1NT Runout

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :D.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[MarkDean]

Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I have definetly seen a lot of tempo issues directly over a weak 1NT opener as well.

[Free]

Keep it simple:

2X = to play

pass = to play

RDbl = sos, bid some suits, no 5 card suit (unless 5-5)

 

After RDbl, opener bids suits up the line, or 2♣ when holding a 4333.

 

This has worked very well for me, after both weak and strong NT.

[Finch]

The problem with posting on these forums for so long, is that every now and again I find myself making the same post that I made in the past.

 

I disagree with the premise that you "have" to play a runout scheme when you play a weak (or mini) NT. There are three big disadvantages to any scheme in which responder shows assorted 1- or 2-suiters:

 

1. Any method that forces responder to run is a nightmare when responder has a balanced hand. Suppose responder is 4423 and has to use some sequence to show both majors. What is opener, holding a 2236, supposed to do? Similarly, responder is 4324 and makes a call showing "clubs and a major" only to find that opener is 2533, and opener's 2H is "pass or correct". The days are long past when a 1NT opening promised 4333 or 4432 and every suit stopped... When responder has no 5-card suit it's quite possible that the best spot is to play in opener's long suit.

 

2. Any method where responder makes a forcing call of some form is an enormous advantage to the defending side. One of the resons you play a weak (or mini) NT is to make it harder for the opposing side to bid game. Suppose sitting in fourth seat you have a 3424 7-count and the auction starts on your left 1NT x 2S. You have enough values that your side might be making game, but you aren't certain. You might have a heart fit, but you might want to defend 2Sx on their 2-card fit. Yet the only calls you have available are double (either penalties or take-out by your choice), 2NT (either natural or lebensohl by your choice) or a 3-level cuebid, which forces game. While if the auction started 1NT x 2H (transfer to spades) you can safely double to show values, bid 2S as a distributional take-out double of spades, and pass then double to show a lighter take-out, bid at once (forcing) or pass then bid (lighter)... or whatever, but you have an extra round of the auction. It's even better if it starts 1NT x xx where xx shows "a 5-card suit somewhere, forces opener to bid 2C". Now you have a whole extra level as well as a bonus round of the auction.

 

This is why I particularly hate transfer responses by the doublee. At least when 2C is e.g. "clubs and a major" the next hand has to act with values, as there's a good chance it ends the auction.

 

It's true that many partnerships have not discussed their 'extraction' methods after the opposing NT is doubled, but for those that have, there's nothing they like more than to discover the other pair is playing a complex wriggle of some form.

 

3. It's quite nice to have the redouble as strong, particularly after a mini NT. If that sounds counter-intuitive, it's because people get incited into making light doubles when they discover your 1NT opening is 10-13 (or whatever). If they want to play double as showing 13+ balanced, I want to have a redouble available to show the same thing. Now I'm in a forcing pass auction and (just like point 2) can consult my partner.

 

My run-out "methods" are the following:

 

Pass = to play

Redouble = strong, forcing pass at the 2-level

2X = natural, weak

2NT = distributional game force (usually a two-suiter)

3X = natural, 6+ cards, pre-emptive

4X = natural, 7+ cards, pre-emptive

(These are the same as Echognome's)

As a bonus, not only do I think these are the best methods, they are very easy to remember...

I do play that 1NT P P x; xx or 1NT x P P; xx shows a hand that would like to run with a 5/6 card suit of its own. I also play this after 2NT P P x.

[Walddk]

Frances, are you saying that you don't play Allerton's rescue system?? I did not know there was one until yesterday I must confess, but there is (or at least was). Is Jeffrey not unhappy when you have chosen something else? Or is he yet another inventor who doesn't play his own convention?

 

Roland

[Finch]

Frances, are you saying that you don't play Allerton's rescue system?? I did not know there was one until yesterday I must confess, but there is (or at least was). Is Jeffrey not unhappy when you have chosen something else? Or is he yet another inventor who doesn't play his own convention?

 

Roland

Jeffrey & I play it at matchpoints, and only after our mini. Even then we are not certain we are doing the right thing.

 

I could have written another page or two about the difference between IMPs and matchpoints but thought I'd written enough...