Competing Over 1NT
Strong and Weak
| (1) | McGuinty (Strong 1NT) |
| (2) | Plaus (Strong 1NT) |
| (3) | Parker (Strong 1NT) |
| (4) | Geneva (Weak 1NT) |
| (5) | DISHPANS (Strong 1NT) |
| (6) | Drawbacks of DISHPANS Versus McGuinty |
| (7) | Advantages of DISHPANS Over McGuinty |
| (8) | Responsive Doubles After DISHPANS |
The Geneva conventional defence against a 1NT opening bid begins with the presumption that our purpose for overcalling varies with the strength of the 1NT opening bid itself.
Our ambition against a strong 1NT is primarily to dislodge the opponents from their best matchpoint spot at a minimalized risk while, perhaps, making it difficult for the opponents to find its best strain.
Against a weak 1NT, we may be interested in bidding constructively, and would also like to retain the option of penalizing the opening side.
It follows logically that, since our goals are different, our methods, too, should vary.
The Geneva Convention involves choosing one of the three following methods for dealing with the strong 1NT opening:
(1) McGuinty,
(2) Plaus,
(3) Parker,
while playing Geneva against a weak 1NT opening.
The partnership, then, will play "McGuinty Geneva", "Plaus Geneva", or "Parker Geneva".
"DISHPANS" is a solid alternative to McGuinty against strong 1NTs.
McGuinty Versus a Strong 1NT
One of the simplest and most effective methods of dealing
with the opponent's strong 1NT opening
is McGuinty, named after
the Phillip McGuinty of Canadian bridge lore.
With the most common 1-suiter, Overcaller simply bids naturally.
This precludes Opener's
partner ("Responder") from making any "free" point-showing double or redouble
which might land overcallers in hot water.
It also allows Overcaller to make a lead-directing bid, before Responder starts leaping to the
stratosphere.
A 2-suited or 3-suited Overcaller can double the strong
1NT for Takeout.
The Overcaller's
partner ("Advancer") will bid hir cheapest 3-card suit as the pair scrambles
to a fit.
The partnership may not always find it's best fit via this method,
but it will be able to compete with a modicum of safety.
| strong 1NT | Double | 2- or 3-suited hand. Takeout. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Clubs. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Diamonds. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Hearts. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Spades. |
| strong 1NT | 2NT | The Minors. |
McGuinty versus DONT
|
DONT doubles to show any 1-suiter.
McGuinty has the advantage of not
exposing the one-suited overcaller to a point-showing
Dedouble, which can land the defensive bidders in hot water.
Also, if Responder jumps to game in a suit, Advancer will not have to guess what to lead. While DONT is quicker at defining 2-suiters, it makes no allowance for 3-suiters. |
McGuinty versus Capp
|
Capp bids 2♣
to show any 1-suiter.
McGuinty defines the 1-suiter much quicker and without going to the 3-level with Clubs or exposing the 1-suited overcaller to a "free" double of the artificial 2♣. Again, Capp is slightly more efficient at showing some 2-suiters but cannot handle 3-suiters. The Capp method of bidding 2-of-a-major with major-minor 2-suiters precludes safe discovery of many minor fits. |
Plaus Versus a Strong 1NT
Plaus employs transfers to show the
overcaller's red suit,
bidding Spades directly and doubling to show Clubs.
A 2♥ overcall shows
the majors.
| strong 1NT | Double | Clubs. May have a second suit. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Diamonds. May also have a major. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Hearts. May have a second suit. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| The majors. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Spades only. |
| strong 1NT | 2NT | The Minors.
|
Simple, yes, but quite effective.
|
Plaus versus DONT
|
The Plaus Double and
its 2♣ and 2♦
transfers expose the partnership to the same dangers as the
DONT double.
But, Plaus has the advantage of guaranteeing Overcaller a rebid. It also leaves the unknown (i.e. Advancer's) hand on play. DONT allows the 2-suited Overcaller to play in two of the lower ranked suit. By transferring into the longer suit first, Plaus is better at bidding the 4-5+ 2-suiters. |
|
Plaus versus Capp
|
No contest here.
