[fromageGB]

benlessard, on 2012-February-22, 09:30, said:

so in the end I play the reverse of Vertigo,

http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt31.htm

2C = 5C+4M or 5C+4/5D
2D = 5/6D+4M
2M natural.

X show a 5M + another suit. This is superior to Vertigo since my bids are slightly more preemptive and less vulnerable to preemption.

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 09:46, said:

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?

Agree absolutely that 2M should be single meaning natural, and agree absolutely that it is important to know which of 2 suits is longer. This is a big problem with most of the defences showing a major and a minor, which could be 45 any way round. As partner, if it can be a 5 card major I may want to be in that, but if it is a 4 card major, then want to be in the minor.

A practical problem with defences where a minor shows a specific major is that you cannot pass the minor as it may be the wrong one. In effect you have to go to the 3 level. I think it more sound that a minor bid shows that minor and an unknown major. With length in the minor you can pass it.

This is why I play vertigo, and like it.

Most of my opponents play weak NT, but I am still happy to give up the penalty double. Without the double (you have to pass with a strong balanced hand) declarer will not know you have such a strong hand and possibly not play so effectively, and having no penalty double means that they cannot escape to responder's 2 of a minor or weak 2 suited hands. (Of course, should partner reopen with a vertigo double then you have the option of passing.)

With one partner I play vertigo where the double is either a 4 card major and a 5 card minor or both majors any length. With another partner I give up the 5m4M hands and have double as just both majors. Then you can always play in the best fitting 2M regardless of length (eg partner bids his longer major, but with equal length he bids 2♦ for doubler to bid the longer), and you can also have the option to play a response of 2♣ as pass or correct to 2♦ if partner hates both majors.

[fromageGB]

awm, on 2012-February-23, 10:43, said:

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.

I just don't get this. Perhaps I have misread what you play, but if "X = major+minor, at least 54, could be either way" then it seems hopelessly useless.

As advancer I have 4153 shape. I don't want to play in your 4 card major if it is hearts, so I can't bid 2♦. I can't bid 2♠ natural as I don't want to play in a 42 fit or worse. I am not strong. So I bid 2♣ to ask for your 5 card suit. Is that right?

You bid 2♥, your longest suit in 2542. What am I supposed to do? Rescue with 2♠ so we can escape to your second suit and risk playing in a 4-3 club fit at the 3 level?

With standard Vertigo with your 2542 shape it goes (1NT) 2♦ (p) p. Advancer knows your minor, so there is no problem.
(If advancer's hand was 4135 he still passes, if 4315 he bids 2♥.)

It seems to me that when your double is as vague as this, there must be many times you have no way of finding the correct contract.

If overcaller's reds were reversed, ie 2452, then that is a Vertigo X, and advancer's
4153 : X 2♦(showing 4 spades and denying 4 hearts) pass
4315 : X 2♥(ostensibly 4 hearts maybe 4 spades) pass (advancer prefers a 4-4 or 4-3 major fit to a possible 5-1 diamond fit)
3145 : X 2♣(denies 4 card major - "pass or bid your 5 card suit" 2♦

I can't see how your one bid(call) of double for any major+minor, of any lengths, can be useful.

Edit - an alternative and better way of bidding the penultimate hand is
4315 : X 2♣(denies 4 card major - "pass or bid your 5 card suit" 2♦ 2♥(I prefer your major)
as this leaves the possibility open of playing of playing 2♣ in a 5-5 fit.

[bluecalm]

I like this vertigo idea. It seems Balicki-Zmudzinski play that from direct seat (and multi landy from balance position). I didn't know the idea nor continuations. Thanks.

[benlessard]

Quote

With one partner I play vertigo where the double is either a 4 card major and a 5 card minor or both majors any length. With another partner I give up the 5m4M hands and have double as just both majors.

Like i said just reverse the X and 2m bids.

(1Nt)-2m-(X neg)-??

its easier to raise to 3m and annoy them if parter is 5m+4M than the opposite.

(1Nt)-X-(2H) S transf- ??

its easier to X takeout because its almost sure that partner is 5H/4m while if hes 5m+4M its somewhat still possible hes got 4S.

More importantly if your X show 5M partner its easier to X with both M. Finally its easier to bid 2C with 5C+4D if 2C is meaning 5C+4M

[billw55]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-21, 23:31, said:

It's difficult to rank that many conventions without experience of playing them unless they are completely silly (like Capp).
What is worthwhile to add is multi-landy with double showing 5m-4M which I believe is called Woolsey sometimes.

Why do you think so?

[kenrexford]

In looking through vertigo and thinking about it, I can see that the intended focus does seem to be met. Extreme safety and assurances of a best fit seem to be met fairly well. But, this seems also to me to have a feel similar to one problem that I have seen in many approaches, namely that the extreme focus on avoiding the three-level has a cost of making constructive auctions with stronger playable hands difficult.

