Runout Methods

[mikeh]

I have heard many times the argument that there are times when the best spot for us is 1N x, and that accordingly any method that forces a redouble is flawed.

 

My suspicion is that most, and maybe all, of those who advance that argument haven't played much 'pass forces a redouble' and have simply reasoned that it is flawed.

 

I have played pass forces a redouble for many years, at competition ranging from club games to world championships, and in the hundreds of occasions on which this has arisen, not once...not once....have we had a bad result.

 

There was one hand in a BB round robin against an eastern European team when I passed and sat for the redouble with an 8 count, opposite a 10-12, and they could have beaten us 2 tricks...however, we made an overtrick. Now, one can't and shouldn't count on misdefence as a justification for the method, and one hand hardly proves anything.

 

However, my experience at the table is that the pass forcing the redouble creates enormous pressure on the opps.

 

Indeed, my view is that those who criticize the method are guilty of something that I sometimes do: they are assuming that the opps are infallible: that the opps will always do the right thing.

 

At imps, there is a world of difference between defending 1N x, expecting to beat it one trick, and defending 1N xx expecting to beat it one trick. Nobody is that good that they can be confident of a 1 trick set.

 

Look at it another way: if we are passing so as to play in 1N doubled, we are doing so because we hope to get out -1 OR because we hope/expect to make it. LHO, in 4th chair doesn't know which, assuming beads of sweat haven't broken out on our forehead. He is going to be under intense pressure. Indeed, Philking implicitly recognizes this when he says that 4th chair can run after we sit for the redouble.....yes, once in a while he'll have enough that he won't, but that is such a parlay....we have some values, otherwise we'd run, rho has most of the missing values....the more he has, the less LHO has and the more he will run. Indeed, my experience is that LHO almost always runs exactly when RHO has the huge hand.

 

In the meantime, it is obvious that having the forcing pass available adds to the ability to run accurately when one decides to run. This edge more than offsets any real world problem arising from being unable to play 1N x'd. Let me repeat: in literally hundreds of actual play, some at very high levels of competition, I have never played 1N xx down 1. There have been 2 times when I should have been down 2 (the BB and once in a round-robin at the Canadian team trials) but in both cases we made.

 

On balance then, in real life, pass forcing a redouble works very well indeed.

 

One side note for the posters who play an immediate strength redouble, and went down: don't redouble with strong shapely hands.....bid 2N as an unbalanced force.

[mycroft]

I agree with everything you've said, Mike, except that some people double 1NT for a 2 or 3 trick set and slip a trick, rather than a 1-trick set.

 

For all the "I haven't had a bad result playing 1NTxx", I'll tell you I've had exactly one bad result playing 1NTx (and the one bad result playing 1NTxx I posted above). And I'm sure I get to play 1NTx significantly more often than you feel comfortable playing 1NTxx. Sure, at IMPs, there's less pressure on 1NTx than 1NTxx, but at MPs, there's probably *more* - -180 is a *really bad* score, as is +100; +200 not so much, and -560 is worth what, a board a year? over -180 if you play every day.

 

So while you do get more lovely options to find a safe place to land, and while very few pairs actually *can* use the second round you frequently provide (with the pass and with at least some of the bids) - more can use the extra cuebid you give, of course - those that can, do. And when I redouble, opener knows when they run that I don't have a garbage hand looking to get out for the lowest minus we can.

 

A good runout system, understood and played well, will lead to "almost zero" bad scores playing after the double. I also want to look at getting some good scores when we *don't* play the hand.

 

Re: 4th hand running: I will note that when we were able to take 10 of the last 6 tricks (and it wasn't a shapely hand, I had a balanced 13), 4th hand had a quiet 2. It was vul at IMPs. They're good players, I'd say in the top 2 or 3 pairs in Calgary; they just trust their partner's doubles by agreement. I grant it was a small club night, so the downsides of going -7 or -1160 were minimal at best; but still.

[broze]

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.

