Runout Methods

[jgillispie]

What are your ideas for runouts in these situaions:

 

1N(10-12, 12-14,or 15-17)-X(Penalty)-?

 

1x-X-XX-?

 

These are the only situations that come to mind as I type this, but I'm sure there are others...

[hirowla]

Here's a couple of ideas for the 1NT - X auction (although I think it is rare you need one for the 15-17 range - I need these because I play a 12-14 range!). I play both of these but with different partners.

 

1st option:

 

XX - both minors or diamonds. If you have diamonds and partner bids 2♣, just bid 2♦.

2♦ - both majors.

Other suit bids are natural and suggest 5+ in the suit.

 

2nd option:

 

XX - single suit. Partner bids 2♣ as pass or correct.

2♣ - ♣ and another suit

2♦ - ♦ and a major

2♥ - both majors

2♠ - spades (but tends to be weaker than when you XX).

Easy way to remember the suit bids - any suit bid promises that suit and a higher one.

 

The 2nd option allows you to show all 2 suited hands, but most people at the club prefer the 1st one for some reason.

 

In terms of the 2nd auction, not much to say. If you have a long suit, bid it and don't be afraid to jump if it is a 6+ card suit (partner knows you have no points). If you have nothing to say, don't say anything - partner can hopefully get himself out of it or the opposition may do it for you.

 

 

Regards,

 

Ian

[mikeh]

over any weak notrump and a direct double:

 

pass forces redouble, for either penalty, or a non-touching 2 suiter or both majors, with better spades than hearts

 

redouble forces 2♣, for all one-suited hands

 

an immediate bid of 2 of a suit shows that suit and the next higher.....2♥ shows hearts equal to or better than spades, and 2♠ shows the blacks

 

2N shows a 2-suited game force...the sort of hand on which we rate to make game yet may be going beat in 1N, so we don't want to lay 1N xx

 

3 level bids are weak, preemptive

 

I have played a lot of 10-12, and almost as much 11-14 or 12-14 and some 11-13, and this is the best runout method I have seen (I definitely don't take credit...Doug Fraser taught it to me, but I don't know if he came up with it)

[whereagles]

There are many runout methods out there, but few mention what to do with 4333s :)

 

Anyway, I like this tweak, which I made up after losing some part-score battles at matchpoints:

 

1NT (dbl) pass = either weak 1-suited OR strong penalty.

 

This allows

 

1NT (dbl) pass (2x)

dbl = take out

 

and

 

1NT (dbl) pass (2x)

pass (pass) dbl = take out

 

Thing is, opener cannot dbl 2x directly as penalty because responder may be weak.

 

But if the run out is made on a 1-suiter, opener can now freely dbl 2x for take out, for if responder has a weak 1-suiter he will pull to his suit and there will always be an 8-card fit + ruffing values. I.e. the contract should be fine.

 

Also, if opener passes 2x and responder is strong, he can also dbl 2x for take out confidently because if opener passes, he'll be sitting over the 2x bidder.

[hirowla]

There are many runout methods out there, but few mention what to do with 4333s :)

 

 

Personally, I've found prayer works well with 4333s :D

 

If the 4 card suit is a minor I'll pretend it's 4-4 and usually the opposition rescue me from it. Don't like to do that with a major as it makes it too attractive to double the run-out bid.

[mycroft]

http://blakjak.org/dbl_1nt0.htm is a good start.

 

I play "2♣ scramble": Everything is natural, but 2♣ could be as short as 1. Everything is to play, including 2♣ if it's not doubled. If it is, we assume that responder has 4 and opener has 3; if that's not the case, we pull to the cheapest 4-card suit, where the same rules (including the pass-if-not-doubled) apply.

