I knew that, but I wrote in GIB style, lol, sorry.

BTW for new people on the forum who are interested, it goes like this:

1NT-X = major+minor, at least 54, could be either way

advances:
2C: pass or correct for the 5-card suit
2D: asks for the major, be it a 4 or 5 carder
2M: natural (ha! you find hearts when overcaller has spades)
2NT: strong ask (I don't know what Elianna-awm play here but we just played it as strong ask for the 5-card suit)

[Statto]

None of the artificial bids or double really allow responder to pass without some risk when they might otherwise act, as advancer can always pass if weak with 6 cards in the artificial suit, or to convert the double into a penalty.

Multi-Landy is better than Cappelletti because it allows for bidding with 5-4 in the majors and never playing in the worse major fit. Although Cappelletti does allow for playing in 2♦ when that is overcaller's suit, you might ask: how often in a competitive auction would we be allowed to play in 2♦?

5-4 is a lot more common than 5-5, and against a weak NT or non-vulnerable you'll probably want to overcall with 5-4 hands more often. Perhaps vulnerable or against a strong NT, you may want the protection of better distributional strength with a 5-5. Asptro works well with the 4(+) card suit being an anchor suit and a relay to the 5(+) card suit when there's no fit there (and since advancer with a singleton or void normally shows 3 card support for the anchor, you won't play in a 5-0 or 5-1 fit when a 4-3 fit was available).

I've not played Crunched Cappelletti etc, but I'm wondering whether the effectiveness of these systems is based on the assumption that opps interference will be negligible. For the opposite end of the spectrum, I like (modified) Pinpoint Astro against Strong NT with double showing a single suited hand and 2♠ showing 5+ ♠ and a 4+ (or sometimes good 3) card minor - partner is then often well placed to judge what to do when responder bids, and we get the preemptiveness of ♠ being almost natural.

PPA might on the surface of it seem superior to DONT. With both minors it makes sense to bid 2NT, you want to preempt a bit, but 2m showing that minor and an unspecified major doesn't make it easy for the other side to bid against. It loses out on being able to show 5-4 hands effectively, as does PPA somewhat, though you could agree that the major is 5+ and the minor 4+, perhaps depending on vulnerability (but still can't distinguish 5-4 in the majors from 4-5).

[kenrexford]

 Statto, on 2012-February-22, 16:25, said:

I've not played Crunched Cappelletti etc, but I'm wondering whether the effectiveness of these systems is based on the assumption that opps interference will be negligible.

Depends on which version. Most of the time, however, any call by Responder through 3♦ (and probably 3♠) causes no realy problems for us, and higher intervention probably means that it is their hand anyway.

In other versions, though, two-under is actually less intervention-susceptible.

Consider a simple example, playing against Weak 1NT. Your LHO opens 1NT. Playing simple Landy, partner bids 2♣ for both majors, 2♥ for hearts, or 2♠ for spades, and your RHO next bids 3♦. You are preempted by the interference and have no idea what partner's strength is.

Playing the simplest version (suitable and perhaps idea for weak nt overcalls), however, partner will have instead bid:

2♣ for weak with one or both majors
2♦ for both majors, intermediate
2♥ for hearts intermediate
or
2♠ for spades intermediate

In that structure, the interference is less costly than with other approaches where Overcaller has a huge range. For that matter, if Responder passes (no interference at all), you are better positioned as Advancer to decide whether 2M is enough or to move forward into the three-level if you know partner's general strength.

Conversely, because you have both a weak and a strong way to show one major, or both majors, you can have a wider "range," not passing weak but playable hands (and hence less susceptible to intervention) and not having to double with some high-end intermediates (also a problem if intervention occurs after the double).

Some of the more complicated versions have similar range protections, like a Crunched Capp with a "power 2♦."

In Mid-Chart, you can even show range for minor overcalls (e.g., bid 2NT for both, 3♣, or 3♦ with values, but 2♠ for one-or-both-minors weak).

So, if strength and interference-protection is your goal, that is also answered.

[Statto]

 kenrexford, on 2012-February-22, 16:50, said:

... higher intervention probably means that it is their hand anyway ...

It sometimes happens that opener is the only one with a balanced hand. Responder might bid 4M to make and we may want to sac, or occasionally bid 4M as a preempt when we have a distributional game. I don't really know which is better: swings, or roundabouts?

[wank]

it's all about the majors. bugger showing these other random combinations

[benlessard]

People who play Meyerson should just give up on the natural diamonds and show wich M+m is longer like i do. Also if the X promise a 5M you dont need 2C for both M. Being able to show 45,46 vs 54,55 is just more important than natural diamonds.

[awm]

 benlessard, on 2012-February-22, 22:09, said:

People who play Meyerson should just give up on the natural diamonds and show wich M+m is longer like i do. Also if the X promise a 5M you dont need 2C for both M. Being able to show 45,46 vs 54,55 is just more important than natural diamonds.

