How do you wriggle?

[John from Arran]

Over the weekend I was introduced to a new way of escaping from 1NT - X
- ??? and it seems to work very well. If partner holds a five card minor
then (s)he redoubles and, assuming a pass from fourth-in-hand, opener
always bids 2C. If partner has diamonds rather than clubs (s)he bids 2D
- end of auction. If the opposition goes on then there's nothing lost.

Expect to go 1 down, but that's much better than the possibility of
going down in 1NTX.

Does anyone else have a good way of wriggling out of 1NT - X?

--
John from Arran (UK)
ACOL - Weak No Trump

[Phil Sugar]

My partner and I do the same thing with the redouble. Unfortunately,
so far its only "use" for us has been to say "If I had redoubled,
would you have known what it meant?" :P

[Adam Beneschan]

Well, we have a way. I don't know whether it's a good way. Our
system is that responder redoubles to show one long suit, bids a suit
to show a takeout with that suit and the next higher suit, or passes,
forcing opener to redouble, which responder either passes for business
or bids 2C or 2D to take out with clubs-hearts or diamonds-spades.

It's only come up twice. Once, my partner had a weak hand with
4-3-3-3, which this runout system doesn't handle. I think he guessed
which two suits to show, and we ended up running out to a spot that
was just as bad as playing 1NT doubled, or worse.

The other time, my partner opened 1NT with an unusual hand including a
six-card minor headed by AKQ. When I passed the double, forcing him
to redouble, he passed instead, figuring he had seven tricks in his
hand and didn't want to hear what I had to say. This brought a
director scream from my LHO, who had passed her partner's double on
the assumption that she'd get another chance to bid. And another
director scream at the end of the hand after we had collected the
first 12 tricks.

So I guess the system worked in the latter case, but not for reasons
that had anything to do with the runout system itself. So I think
that the number of times that our whiz-bang runout structure has
actually helped us improve the contract has been, to date, zero.

-- Adam

[David Goldfarb]

In article <MPG.29a4fd194...@news.eternal-september.org>,

John from Arran <Nob...@Home.org> wrote:

>Does anyone else have a good way of wriggling out of 1NT - X?

Here's what I use:

XX: business, 10+ points. Forcing to 2NT, sets up forcing passes.

I feel very strongly that a good hand should redouble immediately.
If responder's pass could be strong or weak, then when fourth hand
takes out the double (as fourth hand often seems to do) opener must
pass lest responder be weak, and then responder will often have a
problem knowing how to compete.

Conversely, I recently held:

QT96
82
AK8
K982

And when my 1NT was doubled by a mediocre 14-count, my partner redoubled,
and RHO pulled to 2C, I could double and collect 1400.

(On that one, my partner happened to be 3=4=4=2, so he would probably
have reopened with a double that I could have passed. It was still nice
to be able to double directly.)

(Going back a little further, I remember an international player doubling
on a mediocre 15-count, and I got to redouble and watch my partner play
safely for only one overtrick.)

Anyway, to go on:
2any: To play. Basically any hand with 5 cards in the suit and no
game interest.
3any: This rarely comes up, but a weak hand with a long suit, essentially
wanting to preempt. (A hand with slam interest starts with a redouble.)

Pass: forces XX (or occasionally a bid of a good 5-card minor) either to
gamble playing with a good 8-9 or to pull with a balanced or 2-suited hand.
With a genuine 2-suiter, bid the lower suit; with a balanced hand, bid 2C.
The pull is explained as "showing that suit and a higher, 4-3 or better."

This lets you hit the opponents when they come in incautiously, and run
with a single-suiter, 2-suiter, or balanced hand. The only thing it
gives up is the ability to play 1NT-X. That *is* a cost, as sometimes
1NT-X is your best spot, but I think the benefits are worth it.

--
David Goldfarb |"Ah, Amerikanski humor. Is most funny.
goldf...@gmail.com |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
| We bomb now." -- J. Michael Straczynski

[Dave Flower]

Just a cautionary tale from last night:

After 1NT double, you hold:

9 6
K 9 5
A 8 6 4
A Q 10 9

this hand passed, and all passed. The doubler then reeled off seven
spade tricks

Dave Flower

[rhm]

So what does caution help?
Do you run scared from 1NT doubled with this hand or if you play RDBL
as strong will you refrain from using it here?

Rainer Herrmann

[Dave Flower]

> Rainer Herrmann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ask yourself what the doubler's hand is, and you come to the
conclusion that, despite your abundance of points, 1NT* is likely to
fail; in fact, it does, but 4H hakes on a 4-3 fit

Dave Flower

[rhm]

Opposite a strong notrump you have a point but opposite a weak NT?
Being any weaker than this, does not reduce the chance that doubler
has a good lead.
So tell us when you would stay in 1NT doubled or when you would use
RDBL in the natural sense.
Clearly hands where you will stop all 4 suits opposite a 1NT opening
being doubled, will occur may be once in a lifetime, assuming you are
a lucky guy.