 

I have a different attitude to runouts from MikeH: a weak NT is a preemptive call, and I am more concerned about not letting go of the pressure than making sure we end up in the least-worst contract we ever play in. So he does the pass-forces-redouble dance so that he can show every two suiter, but he gives up a lot. I play the "1NTx-1 white is a great score; 1NTx-2 is usually a great score into game; 1NTxx-the same not so much; 1NT is the hardest contract to defend perfectly" game, the "don't give 'em two chances to bid unless we want them to bid" game, and the "when they've stepped into our auction, don't let off the gas" immediate business redouble game - why give fourth-hand two different ways to show *his* bad (or good, if pass-is-a-runout this time) hands?

 

Note that I *also* give up a lot. There's a reason there's 4 pages of runouts on David Stevenson's site :-)

 

"Run before double" is a useful thought (which my system over NT unfortunately makes difficult).

 

Runouts over strong NT doubled are getting more popular; usually when it's right and the doubler is over the NT bidder it goes for 5 or 800 into nothing, and at least in North America, since it's rare to have a business double, you're already on the wrong side of the field (unless 1NT makes, of course).

[Cascade]

I like mycroft's method (without reading all of the details).

 

Second choice everything natural but this puts a bit more pressure on opener in fourth seat to run than when you can run into clubs without clubs.

 

Penalty redouble is invaluable. Especially against those who think they need to double (much) more often against weaker no trump ranges.

 

My last choice would be a method where pass forces a redouble.

[PhilKing]

I think playing pass as forcing a redouble is really bad. It's not just that sometimes we are happy to play 1NT double when we have a moderate hand that might make and has nowhere obvious to run, it's that we give the fourth player a free pass when they have an awkward decision.

 

Say they have balanced smeg - no problem. They can pass and see what happens, since sometimes their partner is very strong and we are running. And if it goes redouble-p-p they can bid 2♣ showing that exact hand (a weak hand with a five card suit runs immediately).

[steve2005]

With Strong NT (14-16, 15-17 or 16-18) I prefer to play systems on as the double is so often artificial and even if penalty we may not be in trouble so may just want to ignore double.

 

So to runout you have your normal transfers (and garbage Stayman if you play that) plus Pass and Redouble available

 

Pass - Puppet to redouble, toplay or to start run-out to 4+ suits. However, opener with 5+ card suit willbid suit rather than redouble. This is probably what you do with weak 4333 hands

 

Redouble - Puppet to2♣. Either Weak with 5+ ♣/♦ or INV with exactly 5 ♥/♠♠ but is not suitable handto transfer and bid 2N.

 

 

With Weak/Mini NT have to assume double is for penalty even if it's artificial as it can be converted for penalty.

 

Pass: to play, either a good hand or a weak flat hand withnowhere to run

 

Rdbl: SOS a weak hand, asks opener to bid 4+ card suit

 

2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠: weak hand5+ card suit, to play

 

2N: both minors, usually weak

 

 

 

 

3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠: 6+ cardsuit INV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrAce]

I think playing pass as forcing a redouble is really bad. It's not just that sometimes we are happy to play 1NT double when we have a moderate hand that might make and has nowhere obvious to run, it's that we give the fourth player a free pass when they have an awkward decision.

 

Say they have balanced smeg - no problem. They can pass and see what happens, since sometimes their partner is very strong and we are running. And if it goes redouble-p-p they can bid 2♣ showing that exact hand (a weak hand with a five card suit runs immediately).

 

I was about to post something similar. Especially the part that i used bold when quoting you. I played that pass forcing to xx long time and i do not anymore. Yes, i agree with MikeH that it brings some extra fancy options to the table, including not leaving opponents xx ed when they stick their nose into disaster. But none of those are as important as having the ability to just pass w/o forcing to xx for me. The fancy hands that can be shown via pass forcing to xx, or similar ones we used, just did not come, perhaps i was unlucky, not sure....

[mycroft]

I will warn that there is a problem with "immediate redouble"... RHO doubled, I XX for business with 12, 13 or so. They left it in - and doubler led a fourth-best spade - J.

