[rr9000]

In one of my partnerships many years ago, we used to play the following over weak notrump:

2C = minor 1 suiter or major-minor 2 suiter
2D = majors
2H = hearts
2S = spades

Looks like at least some people describe this or something very close to it as Modified Cappelletti, though others used Modified Cappelletti for different conventions. Anyone know if there are other names for the above?

Thanks!

RR9000

[Stephen Tu]

I looked at David Stevenson's site which lists nearly everything but couldn't find it. In any case I wouldn't play it. 2d for the majors kind of sucks because partner with equal length has to guess and often will be wrong. I'd rather play something using 2c for majors, or some Asptro variant.

[Tramticket]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-May-27, 18:11, said:

In any case I wouldn't play it. 2d for the majors kind of sucks because partner with equal length has to guess and often will be wrong.

I agree, 2♦ for the majors doesn't work well. I don't care much for the 2♣ bid either - there are too many options and you will struggle to find a playable fit at the two level and sometimes find yourself at the three level on an inadequate fit.

[Vampyr]

A convention gets a name only if it passes muster at the Secret Bridge Olympics. This one evidently didn’t.

[msjennifer]

Sir.I tried searching for this "Convention".I could not locate it at all.Perhaps the lady/gentleman who tried to popularise it did not get it classified as a new convention from the National/World Bridge Authority.I found it not very logical to use the 2D bid to indicate both Majors.Just by the way it is an easier proposal to use Landy and transfers in the 2nd seat and Landy and Natural in the 4th seat.I have found it acceptable to all beginners. I,politely ,make it clear that others have many more choices like ASPRO,ASTRO ,CAPPELETTI et.al. at their disposal and ignore this method

[rr9000]

Taking the arguments against 2D for majors into consideration, I'm looking at some of the 2C for majors conventions (such as Multi-Landy) and started wondering why 2C can't be *either* majors or a single minor. As it happens, this is what Baker-McCallum play (I expect there are others, but this was one of the first convention cards I pulled up).

Anyone know what that's called?

Is it worth giving up having pard know right away that you have at least 9 cards in the majors to have possibility of playing 2D?

Cheers,

RR9000

[Tramticket]

 rr9000, on 2019-May-28, 07:51, said:

Is it worth giving up having pard know right away that you have at least 9 cards in the majors to have possibility of playing 2D?

No.

This still doesn't work. Say, I have five spades and four hearts and over-call 2♣. Partner must reply 2♦ under your scheme and I now have to bid 2♥ to show the two-suiter. How will partner know what to do holding (say) 3-3 or 2-2 in the majors?

[Stephen Tu]

 rr9000, on 2019-May-28, 07:51, said:

Is it worth giving up having pard know right away that you have at least 9 cards in the majors to have possibility of playing 2D?

Don't have to give it up. Try Meyerson. 2c = majors, rest natural. Other 2 suiters in double.

[pescetom]

 msjennifer, on 2019-May-28, 05:34, said:

Just by the way it is an easier proposal to use Landy and transfers in the 2nd seat and Landy and Natural in the 4th seat.I have found it acceptable to all beginners.

You must have young or promising beginners if they consistently get this right in actual play. I've seen enough ugly accidents with transfers alone, let alone transfers in 2nd and natural in 4th

[Tramticket]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-May-28, 09:33, said:

Don't have to give it up. Try Meyerson. 2c = majors, rest natural. Other 2 suiters in double.

I wouldn't be keen not to have a penalty double available.

[rr9000]

 Tramticket, on 2019-May-28, 08:40, said:

No.

This still doesn't work. Say, I have five spades and four hearts and over-call 2♣. Partner must reply 2♦ under your scheme and I now have to bid 2♥ to show the two-suiter. How will partner know what to do holding (say) 3-3 or 2-2 in the majors?

I see your point. But what if overcaller bids *2S* (rather than always hearts) when holding longer spades? You play 5-3 fit when you have one and play 5-2 when that's all there is or when you're choosing between 5-2 and 4-3.

If responder has a two card discrepancy, they support the major they like rather than bidding 2D, since that's the right major suit fit regardless of overcaller's shape (e.g., 4-3 with a side single vs 5-1).

Should we be worried about bypassing 2D on those hands? I don't think so, since in that case partner of overcaller has 9 minor suit cards. If 3 or 4 of those are diamonds, 3D is a reasonable resting place if overcaller has diamonds, so 2M by partner of overcaller can be bid on the 1-3 major suit hand, with the understanding that 3C or 3D by overcaller then shows that minor suit. If partner of overcaller only has 2 diamonds, that makes 7 clubs. With a weak hand, partner of overcaller could pass 2C, and with a strong enough hand not to want to have the auction drop in 2D, can bid a forward-going 3C or force and ask further description with 2NT.

I'm just making this up as I go along. Wish we had Baker-McCallum here to tell us how they deal with it.

Even if I'm right so far, and I may well not be, I'm still concerned about what happens if the auction gets more competitive, but that's a problem with all the competition methods that have ambiguity about what suits overcaller has.

RR9000

[PhilG007]

 rr9000, on 2019-May-27, 16:08, said:

In one of my partnerships many years ago, we used to play the following over weak notrump:

2C = minor 1 suiter or major-minor 2 suiter
2D = majors
2H = hearts
2S = spades

Looks like at least some people describe this or something very close to it as Modified Cappelletti, though others used Modified Cappelletti for different conventions. Anyone know if there are other names for the above?

Thanks!

RR9000

It looks like a convention called ASTPRO

[rr9000]

 Tramticket, on 2019-May-28, 11:28, said:

I wouldn't be keen not to have a penalty double available.

