I played East on Hand #7. It was an embarrassing situation. I made a bid that I thought was forcing. However, my partner correctly—using standard methods—passed.
Board #8
West dealer
Neither side vulnerable
| | North
♠ Q 6
♥ J 9 3 2
♦ K 5 2
♣ A K Q 8
| | West
♠ K 9 7 2
♥ A Q 5
♦ A Q 10
♣ 9 6 4
| | East
♠ A J 8 4 3
♥ K 10 6
♦ 8 7 6 4
♣ J
| | | South
♠ 10 5
♥ 8 7 4
♦ J 9 3
♣ 10 7 5 3 2
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| P | 1♦ | 1NT | 2♠ |
| P | P | P | |
The bidding was probably different at every other table. My recollection is that Ken opened 1♦, but he might have opened 1♣. In any case North bid 1NT, I bid 2♠, and everyone passed.
At the other tables, West presumably opened 1NT. North could double for penalty or pass. In either case East transferred to spades. South crawled under a rock. East-West either bid game or stopped short. East's hand is certainly good enough to invite game by rebidding 2NT if not to bid it directly via 3NT. If East only invited, West must then decide whether to bid 3♠ or 4♠. All four declarers made eleven tricks. The play was not worthy of attention.
Our situation was different. Because our notrump range was 12-14, Ken was too strong to open 1NT. We had several ways of showing a balanced hand with 15-17 points, but they all require a second bid by the opener. Therefore, our opening bid of one of a minor was ambiguous. It might be the start of the sequence showing the strong 1NT opener, as it was in this case, or it might be a weaker or stronger hand with a long minor.
I was in unfamiliar territory. I could not remember ever having to deal with a 1NT overcall since we began playing weak notrumps. I made the mistake of thinking that I should use our 1NT defense adjusted so that double was penalty. I bid 2♠, which in that system shows five spades and an undisclosed four-card minor. I probably got this idea from the fact that one of my regular partners uses the Cappelletti* 1NT defense in this situation. A variant of the 1NT defense that Ken and I use is similar to Cappelletti.
Aside: A principle that this hand illustrated beautifully is that interference against pairs that play a weak notrump is most effective NOT when they bid 1NT, but when they open one of a minor. The weak notrump system depends upon opener being able to specify that 15-17 point balanced hand, and to do that he/she must take a second bid. So, when I play against an unfamiliar pair, I check their card for the notrump range.
Responder in a weak notrump system needs opener to take another bid if his hand is balanced and as strong as that of the overcaller. On the other hand, the 1NT overcall has used up the available bidding space. So, I propose that a pass by responder should ask opener to double if holding the strong 1NT hand. All other calls by opener would be to play. If opener doubles, responder can use Stayman and transfers, just as his/her counterparts at the other tables are presumably doing. If opener repeats the minor or does anything else, responder knows that opener does not have the strong notrump opener. So, in all cases her/his decisions are equivalent to those at the other table. Restoring this equilibrium is a crucial objective in the theory of weak notrump constructs.
I also think that a double by responder should indicate a hand that would be willing to play in 1NT doubled assuming that opener had the strong 1NT opener. That would be a balanced hand with 6-8 high card points. Opener should pass with a strong 1NT opener and bid game with a hand stronger than a strong 1NT opener. With a weaker hand opener should rebid the suit.
Other calls by responder would be to play.
I am open to other suggestions, but this seems optimal to me.
* Called Hamilton on the west coast.