[bigmax]

Watching vugraph of USBF trials I noted that Gitelman- Moss (btw. congrats) used dbl after opponents 1 nt which was explained as:

(1NT) - X - 1 suited with minor or both majors or good with S

Does anyone knows the rest of this defence?

[MickyB]

Their 2♦ was ♦+major as well

[csdenmark]

It is likely to be DONT conv. which also is correct for 2♦ as you say.

Some other conventions you can find here http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/conventi...sortstring=9d3a

Gitelman-Moss plays 2o1. It is Greco/Hampson who are playing Meckwell.

As I remember Fred is playing standard: DONT vs. weak and Capp. vs. strong. Both pairs of Welland Team playes variable NT range:

Rosenberg-Mahmood
Welland-Fallenius

[Elianna]

csdenmark, on May 26 2005, 04:04 PM, said:

Gitelman-Moss plays 2o1. It is Greco/Hampson who are playing Meckwell.

You do realize that what people play as defenses to NT can (sometimes) have no relation to what they play in their normal system? I mean, yes, there may be some correlation in that if pairs prefer highly artificial non-competitive systems, they are more likely to prefer more comples competitive systems then people who prefer an extremely simple system in non-comp.

My point is that just because a pair plays 2 over 1, it does not necessarily follow that they can't play Meckwell NT-overcalls.

Also, the double described by bigmax does not fit with the classic DONT double, but of course, they could be playing a modified version.

I don't claim to know what system they're playing, though, but what Justin (Jlall) says sounds highly likely, as is frequently the case with him.

[aray]

I do not have the guts to challenge Mr. Convention (CSDENMARK). Who knows the year 2005 version of DONT?

But yes Elianna, linking DONT with 2/1 appears a completely new concept!!

[csdenmark]

Thanks to the qualification of Team Ekeblad as USA2 for Bermuda Bowl we will all very soon know what Fred and Brad are really playing. I will be very surprised if they have adopted anything from Meckwell but I will certainly welcome that very much.

It is new to me if it is so that all kind of handling by a pair now is to be named a convention. I think such will very quickly cause more confusion than clarification. But OK - thanks for the information.

[helene_t]

"Meckwell" refers usually to either the partnership itself or to their defense against multi or defense against 1NT (there are probably some other convensions called "Meckwell" as well). Just like "Stayman" and "Walsh", which are also names for systems as well as for convensions, and "Bergen" which refers to at least three different conventions.

If it's not clear from the context, just specify "Meckwell over 1NT", "Meckwell against Multi" etc.

[Free]

It's certainly NOT a DONT double, since in DONT, 2♥ shows both Majors, and Dbl is singlesuiter, constructive when it's ♠s. I rather recognize the Meckwell Dbl (the defense uses a DONT 2♦ btw).

Rebids after 2♣ bid from partner:
pass = ♣
2♦ = ♦
2♥ = ♥ & ♠
2♠ = good ♠

You can even use 3-level bids to show very nice hands in any suit...

[P_Marlowe]

csdenmark, on May 26 2005, 04:04 PM, said:

It is likely to be DONT conv. which also is correct for 2♦ as you say.

Some other conventions you can find here http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/conventi...sortstring=9d3a

Gitelman-Moss plays 2o1. It is Greco/Hampson who are playing Meckwell.

As I remember Fred is playing standard: DONT vs. weak and Capp. vs. strong. Both pairs of Welland Team playes variable NT range:

Rosenberg-Mahmood
Welland-Fallenius

Hi,

I am not going to argue with you, but more normal
and standard would be

DONT vs. strong and Capp. vs. Weak NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joker_gib]

P_Marlowe, on May 27 2005, 09:18 AM, said:

Hi,

I am not going to argue with you, but more normal
and standard would be

DONT vs. strong and Capp. vs. Weak NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

It's clear !

Capp vs stong is awful convention imo !

Alain

[csdenmark]

P_Marlowe, on May 27 2005, 04:18 PM, said:

csdenmark, on May 26 2005, 04:04 PM, said:

It is likely to be DONT conv. which also is correct for 2♦ as you say.

Some other conventions you can find here http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/conventi...sortstring=9d3a

Gitelman-Moss plays 2o1. It is Greco/Hampson who are playing Meckwell.

As I remember Fred is playing standard: DONT vs. weak and Capp. vs. strong. Both pairs of Welland Team playes variable NT range:

Rosenberg-Mahmood
Welland-Fallenius

Hi,

I am not going to argue with you, but more normal
and standard would be

DONT vs. strong and Capp. vs. Weak NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I dont play any of them myself so I have forgotten. Is DONT vs. strong and Capp vs. weak the standard? I am right now creating files for Neapolitan Club and here Kaplan states standard regarding NT. So it is really of importance to me to have this corrected if I have that wrong. I am not asking for your personal opinions only to be guided to have those 2 as they are used standard.

Thats not the point for me - only that Fred is playing standard and I think he has informed of those 2 - but I dont recall which over what - just that he played those 2 standard conventions.

