Chew the Fat! > Sleight of Hand

1NT-2D(Capp)-3D, and Donna

(1/1)

kenberg:
In a recent Donna session I opened 1NT, there was a Capp overall of 2 !D on my left, and partner bid 3 !D. Whatsit? I took it as natural and forcing but later I got to thinking. Perhaps this should be seen as a U/U situation  Thus, after 1NT-2 !D Capp, a bid of 2 !H shows !C, a bid of 2 !S shows !D, both of these calls strong, while a direct bid of either 3 !C or 3 !D should be natural and weak. This is how it was intended I believe.  It is also the agreement recommended by Steve Robinson in Washington Standard, 2nd Ed. With these agreements you do not need 1NT-2 !D - 2NT to be Leb, you have a way to show a strong minor and a way to show a weak minor, so 1NT-2 !D -2NT is just a natural call.

Of course this is not the whole story. After 1NT-2 !D-2M we have to see if we should play game in the minor or on NT, and after 1NT-2 !D - 3 !D there can be issues of what to do if 4th hand bids a major. The way I remember it, not sure I am right, they can make 3 !H, we can make 4 !D.

I am not exactly confessing to error here, without discussion it's a guess. But, upon reflection, I do think it's reasonable to attach the meanings SR, and my pard at the time (Blu), assigned to the 3 !D call.   Or, ok, we can call my bidding on an error. Not my first.

Donna's hands are intended to uncover problems with (the lack of) agreements. Seems to be working,

wackojack:
Thanks for that observation Ken. 

Also let us consider the Landy overcall of 2 !C showing the majors, which is a much better way of defending against 1NT than cappeletti.  It seems the same U/U should apply.  So 2 !H =  !C  and 2  !S = !D.  Then again 2N = natural. 

It is also relavent to consider 1NT- (2 !C) -dbl.  Then:
Rdbl = I have equal length majors so you choose
2 !D = Natural. 

Capp does not have the equivalent luxury where:
1NT-(2 !D) - ?  there is no "you choose" bid avaiable. 
However after 1NT- (2 !D) - dbl -(?) The double rescues Capp and makes a "you choose" redouble available  when both majors are equal. 

kenberg:
Robinson has a table that takes a page and a half to give the various responses to the various conventional overcalls.
For a Landy 2 !C:
X       Balanced, 8+ hcps
1 !D   !D, 4-7 hcps
2 !H    !C, 8+ hcps
2 !S    !C, 8+ hcps 
2NT    Natural, 7-8 hcps
3 !C    !C, 4-7 hcps
3 !D    !D, 4-7 hcps
3 !H    !H, 8+ hcps
!3 !S    !S, 8+ hcps
3NT     Balanced, 9+ hcps

Now this is a bit weird since X and 3NT both show balanced hands, one with 8+, the other with 9+. Presumably with 9+ the X is more penalty oriented, the 3NT more of a "Let's just play 3NT".
Also the 3 !H call as 8+ showing hearts. As in heart stopper, or as in maybe we should play in hearts? I suppose either is possible but surely heart stopper w/o spade stopper is the more useful meaning.

It's just a fact that I have never played the entire table of meanings with anyone. There was a time on my life when I had more regular partnernerships and we had more extensive agreements than I do today, but never that extensive.  My usual agreement wit a partner today is that if I open 1NT and they bid 2 !C then double is Stayman unless the 2 !C shows both majors, if it does show both majors then X is penalty oriented. If the overall 1NT with2 !D or 2 !H or 2 !S then 2NT is Lebensohl IF the bid shows that suit with or without a known or unknown other suit and stoppers refer to that suit. So 1NT - 2 !D (DONT) - 3NT denies a !D stopper and says nothing about a stopper in either major.  It's not great but it's simple. And even with Steve's table I think more has to be said about follow-ups.

Maybe some pairs playing on IAC have extensive agreements but most of us don't. It helps 9or it helped me) to have in person discussions with partners. We could sit around drinking beer and reading Bergen or whatever and get the various conventions straight. Playing online it seems we are lucky if we get the most common situations straight. The other day my Rho opened 1 !D, I overcalled 1 !H, my Lho passed, partner bid 3 !H, passed out making 5. Ok, I have an 11 count, pard has a 9 count, but I have a stiff !D and he has a stiff !C. He meant the 3 !H as a limit raise, and maybe I bid 4 !H if I think it's a limit raise.

Donna's sessions are useful for highlighting places where players interpret bids differently so I find it both interesting and useful. It does not completely solve the problem, that requires that the partners discuss what the meaning will be for them. Often there is no choice that is clearly the right choice of meaning.  I do think that playing a jump raise of an overall as preemptive is pretty standard these days. i the case I posted above, playing the 3 !D as to play makes a lot of sense, but w/o discussion who knows?

Navigation

[0] Message Index