The Capp 2♣ overcall on any 1-suiter is very poor: maximum risk for minimum disclosure of information. The Plaus 2♥ is a much safer method of showing the majors than the Capp 2♦. The Capp 2-of-a-major, showing that suit and a minor, leaves Advancer wondering which minor Overcaller has. Will it be worth risking the 3-level ? |
Parker Versus a Strong 1NT
Parker uses natural overcalls 2♠, 2♥ and 2♦.
A 2♣ overcall shows Clubs and
a red suit.
A double shows either Clubs (with or without Spades
as well) or a 2-suited or 3-suited hand which does not include Clubs.
Advancer removes this double to 2♣, which Doubler
either passes (Clubs only) or removes to hir cheapest suit: 2♦
(Diamonds and a major), 2♥
(the majors) or 2♠ (the Blacks).
| strong 1NT | Double | Clubs (and maybe Spades) or a 2- or 3-suiter without Clubs. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Clubs and one or more higher ranked suit(s). |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Diamonds. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Hearts. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Spades. |
| strong 1NT | 2NT | The Minors. |
One final refinement to Parker:
With both Black suits, one Doubles and rebids 2♠ with superior Spades, bidding 2♣ directly (and 2♠ later, if asked) with superior Clubs.
You will notice that Parker, in essence, reverses the meaning of the DONT double versus an overcall. This, coupled with Parker's reliance upon the natural Direct Overcalls (2♦, 2♥, 2♠) gives Parker its alternate nickname, "DO".
|
Parker versus DONT
| For the most part, Parker prefers to bid the 1-suiters directly and the 2-suiters indirectly. This is a slight advantage owing to the greater frequency of 1-suiters and "lop-sided" (e.g., 4-5+ with a weak 4-carder) 2-suiters that may be treated as 1-suiters. While the Parker double has a number of meanings, it is less ambiguous than the DONT Double. |
|
Parker versus Capp
|
Again, no contest.
Parker bids its 1-suiters quicker and safer. 2-suited overcallers can always show the minor suit at the two-level with Parker, never with Capp. And, finally, Parker can deal with 3-suiters, which Capp cannot. The only advantage of Capp is that major 2-suiters are shown one round earlier than with Parker. |
Geneva Versus a Weak 1NT
Playing against a weak 1NT, our priorities change.
Now, we must retain a Double for Penalty — often based
on a good hand with minor-suit length.
And we are not so quick to discount the possibility of
our side being able to make game, especially in a major suit.
Towards this end, we play as follows versus a weak 1NT,
regardless of
whether we play McGuinty,
Plaus, or Parker against a
strong 1NT:
| Weak 1NT | 2
| 5+ Hearts. May have 4+ Spades if holding 15+ HCPs. |
| Weak 1NT | 2
| 5+ Spades, 8+ HCPs with a minor, 11+ if 1-suited, or 15+ if holding 4+ Hearts. |
| Weak 1NT | 2
| The majors, 8-14 HCPs. |
| Weak 1NT | 2
| Spades only, 8-10 HCPs. |
| Weak 1NT | 2NT | The Minors, 8-12 HCPs. |
| Weak 1NT | 3
| Clubs, 8-12 HCPs. |
| Weak 1NT | 3
| Diamonds, 8-12 HCPs. |
In the case of the 2-level suit overcalls of
the weak 1NT, Advancer can
proceed, with a promising hand, by requesting further information from
Overcaller.
Here is a chart of the investigatory replies and Overcaller's
possible rebids after the opponents have opened a weak 1NT:
| 2
| 5+ Hearts.
