Escape from weak 1NT doubled

[aguahombre]

Just asking here, from lack of experience with using weak nt, BUT: even though it has less stuff, isn't it still a good idea for the big hand which doubled to be on opening lead up to the weak nt hand rather than the other hand leading through it??

[gwnn]

Just asking here, from lack of experience with using weak nt, BUT: even though it has less stuff, isn't it still a good idea for the big hand which doubled to be on opening lead up to the weak nt hand rather than the other hand leading through it??

Yes that's why some people like and suggested transfers (by whoever is under the doubler).

[NickRW]

Speaking in general about transfers over various strength ranges of NT openers, they are more useful the stronger the NT range. Yes it is useful to have the lead come up to the NT opener, even if the range is quite weak. However, the responding is hand is something of an unknown quantity in terms of exact shape and, especially over the weaker NT ranges, can be quite variable as to strength as well. So there is virtue in keeping the responding hand concealed.

[nige1]

I like to just play natural. 2♣ is clubs - or if doubled and redoubled, can stand the other three. 2♦ similar; could be majors. After a protective double we play that redouble from either partner is both majors or both minors.

 

IMO, You must alert when you open 1N and partner replies 2♣ (say) that could be natural but which you never raise, because, systemically, it might instead show a shortage with other suits.

 

Opponents safest option may be to pass the response, especially if you are vulnerable, hoping that you will be left struggling in what might be a 2-2 fit or worse.

 

If you fail to alert, however, opponents, duped into assuming your bid to be natural, might be tempted to double, allowing you to escape to a 4-4 or better fit.

 

CORRECTION. SORRY: PaulG points out that EBU regulations stipulate that such bids are NOT alertable.

Edited July 28, 2017 by nige1

[benlessard]

"DONT (or whatever the politically correct term for it is) is better since if it goes, with your methods,

xx-2♦

2♥

and opener is 4333 he can't correct to spades as responder might not have spades. So we miss the spades fit."

 

 

If responder is 54??,45??,4?5?,?45?,5?4?,?54?

 

with Dont ill need to bid my cheapest suit and hope opener guess correctly. With my method I xx opener with 4333,3433,3343 will bid 2D and ill pick my 5 card suit.

 

So with ?54?/45?? ill play 2H and with 54??,5?4? ill play 2S.

 

There is also the 2 suiter with a 3 card fragment where XX allow you to sometimes stop in 2C or avoid a double, (op) 3325 vs resp 4243.

 

But by far the most important of all is when i hold a single suiter i dont want to XX, by XX first I allow LHO to show values and setup FP and bid directly when hes got crap, if I directly bid i put way more pressure on them and i want that pressure when I have a singlesuiter and know where i want to plya not when my hand can be played in 2 or 3 spots.

 

Also bidding the 5 card suit directly sometimes allow opener to raise (we play 1NT may have 5M), we raise vul with a knowned 10 card fit or sometimes fav with a 9 card fit and a doubleton.

[sfi]

Pass= pts or 4333

 

opener can XX in balancing seat with a 5 card suit, if your pass was any 4333 you bid 2C and if your pass was pts you convert.

 

Nice! You actually have a systemic way to tell the opponents you are in trouble and they should double you. It saves all that nasty guesswork.

[Vampyr]

IMO, You must alert when you open 1N and partner replies 2♣ (say) that could be natural but which you never raise, because, systemically, it might instead show a shortage with other suits.

 

Opponents safest option may be to pass the response, especially if you are vulnerable, hoping that you will be left struggling in what might be a 2-2 fit or worse.

 

If you fail to alert, however, opponents, duped into assuming your bid to be natural, might be tempted to double, allowing you to escape to a 4-4 or better fit.

 

People tend not to alert this. The problem is that it is very difficult to defend when you are told "clubs or the other three". Opponents will have to guess which they want to assume, and might not be on the same wavelength. And in any case, if neither opponent is short in clubs they may well not double. And in any case, letting the opening side play anything undoubled may not make up for a missed game or possibly slam.

[1eyedjack]

People tend not to alert this.

There may be a correlation between the popularity of an alert and whether the sequence is alertable. That said, the popularity does not define the requirement.

The problem is that it is very difficult to defend when you are told "clubs or the other three".

That may be so. But it is not our problem.

[nige1]

People tend not to alert this. The problem is that it is very difficult to defend when you are told "clubs or the other three". Opponents will have to guess which they want to assume, and might not be on the same wavelength. And in any case, if neither opponent is short in clubs they may well not double. And in any case, letting the opening side play anything undoubled may not make up for a missed game or possibly slam.

• Few people read the rules
• Fewer understand them.
• A tiny band of masochists try to comply with them.

