[straube]

Someone posted a link to a variety of NT defense structures maybe a year ago. It had like 20 or so varieties and modifications. Most of them gave up trying to show both minors or clubs only at the 2-level. Anyone have that link or find that post?
We're currently playing DONT and I want to switch to something that lets me show my major right away plus perhaps 2-suited hands with the higher ranking suits.

[Gerben42]

Hi, if you are playing DONT and want something similar but better, try Lionel:

Dbl = ♠ + x
2♣ = ♣ + ♥
2♦ = ♦ + ♥
2♥♠ = natural

You are looking for this link:

http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt01.htm

[straube]

That was the link. Thanks a lot.

[straube]

I kind of like Pagan.

If dbl shows hearts and another one will assume that advancer will preference hearts with a fit. If advancer chooses a minor, then overcall can rebid 2H with longer hearts than spades but rebid 2S with longer spades than hearts.

Lionel uses dbl and a rebid of 2S as a better way to show spades presumably.

[fromageGB]

The big problem with most 2-suited methods is that unless you restrict the use to 5-5 hands, partner is really stuck knowing which suit to play in. I don't want to play in a major in a 4-3 fit when there is a 5-3 or 5-4 minor fit available. But equally, I'd rather play in a 5-3 major than a 4-3 minor. My preference is a method that distinguishes between 4 and 5 card majors.

Vertigo shows a 5 card major (unknown) by bidding a minor. This is simple enough : in response to 2♣ or 2♦ I bid 2♥ with ideally 3 in each major (but 2 is OK), else I can pass with a minor fit.

A 4 card major (unknown) is shown by X. (It could also be 55 in majors.) In response, 2♣ denies a 4 card major and 2♦ shows 4 spades without 4 hearts, while 2♥ shows 4 and does not deny spades. The doubler then passes or bids a known fit, or if no fit passes or bids his 5 card suit*. It's nice to play in 2m when you know you do not have a 4/4 major fit.

* Over 2♦ the doubler without spades passes with 5 diamonds, of course bids 2♠ if he has 4, so he bids 2♥ with 4 hearts and 5 clubs. This gives advancer a choice.

A hidden benefit if keeping the major initially unknown is that responder has fewer options.

[wank]

2C = majors

anything else = natural

it's a complex method

[straube]

Yeah. It's difficult with 5M/4m. I usually like to just bid the major in this situation. If the major isn't good enough, I just pass it. Obviously the downside is losing a superior minor suit fit.

I don't like DONT because if I overcall 2C (for instance), partner doesn't know what other suit I have and which is longer. Quite a guess really. I also must assume that partner's correction to 2D is p/c when partner may have independent diamonds.

I'd rather give up on some hands and know what I'm doing with others. If I played Pagan, I'd get to the best major fit when I'm 5/4 or 4/5 in the majors. If I doubled, partner could take me for 4H/5m and if I bid 2m he could take me for 4S/5m.

With the 5M/4m hand, I'll just guess to bid the major and take my chances. This doesn't seem like it can be as wrong (again) as overcalling a DONT 2C.

[Zelandakh]

One defence that is not on David's site yet is a mix of Asptro, French and Multi-Landy...

vs 1NT (strong)
X = (always 4+ hearts) H + D + C, or H + S (longer S), or 4H and 5+minor
2C = (always 4+ spades) S + H + D, or H + S (longer hearts), or 4S and 5+ minor
2D = H or S
2H = 5H and 4+ minor
2S = 5S and 4+ minor
2N = C + D

If you are familiar with the 3 defences this is based on it should be quite obvious how the follow-ups work.

If you want to be able to show absolutely everything (1-, 2-, and 3-suiters) then you cannot beat French against a strong NT. I would not suggest French vs a weak NT though as the important heart-based hands become quite cumbersome when you incorporate a penalty double.

[Free]

You can also modify DONT as follows (like Meckwell did):
Dbl = both Majors or 1 minor
2m = m+M
2M = natural
Both minors can't be bid at 2-level (unless you keep 2♣ as ♣+another) but it makes 2M natural and you have your minors at 2-level.

However you still have the issue that you don't know the longer suit in 2-suiters.

I prefer some sort of Woolsey:
Dbl = 4M, 5+m
2♣ = both Majors
2♦ = 1 Major
2M = 5(+)M, 4+m

[straube]

We've settled on Pagan in the 1st seat.

dbl-hearts and another. If partner doesn't agree hearts, we'll rebid 2S with longer S
2C-C and S
2D-D and S
2H-H (could be 5H/4m)
2S-S (could be 5S/4m)
2N-C and D
3m-m

This makes sense to me because ahead of responder's action, we're only likely to be able to outbid the opponents when we have majors. If we have minors, we ought to be able to compete at the 3-level.

