[Jinksy]

tl;dr: everything about multi-Landy that distinguishes it from regular Landy makes it worse, and Cappelletti is just a worse version of multi-Landy.

I just had a discussion with a friend who asked me to explain why I think the titular conventions are some of the most overrated systems in bridge, and it seemed worth briefly writing up. To be clear, I'm talking about systems where after the opponents have opened 1NT, 2M shows 5major, 4(+) minor, and you use 2C or 2D to show (both majors) and (a long suit, possibly explicitly a long major suit) either way around.

Looking at the the overcalls in ascending order:

X
This is not integral to these systems, so you can play it however you like. No problem here.

2C showing both majors
I like this use of the bid a lot. I think vanilla Landy is a very good system.

2C showing a long suit
Fine, I guess. No strong views, except that it takes away your 2C-both-majors bid.

2D showing both majors
This is ok, but losing the ability to have partner bid a forcing 2D 'no preference and/or tell me more' means you have to overcall more conservatively, and occasionally makes it hard to find your games.

2D showing a 6-card major
This has many ugly properties:

• By making a (nearly) entirely forcing bid, you're giving prepared opposition free double, as well as a free pass-then-bid which gives them a tonne of extra room to figure out eg how strong they are by playing X as values, and occasionally saves them from 'competing' in overcaller's suit.
  
• By specifying that the suit is 6-cards, you're helping partner but also the opponents know when to compete, and I contend that the latter is the more important factor, since it's right to bid 3-over-2 much more often than it's right to bid 3-over-3.
  
• Lastly and leastly, when the hand is played in 2S (after 1N 2D P 2H / P 2S P), you've helped the opponents defend by telling them declarer has the extra trump, and when it's played in 2H (after 1N 2D P 2H / P ), you've put the strong hand on lead, which is a slight upside, but your partnership also has its likely stronger hand as dummy, which is at least a big a downside.

2D showing an unspecified 6-card suit
This has a slight advantage over the major-promising version in making the auction 1N 2D X P / P a live possibility - ie your values double could end with you defending 2Dx in an 8-card fit or worse. Other than that I don't have any concrete arguments against this, but my instinct is that overall, a constructive overcall is less useful the less it tells partner about your hand.

2M showing 5M, 4(+)m
This is the real disaster of the system, despite being its main purpose. The problem is a) that you can't be confident P has your minor, so you'll often miss a good fit when you have one, b) that adding an extra card to your trump fit gives your side substantially less than an extra trick in expectation (let's say it gives you 0.75 extra tricks for the sake of argument), and c) that you've the opposition exactly how to play/defend the hand.

Keeping a) and b) in mind, here are a bunch of bread and butter shapes you might expect to have opposite a 2S overcaller on which you'll usually want to pass:

3442, 3244, 3424, 2443, 2434, 2533, 2353, 2335, 1534, 1543, 1453, 1435, 3334, 3433, 3343, 2542, 2524, 2344(!), 2245(!!), 2254(!!)

The last three really show how ridiculous this system is - you have a guaranteed better fit available in a minor, but because the most likely fit is only one card better, by bidding on you'd still be reducing the overall probability you make your contract. So on all of these shapes, you've needlessly given the opposition vital information on whether they should stay out of the auction, compete or defend, and how to play the hand either way. For it to be worth competing at IMPs, you really need 3 cards more in both minors than in your major suit - ie shapes that are absurdly improbable in comparison, like 1444, 1345, 1354, 1255 etc. At MPs you might still pass the first three if you have enough values that you expect to make.

In the abstract, the weaker advancer is, the more appealing it is to bid on, since you're unlikely to make a 7-card fit on power, and the chance of a 9-card fit might be a gamble worth taking. The trouble with this reasoning is, if you use 2N as a forcing minor-asking bid and primarily do it when weak then, as per the previous sections, you've given the opponents a free double or pass-then-bid, giving them ample room to penalise you when you land in your more likely 7-or-8-card fit, and to compete or even find game otherwise. You could use 3C as pass or correct, which is probably better, but still gives up what might be a useful bid.

\screed

[sfi]

 Jinksy, on 2023-October-22, 06:03, said:

2D showing both majors
This is ok, but losing the ability to have partner bid a forcing 2D 'no preference and/or tell me more' means you have to overcall more conservatively, and occasionally makes it hard to find your games.