Rainer Herrmann

[Dave D]

I use Helvic. You can use it to show two four-card suits, or a single
(5+) suited hand.

After partner opens 1NT and your RHO doubles you can ...

A) Show two touching four-card suits by biding the lower one
e.g. 2C shows Clubs and Diamonds, and 2S shows Spades and Clubs, etc.

B) Show two non-touching four-card suits by PASSING. This FORCES partner
to REDOUBLE, and on your next bid you bid the lower suit
e.g. 2C shows Clubs and Hearts, 2D shows Diamonds and Spades

C) Show a single suited hand by REDOUBLING. This FORCES partner to bid
2C, which you then pass or correct.

You don't lose a penalty double either. If you are strong, you go via
option B: Pass and partner will redouble, which you can then
subsequently pass for penalties.

The only problem area is with a 4333 shape (as responder). You will
either have to pretend your four-carder is a five, or pretend one of
your three-carders is a four and then show two four-card suits. You
can't pass, as this would be action B above.

All of these actions: Bidding the lower-touching four card, passing, and
re-doubling are artificial and will need to be alerted.

--
Dave D

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Adam Beneschan skrev:

> Well, we have a way. I don't know whether it's a good way. Our
> system is that responder redoubles to show one long suit, bids a suit
> to show a takeout with that suit and the next higher suit, or passes,
> forcing opener to redouble, which responder either passes for business
> or bids 2C or 2D to take out with clubs-hearts or diamonds-spades.

This is what I know as "Nilslands slinkninger" where
"slinkninger" (Swedish) actually can be translated to "wriggles".

Like you I have only been in the situation a few times. I don't
think they were noticeable either way. Often the opponents (at
our club level) will step in anyway.

I use this system when I play 1NTas12-14. With 15-17 I use only
natural bids when 1NT is doubled.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[judyorcarl]

What are the objectives?

In a weak notrump context, the general objective is to encourage the
opponents to play the hand, or at least to bid a suit. Then, if
responder is weak, the loss is minimized. If responder is strong, he
can consider doubling or bidding game, depending on what suits they
bid. And if the opponents are going to play the hand, a corollary
objective is to give away as little distributional information as
possible.

Here's what we do:

Redouble = 4+ in one minor, < 4 in the other. (Opener bids 2C unless
holding 5 good diamonds.)
2C = 4+ in both minors
2D = 4+ in both majors, presumably without 4+ in a minor
2H/S = 5+, presumably 1-suited
2NT = artificial gameforce, presumably freakish

Carl

[shuster]

On Feb 14, 6:28 pm, John from Arran <Nob...@Home.org> wrote:

While I posted a very complex defense, in most of my partnerships, I
use some form of Mosher (everything natural), which works great.
Especially when NV, it can be very important to be able to play just
1Nx when they double. If playing natural, I use OPENER's redouble to
show a long suit somewhere, to give partner the choice of staying in
1NT or running.

[shuster]

On Feb 14, 9:17 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 3:28 pm, John from Arran <Nob...@Home.org> wrote:
>
> > Over the weekend I was introduced to a new way of escaping from 1NT - X
> > - ??? and it seems to work very well. If partner holds a five card minor
> > then (s)he redoubles and, assuming a pass from fourth-in-hand, opener
> > always bids 2C. If partner has diamonds rather than clubs (s)he bids 2D
> > - end of auction. If the opposition goes on then there's nothing lost.
>
> > Expect to go 1 down, but that's much better than the possibility of
> > going down in 1NTX.
>
> > Does anyone else have a good way of wriggling out of 1NT - X?
>
> Well, we have a way.  I don't know whether it's a good way.  Our
> system is that responder redoubles to show one long suit, bids a suit
> to show a takeout with that suit and the next higher suit, or passes,
> forcing opener to redouble, which responder either passes for business
> or bids 2C or 2D to take out with clubs-hearts or diamonds-spades.
>

This can be slightly improved (called "twisted swine" which we play
over 10-12's).
XX forces 2C to show a 1-suited hand
Pass forces redouble, either for penalty or to show diamonds and black
suit
direct bids
2C = clubs + major
2D = reds
2H = majors
2S = spades (one of going through XX and direct 2S should encourage
further competition, our style is going through XX encourages
competition)

This has advantages:
1) It is easier to figure out whether to run from partner's first
suit, since his choice of second suit is either known or limited.
2) When partner passes, he either has diamonds or penalties. If
fourth hand bids, the anchor suit provides safety - ie... RHO bids 2C
and you hold Kx, xxx, Qxxx, AJ10x, you can double. Partner probably
has a penalty redouble, but if he was running, you have safety.

