Double-Major

A Defense to 1NT by Ben Leitner

A bit of background on this one, since this is one of the few things here that is totally my own idea.  At least, I came up with it on my own, so if this already exists out there, my apologies to the inventor.  All I know is, it never came up in any of the searching I did.  So, where did this all come from?  When playing at Caltech or, really, anywhere in California, most of my partners and I play Woolsey as a defense to 1NT.  But then my partner Brian and I earned the privilege of flying to St. Louis for the North American Pairs competition.  Once away from the west coast, we were no longer under the jurisdiction of the west-coast "all defenses to 1NT are allowed" rule, and, sadly, Woolsey is not GCC-legal as the 2 overcall shows an unknown long suit, something only and 2 are allowed to do, according to the GCC.

So, needing a different defense for our trip (and future trips away from the west coast), we set out to review other methods, of which there were many.  With each one, it just seemed like something was missing, according my own thoughts of what a defensive system should do.  So, I created my own, spending more time than I probably should have when I could have been doing more productive things.  Why?  Well, I wanted to see if I could, and I've always liked the idea of having my name on a bridge convention.  Unfortunately for the latter, when the system was done, the name Double-Major seemed appropriate (and maybe a little amusing).  Perhaps if this becomes popular, users of this method will eschew the name Double-Major, and do me the honor of saying they play "Leitner over 1NT."  On the other hand, I find it just as (if not more) likely that one day there will be a review of this system by some bridge publication and the expert panel will declare this to be the "worst 1NT defense ever."  Still, I can dream, right?

The Overcalls:

Ok, enough story.  This system is intended to be used over opponents' strong 1NT opening.  These bids can be used in either direct or balancing seat, if desired, but be aware that there is no penalty .  The overcalls and their meanings are as follows:

Bid Shows
Either one or both majors.  Partnership agreement determines the point and distributional requirements to make this bid. 
2 Either a single-suited (6+) hand, or 5+ and 4+/.  If this ambiguity is problematic, the single-suited hand type can be dropped from this bid and relocated to 3, where many other systems have it anyway.
2 Analogous to the 2 bid, this shows either 6+ or 5+/4+ in and a major.
2 and a minor, 5+/4+.  ( need not be strictly longer.)
2 and a minor, 5+/4+.  ( need not be strictly longer.)
2NT Both minors, at least 5-5.

Responses:

Here are the meanings of advancer's responses (assuming no interference), and the meaning of any rebids by overcaller.

Responses after

2 This shows any preference between the majors.
The preference need not be strong.  After this bid, overcaller's rebids are as follows:
 

2

 A major 2-suiter with significantly better .  Asks advancer to choose 2 or 2 depending on the strength of the preference.
 

2

 A signoff showing the single-suited hand.
 

2

 To play.  Either single-suited , or taking advancer's preference with both majors.
2 Indicates either no preference between the majors or a mild preference.  Overcaller signs off in 2 or 2, bidding either a single-suiter or choosing the better major.  In case of a tie, 2.
2 Strong preference by advancer.  Opener passes or corrects to 2 with a single-suited hand.
2 A good hand (with tolerance) wishing to explore further.  Overcaller's rebids are as follows:
 

Pass

 A weak single-suiter in
 

2NT

 A good hand with both majors.  Advancer can bid preferences at the 3-level much like at the 2-level.
 

3

 A bad hand with both majors.  Advancer can signoff in 3 of a major or bid 3 to have overcaller choose.
 

3

 A good single-suiter in
 

3

 A bad single-suiter in
 

3

 A good single-suiter in

After 2, advancer can pass, bid 2 looking for a major fit (overcaller bids his major or 3 with none).  Higher bids are natural and non-forcing.

After 2, advancer can pass, or bid 2 of a major.  Bidding shows tolerance for and at least one of , .  Overcaller passes with , corrects to 2 (with ), or corrects to 3 (with no major).  If advancer bids 2, it shows tolerance for both and and denies .  Overcaller passes with or corrects back to 3 without.

After 2 or 2, an advance of 2NT asks overcaller to bid his minor.  Further bidding is natural and nonforcing insofar as that would make sense. (4NT probably isn't).

After 2NT, all bids natural and NF, except those that can't be (for example, 5NT is probably pick a minor slam... why you'd do this after opponents open 1NT, I have no idea).

If the Opponents Interfere:

Few things are more annoying than opponents interfering over my interference.  After an overcall of 2 or above, any interference by the opponents causes all bids to be natural (except where this makes no sense, like cuebids) and NF.

Over an overcall of 2 many (dare I say most?) pairs play systems on.  If the opponents double 2 for Stayman, by advancer shows.... who knows?.  After a bid by responder of 2 or 2 as a transfer, a indicates 4 of the other major and a desire to compete if there's a fit.

After an overcall of , if the opponents or bid 2, advancer's bids are as above (a of 2 taking on the 2 meaning "any preference").  Advancer can also pass  to show values and a willingness to defend 1NT if overcaller has a good defensive hand (long strong suit and outside entries).  If the opponents enter with 2 or 2 as a transfer, a by advancer shows some support for the other major and a desire to compete with a good fit.  Higher interference causes all bids to be natural (except those that obviously can't be).