May have 4+ Spades if holding 15+ HCPs. | ||||
| Now: | 2
| Asks for a second suit. | |||
| Now: | 2
| Denies a second suit. 8-12 HCPs. | |||
| 2
| 4+ Spades with better Hearts, 15-17 HCPs. | ||||
| 2NT | Lebensohl, forcing 3 from Advancer.
| ||||
| Now: | 3
| "What kind of hand do you have, partner ?" | |||
| Now: | Pass | 8-11 HCPs with 4+ Clubs. | |||
| 3
| 8-11 HCPs with 4+ Diamonds､. | ||||
| 3
| 13-16 HCPs, 1-suited. | ||||
| 3
| 18-19 HCPs with 4+ Spades and superior Hearts. | ||||
| 3
| 4+ Clubs, 12-16 HCPs. | ||||
| 3
| 4+ Diamonds, 12-16 HCPs. | ||||
| 3
| 17-19 HCPs, 1-suited. | ||||
| 3
| 20+ HCPs with 5+ Spades and superior Hearts. |
| 2
| 5+ Spades. May have 4+ Hearts if holding 15+ HCPs. | ||||
| Now: | 2
| Asks for a second suit. | |||
| 2
| Spades only, 11-14 HCPs. | ||||
| 2NT | Lebensohl, forcing 3 from Advancer.
| ||||
| Now: | 3
| "What kind of hand do you have, partner ?" | |||
| Now: | Pass | 8-11 HCPs with 4+ Clubs. | |||
| 3
| 8-11 HCPs with 4+ Diamonds. | ||||
| 3
| 15-17 HCPs with 4+ Hearts and superior Spades. | ||||
| 3
| 13-16 HCPs, 1-suited. | ||||
| 3
| 4+ Clubs, 12-16 HCPs. | ||||
| 3
| 4+ Diamonds, 12-16 HCPs. | ||||
| 3
| 4+ Hearts
with superior Spades, 15-17 HCPs. | ||||
| 3
| 17-19 HCPs, 1-suited. | ||||
| 2
| The majors, 8-12 HCPs. | ||||
| Now: | 2NT | Asks for Overcaller's better minor. | |||
| 2
| Spades only, 8-10 HCPs. | ||||
| Now: | 2NT | Asks for Overcaller's second best suit. | |||
| 2NT | The Minors, 8-12 HCPs. | ||||
| 3
| Clubs, 8-12 HCPs. | ||||
| 3
| Diamonds, 8-12 HCPs. |
In this way, the Overcaller's hand is quickly limited — especially when showing major suit length.
|
Geneva versus DONT
|
We begin by conceding that a comparison between
DONT and Geneva is hardly fair:
DONT was designed for use against
a strong 1NT.
The absence of a Penalty Double eliminates DONT from serious consideration here. Also, the practice of bidding the lower ranked suit backfires here, making it difficult for the partnership to find its major-suit fits, when a part score — or even a game — may well make. |
|
Geneva versus Capp
|
Capp's one advantage over Geneva is
its popularity.
Geneva's "South African Transfer" style
approach "guarantees" that Overcaller, with
a strong hand and major suit(s) length, will be able to show
the major(s), and still have a chance to rebid —
in case the overcalling side has enough for game.
At the same time, a weaker Overcaller can reveal the major-suit length without unduly exciting Advancer. |
DISHPANS Versus a Strong 1NT
As the acronym suggests, DISHPANS is
very simple:
Over the opponents' strong 1NT,
Double Indicates Spades, Hearts Preferred After New Suits.
In other words, if you do NOT Double
their 1NT and make a call Lower
than 2♠, you show Hearts.
After 1NT-Dble, Advancer is expected to remove to 2♣,
unless Advancer has 5+ Spades or considerable length in the red suits.
| strong1NT | Double | 3 or more Spades |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Clubs and 3 or more Hearts. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Diamonds and 3 or more Hearts. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Hearts. |
| strong 1NT | 2
| Spades. |
| strong 1NT | 2NT | The Minors. |
| — | — | 1NT | Double | 3 or more Spades |
| Pass | 2
| Pass | 2
| Diamonds and 3 or more Spades. |
| — | — | 1NT | 2
| Diamonds and 3 or more Hearts. |
| — | — | 1NT | Double | 3 or more Spades |
| Pass | 2
| — | — | 5+ Diamonds. 0-2 Clubs. |
Spades, then, can be shown in two ways, directly and after doubling. The latter promises a Minor.