I haven't gotten much support in the past, but I think the 2D to show no preference is very poor. It's really common that we declare the hand when we open 1NT and they interfere. Most times when they have this sequence (2C majors - 2D equal length), I have used the distributional information to gain extra tricks. I would prefer to play 2D for the majors than 2C, just for this reason.

[apollo1201]

There is probably a good reason people call the convention Crapelletti…

2C one suited is awful. Responder bids 2H or 2S and your partner doesn’t know your suit and cannot compete if they have a shortage.

2D both M is the best way to play in 4-3 when 5-2 and even 5-3 would have played better.

Actually, the more you can specify suits, the best it is.

2D for one M has the pros and cons of Multi. So to me, it is not that terrible and if responder bids 2M, at least as advancer you know partner’s suit.

And if frees 2M for other uses like the Mm 2-suiter (while mM can be shown by X).

So while I agree with most of your post, I quite don’t know what your recommended system is.

2C majors, the rest natural? 2M promises 5 or 6? What do you do with a M/m 2-suiter - considering these shapes are more frequent than 6-cd M.

[Jinksy]

 sfi, on 2023-October-22, 06:48, said:

I haven't gotten much support in the past, but I think the 2D to show no preference is very poor. It's really common that we declare the hand when we open 1NT and they interfere. Most times when they have this sequence (2C majors - 2D equal length), I have used the distributional information to gain extra tricks. I would prefer to play 2D for the majors than 2C, just for this reason.

I am also not prepared to support this claim either atm (and intuitively it sounds wrong, but I play weak NT a lot, so it might be less true for me), but I'll keep an eye open for it from now on and see if it changes my mind

[Jinksy]

 apollo1201, on 2023-October-22, 08:53, said:

And if frees 2M for other uses like the Mm 2-suiter (while mM can be shown by X).

This seems like a strict downside

Quote

So while I agree with most of your post, I quite don’t know what your recommended system is.

I don't have a strong preference. I also play vs a weak NT quite often, so I like having a natural double available, though I doubt that's optimal vs a strong NT (I know some strong pairs play it, and I have for several years without exploring alternatives, but I honestly can't think of a single time I've been glad of it, and many times it's led to 1Nx= or 1Nx+1). I do feel strongly that conventional overcalls should be meaningfully non-forcing unless there's no good alternative.

A few years ago I chatted Mike Bell about a system he invented that merges a few, in which IIRC 2C showed 3+ spades and, 4+ of some suit (which, IIRC could also be spades), and enough distribution to overcall, which I've always wanted to try out, but have never found a willing partner.

Quote

2C majors, the rest natural?

I doubt that's optimal vs strong NT, but I think it's highly playable.

Quote

2M promises 5 or 6? What do you do with a M/m 2-suiter - considering these shapes are more frequent than 6-cd M.

By default, 5+, and with M/m I bid 2M and be glad I haven't helped the opposition out.

I can believe a 2M bid showing exactly 4 of the bid suit and 6 of an unspecified minor might be valuable. I can also believe you might want to play something quite different for H-showing than S-showing bids.

[Jinksy]

For the same reasons given here, while I'm sympathetic to a multi-2D, I would never combine it with Lucas 2s.

[apollo1201]

 Jinksy, on 2023-October-22, 09:50, said:

I also play vs a weak NT quite often, so I like having a natural double available, though I doubt that's optimal vs a strong NT

I can believe a 2M bid showing exactly 4 of the bid suit and 6 of an unspecified minor might be valuable. I can also believe you might want to play something quite different for H-showing than S-showing bids.

Thanks. Indeed I play against strong NT most of the time.

I also read some playing X = blacks or reds (minor usually longer, as with 5M and suitable distribution, they overcall 2M) and 2D = point or round. Seemed fun.

But the most fun I had was with don’t 🤣🤣

Better against strong NT obviously as it is hard to get constructive auctions and bid game with such a « loose » allowance

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Regarding 2H / 2S: you can play those bids as 5/4, but you can also require 5/5.

If I get in with 5/4, and partner showes up with 2344(!), 2245(!!), 2254(!!), I be happy, 2M will be a reasonable contract,
it may not be the best available, but reasonable.

