[Dinarius]

The Mortell Defence to (Strong) Notrump:
Over Opponents 15-17 1NT opening; (Though also playable against weak NT)

• Double shows BOTH Minors, or a 6 card (or better) Major. Responder bids his Minor. Doubler passes the Minor bid, or corrects to his 6 card Major.
• 2 Clubs shows BOTH Majors
• 2 Diamonds shows Diamonds AND Hearts. Responder shows his preference.
• 2 Hearts shows Hearts AND Clubs. Responder shows his preference.
• 2 Spades shows Spades AND a Minor. Responder passes or bids 2NT asking partner to bid his minor.


All bids are made with maximum 7 losers and opening values, or maximum 6 losers and less than opening values.

In response to all bids (except 2 Spades) responder bids 2NT to show game interest (similar to a response to a weak two opening)

The above defence sacrifices the Double bid for penalties on the basis that it rarely works against the strong NT opening, and uses it conventionally instead.

One advantage over Multi-Landy is that the hand with the long Major will always be playing the hand.

A second advantage is that there is only one Major plus an unknown minor bid (The 2 Spades bid).

In addition, both Minors can be shown and played at the two level. With the Multi-Landy 2NT bid for the minors, you have to play the minors at the three level.

Finally, overcaller's partner does reserve the option of passing the double and converting it to penalties.

In summary, a lot can be gained by not playing the double for penalties, I think, in particular against the strong NT, where it is virtually useless or, at best, extremely rarely useful.

Any thoughts appreciated.

D.

[helene_t]

Looks sensible, but:

 Dinarius, on 2015-October-21, 04:19, said:

One advantage over Multi-Landy is that the hand with the long Major will always be playing the hand.

This is a disadvantage. You want the long (known) trump suit in dummy and when used in direct seat, you want overcaller to be dummy because a strong 1NT opener often has difficulties finding a safe lead.

[Dinarius]

 helene_t, on 2015-October-21, 04:23, said:

Looks sensible, but:

This is a disadvantage. You want the long (known) trump suit in dummy and when used in direct seat, you want overcaller to be dummy because a strong 1NT opener often has difficulties finding a safe lead.

Thanks for the reply. Will have to think about that one.

D.

[Zelandakh]

 Dinarius, on 2015-October-21, 04:19, said:

Any thoughts appreciated.

You cannot differentiate between 4M-5m and 5M-4m. You might also look at the relative frequencies of hands with one minor compared with those having both minors. These two points taken together might well lead you to changing your definition of double.

[Dinarius]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-21, 05:17, said:

You cannot differentiate between 4M-5m and 5M-4m. You might also look at the relative frequencies of hands with one minor compared with those having both minors. These two points taken together might well lead you to changing your definition of double.

Point taken, while bearing in mind that in Bridge...

a. No bidding system is perfect. If it was, we would all be playing it and....

b. Bridge would then be a very boring game, and we probably wouldn't be playing it.

That said, you seem to be accepting the principle that, against Strong NT at least, double can be put to better, conventional, use.

D.

[Zelandakh]

 Dinarius, on 2015-October-21, 05:33, said:

That said, you seem to be accepting the principle that, against Strong NT at least, double can be put to better, conventional, use.

Absolutely - my own choice of StrNT defence also uses a conventional double.

[Dinarius]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-21, 05:57, said:

Absolutely - my own choice of StrNT defence also uses a conventional double.

Thanks for the clarification.

D.

[mgoetze]

I find this to be worse than Multi-Landy. Losing the 5-4/4-5 distinction on the Mm hands is a big deal. With a 2M overcall, if advancer has 2 of M and 3 clubs he is screwed, either he leaves in a 4-2 fit, or he moves from a 5-2 for a 4-3 while going up a level.

Also, compressing both minors and one major into a single bid is not free - if it goes (1NT)-X-(2♠ then advancer may well have a hand where it is right to compete opposite one hand type but not the other. I don't even find the motivation for this change compelling - let's be honest, when the opps have opened 1NT they are going to let you play 2m undoubled approximately never, so you should be prepared to compete to the 3-level with both minors anyway.

