[mtvesuvius]

When you play a weak notrump you need a runout when your opponent doubles for penalty, what do you use, and what do you think is the most important thing the runout should do at IMPs and MPs? I like a DONT runout, however I'm sure there are other runouts that are more effective... Thoughts, comments, ideas?

DONT Runout:

1NT - (X) - ?

XX: 5 Card suit; puppets 2♣
Pass: Forces XX
2♣: ♣ + Higher suit
2♦: ♦ + ♥
2♥: Majors; ♥ preference
2♠: Natural*

1NT - (X) - XX - (P)
2♣ - (P) - ?

Pass: 5+♣
2♦: 5+♦
2♥: 5+♥
2♠: Natural*

1NT - (X) - P - (P)
XX - (P) - ?

Pass: Penalty, all subsequent Xs are penalty
2♣: Any 4333
2♦: ♦ + ♠
2♥: Majors; ♠ preference
2♠: Natural*

*There are 3 2♠ bids available, what should these be used as?
What modifications do you suggest?

[Apollo81]

Whatever your runout scheme, it's important that the doubler be put on lead as much as possible. It's usually much harder for the doubler to lead than it is for his partner to lead.

Thus I prefer a transfer oriented scheme:

pass: 5+♣ or two-suited with at least one minor. over this:
--Rdbl = "I prefer your other suit to clubs"
--2♣ = "I want to play in clubs iif you have clubs + something else"
2♣: 5+♦, or majors
2♦: 5+♥, or black suits (5-5 or better)
2♥: 5+♠, or minors (5-5 or better)
2♠: natural NF
XX: penalty oriented, so 1NT bidder feels free to act if advancer runs
3-level: natural NF

The nice properties of this are:

1. The auction 1NT-(X)-pass-(pass)-2♣ may be a 5-3 fit, 4-4 fit, or 4-3 fit. I think to most opponents it looks like a real fit, and I find they usually bid over it.

2. The doubler is usually put on lead

3. When it's our hand, opener need not pass out of fear (we can penalize them!)

4. On the rare (but not too rare) occasion that we want to preempt to the 3-level, we can.

The disadvantages are:

--We can't play 1NTx, so we don't use this scheme for strong notrumps (where I think the ability to play 1NTx is important).

--We have to play make-believe when responder is (4333).

[Echognome]

Always preferred the simple solution:

XX - They made a mistake. Double at will.
Pass - Nothing to say. 1NTX may be our best result. Opener is allowed to run to a 5 card suit.
2♣ - Natural or 2(3) suited scrambling. Will XX if the latter.
2♦ - Natural or (rare) both majors. Will XX if the latter.
2♥/♠ - Natural
2NT - ART, 2-suited GF

[fromageGB]

Our 1NT is often 10-12 so we use an escape mechanism perhaps more than most. My favourite is a variety based on "suction". It is good for both single suiters and two suiters, and in a tight situation a 4/3 can look like a two suiter ...
It is also good when you have both majors that you can tell partner which one is the longer, so he picks the right one.

Over an immediate double of the 1NT :
pass = transfer to redouble (see below)
XX = transfer to ♣, then
--- pass = ♣
--- 2♦ = ♦+♥
--- 2♥ = ♥+♠ with longer hearts
2♣ = transfer to ♦, then
--- pass = ♦
--- 2♥ = ♥+♠ with longer spades
2♦ = transfer to ♥, then
--- pass = ♥
--- 2♠ = ♠+♣
2♥ = transfer to ♠, then
--- pass = ♠
--- 2NT = ♣+♦

Over the pass, it is an invitation to redouble, though opener may bid a 5 card suit. After the XX :
--- pass = to play
--- 2♣ = split suits ♣+♥
--- 2♦ = split suits, ♦+♠
--- 2♥ = ♥+♠, equal length

If the 1NT is followed by 2 passes then a 4th seat X, you will have already made a transfer if you had a 5 card major, so you don't have to cater for that. If the X comes round to you the bids are :
pass = to play
XX = transfer to ♣, then
--- pass = ♣
--- 2♦ = split suits, ♦+♠
---2♥ = split suits, ♥+♣
2♣ = transfer to ♦
2♦ = ♦+♥
2♥ = ♥+♠ (must be 4/4)
2♠ = ♠+♣
2NT = ♣+♦

So the principle is transfer, then if you take it out is shows that and the next suit up. Split suits are always shown by the cheapest call. If you have both majors, initially transfer to the minor corresponding to the longer major, then bid hearts. With a 4th seat double, you only need transfers to the minor, so other bids directly show 2 suiters.