Consider, for instance, the two-suiter with values. It does not take much to make game with a 5-5 hand. I recall a slam auction from Philadelphi (that went off the rails because of a sleep-deprived brain fart) where Overcaller held ♠Axxxx ♥AK10xx ♦-- ♣Jxx and Advancer ♠Kxx ♥Jxxx ♦xxxx ♣Ax. At our table, Advancer made a call that should have resulted in the final contract being 6♥ (cold on the layout). Certainly, bidding game with this 20-count should be easy.

This theme is not that uncommon, IMO. This is especially less so against weak 1NT and against the trending upgrades and semi-balanced 1NT calls that are called "strong."

In my judgment, with which many may disagree, an ideal approach is one where information is exchanged at a relatively safe level (which often means playing three of a minor) in a way where either strength is distinguished immediately or where at least Overcaller (and/or Advancer) has the ability to control the auction somewhat with additional calls. Jumping everything into "double then bid high" seems insufficient.

But, that's more of a philosophy issue.

[awm]

fromageGB, on 2012-February-23, 15:48, said:

I just don't get this. Perhaps I have misread what you play, but if "X = major+minor, at least 54, could be either way" then it seems hopelessly useless.

As advancer I have 4153 shape. I don't want to play in your 4 card major if it is hearts, so I can't bid 2♦. I can't bid 2♠ natural as I don't want to play in a 42 fit or worse. I am not strong. So I bid 2♣ to ask for your 5 card suit. Is that right?

Sure, (41)(53) where partner has five in the singleton major is basically the only problem shape. Of course it is also a problem shape if you play Woolsey or the like where partner overcalls two of your singleton major showing that major and a minor. Then again, playing Vertigo you would be somewhat embarrassed if you reached a 4-3 diamond fit only to find that partner's major was your four-card major!

Vertigo has its problems too. For example: I hold a 2632 hand and partner doubles. If I bid 2♥ (hearts, maybe spades) then partner is probably bidding 2♠ with his 4♠/5m combination and I get to the three-level (or a sub-moysian). The alternative would seem to be bidding 2♣ (bid your five-card suit) but then I often get to play 2♣ on a seven-card fit when I would much rather be in hearts. My methods have no problem after double by advancing 2♥ natural. Same thing happens if partner bids 2m and I hold 1633; I get to choose between the 4-3 minor fit and a 5-1 spade fit, with no ability to introduce my six-card heart suit (which is quite often the best spot to play). Another example: I hold a 2425 and partner doubles. If I bid 2♥ (four hearts, maybe four spades) then I get to play 3♦ in the likely event that partner has 4♠/5♦. But if I try 2♣ (no major) I get to play 2♠ when partner has 5♠/4♥ (also sort of lousy). In my methods I can always play this hand at the two-level by advancing 2♣ to double (reaching 2♦ in partner's five-card suit) or 2♥ to both majors (reaching the best fit). Another: suppose I have a 4315 hand and partner doubles with a 5431. You've suggested that since I don't want to play in diamonds opposite partner's 4M/5♦, I should make the 2♥ call that ostensibly shows four hearts. But partner is passing that right? In a system where 2♣ showed majors this would never happen.

And this is ignoring that fact that Vertigo has no way to show the diamond one-suiter at the two-level, and that you have some issues with both majors when opponents compete further. For example, say you hear 1NT-X-2NT (transfer to clubs) and you have a mediocre 5224 hand. Seems like you defend 3♣, since partner probably has the reds. But if you knew partner had majors, you'd probably want to be in spades!

[bluecalm]

Quote

Why do you think so?

We can discuss capp's 2D bid but the real problem is with 2C "any suit". Now, what is the most important thing is that if they bid their major we could compete in ours.
This is easy with natural 2M overcall, it's easy with multi overcall (from multi landy) if the double shows 5M-4m for example then again, if they bid and raise their major we know partner has 5 cards in the other (or 4 in case of discussed "Meyerson"). Not so in capp.
One example:

1N - something - 2D - p
3H - pass - pass - ????

You really want to know if partner has spades. If "something" is 2S you know that. If "something" is 2D as multi you know that too. If 'something' is capp you are lost.
Not only that. The more spades you have the less likely you are to take action and the more you lose if partner has spades. You can easily lose 10 card fit in such auctions.
No decent defense to 1N has a call like "any suit". You either want 2M natural or 2D as multi or 2D/2H as transfers.

As to 2D call. The only advantage of it is that you play from better hand (less disclosed and putting strong hand on lead) but you often play in worse fit.
You are left guessing with 2-2/3-2/2-3/3-3 configurations in majors and it's painful.