 

We could take 10 of the last 6 tricks :-)

[Cascade]

I will warn that there is a problem with "immediate redouble"... RHO doubled, I XX for business with 12, 13 or so. They left it in - and doubler led a fourth-best spade - J.

 

We could take 10 of the last 6 tricks :-)

 

Indeed i have been off in 1NT XX with a 0355 hand that was cold for seven in either minor.

[Cyberyeti]

I think playing pass as forcing a redouble is really bad. It's not just that sometimes we are happy to play 1NT double when we have a moderate hand that might make and has nowhere obvious to run, it's that we give the fourth player a free pass when they have an awkward decision.

 

Say they have balanced smeg - no problem. They can pass and see what happens, since sometimes their partner is very strong and we are running. And if it goes redouble-p-p they can bid 2♣ showing that exact hand (a weak hand with a five card suit runs immediately).

 

 

I play a forced redouble method, but have a good record when RHO asks "so that pass is 100% forcing" or similar of finding a green card on the right occasions. I've not had the situation yet where somebody's had a good hand and done this.

[PhilKing]

I play a forced redouble method, but have a good record when RHO asks "so that pass is 100% forcing" or similar of finding a green card on the right occasions. I've not had the situation yet where somebody's had a good hand and done this.

 

Doesn't work so well with screens. B-)

 

I quite like the method in weak or average fields, but it is basically flawed.

[broze]

I play a forced redouble method, but have a good record when RHO asks "so that pass is 100% forcing" or similar of finding a green card on the right occasions. I've not had the situation yet where somebody's had a good hand and done this.

 

Interesting. When they ask that question surely it isn't ethical to answer 'yes' and then pass, especially if you've done it more than once?

 

As for the method, I never agree to play it. I'm amazed it is so popular. When the opponents double my 1NT I at least want the option to play 1NT doubled!

[Zelandakh]

My choice of runout system is a variation on Mike's called Spelvic with an additional modifuication of my own to account for the 4333 hands that whereagles mentions.

 

1NT - (X)

==

P forces XX, then

... - P = to play 1NTXX

... - 2♣ = ♣+ a red suit*

... - 2♦ = ♦+♥

... - 2♥ = ♥+♠ (longer hearts)

... - 2♠ and up = GF 2-suited freaks

XX forces 2♣, then

... - P = ♣*

... - 2♦ = ♦

... - 2♥ = ♥

... - 2♠ = ♠ (not wanting a raise)

... - 2NT and up = GF 1-suited freaks

2♣ = ♣+♠*

2♦ = ♦+♠

2♥ = ♥+♠ (spades equal or longer)

2♠ = ♠ and a suit that will stand a raise

2NT = minors

 

The modification is for the 3 sequences that show clubs that have been starred. The procedure with a 4333 hand is to pretend you have one club more than you do. Then if 2♣ gets doubled you redouble. So

 

3334 = XX then pass 2♣. XX if 2♣ gets doubled.

3343/3433 = P then 2♣. XX if 2♣ gets doubled.

4333 = bid 2♣. XX if 2♣ gets doubled.

 

I think this is more useful than the traditional SOS meaning within this context. Notice that if you did have the traditional have for showing clubs and then redoubling, something like 4441, you could start with 2♦ (♦+♠) and then run to 2♥ if that was doubled. Note also that you have to be careful to explain this fully if asked.

 

The decision on whether to go for more accuracy in reaching the best runout spot or for keeping the ability to ply 1NTX is not an easy one and there are fierce adherents of both methods. My experience has been that much of the time it makes little difference if the opps know what they are doing (we make 1 more trick in our 2 level contract than in 1NT) but that weaker opps err more often over the runout and also that the runout makes 2 more tricks more often than scoring the same number. But I can certainly understand those who take the opposite approach, especially if they do not include some method for dealing with the awkward 4333s.