[fromageGB]

I notice that I haven't wholly answered the question.

I think the most important thing in both MPs and IMPs is to find the best fit. To do that it is important to be able to show all varieties of 2 suiters.
The second most important thing, if the above is satisfied, is to have the 1NT hand play the contract - more important than having the doubler on lead.

[JanM]

Maybe because our "weak" NT is 12-14, we don't like to play that pass forces RDBL. Sometimes 1NTX is the best contract. It's very hard to defend against 1NTx (sometimes you make when you should have been down several), and sometimes 4th hand will run when if you'd started running they would end up doubling you in something at the 2 level). OTOH, we haven't gotten rich from playing 1NTXX, so after playing Gnome's scheme for many years, we changed to a DONT scheme much like MV's, but with Pass being "natural."

1NT - (X) - ?

XX: 5 Card suit; puppets 2♣
2♣: ♣ + Higher suit
2♦: ♦ + Major
2♥: Majors
2♠: Natural, weak

1NT - (X) - XX - (P)
2♣ - (P) - ?

Pass: 5+♣
2♦: 5+♦
2♥: 5+♥
2♠: Natural, constructive

A more complicated structure might be worth it over a weaker 1NT, but this seems to work fine for us and is easy to remember and to play.

[helene_t]

I wonder how much it costs to play pass as a puppet to XX, in terms of extra options given to opps.

Obviously, E (assuming S opened 1NT and W doubled) can show two different types of weak distributional hands by either bidding directly or to wait to after the redouble. Are opps likely to have such agreements? How much does it matter in practice?

[Walddk]

JanM, on Feb 17 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

Maybe because our "weak" NT is 12-14, we don't like to play that pass forces RDBL. Sometimes 1NTX is the best contract.

Spot on, and that does not only apply to a weak NT. An escape method that will not allow you to play 1NT doubled is not worth playing in my opinion.

Personally I prefer Meckwell, but other methods are also playable.

Roland

[Apollo81]

Walddk, on Feb 17 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

JanM, on Feb 17 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

Maybe because our "weak" NT is 12-14, we don't like to play that pass forces RDBL. Sometimes 1NTX is the best contract.

Spot on, and that does not only apply to a weak NT. An escape method that will not allow you to play 1NT doubled is not worth playing in my opinion.

Roland

10-12 NT usually doesn't play very well in 1NTx

[ASkolnick]

Actually, we play a forcing to XX with some others because sometimes it actually is your hand and you want the NT bidder to compete with support.

1N-X-
XX - A minor or both majors
2C Forced
P Clubs
2D Diamonds
2H Majors

P Forces XX
After XX,
Pass To play
2C 3 suiter, including clubs, Suit definition is quite liberal.
2D 3 suiter, not including clubs, Same as above
2H Hearts, but really bad hand
2S Spades, but really bad hand

2C Clubs and Higher
2D Diamonds and Higher
2H Hearts, willing for NT bidder to compete
2S Spades, willing for NT bidder to compete

[Cascade]

mtvesuvius, on Feb 18 2009, 06:12 AM, said:

DONT Runout:

1NT - (X) - ?

XX: 5 Card suit; puppets 2♣
Pass: Forces XX
2♣: ♣ + Higher suit
2♦: ♦ + ♥
2♥: Majors; ♥ preference
2♠: Natural*

Shouldn't 2♦ be ♦ + either Major?

[Cascade]

We play:

XX Strong followed by takeout doubles by either partner

2♣ Clubs or any scramble - we run if necessary if doubled

2♦/♥/♠ Natural

2NT Strong distributional hand that does not want to redouble

3any Pre-emptive

We play the same method over all of our NT ranges (which start at 10-13). We have had some good successes with playing XX as strong even over the mini-NT.

I can't see the merit in methods that include PASS forces a REDOUBLE.

Even REDOUBLE forcing 2♣ allows the opponents two bites e.g. a direct 2♠ can show something different than a delayed 2♠.

Bidding your suit immediately puts more pressure on the opponents.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Feb 17 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Feb 18 2009, 06:12 AM, said:

DONT Runout:

1NT - (X) - ?

