1NT Runout

[fromageGB]

I think Frances's contribution deserves a reply from a supporter of runout methods. Taking his points :

 

1. It is not a nightmare with a balanced responder hand. With more than a third of all hands I respond with pass. Partner with a 5+ card suit can easily bid it. Even if you start your runout with a bid, only a quarter all hands is it above 2♣, so again opener can play in his long suit, whatever it is, if he wants to. In fact, if responder has no 5 card suit, only one tenth of the time will he reply above 2♣, and that one time will be a bid of 2♦ (with my runout methods). This means that if opener has a 5 card suit and responder not, in only one hand in 40 will opener not be able to play in 2 of his suit. Hardly a constraint.

 

1. Having a bid that shows "clubs and a major" is not good practice. "'Something' and a lower" would be better. I said in my topic reply that the most important thing is to find your best fit, and while it is obviously better to define both suits, it is silly to have your anchor suit lower ranking than the alternatives.

 

2. I agree that the extra opposition possible calls made available by a transfer runout give room for them to determine whether game is on, but

(i) how many of your opponents have such sophisticated methods?

(ii) if they do bid game then you have lost the advantage of playing a preemptive mini NT, but you have lost nothing else. Without the mini they would find the game anyway.

 

3. I fully agree that it is nice to have a strong redouble available when playing the mini. That bonus is not lost if opener responds to your forcing pass with a redouble, as he often will if you do play (as I do) that the 1NT open denies a 6 card suit and denies a 5 card major.

[Finch]

I think Frances's contribution deserves a reply from a supporter of runout methods. Taking his points :

If thoughts could fry, you would now be a spam fritter

[Mbodell]

I agree with pass not forcing redouble.

 

1) 1NTx can be best spot

2) Puts fourth hand under pressure

3) Adam's reason.

Strongly agree.

 

I'm willing to occasionally end up at the 3 level in exchange for often getting to play 1ntX. Even when it isn't a good spot we often get saved by opponents. I like using an inverted psycho suction run out. This also has the good aspect that Frances mentioned that nearly all bids are non-forcing:

 

Over (P) - 1NT - (X) and 1NT - (X) I play:

 

pass - to play

XX - business w/ forcing passes now over their bidding

2♣ - (♣+♦) OR ♥, not forcing (all nf are sometimes passed even if not preference if not doubled)

2♦ - (♦+♥) OR ♠, not forcing

2♥ - (♥+♠) OR ♣, nf

2♠ - (♠+♣) OR ♦, nf

2nt - (♣+♥) OR (♦+♠)

3 level - same suits as 2 level, but now a constructive very distributional hand

4m - South African transfers

4M - to play

 

Over P - (P) - 1NT - (X) we give up the business XX and now get:

XX - puppet to 2♣, over 2♣:

pass - just ♣

2♦ - just ♦

2♥ - ♣+♥

2♠ - ♦+♠

 

and this lets us get all the 1 suiters and nearly all the 2 suiters at the one level (only the non-touching 2 suiters where the minor is preferred would force us to the 3 level).

 

To reiterate, 1ntx-1 white is almost always a good board, 1ntxx-1 not so much.

[MFA]

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

I agree that there are hands that play better in 1NTX than in 2 of a suit.

 

But it is not necessarily so easy to identify them in the bidding.

 

The real trouble for the weak NT is when the combined strength is very low. In those cases it is usually the percentage action for responder to run with any 4-4 and hope for trump tricks. But sometimes this is unsuccessful, for instance because the fit is bad, the opps are able to draw trumps or perhaps able to get ruffs. Etc.

These things are hard to know when one chooses to stay or to run.

[mikeh]

I accept that, in theory, playing the pass forces the redouble can be problematic.. there will be hands on which playing 1Nx'd is the best possible result. My experience is biased because I have always played rescues that don't allow that result, so I can't be sure how the opps would have behaved over our initial pass as responder... since we alert as forces a redouble, 4th seat is in different position than if pass suggested playing there.

 

But despite this, I have been reasonably happy with the method I currently play:

 

P = xx. Most good hands, but could be weak with non-touching suits or could be clubs and a major, with longer clubs, or both majors, with better spades than hearts

 

2♣/♦/♥: the bid suit and the next higher... if majors, then hearts better than spades

 

2♠ spades and clubs, 5 card spades

 

2N: gf big 2-suiter, not suited for 1N xx (or not wanting to let 4th seat bid)

 

3suit: same as 2-suit but more shapely

 

xx: forces 2♣: one suited runout

 

We do not allow the weak 1N to have a 6 card minor nor (usually) to be 5 minor + 4 major, nor is opener permitted to have a good 5 card major.

 

These constraints make some of Frances' concerns about running with 2-suiters less significant than they may be for others.

 

We play a different structure after 1N P P x

[mikestar]

100% with Frances on this one. Keep it natural. If not superior to more complex schemes, it is at least competitive with them and has much less memory load.

 

I like to to go one better on opener's redouble after responder passes. It is SOS looking for an escape to a 4-3 or better fit. With a five card suit opener just bids it.