 

This is the question really. Perhaps the issue has not arisen enough times for Cyber to make it a practically useful question but I don't know the answer. For example, if you had an agreement to vary your methods depending on the board number would that be illegal? If not you would surely have to disclose it. What about an agreement depending on what colour shirt LHO was wearing - illegal? If so it seems that if you have an agreement or a CPU that when RHO asks a question like this you will pass the double, then that is either illegal or it should be disclosed.

 

 

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

 

My point is that if you do it every time then he does know. Admittedly this is a theoretical question - I am not suggesting that you are unethical.

 

Sorry for derail.

[Cyberyeti]

It's a judgment call for me, I've probably passed it out maybe 3 or 4 times in 20 years of my main partnership, it's simply reading the opponent and guessing why he's asked the question. I've not got this wrong yet, but I'm sure it will happen some time.

[jallerton]

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

 

I normally play a method which copes well with the 4333 hands. It's also quite easy to remember.

 

Pass = to play in 1NT

2♣ = to play in 2♣

2♦ = to play in 2♦

2♥ = to play in 2♥

2♠ = to play in 2♠

 

Rbl = strong hand, to play in 1NTxx or suggesting doubling the opponents if they escape. [Alternatively, if you prefer to play in a suit contract when Responder holds 2 4-card suits, you can choose to give up showings the strong hands and play redouble as SOS.]

[Vampyr]

I have heard many times the argument that there are times when the best spot for us is 1N x, and that accordingly any method that forces a redouble is flawed.

 

My suspicion is that most, and maybe all, of those who advance that argument haven't played much 'pass forces a redouble' and have simply reasoned that it is flawed.

 

I guess I am one of those people, and while I have usually found the chance to play in 1NTx valuable, I cannot say that I have never had a bad result!

 

However, my experience at the table is that the pass forcing the redouble creates enormous pressure on the opps.

 

Fourth hand will have another go (which you refer to later in your post), whereas with a redouble for blood this is his last chance to decide. Although I can see that the latter may lose based on frequency. And I guess that the forced redouble puts pressure on the doubler too, which is something I had never thought about.

 

 

 

 

At imps, there is a world of difference between defending 1N x, expecting to beat it one trick, and defending 1N xx expecting to beat it one trick. Nobody is that good that they can be confident of a 1 trick set.

 

Isn't this the same whether you made a penalty redouble or sat for a forced redouble?

 

On balance then, in real life, pass forcing a redouble works very well indeed.

 

I will definitely try it and see how it goes.

 

Admittedly this is a theoretical question - I am not suggesting that you are unethical.

 

I have to admit that I think it is borderline at best.

[Vampyr]

It's a judgment call for me, I've probably passed it out maybe 3 or 4 times in 20 years of my main partnership, it's simply reading the opponent and guessing why he's asked the question. I've not got this wrong yet, but I'm sure it will happen some time.

 

When an opponent asks whether your partner's pass is 100% forcing, what he really wants to know is whether there is any chance you might pass it. There is, and you need to disclose that fact and the circumstances under which you would pass.

[Cyberyeti]

When an opponent asks whether your partner's pass is 100% forcing, what he really wants to know is whether there is any chance you might pass it. There is, and you need to disclose that fact and the circumstances under which you would pass.

 

There is no chance of me passing it unless RHO gives me so much AI that he wants me to bid that I can't ignore it.

[Vampyr]

There is no chance of me passing it unless RHO gives me so much AI that he wants me to bid that I can't ignore it.

 

Right. So you must disclose this.

[ArtK78]

Right. So you must disclose this.

Disagree. The agreement is that the redouble is 100% forcing. The laws of bridge allow you to pass. You need not disclose the laws of bridge.

[Vampyr]

Disagree. The agreement is that the redouble is 100% forcing. The laws of bridge allow you to pass. You need not disclose the laws of bridge.

 

That is not the point. The point is that there is a difference between the "agreement" and what Cyberyeti actually does.