[bluecalm]

Btw, I think "Meckwell" should be added to original list:

2C/2D = nat + major
2H/2S = nat
dbl = one minor or both majors

I don't know if 2C/2D calls could be either way or if they promise 5cards in a major (or maybe in a minor ?)

[32519]

I have been following these posts keenly, hoping to find the optimal solution which caters for both major suit and minor suit orientated hands in the direct seat over the 1NT bidder. How do any of the 1NT defences already posted here find the game contract (or a very profitable sacrifice) for the 3 hands below? Granted that it will be rare that these situations arise, but when they do, I don’t want to miss the game opportunity. Over a 15-17 HCP 1NT opener, declarer can bid game on sub-game values, making use of the information of knowing where most of the missing HCP are located. The 4th hand wants to retain a penalty orientated double, more so when the opponents are vulnerable. How do I cater for them all in one solution?

For all 4 hands, dealer is South playing a 15-17 NT range.

Hand 1: Major Suit Game

---

A botched defence from N/S here sees 4♥ home.

Hand 2: How do you find the very profitable 4♠ sacrifice here?

---

The sacrifice becomes even more profitable with red versus white.

Hand 3: Minor Suit Game

---

Will your methods find the minor suit game?

Hand 4: I still want to retain a penalty double. If this is IMPs, the opponents vulnerable and West on lead, the penalty double becomes very profitable.

---

What is the plan of action for either North or South after the penalty double?

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-23, 22:19, said:

We can discuss capp's 2D bid but the real problem is with 2C "any suit". Now, what is the most important thing is that if they bid their major we could compete in ours.
This is easy with natural 2M overcall, it's easy with multi overcall (from multi landy) if the double shows 5M-4m for example then again, if they bid and raise their major we know partner has 5 cards in the other (or 4 in case of discussed "Meyerson"). Not so in capp.
One example:

1N - something - 2D - p
3H - pass - pass - ????

You really want to know if partner has spades. If "something" is 2S you know that. If "something" is 2D as multi you know that too. If 'something' is capp you are lost.
Not only that. The more spades you have the less likely you are to take action and the more you lose if partner has spades. You can easily lose 10 card fit in such auctions.
No decent defense to 1N has a call like "any suit". You either want 2M natural or 2D as multi or 2D/2H as transfers.

In that auction, you can partially solve the problem by playing that a double of 2♦ shows a desire to compete if partner has spades. You still have a problem if you want to compete in one of partner's possible minors but not another.

The worst problem occurs when they show a minor. For example, after:

1NT 2♣* 2NT**

  * One-suiter
  * Lebensohl or Rubensohl
you have an impossible problem when you're 4-2 in the majors

Of course, that defect also applies to a MultiLandy 2♦; I'm a bit surprised that you recognise the problems of a 4-way Multi 2♣, but not the problems of a 2-way Multi 2♦.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-February-24, 03:29

[bluecalm]

Quote

Of course, that defect also applies to a MultiLandy 2♦; I'm a bit surprised that you recognise the problems of a 4-way Multi 2♣, but not the problems of a 2-way Multi 2♦.

Yeah, right. 2-way multi sometimes causes problems too.
Those are very rare though comparing to 4 way multi. The sequence you gave is one example but there way less such auctions than after 4-way multi.
Still, sometimes responder has both major fits while after 4way multi he needs 3 of them.
Also multi is a bit preemptive while 2C isn't preemptive at all.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Hand 1: Major Suit Game

I think this one is difficult to find.

Quote

Hand 2: How do you find the very profitable 4♠ sacrifice here?

Impossible not to find if you have a call showing both majors.

Quote

Hand 3: Minor Suit Game

1N - 2N - p - ? I think E could venture at least an invite here opposite vulnerable partner with the best possible configuration in minors.

Quote

Hand 4:

I think it's not 100% but probably N should show major 2suiter after penalty double w/e method he has available for that. I am not sure though, that could be -1700 opposite 2-2-(5-4).

[32519]

Hand 1:

bluecalm, on 2012-February-24, 04:44, said:

I think this one is difficult to find.

How many others agree with bluecalm here?

Hand 2:
Impossible not to find if you have a call showing both majors.

Fair enough, no argument here. I've had second thoughts here. You will most likely only make the sacrifice bid knowing the minimum what to expect from partner. Would you still make the sacrifice bid at equal vulnerability?

Hand 3:
1N - 2N - p - ? I think E could venture at least an invite here opposite vulnerable partner with the best possible configuration in minors.

An invite being 4♣? What do you do in an even rarer situation where E/W have a huge distributional fit in spite of the 1NT opening? How do you continue for slam exploration? In my methods I want to use a 4-level minor suit bid as Minorwood for the suit, slam interest. The probability of such a rare fit will probably only come up once every two years. But the structure I have is a no brainer.

Hand 4:
I think it's not 100% but probably N should show major 2suiter after penalty double w/e method he has available for that. I am not sure though, that could be -1700 opposite 2-2-(5-4).