Michael

[Adam Beneschan]

On Feb 15, 7:27 am, shuster <shuster...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This can be slightly improved (called "twisted swine" which we play
> over 10-12's).

Just for everyone else's information, this doesn't have anything to do
with being a hand hog. I think "swine" stands for Sebaski-Woods 1
Notrump Escape (using I for 1). I might have spelled it wrong.

The one I posted, I learned as "Hayashi Runouts" (after a late Bay
Area player, I believe), although it wouldn't surprise me if more than
one player (such as Nilsland) came up with the same thing.

By the way, I've come to the same conclusion you did, that it's a
major flaw if a runout system doesn't allow you to play 1NTx (except
when partner fools around, as happened in my case).

-- Adam

[Lorne]

"John from Arran" wrote in message
news:MPG.29a4fd194...@news.eternal-september.org...

..................

here is another method to give you a wider choice:

bids = natural single suited
rdbl = clubs + another
pass forced a rdble, then you can pass for business or bid 2D for D+major,
2H for H+S, 2S for S+minor, 5-5 or 2C to play in openers best suit (ie you
are 4333 and wish you had no methods and could pass 1N* !).

Adams suggestion is slightly better at defining the 2-suiters but you lose
by not showing the single suiters imediately which can allow opener to raise
with 4 trumps and steel the partscore or make a pre-emptive move that makes
them miss their game.

Note the objectives are different if you play a strong NT as the oppo seldom
have game on.

[Will in New Haven]

We bid the suit that we want to play at the two-level. We Redouble
when we have invitational or better values.

I have been playing Weak NT for fifty years at this point and we have
gone for a number on occasion but never where some kind of runout
system would have helped. The business Redouble has led to some lovely
results.

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

On Feb 14, 9:41 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <MPG.29a4fd194d9d4e33989...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Up to this point, we do the same. Our jump tells partner that we don't
think there is a game but he or she should raise with a good fit
because that will likely be a make or a good competitive move. It
isn't that different from your treatment.

>
> Pass: forces XX (or occasionally a bid of a good 5-card minor) either to
> gamble playing with a good 8-9 or to pull with a balanced or 2-suited hand.
> With a genuine 2-suiter, bid the lower suit; with a balanced hand, bid 2C.
> The pull is explained as "showing that suit and a higher, 4-3 or better."

We play that a pass is a pass. Not being able to play 1NTX, without
the second X, seems too much of a gamble with a decent balanced
responding hand. The two-suiters are handled by bidding a five-card
suit. The really bad balanced hands are handled by letting advancer
make the error and pull the double.

> This lets you hit the opponents when they come in incautiously, and run
> with a single-suiter, 2-suiter, or balanced hand.  The only thing it
> gives up is the ability to play 1NT-X.  That *is* a cost, as sometimes
> 1NT-X is your best spot, but I think the benefits are worth it.

I don't.

[Will in New Haven]

I forgot to mention something in my original response, which supported
natural runouts and a business Redouble.

There are situations where responder is _known_ to have a weaker than
invitational hand. The ones we acknowledge are:

1: Responder already passed 1NT. Now fourth seat Doubles and it comes
back around to responder.

2: Responder is a passed hand opposite either our 10-13 (NV) or our
12-14 1NT. This would not be the case opposite a Strong NT.

In those cases, we play DONT runouts:

Redouble: One suit. Opener bids 2C and responder proceeds from there.
2C: Clubs and a higher ranking suit.
2D: Diamonds and a Major
2H: Majors

[Douglas Newlands]

On 16/02/12 2:48 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:27 am, shuster<shuster...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This can be slightly improved (called "twisted swine" which we play
>> over 10-12's).
>
> Just for everyone else's information, this doesn't have anything to do
> with being a hand hog. I think "swine" stands for Sebaski-Woods 1
> Notrump Escape (using I for 1). I might have spelled it wrong.

Close but it is Sebesfi-Woods 1N escape. Bob Sebesfi is from Tasmania
but, I think, in NSW these days.

> The one I posted, I learned as "Hayashi Runouts" (after a late Bay
> Area player, I believe), although it wouldn't surprise me if more than
> one player (such as Nilsland) came up with the same thing.
>
> By the way, I've come to the same conclusion you did, that it's a
> major flaw if a runout system doesn't allow you to play 1NTx (except
> when partner fools around, as happened in my case).

