A few years back, conversations at a bridge break 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 and subsequent experience and tinkering. If anyone has any views on this topic, please email me. I should be interested to hear them.
The basic assumption is that the only things you might wish to do after the opposition
double partner's 1NT are play or escape. This seems thoroughly reasonable. There is no point
looking for a game our way because even if one were available (which is unlikely)
it is generally more profitable to play in
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. Only last night I recorded 1560 for 1NT**+2. OK, it doesn't happen very often but it's nice when it does). Granted there may be hands where you can make 10 tricks in 4 major but only 6 in 1NT redoubled, 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 systems described below therefore assume 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 systems cater for a large variety of hand shapes, not just single suited hands.
The linchpin of both systems 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.
In both systems, 1NT-(Double)-pass shows either a hand strong enough to want to play or any weak single-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.
This leaves us with five other viable bids over the double: Redouble, 2§, 2¨, 2© or 2ª. 2ª is not really suitable for an escape bid because it pushes you to the three level unless there is a spade fit so there are really only four escape bids available. I have recently started experimenting with using 2ª and all higher bids as constructive with interest in a major suit game. I shall leave it as an exercise for the reader to come up with a suitable structure to show either, or both, majors. The rest of this section is only concerned with escaping.
The tutor's recommendation was to use the four potential escape bids to show two suited hands. 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: |
|
|||||||||||||||
I'm afraid even that degree of simplicity proved too much of a strain on my poor brain. It also doesn't cater for the weak 3-3-3-4. We therefore settled on a different strategy...
I now play the 2 level suit bids to show a two suited hand - the suit named and a higher ranking.
If opener has three or more cards in the suit named then he can pass, secure in the knowledge we have found a seven card fit. If he has only a doubleton in the named suit then he bids the next suit up. This may or may not be partner's second suit. If it is then partner passes, if not he converts to his second suit. Given that the 1NT opener cannot have two doubletons, this ensures we always find a seven card fit at the two level.
Opener can also bid next suit up if he knows that partner's second suit, whatever it is, will be better. For example:
| ªQxxx ©Kxxx ¨Axx §KJ |
We have found a 7 card diamond fit but opener knows we also have an 8 card major fit. He should therefore bid 2© which responder will convert to spades if necessary. |
This leaves redouble available for the weak 3-3-3-4 hand. Redouble says "I am completely flat, you choose the escape suit partner".
The only hand shape not explicitly covered is the 4-4-4-1. With this you just have to pick your two best suits and bid as a two suiter.
And finally...| 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. |
If the opposition double comes from the fourth seat, it's all a bit harder because the forcing pass is no longer an option for responder. Opener can pass or redouble, neither of which push the auction up any higher. The advice of my tame expert was to use these options to show or deny a club suit, it being (apparently) notoriously difficult to locate a club fit in these circumstances.
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 per "What I now play" above.
I must confess I've never put this into practice. Generally speaking, opener will pass the double unless holding a remarkably good suit of his own. Responder now uses redouble to show a weak single suited hand or bids the lower of two suits as above. There is now no bid available for the 3-3-3-4 hand. My advice is to promote your best 3 card holding into a four card suit and bid as for a two suiter.
In my experience, enemy bids over 1NT generally fall into the "spanner in the works" category. After (say) 1NT-2©, it is still emminently possible for us still to have game on our way. I also like to have a penalty double available to discourage those pesky opponents from intervening too freely, but perhaps I'm old fashioned in that respect.
To avoid those spanners causing too much problem 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. |
Our system didn't handle game going hands with no stop in the enemy suit. The course tutor's recommendation was to incorporate a cue bid of the enemy suit into whatever system I played, to cover precisely this situation. He also advised me to take a look at Lebenshol. When I started to research it, though, I discovered that Lebenshol is now out of favour in certain quarters and that the modern cognoscenti prefer to use a system which incorporates transfers after an intervening bid.
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 "Rubenshol", a merging of the name Jeff Rubens, who initially proposed the idea, with the name of its predecessor, Lebenshol.
I don't think it will serve any good purpose for me to try to describe Rubenshol myself, particularly as I don't yet feel familiar with it. There's an article in Wikipedia which gives the basics.