Escape from weak 1NT doubled

[gwnn]

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.

I still wouldn't do it. If it goes 1NT-x-xx-2♠, I'd like to able to raise on xx xx AQxx AQJxx.

[JLilly]

(fairly inexperienced here, so there may be some errors in what follows)

Meckwell Escapes

 

Redouble - I have 10+ HCP, let's go for it!

Pass - Partner, bid 2C, I have 5+ card minor or 4-4 majors and I will correct if needed.

2C - I have 4C and 4 or a higher suit

2D - I have 4D and 4 of a higher suit

2h,2S - I have 5+ cards in suit

With Meckwell Escapes or other methods where XX is to play, what is the reasoning for XX and P having the meanings they do rather than the swapped? If responder has the HCP to As helene_t commented, especially at matchpoints, 1NTX making is likely to be a top, so there's no need to play in 1NTXX. And if it doesn't make, 1NTX NV down 1 is better than opps making 2M (though it's a wash at IMPs), which seems to be the likely alternative result, while 1NTXX NV down 1 is considerably worse. Similarly, XX gives opps one additional chance to avoid defending against the 1NT contract in which their side holds a minority of the HCP.

 

Although presumably it's optimal to have a different runout structure for 1NT-X-P-? versus 1NT-P-P-X;P-P-?, having XX rather than P ask partner to bid 2C allows the same structure to be used for the double coming both from the direct seat and from the balancing seat, since in the balancing-seat case, P would end the auction.

 

(edit: At IMPs, seems like opps are unlikely to let you play in 1NTXX, so if responder sincerely wants to play in 1NT, an auction that threatens to end at 1NTX is the best. Depending on the environment and the partnerships, there may be some second-guessing going on -- opps might think that the XX is a ploy to get them to bid and lest they give you the game bonus, and then maybe they think that that's what you *wanted* them to think, so they leave it in, ad infinitum.)

Edited July 28, 2017 by JLilly

[awm]

FWIW, I've recently been playing the following very amusing system:

 

Pass = to play

XX = clubs and another suit... or just diamonds

2♣ = just clubs... or diamonds and hearts... or hearts and spades

2♦ = diamonds and spades

2M = natural

 

The really funny part is the 2♣ bid. If this comes back to opener, he is expected to pass. So it's possible we end up playing 2♣ on a three or four card fit! But most opponents will not let us play two clubs undoubled on this auction. Some people have explicitly agreed they're in a force; but even if not they usually will not pass us out. If we are doubled, responder has the opportunity to clarify which two suits he holds.

 

Over redouble, opener bids 2♣ unless clubs is his shortest suit (in which case he bids 2♦). Responder's next call will place the contract.

[gordontd]

Nonsense - a modification of DONT is used by many people as an escape to 1NX.

Maybe this is a geographical thing - I've never heard of it. On the other hand I wouldn't have expected there to be much experience of dealing with penalty doubles of weak NTs in ACBL-land.

[Vampyr]

(fairly inexperienced here, so there may be some errors in what follows)

 

With Meckwell Escapes or other methods where XX is to play, what is the reasoning for XX and P having the meanings they do rather than the swapped? If responder has the HCP to As helene_t commented, especially at matchpoints, 1NTX making is likely to be a top, so there's no need to play in 1NTXX. And if it doesn't make, 1NTX NV down 1 is better than opps making 2M (though it's a wash at IMPs), which seems to be the likely alternative result, while 1NTXX NV down 1 is considerably worse. Similarly, XX gives opps one additional chance to avoid defending against the 1NT contract in which their side holds a minority of the HCP.

 

Although presumably it's optimal to have a different runout structure for 1NT-X-P-? versus 1NT-P-P-X;P-P-?, having XX rather than P ask partner to bid 2C allows the same structure to be used for the double coming both from the direct seat and from the balancing seat, since in the balancing-seat case, P would end the auction.