As it is, if I need X for strength purposes, I like 2M as showing 4+M and 5+m, to increase the chance that partner is going
to look at the 3 level, if he has less than 3 cards in my major, but it is certainly not vital, and you can use X to deal with
the 4M /5+m hands, if you give up on the strength showing X.

The big advantage of Multi Landy is, that you have a bid to show both majors (1), and that 2H / 2S are natural in the sense that they
are likely get being passed out by partner, i.e. they have 1 round to decide, what to do, and that the systems makes sure, you dont get
in with 5332, which is also a big plus.

(1) The defence I play in my regular partnership, misses this feature, and it is a minus.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

You raise a lot of good points. I agree with most of them, and a lot of them slot neatly into my own philosophy on preempts. If the opponents are likely to own the hand, and if the opponents are likely to extract better value from spare bidding space than we are, our bids should be natural, not forcing, high frequency, and not overly descriptive. This way we get to disrupt them without giving away the hand when they end up declaring. The tricky part is to balance it against the risk of going for a number.

I like Landy. In the past I played Lionel, which was a lot of fun and scored quite well, though I think it mostly scored well because our opponents lacked experience in dealing with it.

The system where you use two-suited bids with coded (but unknown) suits is called CRASH. It uses three bids - the lowest for two suits of the same Colour (red or black), the middle for two of the same RAnk (majors or minors) and the third for two of the same SHape (pointed or round on top). It is typically intended as a destructive convention, so indeed exploring game after it suffers.

The 2♦ 'no you decide' response to a Landy 2♣ doesn't seem to cost me much. I recommend using that bid also with some hands with a 1-card length difference in the majors as well as certain constructive hands. This helps locate 5-2 fits rather than 4-3 fits (for example), with the tactical loss of giving LHO another bid. You also get to conceal some amount of shape if they take the push to the 3-level (or some other contract, I suppose).

One classical argument for having a both-majors call, in particular 2♦ or 2♣, is that we 'never' get to play 2m anyway over their strong 1NT (and if we have the strength to make that we should probably just pass and lead the minor suit against 1NT). That aspect seems to be missing from this discussion. I like having NF competitive bids, but the benefits of competing to 2m only for the opps to win it in 2M with extra information on the hand are slim. I'd like to see more suggestions on possible uses for these overcalls that don't suffer from this downside.

[akwoo]

No one seems to know it anymore, but I still like Astro (or its variant Asptro) - 2C shows hearts and another while 2D shows spades and another, with 2M being natural and presumably one suited.

I will play whatever partner wants, but I have a strong preference that 2M is natural and, opposite a strong NT, wide-ranging.

[mikeh]

I will never play cappelletti. The 2C bid is idiotic

But multi landy works well


I think most of the OP criticisms completely miss the boat. When RHO opens a strong 1N, your side is usually getting at best an average and usually a poor result against good opps if you leave them to their own devices. Good pairs have good, usually complex methods…mh own occupy many pages of notes. If your opps are bad, who cares what you play. So your methods should be designed with good opps in mind

When interfering over a strong notrump, you want to be able to act on as many decent two suiter a as possible. Furthermore, it’s imo losing bridge to bid on 5332 hands

So you want to bid on 5-4 hands, even more on 5-5 and on 6+ suits. However, if you have a 6 card minor, inadequate to bid 3m, you will usually find that responder has at least one major such that 2m doesn’t do much for your side

Thus 2D multi is good

Landy, btw, is awful. Why? Because you can’t show a major minor two suiter and you’ll have FAR more of those than just both majors

The point is to take away a free run. It’s not (primarily) to reach game.

I could go on but there’s good reason for multi landy remaining a common expert defence and even better reason I’ve not played against any pair playing either landy or capp in any of the high level events in which I’ve played

[AL78]

 mikeh, on 2023-October-22, 22:26, said:

I will never play cappelletti. The 2C bid is idiotic

But multi landy works well


I think most of the OP criticisms completely miss the boat. When RHO opens a strong 1N, your side is usually getting at best an average and usually a poor result against good opps if you leave them to their own devices. Good pairs have good, usually complex methods…mh own occupy many pages of notes. If your opps are bad, who cares what you play. So your methods should be designed with good opps in mind

When interfering over a strong notrump, you want to be able to act on as many decent two suiter a as possible. Furthermore, it’s imo losing bridge to bid on 5332 hands

So you want to bid on 5-4 hands, even more on 5-5 and on 6+ suits. However, if you have a 6 card minor, inadequate to bid 3m, you will usually find that responder has at least one major such that 2m doesn’t do much for your side

Thus 2D multi is good

Landy, btw, is awful. Why? Because you can’t show a major minor two suiter and you’ll have FAR more of those than just both majors

The point is to take away a free run. It’s not (primarily) to reach game.