[fromageGB]

I agree with you that X should be better used than penalty. I agree with mgoetze that your double is not good - not only ineffective, but you lose the preemptive effect of a 6 card major. The problem with your "both majors" bid of 2♣ (along with many other defences that do this) is that you cannot pick the best major when overcaller is {54}xx, if you allow 9 cards.

If you care to combine these and have X with both majors, you solve all these issues.

[helene_t]

 fromageGB, on 2015-October-21, 08:22, said:

The problem with your "both majors" bid of 2♣ (along with many other defences that do this) is that you cannot pick the best major when overcaller is {54}xx, if you allow 9 cards.

Of course you can. Responder bids 2♦, asking overcaller to bid the longer major. This is the reason for using 2♣ instead of 2♦ or 2♥.

[Dinarius]

 fromageGB, on 2015-October-21, 08:22, said:

I agree with you that X should be better used than penalty. I agree with mgoetze that your double is not good - not only ineffective, but you lose the preemptive effect of a 6 card major. The problem with your "both majors" bid of 2♣ (along with many other defences that do this) is that you cannot pick the best major when overcaller is {54}xx, if you allow 9 cards.

If you care to combine these and have X with both majors, you solve all these issues.

Yes, as Helene implies, the 2 Diamond relay bid is standard in all 2 Club bids showing both majors.

If responder has a four card (or better) major, they bid it, obviously.

But, if they are 2/2, 3/3, 4/4, 4/5 or 5/5, they bid the 2 Diamond relay, asking partner to choose.

If responder is 1/3 in the majors, then I think they should bid that 3 card major and risk a 4/3 fit. No system is perfect.

D.

[1eyedjack]

The essential problem here is that every time you devote a sequence to show a certain hand type you add pressure on other sequences to show the remaining hand types.

On this occasion priority has been given to utilising a cheap call (Double) to show both minors and something else has to "give" as a result (compared with other methods). Without doubt there will be occasions when it works well, and you can out-bid the opponents to a par spot or better than par spot that would not have been reached without that mechanism.

On the whole, though, I would place a low priority on showing both minors, at least unless you had such extreme shape that you are happy to make a more pre-emptive commitment to the 3 level to show it, and for which an initial double is not then required (nor desirable).

[fromageGB]

 helene_t, on 2015-October-21, 08:45, said:

Of course you can. Responder bids 2♦, asking overcaller to bid the longer major. This is the reason for using 2♣ instead of 2♦ or 2♥.

If advancer bids 2♦ on a hand where his major lengths differ by one ({43}/{32}/{12}) you have a 50% chance of ending in the wrong contract when overcaller is equal length (eg the 4-2 rather than the 4-3, or 5-2 rather than the 5-3).

Using X allows advancer to bid 2♦ with equal length, but 2♣ with a length disparity of 1. Now overcaller can bid 2♦ with equal length to let advancer choose.

OK, if you have a better use for X that cannot be handled with a 2♣ bid, then it is a price you may wish to pay. I don't.

[1eyedjack]

I would only advance with 2D (over classical Landy 2C) with equal length. With disparity of one I would commit as advancer, and hope that there is not a disparity of more than one (the other way) in overcaller's hand.
OK, sometimes a 5-2 fit plays better than 4-3, but I agree that advancing with 2D on a 1-card discrepancy gives the worst of all worlds.

[perko90]

 fromageGB, on 2015-October-23, 03:18, said:

If advancer bids 2♦ on a hand where his major lengths differ by one ({43}/{32}/{12}) you have a 50% chance of ending in the wrong contract when overcaller is equal length (eg the 4-2 rather than the 4-3, or 5-2 rather than the 5-3).

That's NOT how it works when 2♣ = majors. Advancer only bids 2♦ with equal length and takes a 2M preference with ....well ... a preference. It works quite well in practice.

