Conversations at a recent bridge break have caused me to revisit my defensive methods should the opponents double, or overcall, my partner's 1NT. The following notes are based on my understanding of the course tutor's recommendations. To me, this seems a very logical and attractive method. If anyone has any views on this topic, please email me. I should be interested to hear them.
For example, a non vulnerable 4© game is worth a mere 420 compared with 560 for 1NT redoubled making. Make any overtricks and you’re really in the money. OK, there may be hands where you can make 10 tricks in the major but only 6 in NT, but they are the exception rather than the rule and a bidding system should cater for the most common occurrences in preference to the rarities.
The proposed system assumes that if you are happy to play in 1NT doubled then you are at least as happy to play 1NT redoubled. If you decide to escape, the system caters for most hand types by handling both single and two suited hands.
The linchpin of the system is a forcing pass (alertable). As with a transfer, this gives you two bids to describe your hand and therefore doubles the number of sequences available.
Over 1NT-Double, pass shows either a hand strong enough to want to play or any weak single-suited hand. Any other bid shows a weak, ostensibly two suited, hand.
The pass is absolutely forcing on opener to redouble. Following opener's redouble, any further bid from responder shows a weak single suited hand and must be passed.
For the two suited hands, there are four bids available: Redouble, 2§, 2¨ or 2© (2ª is not really usable because it pushes you to the three level unless there is a spade fit). As there are six possible combinations of two suits, that means that some of these bids have to show more than one combination.
There are a number of ways of allocating the suit combinations to the bids but only two of these stand up to analysis as being are both logical and memorable. The "officially" recommended method is as follows:
|
Or, to put it another way: |
|
|||||||||||||||
| According to the course tutor, if you have a weak hand and are not sure whether you have a viable escape route, you could always try holding a poker face whilst passing both the double and partner’s forced redouble. In this situation, I am told, you can virtually see your left opponent losing weight at the table as he worries over whether he dare leave in 1NT redoubled and, as often as not, he will do the rescue for you. |
Thus the advice is, after 1NT-pass-pass-double, redouble from opener shows a 4 card club suit and pass explicitly denies it. The rest of this section I've made up, so please feel free to disagree with it!
Opposite the club-showing redouble, partner can pass if he thinks we can make 1NT. Anything else is natural (and probably ought to be passed by opener).
If opener denies clubs by passing the double, his partner may also pass if he thinks 1NT may make. Redouble shows a single suited hand opposite which opener must bid 2§ which may be passed or converted to responder's "real" suit.
A suit bid opposite the pass shows the suit bid, plus a higher ranking suit. As opener has already denied four clubs, a 2§ bid probably ought to show at least five (or a very good four?) plus a higher ranking suit.
For this reason, I have always preferred to have a system of constructive bids in this situation. For lack of any better ideas, and because it's easy to remember, my partner and I currently retain all our usual transfers etc., using a double of the enemy bid (whether it was natural or not) to mean "I wanted to say that (in its artificial sense)".
So, for example, after 1NT-2¨, double would be a heart transfer, 2© would be a transfer to spades. 1NT-2§-Double would be Stayman and so on.
| This system failed me when I was dealt the following hand: | ª893 ©K1074 ¨AQ7 §AJ9 |
The auction started 1NT from partner, overcalled 2ª on my right. |
Now where have I heard that idea? Our bidding system was clearly ahead of its time! The (apparently generic) term for such transfer systems is "Rubensohl", a merging of the name of its inventor (Jeff Rubens) with the name of its predecessor, Lebensohl.
I don't think it will serve any good purpose for me to try to describe Rubensohl myself, particularly as I don't yet feel familiar with it. However, I have discovered a very clear description on the web. It comes in two parts which may be accessed by following the links below.