Nor am I. All of my regular partnerships use different methods against strong notrump, each of which uses double artificially. I'm not willing to give up the penalty double against a weak notrump.

RR9000

[torgums]

I have played this for years. I know it a the second revision of Cappelletti. The first revision used an illegal bid. The ACBL rescinded the rule banning the bid but by that time second revision had surfaced.

The advantage is that a single major suit is bid directly over the 1NT opening.

Single suit bids in other systems require a two step procedure usually started with double or 2 clubs. This is fine if the opposition is quiet for the rest of the auction. However I feel that the sooner we find our fit the better off we are.

Example 1NT 2 Spades. If I find partner with spades we will be competing. If the opening side has a heart fit they have to start looking for it at the 3 level.
On the other hand if the auction starts 1NT double the responder has room to look for their fit at the 2 level. 4th seat holding spades and heart shortness will not know whether or not to compete.

I play that double is penalty over weak NT and both minors over strong NT.

[msjennifer]

 pescetom, on 2019-May-28, 10:28, said:

You must have young or promising beginners if they consistently get this right in actual play. I've seen enough ugly accidents with transfers alone, let alone transfers in 2nd and natural in 4th

Sir,pardon me, but my answer to the problem pointed by you is a firm NO.My partner ,with whom I play online, when shown your reply conveyed.'We have a pairs MP event every Thursday and Sunday and some 72/80 pairs play throughout the year.All the 144/160 know this method and there are beginners and experienced players both.None off them has any difficulty whatsoever OVER THE YEARS.In fact,they find it too easy to execute it on the table". I HAVE REQUESTED SPECIFICALLY THOSE WHO DO NOT LIKE IT TO JUST IGNORE IT in my post.I consider myself at 27 too junior to advice anyone except the NEW posters.Kindly excuse.

[GrahamJson]

For what it is worth I believe the best defence to 1NT is Asptro. This uses 2C = hearts and another, 2D = spades and another. Other suit bids are natural.

With both majors you initially show the shorter.

If responder has three card or better support for the anchor suit he normally bids 2 of that suit. Lacking three card support he normally bids the intermediate suit (I.e 2D over a 2C overcall)

After (1NT) - 2C -(P) - 2D - (P) the Overcaller can pass if he has five diamonds, bid 2H with five hearts (2NT then asks for his minor suit) 2S with five spades, 2NT with both minors and 3C with five clubs. There is a similar system after a 2D overcall.

The only disadvantage of the system is that you can sometimes end up in a 4-3 major fit when 5-3 is available, but this doesn’t happen often. One advantage of Asptro is that in most cases the relative lengths of the suits are known, which is not the case if using, for example, two of a major overcall to show a major/minor two suiter.

[pescetom]

 msjennifer, on 2019-May-29, 00:38, said:

Sir,pardon me, but my answer to the problem pointed by you is a firm NO.My partner ,with whom I play online, when shown your reply conveyed.'We have a pairs MP event every Thursday and Sunday and some 72/80 pairs play throughout the year.All the 144/160 know this method and there are beginners and experienced players both.None off them has any difficulty whatsoever OVER THE YEARS.In fact,they find it too easy to execute it on the table".

The reason they are getting it right is in your numbers I think - if you have 72/80 (!) pairs and all (!!) play the same agreement then of course beginners will quickly be drilled into it and opponents will easily spot and tolerate initial mistakes rather than calling the TD or asking awkward questions.

My idea, FWIW is that beginners should start with dbl=penalty 2c=majors rest=natural.
And even 2c=majors is only there because that is less likely to incur incidents than 2c=natural.

[blackshoe]

 rr9000, on 2019-May-27, 16:08, said:

In one of my partnerships many years ago, we used to play the following over weak notrump:

2C = minor 1 suiter or major-minor 2 suiter
2D = majors
2H = hearts
2S = spades

Looks like at least some people describe this or something very close to it as Modified Cappelletti, though others used Modified Cappelletti for different conventions. Anyone know if there are other names for the above?

Thanks!

RR9000

I can think of at least two: Modified Hamilton, and Helms II.

[akwoo]

 rr9000, on 2019-May-27, 16:08, said:

In one of my partnerships many years ago, we used to play the following over weak notrump:

2C = minor 1 suiter or major-minor 2 suiter
2D = majors
2H = hearts
2S = spades

Looks like at least some people describe this or something very close to it as Modified Cappelletti, though others used Modified Cappelletti for different conventions. Anyone know if there are other names for the above?

Thanks!

RR9000

I've heard modified cappelleti or reverse cappelleti.

BTW, 2C should be diamonds or major-minor 2 suiter. With clubs, just bid 3C right away since you'll end up there anyway.

[PhilG007]

 GrahamJson, on 2019-May-29, 03:13, said:

For what it is worth I believe the best defence to 1NT is Asptro. This uses 2C = hearts and another, 2D = spades and another. Other suit bids are natural.

With both majors you initially show the shorter.

If responder has three card or better support for the anchor suit he normally bids 2 of that suit. Lacking three card support he normally bids the intermediate suit (I.e 2D over a 2C overcall)

After (1NT) - 2C -(P) - 2D - (P) the Overcaller can pass if he has five diamonds, bid 2H with five hearts (2NT then asks for his minor suit) 2S with five spades, 2NT with both minors and 3C with five clubs. There is a similar system after a 2D overcall.

The only disadvantage of the system is that you can sometimes end up in a 4-3 major fit when 5-3 is available, but this doesn't happen often. One advantage of Asptro is that in most cases the relative lengths of the suits are known, which is not the case if using, for example, two of a major overcall to show a major/minor two suiter.

The downside of the ASTPRO convention is if your side doesn't win the contract,you have given away your distribution.
This is why the gadget gradually fell into disfavor..