 

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that if they do something, say pass here, that partner does not cater for I any way, they do not need to disclose it. This is not true; the opponents are entitled to information from partnership experience as well as agreements. If a bid is forcing in theory, but you sometimes pass it according to certain criteria (not including psyching or otherwise not having your bid in the first place), you must disclose the possibility and the criteria.

 

Perhaps this will be clearer if I supply an example: suppose you have made an agreement with your partner but you never follow it. Which do you disclose, the agreement or actual practice? Both? What if both you and your partner usually ignore the agreement? What if you ignore it sometimes?

 

An "agreement" means nothing if it is not followed.

[Cyberyeti]

That is not the point. The point is that there is a difference between the "agreement" and what Cyberyeti actually does.

 

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that if they do something, say pass here, that partner does not cater for I any way, they do not need to disclose it. This is not true; the opponents are entitled to information from partnership experience as well as agreements. If a bid is forcing in theory, but you sometimes pass it according to certain criteria (not including psyching or otherwise not having your bid in the first place), you must disclose the possibility and the criteria.

 

Perhaps this will be clearer if I supply an example: suppose you have made an agreement with your partner but you never follow it. Which do you disclose, the agreement or actual practice? Both? What if both you and your partner usually ignore the agreement? What if you ignore it sometimes?

 

An "agreement" means nothing if it is not followed.

 

There's a big difference between an agreement that is regularly breached and one that is breached <1% of the time. In the UK you don't normally disclose psychic bidding habits unless they're in a place that they're very regular weak 2-P-strong bid for example for some partnerships, I see this more akin to that situation, and the breaching isn't regular enough to need to disclose.

[steve2005]

I think if you pulled this passing a forcing XX trick and it benefited you. Then director would impose the fitting penalty of summary execution. lol

[Cyberyeti]

I think if you pulled this passing a forcing XX trick and it benefited you. Then director would impose the fitting penalty of summary execution. lol

 

This is what normally happens when you psyche in my part of the world, whatever ethical atrocity the opps commit, you will get ruled against if you've psyched.

[Vampyr]

This is what normally happens when you psyche in my part of the world, whatever ethical atrocity the opps commit, you will get ruled against if you've psyched.

 

Yes, this is true. We had a shocking one a few years ago which I will post in a new thread. Anyway how many times have the opponents asked whether pass was 100% forcing? I think that your <1% is a huge underestimate! and you should disclose.

 

What would you say, by the way, if you told the opponents that the bid was forcing, and they asked, "do you ever pass it?" and then asked, "when?"

[Cascade]

Disagree. The agreement is that the redouble is 100% forcing. The laws of bridge allow you to pass. You need not disclose the laws of bridge.

 

The laws of bridge require you to disclose not only your explicit agreement but also your partnership experience. If your experience includes the event of having passed this 'forcing' bid then you must disclose. You also have to disclose implicit agreements which may mean that you have to disclose that you have passed similar auctions (perhaps even with other partners).

[Cyberyeti]

Anyway how many times have the opponents asked whether pass was 100% forcing? I think that your <1% is a huge underestimate! and you should disclose.

 

What would you say, by the way, if you told the opponents that the bid was forcing, and they asked, "do you ever pass it?" and then asked, "when?"

 

I've been asked if it's forcing many many times over the years. They can certainly ask "have you ever passed it ?" in which case they'll get a true answer.

[Vampyr]

I've been asked if it's forcing many many times over the years. They can certainly ask "have you ever passed it ?" in which case they'll get a true answer.

 

But they will not get a true answer otherwise? This strikes me as a shocking attitude towards disclosure.

[Cyberyeti]

But they will not get a true answer otherwise? This strikes me as a shocking attitude towards disclosure.

 

You seem to be deliberately obtuse here, the bid is 100% forcing, I've passed lots of forcing bids over the years (and one this week, although not a 1Nx the last time I played, it got me 95.31% nationally in the simul), if we have to disclose every forcing bid we've ever passed this gets silly, we are allowed to use judgment.

[rmnka447]

Over the last year or so, my favorite partner and I have changed to a new runout scheme over a penalty double of our weak NT (11+-14) openers.