But there has come something to the daylight for Meckwell approach. In fact it is so that Fred played partnership with Geoff Hampson in China a month ago. As I remember those 2 have been partners by the time both lived in Canada.

http://www.topbridge...ek/Ye050419.pdf

[P_Marlowe]

[quote name='csdenmark' date='May 27 2005, 09:40 AM'] Hi,

I am not going to argue with you, but more normal
and standard would be

DONT vs. strong and Capp. vs. Weak NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe[/QUOTE]
I dont play any of them myself so I have forgotten. Is DONT vs. strong and Capp vs. weak the standard? I am right now creating files for Neapolitan Club and here Kaplan states standard regarding NT. So it is really of importance to me to have this corrected if I have that wrong. I am not asking for your personal opinions only to be guided to have those 2 as they are used standard.

Thats not the point for me - only that Fred is playing standard and I think he has informed of those 2 - but I dont recall which over what - just that he played those 2 standard conventions.

But there has come something to the daylight for Meckwell approach. In fact it is so that Fred played partnership with Geoff Hampson in China a month ago. As I remember those 2 have been partners by the time both lived in Canada.

[url="http://www.topbridge.nl/news/dagboek/Ye050419.pdf"]http://www.topbridge.nl/news/dagboek/Ye050419.pdf[/url] [/quote]
Hi,

Normally I dont play those conventions either, and I dont
have a link to proof this.

The only thing I know is the following:

DONT was devised by Marty Bergen against a NT opening,
but he is american, and the strong NT is dominat in the US.

Capp. is a popular defence against NT in Britain, but there
the weak NT is dominant .

Playing DONT, one gives up the penalty double, which is no
big deal after opp. opended a strong NT, but this changes
to a certain extend, if the NT opening is weak.

Capp. is also played to some extend against strong NT, and it
may even be the standard defence in SAYC.
[url="http://www.annam.co.uk/sayc.htm"]http://www.annam.co.uk/sayc.htm[/url]

Hope this helps a bit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Now I am glad, I brought it up, I thought afterwarts, that I
have stated the obvious, which nobody bothered to correct.

[csdenmark]

Thank you Marlowe. I just checked Nickell-Freemann and they use Capp. as only tool. I take your comment and NF as the meaning of Kaplan is Capp/Hamilton/Pottage.

I will use that instead and not differentiate between strong vs. weak.

Thank you - now I have solved my problem

[Elianna]

P_Marlowe, on May 27 2005, 10:36 AM, said:

Capp. is also played to some extend against strong NT, and it
may even be the standard defence in SAYC.
http://www.annam.co.uk/sayc.htm

Actually, in SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card), all overcalls of NT are NATURAL. (In the link that you provided, Okbridge lists it in the optional section.)

Here is a link to the actual yellow card: http://www.bridgeprotour.com/bridge-pro-to...tion%20Card.htm (It is from the pro bridge tour.)

Also, if you agree to play "standard" with someone, and sit down and play bridge, I advice you to still discuss your defence to NT, as what is standard in some levels (at a club or small tourney in the US) is different than standard at other levels (ie expert levels in the US). Again, it's just hard to say what "standard" is, unless you're talking about an actual system.

[david_c]

P_Marlowe, on May 27 2005, 10:36 AM, said:

Capp. is a popular defence against NT in Britain, but there
the weak NT is dominant .

Actually, Capp isn't at all popular here in England. I've never seen anyone playing it. Indeed, until last month it wasn't even legal in most competitions. And we're not going to start playing it now, because it's rubbish

[csdenmark]

david_c, on May 27 2005, 07:16 PM, said:

Actually, Capp isn't at all popular here in England. I've never seen anyone playing it. Indeed, until last month it wasn't even legal in most competitions. And we're not going to start playing it now, because it's rubbish 

Might be so David. Even not of my concern I like to draw your attention to 'Pottage defense to 1NT'. Maybe that is more popular by you but in fact it is exactly the same.

Created by Julian Y. Pottage(born 1962) of Basingstoke in England. He is pension plan manager, photografer, bridge-teacher and -writer. He has also written a few books.

Julian POTTAGE

England

WBF Code: ENG&500394


• Writing Record
Time Publication Title
2001 Masterpieces of Declarer Play
2002 Masterpieces of Defence
2003 The Golden Rules of Competitive Auctions
2002 The Golden Rules of Constructive Bidding
2001 The Golden Rules Of Declarer Play
2000 The Golden Rules of Defence (and when to break them)


In Australia I have noticed they play it as Hamilton named after Fred Hamilton.

[bigmax]

Thx everyone for great discussion.
I was searching this online and found site http://www.bridgematters.com
that calls it ( or something similar) MAESTRO dbl and uses it with ASPTRO structure.

2C: Hs & another, if second suit is Ss it will be a shorter or a weaker suit than Hs.

2D: Ss & another, if second suit is Hs it will be a shorter or weaker suit than Ss.

Guess its also workable.

While at this site I suggest to all systems and conventions buffs to read Rodwell interview.