I disagree with this. The natural diamond bid is extremely effective. It forces opponents to wrong-side their 2M contracts when responder has five, and it can make it hard to find their major fits (because a negative double over 1NT-2M needs to hold only one major suit, whereas a negative double over 1NT-2♦ is usually played as showing both majors). We have never had any issue finding our major suit fits, and further there is a big advantage in being able to play in hearts when partner has spades+minor (presumably if you play 2♦ as M+m a 2♥ advance is some kind of pass/correct bid and you can't play there if overcaller has spades). We are easily able to distinguish which suit is longer via our 2♣ advance ("bid your longer suit"). Further, the high frequency double actually allows us to pass out some hands for penalties.

It's also much better to have a call that shows both majors, rather than a double that shows "a 5M and another suit" in case opponents compete further.

[benlessard]

 awm, on 2012-February-22, 23:04, said:

I disagree with this. The natural diamond bid is extremely effective. It forces opponents to wrong-side their 2M contracts when responder has five, and it can make it hard to find their major fits (because a negative double over 1NT-2M needs to hold only one major suit, whereas a negative double over 1NT-2♦ is usually played as showing both majors). We have never had any issue finding our major suit fits, and further there is a big advantage in being able to play in hearts when partner has spades+minor (presumably if you play 2♦ as M+m a 2♥ advance is some kind of pass/correct bid and you can't play there if overcaller has spades). We are easily able to distinguish which suit is longer via our 2♣ advance ("bid your longer suit"). Further, the high frequency double actually allows us to pass out some hands for penalties.

It's also much better to have a call that shows both majors, rather than a double that shows "a 5M and another suit" in case opponents compete further.

2D with 5/6D+4M is tougher to defend than 2D nat because like you said the neg tend to show both M.

For me It make no sense to prefer 2C as both M rather than 5/6C+ 4M or both m the frequency gap is just too big. The 2C bid is less preemptive but perfect for pushing them to 3. Often getting them out of 1nt is enough. Also the X that promise a 5M is safer and less vulnerable to preemption , its easier for them to bury your 5m+4M hands than your 5M+4m hands.

Playing unknown lenght 2 suiters doesnt compared to knowned lenght 2 suiters, so you must have a good compensation elsewhere to even it out Im pretty sure having 2D natural and 2D--2H to play is far from being enough.

Reaching the best fit in almost all hands allow you to double with 54 shapes more often, wich is a prime goal of defending against 1NT IMO. Just remember the hands you get and compare with my method, with time I think you will be clearly convinced.

[bluecalm]

Quote

For me It make no sense to prefer 2C as both M rather than 5/6C+ 4M or both m the frequency gap is just too big.

Quote

Just remember the hands you get and compare with my method, with time I think you will be clearly convinced.

Out of 12 pairs in 2011 Bermuda Bowl semi-finals 11 of them plays 2C as majors (and one use 2H as majors).
It's safe assumption that all of them played more bridge and at higher level than you and still weren't convinced.
Why should we be then ?

2C majors is the only thing I really want to have vs 1NT. If other bids are natural, multi, two suiters or w/e doesn't concern me that much.

[benlessard]

Your point is out of context. If you are using the X for double suiters than I strongly believe that both M should be under the X and 2C to show something else. If the X show single suiter its a different story.

[mgoetze]

 Phil, on 2012-February-22, 11:01, said:

2♦ as one major tends to mess up even the good pairs in the room.

Only in GCC Country, of course.

[awm]

 benlessard, on 2012-February-23, 08:11, said:

2D with 5/6D+4M is tougher to defend than 2D nat because like you said the neg tend to show both M.

For me It make no sense to prefer 2C as both M rather than 5/6C+ 4M or both m the frequency gap is just too big. The 2C bid is less preemptive but perfect for pushing them to 3. Often getting them out of 1nt is enough. Also the X that promise a 5M is safer and less vulnerable to preemption , its easier for them to bury your 5m+4M hands than your 5M+4m hands.

Playing unknown lenght 2 suiters doesnt compared to knowned lenght 2 suiters, so you must have a good compensation elsewhere to even it out Im pretty sure having 2D natural and 2D--2H to play is far from being enough.

Reaching the best fit in almost all hands allow you to double with 54 shapes more often, wich is a prime goal of defending against 1NT IMO. Just remember the hands you get and compare with my method, with time I think you will be clearly convinced.

We are able to determine the longer suit virtually always by advancer bidding 2♣ ("bid your longer suit"). Please give examples where this creates a problem for us. In fact without further competition we always reach the same contract as Woolsey when overcaller has a major/minor two-suiter (and Woolsey is a method where the longer suit is always known).

On the other hand, I can see a lot of problems for your method. You didn't give the continuations after 1NT-X, but it seems important to show that you have both majors (as opposed to 5M/4m) at a level where responder knows which major is longer and you can still play in two of either major. Seems somewhat awkward. You are also less well-placed after further competition, for example 1NT-X-2♥(spades) and advancer has a 2245. You definitely want to be in 3m if overcaller has 5♥/4+m, but you don't really want to go anywhere if he has 5♥/4♠. We don't have any real problem with this hand type because overcaller promised a minor via the double.

Passing the double for penalties is clearly our advantage, since our double is more frequent than yours by a factor of almost 4:3.

[han]

Adam, you should publish an honors book about this stuff.