XX: 5 Card suit; puppets 2♣
Pass: Forces XX
2♣: ♣ + Higher suit
2♦: ♦ + ♥
2♥: Majors; ♥ preference
2♠: Natural*

Shouldn't 2♦ be ♦ + either Major?

No, with ♦+♠ he passes and bids 2♦ after opener's redouble. This is somewhat modified DONT runout, as I understand it.

[mtvesuvius]

Cascade, on Feb 17 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Feb 18 2009, 06:12 AM, said:

DONT Runout:

1NT - (X) - ?

XX: 5 Card suit; puppets 2♣
Pass: Forces XX
2♣: ♣ + Higher suit
2♦: ♦ + ♥
2♥: Majors; ♥ preference
2♠: Natural*

Shouldn't 2♦ be ♦ + either Major?

Yes, however if you look, you see that Pass then 2♦ is ♦ + ♠. You have the advantage of showing specific suits here. Modified DONT might be a better name .

[mtvesuvius]

I think the ideas about competing are interesting, but the only thing that I dislike about a lot of these runouts is that sometimes to show 2 suits, you will have to play on the 3 level, whereas a Meckwell or DONT would remove that problem. The problem is that the 3 level is often the difference between -300 and -500, which at MPs is big NV ns NV. However, at IMPs, this may be fine, because lose 5 vs win 6 on competetive auctions? Is this true, or is it the same at IMPs?

[helene_t]

That sounds backwards, having to play at the 3-level can be quite expensive at IMPs if they don't dare to double us at the 2-level but do dare at the 3-level. And competive bidding only wins significant IMPs if both parties can make their partscore.

[mtvesuvius]

helene_t, on Feb 17 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

That sounds backwards, having to play at the 3-level can be quite expensive at IMPs if they don't dare to double us at the 2-level but do dare at the 3-level. And competive bidding only wins significant IMPs if both parties can make their partscore.

True, unless the opponent's have a game. When 1NT is 12-14 it is more unlikely, but for 11-13 or 10-12 the opponent's can often make a game, making the difference in IMPs less.

[awm]

I'll agree with Cascade that I don't like "pass forces redouble" especially if this is my only way to show a good hand.

The problem that came up a lot when I played such runouts was the sequence:

1NT - (X) - Pass - (BID)

Now opener doesn't know whether responder has anything, so he can't really take any sort of action (i.e. it could be doubler has extras and responder was running, and advancer saved us, so he doesn't want to back into the auction again). But if responder actually does have the good "I wanted to redouble" hand, he is kind of fixed for a bid when things come back to him (i.e. he cannot handle both takeout and penalty double hands).

There is also the auction:

1NT - (X) - Pass - (Slow Pass)
XX - (BID)

Which I personally had ethical issues with, but multiple ACBL directors have ruled is not a problem.

[MarkDean]

awm, on Feb 17 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

I'll agree with Cascade that I don't like "pass forces redouble" especially if this is my only way to show a good hand.

The problem that came up a lot when I played such runouts was the sequence:

1NT - (X) - Pass - (BID)

Now opener doesn't know whether responder has anything, so he can't really take any sort of action (i.e. it could be doubler has extras and responder was running, and advancer saved us, so he doesn't want to back into the auction again). But if responder actually does have the good "I wanted to redouble" hand, he is kind of fixed for a bid when things come back to him (i.e. he cannot handle both takeout and penalty double hands).

There is also the auction:

1NT - (X) - Pass - (Slow Pass)
XX - (BID)

Which I personally had ethical issues with, but multiple ACBL directors have ruled is not a problem.

I agree with pass not forcing redouble.

1) 1NTx can be best spot
2) Puts fourth hand under pressure
3) Adam's reason.

I have a question about ethical situation,
in your experience what did the slow pass suggest?

[awm]

MarkDean, on Feb 17 2009, 03:13 PM, said:

I have a question about ethical situation,
in your experience what did the slow pass suggest?

In my experience, the slow pass is always a bad hand (i.e. doesn't want to defend 1NTX or 1NTXX) but without a biddable suit.

With a good hand the double is normally passed in tempo. I suppose a good distributional hand is possible (i.e. not sure whether to jump to the three-level or try to defend, or how to show a nice 5-5 or something like this) but I've never actually seen that hand come up at the table.

I've seen doubler pull on this sequence to random five-card suits on balanced hands, thus "saving" partner from having to scramble when redouble came back around.