In balancing seat we still use DONT. Here we know that we have some points between us and we might be able to play 2m. If we hold (for instance) the club suit, we won't be on lead and partner is not likely to lead our suit. We need to be able to "disturb" their NT.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pagan and Lionel got developed by Lionel Wright, and Paga was the first version.

Basically they same, just that the adv. of of Lionel is, that the Cue bid, you give
away with the double is more expensive than the cue, you give away with the
Pagan double.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[straube]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 11 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

Hi,

Pagan and Lionel got developed by Lionel Wright, and Paga was the first version.

Basically they same, just that the adv. of of Lionel is, that the Cue bid, you give
away with the double is more expensive than the cue, you give away with the
Pagan double.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Good point about the cue bid, but I wonder how many pairs would be prepared to take advantage of that. Seems to me like the difference between the two is that Lionel has two ways of bidding spades (2S immediately weak and 2S after X strong) whereas Pagan is able to offer a heart contract first and when partner declines to show a fit, canape into a longer spade suit. Lionel can't sort out 5S/4H from 4S/5H.

[akhare]

straube, on Oct 11 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

Good point about the cue bid, but I wonder how many pairs would be prepared to take advantage of that. Seems to me like the difference between the two is that Lionel has two ways of bidding spades (2S immediately weak and 2S after X strong) whereas Pagan is able to offer a heart contract first and when partner declines to show a fit, canape into a longer spade suit. Lionel can't sort out 5S/4H from 4S/5H.

One can always change the semantics of an immediate 2♠ to 5+♠, 4+♥ and X, then 2♥ as 5♥, 4♠ .

[fromageGB]

straube, on Oct 11 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

2H-H (could be 5H/4m)
2S-S (could be 5S/4m)

What I don't like about this is that you can almost never play in a minor fit. Let's say it goes (1NT) 2♠ (p) ?
What am I supposed to do with a 2335 hand for example? I guess you have to play in a poor 2♠ rather than an excellent 3♣ in case partner is 5S/4D. If you knew the minor you would know what to do. If the 5M/4m was not a possibility and 2♠ meant just spades, you could happily pass expecting it to be likely to be 6, or if not, a better 5.

[straube]

fromageGB, on Oct 13 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

straube, on Oct 11 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

2H-H (could be 5H/4m)
2S-S (could be 5S/4m)

What I don't like about this is that you can almost never play in a minor fit. Let's say it goes (1NT) 2♠ (p) ?
What am I supposed to do with a 2335 hand for example? I guess you have to play in a poor 2♠ rather than an excellent 3♣ in case partner is 5S/4D. If you knew the minor you would know what to do. If the 5M/4m was not a possibility and 2♠ meant just spades, you could happily pass expecting it to be likely to be 6, or if not, a better 5.

Yeah. I looked at some hands and agree with you. We're going to play it as intended. 2C (for example) could show 5S/4C or 4S/5C.

[Cascade]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 12 2010, 08:16 AM, said:

Pagan and Lionel got developed by Lionel Wright, and Paga was the first version.

Did Lionel Wright really develop Pagan.

Locally Dbl showing hearts and another is called Crowbar. Recently someone suggested to me this was Andy Braithwaite's version (improvement of) Lionel.

[awm]

Sort of funny question that might be answerable by simulation.

Suppose partner has hearts and clubs, exactly five-four but either suit can be longer. I bid the longer of my hearts/clubs or arbitrarily pick hearts if equal length. What is the probability that I wind up in the better fit of partner's suits?

Now suppose that instead, partner shows five clubs and a four-card major. If both my majors are longer than my clubs, then we play in partner's major; otherwise we play in clubs. What is the probability that I wind up in the better fit of partner's suits?

If we assume partner actually has hearts and clubs, it seems like:

(1) If my clubs > hearts then we're always in the right place.
(2) If my clubs = hearts, then in the latter case we are always in the right place but in the former case we will go wrong half the time.
(3) If my hearts = clubs+1, then we're always in the right place (might be tie).
(4) If my hearts > clubs+1, then in the first case I'm always in the right place, but in the second case I will be in the wrong place if spades <= clubs. However, this situation seems to imply a big spade fit for the opposition, so it might not matter....