 

For your other auction, it is traditional to play that fourth hand bids with a suit and passes as a scramble, although at least one BBF poster prefers the pass to be penalty.

[mycroft]

hmm, about 6 months ago, we had someone claim on this forum that he asks "is the [conventional] double [of partner's 1NT] forcing?" and passing rather than running out based at least partially on the answer. My suggestion there was "yes, it is." So why did I pass? "Because *I* have a penalty double" :-)

 

* he also said he got the bidder to leave the table before asking that question, which has its legal issues (in that it's at least arguable that he does not have that right).

[Cyberyeti]

Interesting. When they ask that question surely it isn't ethical to answer 'yes' and then pass, especially if you've done it more than once?

 

As for the method, I never agree to play it. I'm amazed it is so popular. When the opponents double my 1NT I at least want the option to play 1NT doubled!

 

In system it is forcing, I suspect the director arrives much faster if your reply is "well it was till you asked that question".

[Cascade]

I play a forced redouble method, but have a good record when RHO asks "so that pass is 100% forcing" or similar of finding a green card on the right occasions. I've not had the situation yet where somebody's had a good hand and done this.

 

Wouldn't you need to disclose this tendency?

[Cascade]

hmm, about 6 months ago, we had someone ask "is the [conventional] double [of partner's 1NT] forcing?" and passing rather than running out based at least partially on the answer. My suggestion there was "yes, it is." So why did I pass? "Because *I* have a penalty double" :-)

 

That doesn't sound forcing to me. Sounds more like it shows something and you have judged it best to pass and that it is normal expectation with what is a relatively frequent hand type that you will pass.

[mycroft]

Arguably, yes, but it was sufficient answer to the person who was going to decide whether to run out or not on whether they had to worry about playing 1NTx...

 

I would say it's as forcing as any other forcing call - "partner, you'd better be right." Or at least as forcing as any other "pure takeout" double (or "double shows suit X" as the case may be).

 

[Edit: the previous discussion was here]

[broze]

In system it is forcing, I suspect the director arrives much faster if your reply is "well it was till you asked that question".

 

But if, whenever the opps ask this question, your partner knows that you are going to pass (to take the extreme case) how can it be ethical for partner to respond that the bid is 100% forcing knowing that you are about to pass?

[helene_t]

Once I downgraded a 3334 18-count. After dbl-rdbl (showing clubs) I thought that with Qxxxx and out in dummy I could count seven tricks.

 

While it worked, I don't feel so good about explaining a bid as "forcing" when in fact I intend to pass it. The alternative (to give partner the UI that this time I won't treat it as forcing) is, of course, much worse.

 

Sometimes forcing really means forcing - you would never pass Stayman or transfer by an unpassed hand, or a 2♣ opening. But sometimes a "forcing" bid is made by a hand that is sufficiently limited that partner is able to see that game is unlikely. You can occasionally pass a reverse bid or a forcing 1NT response. Maybe even Stayman by a passed hand if you play weak NT.

 

Ideally opps should be told whether a call is really forcing or just "in principle" forcing.

[ArtK78]

But if, whenever the opps ask this question, your partner knows that you are going to pass (to take the extreme case) how can it be ethical for partner to respond that the bid is 100% forcing knowing that you are about to pass?

You are required to disclose your partnership agreements. If the agreement is that the redouble is 100% forcing, then that is what you have to disclose.

 

You are also entitled to take whatever inferences that you choose to take from your opponents' actions. You do so at your own risk.

 

I suppose that if the partnership has a history of passing the redouble, that should be disclosed. I don't know if the added information that the times when the redouble was passed was when fourth hand asked about the redouble is something that has to be disclosed.

[Cyberyeti]

But if, whenever the opps ask this question, your partner knows that you are going to pass (to take the extreme case) how can it be ethical for partner to respond that the bid is 100% forcing knowing that you are about to pass?

 

He doesn't know I'm going to pass, and it's me that makes the explanation of his pass.