Players rationalise their mushroom policy with the argument that if you divulge the truth about your understandings then it will only confuse your opponents. it seems to persuade many directors but it doesn't convince me.

 

I'll post this as a question in the laws forum,

[Vampyr]

There may be a correlation between the popularity of an alert and whether the sequence is alertable. That said, the popularity does not define the requirement.That may be so. But it is not our problem.

 

No? What is your defence to "clubs or not clubs"?

[1eyedjack]

No? What is your defence to "clubs or not clubs"?

I don't understand the significance of the question, but I will humour you. I would treat it as natural clubs until there is evidence to the contrary.

[benlessard]

I think that psyching 2C and XX later for SOS is just bridge,

 

However if the 2C followed by XX always show the 3 unbid suit 4441,(544)0 than for sure its an agreement so the 2♣ and should be alerted.

[Vampyr]

I don't understand the significance of the question, but I will humour you. I would treat it as natural clubs until there is evidence to the contrary.

 

Well, others may have different ideas about how to defend, and if undiscussed it might be a problem. Maybe not "our" problem, as in you and me, but others may come unstuck.

[Wackojack]

People tend not to alert this. The problem is that it is very difficult to defend when you are told "clubs or the other three". Opponents will have to guess which they want to assume, and might not be on the same wavelength. And in any case, if neither opponent is short in clubs they may well not double. And in any case, letting the opening side play anything undoubled may not make up for a missed game or possibly slam.

I think alert 2C and if asked say "happy to play in 2C undoubled". It could have been David Gold (or was it Townsend his partner) who gave this explanation at the table when I asked a few years ago.

[nige1]

... After 1N (X) ??

• 2♣/♦/♥/♠ = NAT. 5+ suit. (Or a TFR, with a very weak hand: in which case, responder will redouble if an opponent doubles). The dual nature of this bid requires an alert)...

IMO it is better just to read the regulations.

Players should not alert: ...A bid of two of a suit by responder when an opening 1NT has been doubled' date=' if it is ostensibly natural but there is a possibility that responder will remove or redouble for take out: this is considered general bridge knowledge

[/quote']

Wow a license to deceive.

 

Apologies, I was mistaken to assert that you need to alert these kinds of bid.

 

In fact, it's illegal to alert them.

 

PaulG points out that the EBU regards them as General Bridge Knowledge.

Sorry :(

[1eyedjack]

Personally I think that the EBU reg gets trumped if you have a more formal escape mechanism that happens to include an SOS XX of 2C.

 

What if responder would be showing a particular hand type by pulling his own 2C (X) to 2D and then XX that, which hand type is denied by XX of 2C? Would you not want the XX then to be alerted?

 

Aside from this particular sequence, which it seems has been singled out for particular regulatory treatment (presumably born out of a need for such regulation; what would have been the prior requirement, I wonder?), this is the first time that it has been suggested to me that you should tailor and abridge your explanations to something short of full disclosure with a view to what you perceive, at your discretion, are those aspects of your agreements that you think would be of interest to your opponents. Can't say that I am happy with it. Slippery slope.

[aguahombre]

Yes that's why some people like and suggested transfers (by whoever is under the doubler).

And, to your suggested complete xfer structure (early on in this thread), you might consider adding a little wrinkle:

 

xx=xfer to clubs OR weak with both majors. You pull partner's 2c xfer acceptance to 2♦ if you hold both Majors -- and still don't have to play the hand yourself. Again this is from ignorance since we don't use weak nt.

[Zelandakh]

And, to your suggested complete xfer structure (early on in this thread), you might consider adding a little wrinkle:

 

xx=xfer to clubs OR weak with both majors. You pull partner's 2c xfer acceptance to 2♦ if you hold both Majors -- and still don't have to play the hand yourself. Again this is from ignorance since we don't use weak nt.

better than this is to remove to 2♥ with both majors and longer hearts and 2♦ with equal/longer spades. You can actually go further than this too by adding the other 1-suiters to the mix if you are prepared to play in a non-fit undoubled, such as if you are only using the run out scheme at favourable. For example, using this structure:-

 

1NT - (X) - XX - (P); 2♣ - (X)

==

P = clubs

XX = a red suit (puppet to 2♦)

2♦ = both majors, equal/longer spades

2♥ = both majors, longer hearts

2♠ = spades

 

...but perhaps better is to rearrange things slightly (probably to what Stefanie plays):-

 

1NT - (X) - XX - (P); 2♣ - (X)

==

P = clubs

XX = both majors or 3-suited with short clubs; if partner bids 2♦ we pass the 3-suiter or bid the longer major, if they double 2♦ we redouble to show both majors and equal length

2♦♥♠ = natural

 

Of course both of these also have disadvantages. In the first you lose the ability to show a 3-suiter with short clubs and in the latter the uncertainty over whether diamonds are held might sometimes mean not playing in the very best fit (Opener is 2452 for example). The point is really that there is a lot more space than one might think if prepared to play in a silly contract undoubled, such as if only using the runout system at favourable vulnerability.