I could go on but there’s good reason for multi landy remaining a common expert defence and even better reason I’ve not played against any pair playing either landy or capp in any of the high level events in which I’ve played

Interesting analysis. I didn't think Landy is awful, but that probably is due to the difference between an expert playing in expert circles and silly little me playing club bridge with a very mixed/biased weak standard. Landy has the advantage in simplicity, there is only one (initial) conventional bid and the responses are very limited and logical so easy to remember. I keep having issues with one partner trying to play multi-Landy in that she seems to have picked up a version which is different to the version I have looked up and studied, so we have disagreements on some of the continuations, and as a result we have stuck to Landy for now. Issues like this are accentuated when you are only playing once a month with any one partner, and worse when one of us is unavailable on one of those monthly sessions. Maybe playing in the UK where weak NT dominates makes a difference, I'm not sure, but I understand with multi-Landy against a strong NT you can play double as 4M/5m instead of penalties.

[P_Marlowe]

Landy is ok, but if you hold 5+ in a major, and dont get in with 5332, which is not a really good idea, you end up with
single suiter, i.e. 6+ in the major, and 54 hands.
In which case it makes sense to differentiate between those two types, the only cost being, that you cannot get in with a
single suiter in diamonds at the 2evel.

Using X as 4M and 5+m works well against strong NT, i.e. you have one method that works (with minor adjustements) well against
weak NT and strong NT, reducing complexity, and you can show all major single / two - suiter.
Being able to introduce minor single suiter only on 3 level is also not bad, a 2C intervention gives them X, i.e. no loss,
and a 2D does not hurt much either.

[mw64ahw]

I play 2♥ as both Majors (puts the pressure on immediately) in 2nd seat and 2♦ in 4th seat, leaving
2♣ as ♦ or 5M4+m and occasionally we do get to play in 2♦

[pescetom]

 AL78, on 2023-October-23, 03:53, said:

Interesting analysis. I didn't think Landy is awful, but that probably is due to the difference between an expert playing in expert circles and silly little me playing club bridge with a very mixed/biased weak standard. Landy has the advantage in simplicity, there is only one (initial) conventional bid and the responses are very limited and logical so easy to remember. I keep having issues with one partner trying to play multi-Landy in that she seems to have picked up a version which is different to the version I have looked up and studied, so we have disagreements on some of the continuations, and as a result we have stuck to Landy for now. Issues like this are accentuated when you are only playing once a month with any one partner, and worse when one of us is unavailable on one of those monthly sessions. Maybe playing in the UK where weak NT dominates makes a difference, I'm not sure, but I understand with multi-Landy against a strong NT you can play double as 4M/5m instead of penalties.

I don't think mikeh meant that plain Landy is awful in it's own right, just that it's awful as a substitute for Multilandy rather than a component of it, being a relatively low frequency intervention especially if one insists on 5-5 (and if like me one does not, then surely a 2D follow up is perfectly sensible).

As for partner learning the follow ups, I see no excuse for not doing so: it's only a few pages to study (and for you to write, if you don't have it off the shelf for some reason).

If you encounter any strong NT regularly then it would be crazy IMO not to add double as 4m5M over strong NT: the natural meaning is better to lose than keep and being able to get in with this high frequency combination is both valuable and a natural completion to Multilandy, even if not considered standard yet. [I don't encounter enough weak NT to comment on whether it makes sense against weak NT too, but FWIW we were advised to play X as natural punishment instead]

[Gilithin]

 pescetom, on 2023-October-23, 08:40, said:

If you encounter any strong NT regularly then it would be crazy IMO not to add double as 4m5M over strong NT:

Not only over a SNT but also as a passed hand over a Weak NT, as in P - (1NT) - P - (P) - X. The simple truth is that Multi-Landy is a good method, increasing the number of hands that you can act on compared with Landy alone. The 5M-4m hands are not "a disaster", except perhaps for rank beginners who do not have the judgement to determine when not to overcall. I do not consider it optimal but I do think it is amongst the best of the simple methods, which makes it ideal for club level players.

