1NT escape when X is in pass out

[DWM]

I have looked this one up on the net and not come back with that much. Only thing i have seen is Pass/Redouble by opener shows/denies 4 clubs.

 

For reference

 

When the double is imediate we play the following

 

Direct bids = system on. (stayman/transfers)

 

XX force 2C then pass or bid diamonds for escape in minor

 

pass force XX to play or escaping hand with at least 2 4 card suits and bid up the line to fine a 7 card fit.

 

Any suggestions for what to play when a 1NT opening gets doubled in the pass out seat??

 

So far we have made this up.

 

By Opener

 

Pass = no 5 card minor

XX = 5 clubs

2C = 5 diamonds

 

After XX or 2C responder has to place the contract.

 

After pass

 

XX force 2C then pass or bid 5 card suit.

suit bids escaping hand with at least 2 4 card suits and bid up the line to fine a 7 card fit.

 

I know with the above sods law states that every time responder has a reasonable hand and pass out seat doubles opener will have 5 diamonds.

[Gerben42]

Opener should usually pass, he may redouble with a good 5-card suit.

 

Responder uses one of the many runouts schemes available where pass is NF.

[kenrexford]

Opener should usually pass, he may redouble with a good 5-card suit.

 

Responder uses one of the many runouts schemes available where pass is NF.

I like this answer.

 

Q: Any suggestions on run-out methods when fourth seat doubles?

A: I'd suggest using one of the many runouts schemes available.

 

It is sort of like this:

 

Q: I held such-and-such. What tools would you use to make a game try that this-and-that auction?

A: I like to use a structured game try, where each bid has a specific meaning that is useful for problems like this, and for other problems.

 

Or:

 

Q: What would you lead from Qxxx-Qxxx-Qxxx-x?

A: I'd suggest fourth best, but 3rd/5th works also.

 

:(

[Gerben42]

How nitpicky, what I meant is.

 

If your normal runout scheme after 1NT x has pass as NF, use that. If not, don't use the same scheme as it won't work.

 

When in doubt, simply bid naturally (but 1NT p p X p p XX should be scrambling, not greedy)

[Apollo81]

suit = 5+

XX = running

pass = interest in 1NTx :(

[kenrexford]

How nitpicky, what I meant is.

 

If your normal runout scheme after 1NT x has pass as NF, use that. If not, don't use the same scheme as it won't work.

That clarification still leaves a bit to be desired. As you can see, their pass of a direct double is, in fact, forcing. Thus, what you are now suggesting is to not use what they use after a direct double.

 

This has now become the famous doctor's advice:

 

"We do not think our structure after a direct double is good after a fourth-seat double. Any suggestions?"

"Don't use the same structure, then."

 

"My arm hurts when I raise it."

"Well, don't raise your arm."

[foo]

Basically, the question simply is whether to play the same scheme after a balancing penalty X as after a direct one.

 

Experts do not agree here. You have been warned.

 

My =strictly personal= opinion is that if you play a decent runout vs a direct penalty X and you are using 1N as a constructive bid (rather than a preempt such as in the Kamikaze NT), then there's not much gain in playing a separate structure vs balancing X's.

 

OTOH, the increased memory overhead of having two different structures can easily result in a very expensive "I forgot".

 

Unless you are advanced enough and in a stable enough partnership, IMHO the risk/reward ratio is not worth the added complexity.

 

There are lot's of decent runouts vs a constructive 1N X'd. They all start with pa by responder forces a XX. (This most experts =do= agree on.)

[awm]

My =strictly personal= opinion is that if you play a decent runout vs a direct penalty X and you are using 1N as a constructive bid (rather than a preempt such as in the Kamikaze NT), then there's not much gain in playing a separate structure vs balancing X's.

.......

 

There are lot's of decent runouts vs a constructive 1N X'd.  They all start with pa by responder forces a XX.  (This most experts =do= agree on.)

This doesn't work, Foo.

 

If you're using pass by responder forcing XX, then you can't play the same defense after the balancing 1NT-P-P-X. This is because forcing passes do not work when there are two passes in front of you. Sorry. B)

 

I also disagree that most experts use pass to force XX. There is actually substantial benefit in being able to play 1NTX without being forced to redouble, since this allows you to play 1NTX down one when that is a reasonable spot. The non-forcing pass also puts a lot of pressure on advancer when his hand is bad, since he no longer has two ways to run (either directly over the forcing pass, or wait for the forced redouble which is likely to be passed to him, since his hand is so bad).

[foo]

My =strictly personal= opinion is that if you play a decent runout vs a direct penalty X and you are using 1N as a constructive bid (rather than a preempt such as in the Kamikaze NT), then there's not much gain in playing a separate structure vs balancing X's.

.......

 

There are lot's of decent runouts vs a constructive 1N X'd.  They all start with pa by responder forces a XX.  (This most experts =do= agree on.)

This doesn't work, Foo.