| — | — | 1NT | 2
| 5 or more Spades; usually -suited. |
| — | — | 1NT | Double | 3 or more Spades. |
| Pass | 2
| Pass | 2
| 5+ Spades and an unspecified minor. |
When Doubler rebids 2♠, Spades are assumed to be substantial. If the minor were superior, we might Pass Partner's 2♣, remove, or correct to Diamonds. In fact, this is the "raison d'être" for DISHPANS: while good majors can be bid directly (e.g., 1NT-2♥, or 1NT-2♠), we need a way to show a good Minor suit. We do so in a way which defines Overcaller's preference in the majors, in case Advancer has length in the "correct" major.
Question: "Preference ?
Does this mean that a Double doesn't show 4+ Spades ?
Or, that 2♣ and 2♦ overcalls don't promise 4+ Hearts ?"
Answer: Precisely. A double shows 3+ Spades, while 2♣ and 2♦ often show 3 Hearts, and would only be bid with five Hearts, if the Hearts are weak. A double followed by 2♥ always 4+ cards in both majors.
| — | — | 1NT | Double | 3 or more Spades |
| Pass | 2
| Pass | 2
| 4 or more cards in each major. |
| — | — | 1NT | 2
| 4+ good Clubs and 3+ Hearts. |
Only with a 6-card minor and 2-2 in the majors (or less),
do we need to Jump to 3♣ or 3♦ over 1NT to show that minor.
| — | — | 1NT | 3
| 6+ good Clubs and 0-2 in each major. |
Drawbacks of DISHPANS Versus McGuinty
The most striking deficiency of DISHPANS
is that there is no way to show Hearts and an inferior minor.
1NT-2♥ shows Hearts only.
Another disadvantage of DISHPANS
is that there is no way to show a Three-suited hand.
A third problem with DISHPANS is
that when Spades are our better major,
we are showing the minor Slowly.
We are susceptible to Responder bidding a higher ranked suit,
before we can get in our minor for lead direction.
For this reason, if our majors are equal (say, 3-3 in the majors),
we tend to treat Hearts as our preference,
and bid the strong minor directly.
Advantages of DISHPANS Over McGuinty
The major advantage of DISHPANS over McGuinty comes
in the safety factor.
Advancer knows what major is
safe to scurry to and
which major might not be.
After 1NT-2♣-Dble,
Advancer can bid 2♥ with
as few as four, if Advancer has 0-1 Club.
The second most important advantage to DISHPANS
becomes evident, whenever Advancer happens to have 5+cards
in the "preferred" major.
In showing hir minor, Overcaller enables the partnership to find
a 5-3 or better fit in the major, if such a fit exists.
The third case where DISHPANS *may*
work out better than McGuinty derives from the fact
that with 5+ GOOD Spades and a weakish minor,
we might just bid 2♠ and "bury"
the minor, in case Responder is able to
bid 4♥ immediately.
This being the case, after 1NT-Dble-4♥,
Doubler's partner should be inclined to lead hir
shorter Minor,
expecting that to be Doubler's real suit,
without revealing it to the opponents.
This may back-fire, if the opponents have a massive double fit,
of course.
Responsive Doubles After DISHPANS
If the opponents bid the "unpreferred" major,
any Double by Advancer up to and including 4♥
is Responsive, asking Partner to bid hir long suit and
showing Four cards in
the "preferred" major.
1NT-Dble-4♥-Dble, then,
shows 4 Spades and 3+ cards in both minors,
suggesting sacrifice.
As always, 4NT over their 4♠ is Takeout.
| 1NT | 2
| 5+ Diamonds and 3+ Hearts. | ||
| 4
| 4NT | — | — | 4 Hearts and 3+ Diamonds. |
In this way, Advancer caters to the possibility that we can play in the preferred major or, perhaps, even the unbid minor.
In the above auction (1NT-2♦-4♠-4NT), for example, Advancer may be 1=4=3=5.
On to
"The DIET TAB" article.
On to
"Golady 2♣" article.
Back to
Colin's Bridge Page
Back to
the Ward's Home Page
Links to
Other Bridge Pages