[helene_t]

If opener always rebids 2♥ with equal length then responder can bid 2♦ with equal length OR 3♥2♠. Then you still get to play the 5-2 fit in spades instead of the 4-3 fit in hearts. And it becomes reasonably safe to use Landy with 6♠ 4♥.

[perko90]

Back to Dinarius ...
Absolutely, vs strong NT, using the Dbl conventionally is the best use. But the proposed method has LOTS of weaknesses.
Dbl = minors OR either major is sub-optimal. As has been pointed out already, showing the minors should not be a top priority and certainly not for a good use for the most flexible call of the entire defense. Adding in either major doesn't make it better either. 2M natural or 2D multi style is more preemptive and easier to compete (especially with 2M natural) if the other side continues on.
"2 1/2 level" overcalls, especially when the 2nd suit is unknown, like your 2♠ bid is either unsound if 5-4 either way (it often gives advancer an impossible problem to solve) and if 5-4 but known which suit is longer(such as shows 5 in the major), you are still in dangerous territory and you've lost half the hand types that may want to overcall. If 5-5, it's safe, but seriously restricted on frequency.
If your M + m hands can be 5-4 either way, it's a big benefit to offer the choice for either at the 2 level. This offers some degree of safety when advancer with equal length guesses wrong. That's why knowing which is longer (M or m) can sometimes be more important than knowing which specific suits. That's the beauty of Woolsey's Dbl = 5+ m & 4+ M bid. It gives advancer a better chance of getting to the best fit.
If you still prefer knowing which suits are which (but are ok with the 5-4 either way concept), Meckwell does it quite safely. Or let me offer up this which has more emphasis on the major but still has 2-level safety:
X = H + another suit (could be S)
2♣ = ♣ + ♠
2♦ = ♦ + ♠
2M = natural

Advancer to the Dbl, bids 2♥ w/ 4. With less than 4, they bid the cheapest minor they're willing to play in. Overcaller passes or corrects. With a H + S hand, overcaller corrects to 2♥ with 5 H's or 2♠ with only 4 H's and 5 S's. This tends to select the correct major fit even tho there's no direct H + S call.

[mgoetze]

 perko90, on 2015-October-23, 05:58, said:

That's NOT how it works when 2♣ = majors. Advancer only bids 2♦ with equal length and takes a 2M preference with ....well ... a preference. It works quite well in practice.

Though I would also recommend bidding 2♦ with, say, KQ xxx in the majors.

[Zelandakh]

 perko90, on 2015-October-23, 06:33, said:

X = H + another suit (could be S)
2♣ = ♣ + ♠
2♦ = ♦ + ♠
2M = natural

Another alternative that also makes the 4M-5m/5m-4m distinction is:-

X = ♥ + another (could be longer/better ♠)
2♣ = ♠ + another (could be longer/better ♥)
2♦ = ♥ or ♠
2M = 5M and 4+m

There is plenty of space to add additional hands in there too. This combination of Asptro and Multi-Landy ideas is effectively the basis of my defence (it adds a little bit of French into the mix with the extra space).

[akwoo]

Generally speaking, you want to reserve DBL for hands where responder is likely to have trouble, since you are not taking up any bidding room. Both minors is not one of these hands. It's quite likely that responder will transfer to their 5 card major and opponents will outbid you at whatever level you bid to.

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-23, 08:01, said:

Another alternative that also makes the 4M-5m/5m-4m distinction is:-

X = ♥ + another (could be longer/better ♠)
2♣ = ♠ + another (could be longer/better ♥)
2♦ = ♥ or ♠
2M = 5M and 4+m

There is plenty of space to add additional hands in there too. This combination of Asptro and Multi-Landy ideas is effectively the basis of my defence (it adds a little bit of French into the mix with the extra space).

Does this work "reversed", with 2♦ being a Wilkosz-like 5M and 4+m and 2M showing 6? Or maybe I should try an Astro-Meyerson (aka awm) hybrid instead (probably with X=4M, 5m, Astro bids promising 5M, 4+other, and 2M promising 6)?