[P_Marlowe]

 pescetom, on 2023-October-23, 08:40, said:

<snip>
[I don't encounter enough weak NT to comment on whether it makes sense against weak NT too, but FWIW we were advised to play X as natural punishment instead]

The strength showing X is not primarily needed to go for blood, it limits the other bids, making it simpler / easier to
decide, if you should investigate a possible game, or if you should be content with a partial.

[AL78]

 pescetom, on 2023-October-23, 08:40, said:

If you encounter any strong NT regularly then it would be crazy IMO not to add double as 4m5M over strong NT: the natural meaning is better to lose than keep and being able to get in with this high frequency combination is both valuable and a natural completion to Multilandy, even if not considered standard yet. [I don't encounter enough weak NT to comment on whether it makes sense against weak NT too, but FWIW we were advised to play X as natural punishment instead]

I played Brozel for a while many years ago in fields domainated by the weak NT which uses X to show a single suited hand, and whilst it seemed to work ok most of the time, there were occasions where I was shut out of the auction with a strong balanced hand and the opponents were left to drift peacefully one or two off in 1NT compared to 1NTX at other tables. I eventually decided that giving up the penalty double was not a great idea so moved onto other defences like Astro.

[pescetom]

 AL78, on 2023-October-23, 11:55, said:

I played Brozel for a while many years ago in fields domainated by the weak NT which uses X to show a single suited hand, and whilst it seemed to work ok most of the time, there were occasions where I was shut out of the auction with a strong balanced hand and the opponents were left to drift peacefully one or two off in 1NT compared to 1NTX at other tables. I eventually decided that giving up the penalty double was not a great idea so moved onto other defences like Astro.

IIRC the probability of a six card suit is about 15% and a 4M5+m about 7%, so if the bid is useful as penalty over weak NT it would probably be better to leave it that way by an unpassed hand. As previously said, I do not have sufficient experience with weak NT to judge how useful penalty really is, either in obtaining useful punishment or by limiting other actions as P_Marlowe mentions. Over strong NT I can confirm that 4M5m is a clear winner.

[johnu]

 Jinksy, on 2023-October-22, 06:03, said:

Keeping a) and b) in mind, here are a bunch of bread and butter shapes you might expect to have opposite a 2S overcaller on which you'll usually want to pass:

3442, 3244, 3424, 2443, 2434, 2533, 2353, 2335, 1534, 1543, 1453, 1435, 3334, 3433, 3343, 2542, 2524, 2344(!), 2245(!!), 2254(!!)

The last three really show how ridiculous this system is - you have a guaranteed better fit available in a minor, but because the most likely fit is only one card better, by bidding on you'd still be reducing the overall probability you make your contract.

The last 3 (2344(!), 2245(!!), 2254(!!)) actually show how ridiculous it is to leave the contract in 2♠ instead of bidding 2NT to find a minor suit fit. Simulations show that 3 of a minor on a 4-4 or 5-4 fit is a far superior percentage contract than 2♠ on a 5-2 fit. These last 3 shapes are really lucky shapes for hands that don't have 3 card spade support.

For all the hands shapes with 3 card spade support, those are good hands to have. Partner has a 5 card spade suit, and you have 3 card support. What's not to like about a 5-3 major suit fit in a competitive auction over an opposing 1NT?

For the hands with <3 spades, 3 cards in one minor and 4+ cards in the other minor, it's still worthwhile to look for a minor suit fit. Sometimes 2♠ overcaller has a 5 card minor, sometimes you have a 4-4 or better minor suit fit, and even when you end up in a 4-3 minor fit, it plays about the same as a 5-2 spade fit and much better than a 5-1 fit. So there's a big upside to looking for a minor suit fit in this situation.

Yes, sometimes there's no good fit at a low level after an overcall of 1NT. That's life. Success favors the aggressive bidder in bridge but not all the time.