In matchpoints +200 is usually a good score, especially when it is the result of setting the opponent by one or two tricks vulnerable. The old saying is that "200 beats all partials," and it usually means that the points were split fairly evenly between North-South and East-West. Not on hand #7.
Board #7
South dealer
Both sides vulnerable
| | North
♠ 10 9
♥ J 10 9 7 6
♦ 10 2
♣ 9 8 4 3
| | West
♠ 8 4 2
♥ K 8
♦ A K 8 7 3
♣ A 10 2
| | East
♠ A K Q 7 3
♥ 5 3
♦ Q 5
♣ Q 7 6 5
| | | South
♠ J 6 5
♥ A Q 4 2
♦ J 9 6 4
♣ K J
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| 1NT | P | 2♦ | 2♠ |
| 3♥ | P | P | P |
I sat South and dealt. This was actually one of the best hands that I held all night. Ken and I play a weak (12-14) 1NT, and my hand was about as weak as we tolerate for a 1NT opener. When 25 percent of your points are in jacks, it is hard to get excited as you set the 1NT card on the table. I'll explain what happened our table. Then I'll explore what could have happened.
West passed. More about that decision later. North had a terrible hand, but generally it is better to play in the weak hand's long suit. He bid 2♦, which was a transfer to hearts. East sensibly overcalled 2♠. I raised hearts to the three-level, which was followed by three passes.
When the dummy went down, I realized that we had a monopoly on the jacks, but only one of each of the other honors. That left our opponents with three aces, three kings, and three queens—twenty-seven high-card points. They captured seven tricks, which left me two short of the contracted amount. Since we were vulnerable, they got 200 points.
East was aghast when we looked at the traveler. At the other three tables East-West bid in spades and made five. One of them neglected to bid game and shared a bottom with our opponents.
It is wise to be careful about competing against a weak 1NT, and when you do you do not want to feel like the guy who brought only a knife to a gunfight. You should find a conventional tool that allows you to bid two-suited hands. You also need the ability to double for penalty. Several conventions qualify. My lesson notes for 10/30/2020 and 11/13/2020 describe the theory and practice.
Let's assume that East-West were using Cappelletti, a popular defense that is called "Hamilton" in the western U.S. West's hand is good enough to double for penalty. Most people play that the hand should be as good as the opener's, but I won't double a good team unless I have at least fourteen points.
If West had doubled, then Ken, if he remembered it, would begin our escape sequence by redoubling. If I got the chance, I would bid 2♣, which he would correct to hearts.
Probably the best way to play Cappelletti is with "systems on". That is, East would treat the double as opening two possible routes. Either she can leave it in by passing, or she can treat it as hijacking the 1NT bid and respond with Stayman, transfers, and whatever other conventions the pair plays when they have opened 1NT. East can then bid 2♥ to transfer to spades. Ken and I would be thankful that the double had been removed and pass throughout the remainder of the auction.
West must then complete the transfer. East would show his club suit at the three-level. Since he has the same number of spades and clubs, West would bid 3♠. East, knowing that his partner has an opening bid, should close out the auction with 4♠. QED.
Now let's let East and West trade face cards in diamonds. West, holding thirteen points, might now pass. When North bid 2♦, it would become East's responsibility to bid 2♠ (as she did). In this case I would bid 3♥. West should probably bid 4♠. He has spade support and as good a hand as East could hope for.
One of the keys to a good partnership is "support with support". East needed to know that West was not only agreeable to her suit, he also had a very good hand. He really needed to do something demonstrative after passing the first time.
I am pretty sure that East-West was playing a "natural" defense against 1NT. Even so, West was strong enough to double. It is true that he couldn't support a heart bid, but he has fourteen points and a balanced hand. It was also possible for him to overcall 2♦. The one thing that he cannot do is pass. I would have tried the double. In that case, North would (I hope) redouble to trigger the runout. East must jump to 3♠ to show interest in game, and West must then agree.
If, on the other hand, West decided to overcall in diamonds, East would be forced to choose between bidding spades and passing. Either choice probably would lead to a bad result.
So, West, not playing any conventional defense, had three choices after I opened 1NT: pass, double, or 2♦. I would never pass with his hand, and I would slightly prefer double to 2♦. If the five-card suit were a major rather than diamonds, I probably would bid the major. While I was deciding I would also be wondering why we weren't playing a system.
I know. Bridge is a game, and a game is supposed to be fun, not work. Nevertheless, I posit that it is worth spending a few minutes discussing the parameters for overcalls, doubling, and advancing when an opponent opens a weak 1NT. After all, they will have probably spent hours on their strategy when you interfere. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
I consider myself lucky that I was, for several years, able to play on Tuesday and Thursday evenings at the Hartford Bridge Club. There I faced several good pairs who used various flavors of the weak 1NT. So, very early in my bridge career I got quite a lot of experience (some of it very painful) trying to defend against weak 1NT openings.
The other way that I got practice was using the Bridge Baron program, which let me select the conventions used by the opponents. That was better than nothing, but the face-to-face experience made the lessons sink in.