[aguahombre]

Looks like a good structure, Zel. But Gwnn's (and my suggested tweak) always end up with the weak notrumper as Declarer, and (good or bad) yours doesn't. If we want pard to always be the Declarer, we cannot bid a suit which could end up as trump; and that was the focus of my post even though the ZelMethod is better.

[Zelandakh]

Looks like a good structure, Zel. But Gwnn's (and my suggested tweak) always end up with the weak notrumper as Declarer, and (good or bad) yours doesn't. If we want pard to always be the Declarer, we cannot bid a suit which could end up as trump; and that was the focus of my post even though the ZelMethod is better.

It would perhaps be premature to name it the ZelMethod! ;) As I have mentioned, my preferred runouts are a slightly modified form of Spelvic and not really to be recommended for N/B (see post #47 for details). The theory of Spelvic is to get spades in quickly so as to be able to compete for the part score when it is right to do so and maximise the pressure on the opponents.

[helene_t]

If you're willing to play anything undoubled, and you don't believe in scrambling with 4432 hands, you could play something like:

pass=to play (opener could pull with 2425 and such if opps can be trusted)

rdbl=clubs, diamonds or hearts OR 4d5M OR some constructive hand with spades. The 4d5M hand sits for 2♣ but rdbl/2♦ to show H/S if it gets doubled

2♣=both minors OR 5d4M OR 5H4S. If opener prefers diamonds it should be fine, otherwise rdbl/2♦ to show 5d + hearts/spades

2♦=[4441] OR 4H5S. The latter can be shown with a 2♥ bid if they double.

2♥=5H4S

2♠=to play

[Vampyr]

better than this is to remove to 2♥ with both majors and longer hearts and 2♦ with equal/longer spades. You can actually go further than this too by adding the other 1-suiters to the mix if you are prepared to play in a non-fit undoubled, such as if you are only using the run out scheme at favourable. For example, using this structure:-

 

1NT - (X) - XX - (P); 2♣ - (X)

==

P = clubs

XX = a red suit (puppet to 2♦)

2♦ = both majors, equal/longer spades

2♥ = both majors, longer hearts

2♠ = spades

 

...but perhaps better is to rearrange things slightly (probably to what Stefanie plays):-

 

1NT - (X) - XX - (P); 2♣ - (X)

==

P = clubs

XX = both majors or 3-suited with short clubs; if partner bids 2♦ we pass the 3-suiter or bid the longer major, if they double 2♦ we redouble to show both majors and equal length

2♦♥♠ = natural

 

Of course both of these also have disadvantages. In the first you lose the ability to show a 3-suiter with short clubs and in the latter the uncertainty over whether diamonds are held might sometimes mean not playing in the very best fit (Opener is 2452 for example). The point is really that there is a lot more space than one might think if prepared to play in a silly contract undoubled, such as if only using the runout system at favourable vulnerability.

 

In the second version you could show both majors by initially bidding diamonds and then redoubling. Anyway none of this is what I play, since opener would not bid after XX.

[Vampyr]

Please delete

[gwnn]

And, to your suggested complete xfer structure (early on in this thread), you might consider adding a little wrinkle:

 

xx=xfer to clubs OR weak with both majors. You pull partner's 2c xfer acceptance to 2♦ if you hold both Majors -- and still don't have to play the hand yourself. Again this is from ignorance since we don't use weak nt.

*shrug*. I wouldn't do this. If opener has a good hand for clubs, he/she should be allowed to raise it. It's still a weak NT auction, it will still often be a partscore battle. We start from (say) an expected ratio of strength of about 18:22 (partner is about ~12, doubler about ~16), I don't want to design my system for the cases in which playing a 5-4 fit with 12:0 is going to be -1100 without any slam for them.

[helene_t]

*shrug*. I wouldn't do this. If opener has a good hand for clubs, he/she should be allowed to raise it. It's still a weak NT auction, it will still often be a partscore battle. We start from (say) an expected ratio of strength of about 18:22 (partner is about ~12, doubler about ~16), I don't want to design my system for the cases in which playing a 5-4 fit with 12:0 is going to be -1100 without any slam for them.

Some opps play that their double forces to 2♥ so we can safely bid 2♣ or 2♦ so in that case you can do all kind of nonsense with the 2♣ and 2♦ responses.

 

I am sorta joking. Of course we want to have a method that works against opps who play nonforcing passes, and opps who improvise by passing an FP when it is obvious that we are exploiting their methods.