[kugw]

Zelandakh, on 2015-August-30, 04:31, said:

I would suggest using a 3-suited method if overcalling on 4432 hands. Bringing the 3-card suit into the equation gives slightly more safety.

What article is this please?

[WesleyC]

A couple of years ago I wanted to answer this question for myself, so I checked the convention cards of the top pairs in the world (I'm not 100% but I think I used the top 6 teams from Bali Bermuda Bowl).

The one (almost) constant was that 17/18 pairs used a bid to show both majors, and this bid was usually 2C (although I forget the exact numbers there). The only pair that didn't have a way to specifically show majors was Meckwell (who play Meckwell!).

[helene_t]

WesleyC, on 2015-September-08, 03:03, said:

The only pair that didn't have a way to specifically show majors was Meckwell (who play Meckwell!).

They have a way to show majors also, it is just that they don't show them immediately. Dbl followed by a conversion of partner's 2♣ to 2♥ shows majors.

[kugw]

Zelandakh, on 2015-August-30, 04:31, said:

I would suggest using a 3-suited method if overcalling on 4432 hands. Bringing the 3-card suit into the equation gives slightly more safety.

If the 3 card suit is spades them you can certainly use the double and play in hopefully you 43 fit and not your 33 fit.

[Zelandakh]

kugw, on 2015-September-08, 01:01, said:

What article is this please?

I am sorry but I do not unbderstand this question.

kugw, on 2015-September-12, 00:44, said:

If the 3 card suit is spades them you can certainly use the double and play in hopefully you 43 fit and not your 33 fit.

As I recall your suggestion was Lionel, which ordinarily does not allow a double to be made with 3 spades. The comment I was replying to referred to DONT; there it is also difficult (and usually undesirable) to play in a 4-3 spade fit after a double.

[Charlie Yu]

Do you really need X to show minors? Minors are hardly worth showing anyway, unless you are 55+, in which U2NT work just fine.
I suggest:
2H/2S/3C/3D nat
X for H+m
2C for S+m
2D for both M

[helene_t]

I mostly play Landy but against weak NT the nebolous 2M overcall often hurts us. Having a way to distinguish between good and bad overcalls would be usefull and having 6-card vs 5-card overcalls would be useful also. Playing ML you have to chose which of the two you use.

gwnn suggested combining Meierson with ML so
x= major/minor two-suiter
2♣=majors
2♦=bad major suit one-suited
2M=good, one-suited

This way you don't have the penalty double and it was actually intended to be used against strong nt mainly, but I think it would make more sense against weak nt where the distinction between good and bad overcalls is more important.

Obviously you should play this against 13-15 and 14-16 notrump. Against 15-17 and stronger play something with shape only such as Meierson, and against weak nt play something with penalty double such a Apstro

[mgoetze]

helene_t, on 2015-September-23, 01:53, said:

Obviously you should play this against 13-15 and 14-16 notrump. Against 15-17 and stronger play something with shape only such as Meierson, and against weak nt play something with penalty double such a Apstro

Do you really think it's a good idea to treat 14-16 differently than 15-17? Especially given that many people who write 15-17 on their card may in reality be playing decent 14 to bad 17.

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-23, 04:48, said:

Do you really think it's a good idea to treat 14-16 differently than 15-17?

Yes.

Quote

Especially given that many people who write 15-17 on their card may in reality be playing decent 14 to bad 17.

Whereas many people who write 14-16 on their cards may in reality be playing great 12-ok 16.

[mgoetze]

cherdano, on 2015-September-23, 04:51, said:

Whereas many people who write 14-16 on their cards may in reality be playing great 12-ok 16.

Perhaps, but I doubt it's as common. I mean, when I play 15-17, I don't let it dissuade me from opening nice 11 point balanced hands (think 4432 shape, I'm not talking about those hands with a 6-card minor). Then when I have a nice 14, I think, gee, my 1NT rebid will be a wide-ranging 11-14, is partner going to be optimistic enough to account for my hand? Maybe I'd better just open 1NT instead. On the other hand, when I play 14-16, I still tend to stay away from opening balanced 10s. If I have a nice 13, I'll think, OK, I'll have the top end of my 11-13 range (for 1NT rebid or equivalent), but partner will be able to manage that just fine - so I don't upgrade.

Maybe it's just me and everyone else varies their minimum opening by a full point depending on their 1NT range.

[Zelandakh]

Charlie Yu, on 2015-September-23, 01:40, said:

X for H+m
2C for S+m

See my strong NT defence for a slightly more sophisticated version based on the idea of X = ♥ + another and 2♣ = ♠ + another.

[gwnn]

I like the defence Helene mentioned against 15-17 as well. Not sure about 13-15 or weaker.

[gwnn]

Quote

If I have a nice 13, I'll think, OK, I'll have the top end of my 11-13 range (for 1NT rebid or equivalent), but partner will be able to manage that just fine - so I don't upgrade.

Upgrading into 1NT has a lot of advantages other than constructive auctions, such as making defence more difficult and preempting opponents and/or talking them out of game. I'm pretty sure you know this though so I'm not sure why you don't mention it in your post.

[Charlie Yu]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-23, 06:28, said:

See my strong NT defence for a slightly more sophisticated version based on the idea of X = ♥ + another and 2♣ = ♠ + another.

I read your version. One question, how does one respond to 2C for D+H+S/spade+longer H/m? Can responder pass your 2C bid?

[Zelandakh]

Charlie Yu, on 2015-September-27, 17:59, said:

I read your version. One question, how does one respond to 2C for D+H+S/spade+longer H/m? Can responder pass your 2C bid?

It is all done with P/C bids. Responder could potentially pass with long clubs if they thought it likely to be the best spot but it is not going to be a common auction. Over a weak NT this protected by being limited (no X) and over a strong NT it is protected by the low probability of game. I suppose in theory it would be possible to miss 6♣ with Overcaller holding a great hand with 4♠-5♣ after a psyche from Opener but I would not advise playing for that.