[mycroft]

Against weak strong clubbers, anything will work. They barely know their own system (although it helps if you keep asking about all those Alerted bids, so that they're sure they're still on the same track).

Against good ones - and I'm not talking world champions yet - I sort of agree with MikeH. The problem is with opener's second call. Unlike him, though, I dislike the ambiguity because I need two suits to jump-advance; with unambiguous overcalls (even if they're crap, even if they're multisuited, as long as I know which suits) I only need one.

I don't mind X=majors, myself - in fact, I'm playing it with my regular partners. Sure it gives more room to responder, but the goal is to annoy the strong hand. And if 4th seat bids 2 or 3M, it doesn't really matter what they use responder's extra room for :-).

Having said that, overcalling 1♦ shows *good* diamonds, even in a bad hand - because you don't get that preempt-the-majors benefit, even if partner can raise to 2 (3, sure).

I only recommend Cappelletti(/NT) over a strong club if you're playing against me. I have no idea who came up with that brilliant idea around here, but I thank them for it!

[kgr]

(1♣ strong)-?
- Bid: suit bid and higher suit:
- DBL: ♣-♥
- 1♦: ♦-♥
- 1♥: ♥-♠
- 1♠: ♠-♣
- 2♣: ♣-♦
- 1NT: ♦-♠
- 2♦ and higher: 1-suiter

Same after (1♣)-Pass-(1♦)-?
- Bid: suit bid and higher suit:
- DBL: ♦-♥
- 1♥: ♥-♠
- 1♠: ♠-♣
- 2♣: ♣-♦
- 2♦: ♦-♥
- 1NT: ♣-♥
- 2♥ and higher: 1-suiter

[Free]

 kgr, on 2011-December-07, 04:22, said:

(1♣ strong)-?
- Bid: suit bid and higher suit:
- DBL: ♣-♥
- 1♦: ♦-♥
- 1♥: ♥-♠
- 1♠: ♠-♣
- 2♣: ♣-♦
- 1NT: ♦-♠
- 2♦ and higher: 1-suiter

Same after (1♣)-Pass-(1♦)-?
- Bid: suit bid and higher suit:
- DBL: ♦-♥
- 1♥: ♥-♠
- 1♠: ♠-♣
- 2♣: ♣-♦
- 2♦: ♦-♥
- 1NT: ♣-♥
- 2♥ and higher: 1-suiter

I really don't understand why anyone would bid this way, except that Sabine described it in her otherwise wonderful book. It's so easy to play against.

[kgr]

 kgr, on 2011-December-07, 04:22, said:

(1♣ strong)-?
- Bid: suit bid and higher suit:
- DBL: ♣-♥
- 1♦: ♦-♥
- 1♥: ♥-♠
- 1♠: ♠-♣
- 2♣: ♣-♦
- 1NT: ♦-♠
- 2♦ and higher: 1-suiter

Same after (1♣)-Pass-(1♦)-?
- Bid: suit bid and higher suit:
- DBL: ♦-♥
- 1♥: ♥-♠
- 1♠: ♠-♣
- 2♣: ♣-♦
- 2♦: ♦-♥
- 1NT: ♣-♥
- 2♥ and higher: 1-suiter

 Free, on 2011-December-07, 05:39, said:

I really don't understand why anyone would bid this way, except that Sabine described it in her otherwise wonderful book. It's so easy to play against.

Why is it worse then another defense?
The advantages I see:
- It doesn't give opps the certainty of an additional round because you mostly bid a suit you have.
- Frequency is high (you can bid all 2-suiters and 1-suiters).
- Partner knows what you have and can easily preempt more.

[Free]

 kgr, on 2011-December-07, 05:56, said:

Why is it worse then another defense?
The advantages I see:
- It doesn't give opps the certainty of an additional round because you mostly bid a suit you have.
- Frequency is high (you can bid all 2-suiters and 1-suiters).
- Partner knows what you have and can easily preempt more.

This doesn't add up: either you bid with every 4-4 (in which case your partner can't preempt that hard) or you only bid with 5-5 which doesn't come up that often. 5-4 is the middle road, but that's only slightly better than 4-4. Oh, and you have 6 calls, so each one of those calls isn't frequent at all. Compare that to a DONT 2♣ overcall which is 3 times as frequent as any one of your 6 overcalls seperately.

Why is it good?
- Your partner immediately knows both suits
- It's NF
- In case you only bid with 5-5 distributions your partner can preempt heavily

Why it is bad?
- You have to bid your single suiters at 2-level or higher. A 1-level overcall, just for the lead if you will, can be very useful. When you're V you can't always afford to bid at 2-level. Even when NV, will you bid 2♠ on AQJ(x)? I don't think so, but you might want to bid 1♠.
- Your opps have a penalty Dbl of your bid suit
- Your opps can cuebid as takeout
- Your opps know a lot about your hand. Usually they'll declare, so this structure is very helpful for them to find a good line.
- In case you bid with 4-4 or 5-4 distributions your partner can't preempt effectively

Note: I have played this in the past, didn't like it, nor the results.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, you might find my ideas in my new book interesting. MPP just released my new book, "Overcalling Opponent's 1NT." In this, I am introducing a new means of overcalling 1NT, with a technique that can be used in other sequences, as well.

For example, suppose that you want to focus the majors over a weak 1NT opening, retain a penalty/values double, and yet tell partner whether you have light overcall values (mid-range weak two) or sound values (more like opening strength to intermediate), all without committing anyone to the three-level. This is easy and is described as the simplest version of the defense, where 2♣ handles all weak hands, whether one or two-suited in the majors, and 2♦(both majors), 2♥, or 2♠ are all sound overcalls.

If, on the other hand, you want to show everything possible, your partnership could adopt the version that identifies the longer major immediately, the version that identifies the specific minor immediately, or perhaps one of the several versions that allow you to effectively handle major-MINOR canapes (longer in minor).

Most of this is GCC legal. I have mentioned a few versions that require Mid-Chart, as well.

If interested, you can find it as an ebook with www.ebooksbridge.com or through Amazon or Barnes&Noble as a paperback.