 

(edit: At IMPs, seems like opps are unlikely to let you play in 1NTXX, so if responder sincerely wants to play in 1NT, an auction that threatens to end at 1NTX is the best. Depending on the environment and the partnerships, there may be some second-guessing going on -- opps might think that the XX is a ploy to get them to bid and lest they give you the game bonus, and then maybe they think that that's what you *wanted* them to think, so they leave it in, ad infinitum.)

 

One problem is that if you have game, 1NTX will not be good enough.o

[Vampyr]

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.

 

Didn't see this before the thread was bumped up.i like it.

[dokoko]

Which system do you advise for NB partnerships?

An ex partner taught me to play Exit Transfers but it is quite complicated, using 4 suit transfers (including XX for clubs) to rightside the No Trump bidder if partner has a 5+ card suit, and having to remember the different approaches when doubled by RHO or LHO.

I have had a quick look at DONT and it seems simpler (same method for LHO or RHO double) but from what I can see it does not rightside opener unless partner's 5 card suit is clubs, and it doesn't allow a redouble to be left in for penalties by responder. Not sure how important these are when weighed against simplicity.

 

Actually I don't quite understand why a novice should bother about an escape system from 1NT doubled. IMO you should just play naturally (run into a long suit otherwise stay); LHO might also have a problem with 1NT doubled.

 

Against strong opposition you will remain underdog even with expert tools and against players of your level you may as well let playing skills decide. Work on those!

 

An escape system is good to get used to weak 43-Fits, but not really needed for better results. And if playing a weak NT doubled scares you, it would make sense IMO to switch to the strong NT. (I have played the weak NT for years without a conventional escape method - now I have one for the strong NT for playing on expert level).

 

That said, you may well choose one of the structures proposed here. But don't think new conventions make you a better player.

[Liversidge]

imo any method that doesnt allow you to play 1Nx is truly terrible, other than that it doesn't really matter :)

 

I have learned a lot from all the responses and partner and I have now settled on DONT, which we like - it is simple. "Redouble" says I have a 5+ card suit, "pass" accepts the double, and bidding a suit starts a scramble. And if the double comes from 4th seat opener bids a 5 card suit if he has one or passes. In the latter case partner carries on as above. So far it has worked every time, usually opps bid. I am sure it has it's weaknesses like all wriggles but it's better than nothing IMHO.

I have stopped fretting about the strong hand being on the table. As has been pointed out, this is more relevant when playing the strong NT.

As for switching to the strong no trump - it seems rather a drastic solution to this problem. Playing Acol in the UK, all our sources (books, websites, EBU system guide etc.) centre on the weak no trump.

[steve2005]

Maybe this is a geographical thing - I've never heard of it. On the other hand I wouldn't have expected there to be much experience of dealing with penalty doubles of weak NTs in ACBL-land.

On the contrary in ACBL the people playing weak 1N have experience playing over a penalty double. However, the opponents usually don't have much experience making penalty doubles and dealing with escapes.

 

I understand this is different elsewhere especially UK and some Commonwealth countries.

 

 

[helene_t]

One problem with agreeing to play artificial methods is that you need to discuss exactly which situations they apply to. For example, consider

1NT-p-p-x

2♣

 

and

 

1NT-p-p-x

p-p-2♣

 

 

You have agreeed that 2♣ by responder after a direct-seat double would be transfer to diamonds (or showing clubs and another suit, or whatever) but what about 2♣ by either partner after a balancing seat double? What if they double a 1NT rebid or a 1NT overcall?

 

If you have agreed to play 2♣ as "to play" over a direct-seat double, then there will be no doubt about the other situations. 2♣ will always be to play.

[Tramticket]

One problem with agreeing to play artificial methods is that you need to discuss exactly which situations they apply to.

 

This is of course true.

 

It is also true that opponents need to discuss their continuations after your artificial escape. Is a double for penalties or take-out? And subsequent doubles? Are passes forcing? What does it mean to bid your anchor suit? What does a 2NT bid mean? Even seasoned partnerships can have mis-understandings.