Does your defence to a 1NT opening allow you all four options here? Or must you sacrifice 1 in favour of something else?

[masse24]

Zebulon

Have never played it, though it looks interesting.

[kenrexford]

32519, on 2012-February-24, 01:00, said:

I have been following these posts keenly, hoping to find the optimal solution which caters for both major suit and minor suit orientated hands in the direct seat over the 1NT bidder. How do any of the 1NT defences already posted here find the game contract (or a very profitable sacrifice) for the 3 hands below? Granted that it will be rare that these situations arise, but when they do, I don't want to miss the game opportunity. Over a 15-17 HCP 1NT opener, declarer can bid game on sub-game values, making use of the information of knowing where most of the missing HCP are located. The 4th hand wants to retain a penalty orientated double, more so when the opponents are vulnerable. How do I cater for them all in one solution?

For all 4 hands, dealer is South playing a 15-17 NT range.

Hand 1: A botched defence from N/S here sees 4♥ home.

Hand 2: How do you find the very profitable 4♠ sacrifice here?

The sacrifice becomes even more profitable with red versus white.

Hand 3: Minor Suit Game

Will your methods find the minor suit game?

Hand 4: I still want to retain a penalty double. If this is IMPs, the opponents vulnerable and West on lead, the penalty double becomes very profitable.

What is the plan of action for either North or South after the penalty double?

Lots of different possible structures that I propose solve each of these examples. But, as a sampling...

Hand #1 illustrates why my idea of stacking weaks and sounds differently can help. If, for instance, you use a really simple method of 2♣ for weakish with one or both majors and 2♦ (both), 2♥ or 2♠ as intermediate, then you have no problem if Overcaller treats this as a heart hand., intermediate. Advancer moves.

Hand #2 is handled by the versions I propose that include either (1) a Flannery 2♦ overcall or (2) a 2♣ overcall for one or both majors (if both, longer or equal hearts). Showing unbalanced lengths in the majors is also doable with two-under 2♣.

Hand #3 becomes easy if allowed to play Mid-Chart and to use 2♠ for one or both minors, weak, which allows 2NT for both or 3♣/3♦ for one as values calls, because then 1NT-2NT shows a good hand with both minors, allowing Advancer to move forward.

Hand #4 illustrates a good penalty double. Many of my structures do not even get to the double, by intention. So, for example, the three structures that handle Hands #1, #2, and #3 need not have an artificial double.

[Zelandakh]

masse24, on 2012-February-24, 07:42, said:

Zebulon

Have never played it, though it looks interesting.

This looks somewhat like a cut-down version of French in terms of the repeating structure. French versus a strong NT runs:-

X = hearts or hearts and diamonds or hearts and both minors
2♣ = spades (strong) or both majors or both majors and diamonds
2♦ = clubs or blacks or clubs and both majors
2♥ = diamonds or both minors or spades and both minors
2♠ = natural, weak
2NT = weak with a minor or strong with ♣+♥ or ♦+♠
3♣ = clubs and hearts, weak
3♦ = diamonds and spades, weak

The given method has the same basic structure but only caters to one and 2-suited hands. Both methods suffer from the problem of not showing which major is longer. The document is quite false in claiming that Suction is unique in combining one-suited and two-suited hands in the same overcalls!

[Free]

You forgot psycho suction, not that it's any good though

Against strong NT I prefer Woolsey (although it's possible to put strong options in Dbl, 2♣ and 2♦), against weak NT I prefer multi-landy (again putting strong options in 2♣ and 2♦). I don't have any close seconds in either case.

2♣ showing both Majors is a very powerful weapon in my experience. Last week I held AKQxxxx-xxxx-void-xx and overcalled 2♣, LHO bid 2NT lebensohl and partner bid 3♥. We found an easy 4♥, while the other table was playing 3♠=.

[awm]

Most methods do not have a specific way to show 6-4 hands. There is not really a way to have such a method without sacrificing results on the (much more common) 5-4 hands.

So on both examples #1 and #2, overcaller must decide whether to show hearts or show both majors. On #1 game is quite biddable if he shows hearts; not so much if he shows majors. On #2 it is basically the opposite since the fit is in spades. Note that vertigo gives you no chance on #2, without a clean way to show majors.

#3 is easy after 2nt for minors in basically any method. #4 I would very much prefer PASS over a penalty double; pass and they go -2; double and they run to 2M and make.

I will note that the examples are not very representative. Far more often interference over 1nt is about a competitive scramble for a partial, not game bidding for the interfering side.

[olien]

I will add my favorite stucture which is a combination of landy and meckwell:

X=♦ or (♣ + M)
2♣=Majors
2♦=♦ + M
2M=Natural

After the X, responder assumes ♣ + M and bids accordingly, the rest makes sense.