 

If you're using pass by responder forcing XX, then you can't play the same defense after the balancing 1NT-P-P-X. This is because forcing passes do not work when there are two passes in front of you. Sorry. B)

 

I also disagree that most experts use pass to force XX. There is actually substantial benefit in being able to play 1NTX without being forced to redouble, since this allows you to play 1NTX down one when that is a reasonable spot. The non-forcing pass also puts a lot of pressure on advancer when his hand is bad, since he no longer has two ways to run (either directly over the forcing pass, or wait for the forced redouble which is likely to be passed to him, since his hand is so bad).

yes, in the case of a balancing X, pass forces a XX has to be by opener.

The point remains than pa forces a XX is the beginning of the defense.

 

 

On the other point.

You will =never= play 1NX -1 vs good opponents.

The pressure you are postulating simply does not exist IME with a nf pass.

 

The pressure comes when the hand after the forcing pass has to decide whether to bid (possibly rescuing Us. Possibly sticking Their side into a noose.), or pass when that potentially allows Us to play 1NXX (Making 1NXX is Game. Making 1NX is not).

 

From the 1N bidding side, the main point of a runout structure is to avoid going for -800. Everything on top of that is extra gravy.

[han]

yes, in the case of a balancing X, pass forces a XX has to be by opener.

The point remains than pa forces a XX is the beginning of the defense.

Forcing pass by opener, now that's just brilliant! B)

[rbforster]

(double post, see below)

[rbforster]

The balancing X situation is different from the direct X case where responder knows a lot about the NT hand and can judge well whether to pass, escape, force a XX for business, etc. Here, we have the well described hand taking considering unilateral action like bidding 2m when partner could have had a good hand and a desire to play in 1NX (or XX). I think you'd want a pretty unusual 1NT hand to do anything besides pass or XX (whatever you choose that to mean).

 

I often play 10-12 NTs, so by default we tend to think about escaping whenever there's a double. Even with this background, we pass almost always over the balancing X as the NT bidder. I think the one agreement we have is that XX shows 4+ spades (to help the scramble).

[Trinidad]

yes, in the case of a balancing X, pass forces a XX has to be by opener.

The point remains than pa forces a XX is the beginning of the defense.

Forcing pass by opener, now that's just brilliant! B)

It's an excellent example of 'out of the bidding box thinking'. B)

 

Rik

[foo]

The balancing X situation is different from the direct X case where responder knows a lot about the NT hand and can judge well whether to pass, escape, force a XX for business, etc.  Here, we have the well described hand taking considering unilateral action like bidding 2m when partner could have had a good hand and a desire to play in 1NX (or XX).  I think you'd want a pretty unusual 1NT hand to do anything besides pass or XX (whatever you choose that to mean).

 

I often play 10-12 NTs, so by default we tend to think about escaping whenever there's a double.  Even with this background, we pass almost always over the balancing X as the NT bidder.  I think the one agreement we have is that XX shows 4+ spades (to help the scramble).

Exactly 100% correct.

 

Folks, having the 1N bidder take unilateral action is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

In fact it sounds like Rob F plays exactly the way I do in most serious partnerships:

1N-pa-pa-(X);XX shows 4+S and

1N-pa-pa-(X);pa-pa-XX shows 4+H

(pa where you could XX here is now alertable as denying the hand that can XX)

 

The 1N bidder's hand is more limited than Responder's and in theory stinks for suit play. Having it act like the partnership Captain or pick a suit doesn't make much sense.

[DWM]

 

 

In fact it sounds like Rob F plays exactly the way I do in most serious partnerships:

1N-pa-pa-(X);XX shows 4+S and

1N-pa-pa-(X);pa-pa-XX shows 4+H

(pa where you could XX here is now alertable as denying the hand that can XX)

With this system how does Opener know if a 2C/D bid by responder in 7th seat (had to work that one out) is to play or suggestion where to play.

 

I assume you would bid 2C on either of these hands

 

2-3-4-4

2-2-3-6

 

How would Opener know what to do holding a fairly common hand type such as

 

3-3-5-2

[Gerben42]

That clarification still leaves a bit to be desired. As you can see, their pass of a direct double is, in fact, forcing. Thus, what you are now suggesting is to not use what they use after a direct double.

 

Yep, that summarizes it pretty much!

If you want more details, check out Apollo81's post. (let's keep it simple :P)

 

A direct XX by opener shows a decent 5-card suit, running is NOT allowed (maybe on a 6-card suit :))

[foo]

In fact it sounds like Rob F plays exactly the way I do in most serious partnerships:

1N-pa-pa-(X);XX shows 4+S and

1N-pa-pa-(X);pa-pa-XX shows 4+H

(pa where you could XX here is now alertable as denying the hand that can XX)

With this system how does Opener know if a 2C/D bid by responder in 7th seat (had to work that one out) is to play or suggestion where to play?

 

I assume Responder would bid 2C on either of these hands

=2344

=2236

 

How would Opener know what to do holding a fairly common hand type such as

=3352

Playing that a direct XX of a balancing X shows 4+S and a balancing XX of a balancing X shows 4+H ( :P ), Opener passes any bid by Responder where they have 3+ card support... ...and so does Responder if Opener makes a counter suggestion.

 

Yes, you may end up in a Moysian when there is a better fit available.

But finding Our best spot is no longer the point. Getting to any spot better than 1NX is.

 

...and let's be clear. No matter what runout structure you play, you =will= "go for a number" every now and then. The point is to minimize the chances of it. You can't reduce those chances to zero.