 

 

Originally, we had played that redouble required 2 ♣ by the 1 NT opener. Over the redouble, responder could pass with 5+ ♣ or bid another 5+ card suit.

 

If responder was willing to play 1 NT XX, responder passed, which was alerted as showing a willingness to play 1 NTxx. After responder passed, opener was required to redouble.

 

If responder was wasn't willing to play 1 NTxx and didn't have a 5+ card suit, he could start to run by bidding his cheapest 4 card suit. Bidding proceeded up the line until a fit was found.

 

 

Our other KO team members, who also play (11+/12-14) weak NTs, convinced us to move to their runout system. After a penalty double of 1 NT, redouble, 2 ♣, 2 ♦, and 2 ♥ are all transfers (redouble -> transfer to 2 ♣). They promise 5+ cards in the transferred to suit.

 

2 ♠ is natural and to play.

 

Without a 5 card suit or with a hand willing to play 1 NTx or 1 NTxx, responder passes.

 

After a pass by responder, opener can pass 1 NTx with a hand where he's willing to play it there. Otherwise, opener can bid a 5 card minor or redouble to request responder to start bidding suits (presumably 4 cards) up the line. After the redouble, responder can pass to play 1 NTxx or start bidding suits up the line.

 

 

The newer method has the advantage of concealing opener's hand and putting the doubler on opening lead when responder has a 5+ card suit. It also makes it easier for opener to run to his 5 card minor suit when holding one.

[helene_t]

I used to think that transfers were unsound because they give opps much more options. They can pass and bid next time (for example showing a weaker hand than direct action), they can double the tranfer (showing length in that suit in a safe way) or they can cuebid the suit transfered to (showing a weak distributional takeout, or some two-suiter, or whaterever they like). They can play a direct 2NT as Lebensohl and a delayed as scrambling. Or w/e.

 

But I am not sure if it matters that much in practice - few pairs have worked out a detailed defense against the runout transfers.

 

We had a nice auction:

 

(1NT)-x-(2♥*)-x

(2♠)-4♥

 

Having a 4-6 reds 15-count and partner having a balanced 6-count with five hearts, we found a game which nobody else found. But this was just a single incident, playing maybe 300 sesions at a club where almost everyone plays weak NT and runout transfers.

 

So I think it matters very little what you play as long as you know how to bid a weak hand with a 5-card suit, and as long as opps artificial doubles of your strong NT don't mess up your constructive auctions.

 

If responder was willing to play 1 NT XX' date=' responder passed, which was alerted as showing a willingness to play 1 NTxx. After responder passed, opener was required to redouble. [/quote']

Does this mean that pass only contains the hands that are willing to sit for 1NT redoubled? That sounds inefficient. Playing redouble as business and pass as a puppet to 2♣ gives you the exact same options but put a bit more pressure on opps. The point of playing pass as a puppet to redouble is that responder doesn't have to pass the redouble - he can also bid a suit which will show different 2-suited hands.

[gwnn]

deleted - redundant

[gwnn]

mikeh, you seem really fond of labelling people who oppose your view of undesirable qualities. In this case, people who criticise pass forces a redouble are either ignorant or naive (my wording - feel free to disagree with it). In this line of thought, what is Fred Gitelman guilty of in your opinion?

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/17848-weak-nt/page__view__findpost__p__174857

 

Could it be that he also has legitimate bridge reasons to disagree with you or is he also guilty of one of the sins you listed?

[Zelandakh]

Our other KO team members, who also play (11+/12-14) weak NTs, convinced us to move to their runout system. After a penalty double of 1 NT, redouble, 2 ♣, 2 ♦, and 2 ♥ are all transfers (redouble -> transfer to 2 ♣). They promise 5+ cards in the transferred to suit.

This method, usually known by the name Exit Transfers, is one I personally think is pretty bad despite its apparent popularity amongst UK club players. I would encourage you to look at the methods posted above by mikeh and myself and consider switching back to your old (one-suited) redouble but using the forcing pass more effectively than your previous scheme.