My concern with this convention is playing 1NXX.
The two biggest penalties I have seen at the table
were from opponents using this.
For me, 2C=C and a higher, 2D=D+major, 2H=majors to avoid the
compulsory redouble.

doug

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-02-15 11:59 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> We bid the suit that we want to play at the two-level. We Redouble
> when we have invitational or better values.
>
> I have been playing Weak NT for fifty years at this point and we have
> gone for a number on occasion but never where some kind of runout
> system would have helped. The business Redouble has led to some lovely
> results.

I think Will's (and Mike Shuster's) advice is sound, though I haven't
(yet) been playing weak NT for 50 years. I have played 10-12 and 11-13
and would give the same advice for those as for 12-14. I would not wish
to give up either the business redouble or the non-forcing pass.

Methods after a balancing double is passed (1NT-P-P-x-P-P-) should take
into account that an extremely weak responder won't have a 5cM and won't
be three-suited with club shortness. Also, consider whether responder
always runs immediately with a weak hand (the KS system advice) or
passes with a weak, balanced hand. Those agreements make a big
difference in the hand types responder can hold.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[David Goldfarb]

In article <b884364a-5875-4c9a...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 9:41 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>> Pass: forces XX (or occasionally a bid of a good 5-card minor) either to
>> gamble playing with a good 8-9 or to pull with a balanced or 2-suited hand.
>> With a genuine 2-suiter, bid the lower suit; with a balanced hand, bid 2C.
>> The pull is explained as "showing that suit and a higher, 4-3 or better."
>
>We play that a pass is a pass. Not being able to play 1NTX, without
>the second X, seems too much of a gamble with a decent balanced
>responding hand. The two-suiters are handled by bidding a five-card
>suit. The really bad balanced hands are handled by letting advancer
>make the error and pull the double.

And if responder doesn't have a five-card suit? Holding something like
Jxxx xxx xx Qxxx I think responder should be able to try to scramble out
to a black suit -- it's possible that there's a 4-4 fit that will play
better than 1NT or at least be harder for the opponents to whack. That
seems possible enough to me to be worth giving up the ability to play
1NT-X. Certainly there's room for disagreement there.

--
David Goldfarb |"All is strange and vague."
goldf...@gmail.com | "Are we dead?"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |"Or is this Ohio?" -- Animaniacs

[David Goldfarb]

In article <jhg4ph$n5b$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Dave D <dave.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>After partner opens 1NT and your RHO doubles you can ...
>
>A) Show two touching four-card suits by biding the lower one
>e.g. 2C shows Clubs and Diamonds, and 2S shows Spades and Clubs, etc.
>
>B) Show two non-touching four-card suits by PASSING. This FORCES partner
>to REDOUBLE, and on your next bid you bid the lower suit
>e.g. 2C shows Clubs and Hearts, 2D shows Diamonds and Spades
>
>C) Show a single suited hand by REDOUBLING. This FORCES partner to bid
>2C, which you then pass or correct.
>
>You don't lose a penalty double either. If you are strong, you go via
>option B: Pass and partner will redouble, which you can then
>subsequently pass for penalties.

Except that when fourth hand pulls the double (and fourth hand always
seems to pull the double) you run into difficulties. At least, I
always ran into difficulties. Maybe everyone else is better at
guessing than me.

--
David Goldfarb |"Special agents have been employed to slow the
goldf...@gmail.com | film down and grind it to a screeching halt."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Mystery Science Theater 3000,
| "Rocket Attack USA"

[David Stevenson]

John from Arran wrote

You have described part of Aardvark, which has been around for well
over thirty years. Redouble shows a five-card suit, 2C, 2D, 2H show the
lower-ranking of two suits.

There are 51 methods shown here:

http://blakjak.org/dbl_1nt0.htm

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[Fred.]

In the US many players double a weak no-trump
for takeout with as little as 13-14 HCP. Under
these circumstances the business redouble seems
to come up much more than the need to wriggle.
Perhaps those in the UK, who play more against
weak notrump, double more astutely.

Perhaps the correct approach is to wriggle
over a 16+ penalty double and redouble for
business over a possibly lighter takeout.
Unfortunately, one needs to know before the
hand. Otherwise there is a real potential
for awful UI situations.

Fred.

[Will in New Haven]

On Feb 16, 1:36 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <b884364a-5875-4c9a-8aad-9d5285e4f...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

> Will in New Haven  <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 14, 9:41 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> >> Pass: forces XX (or occasionally a bid of a good 5-card minor) either to
> >> gamble playing with a good 8-9 or to pull with a balanced or 2-suited hand.
> >> With a genuine 2-suiter, bid the lower suit; with a balanced hand, bid 2C.
> >> The pull is explained as "showing that suit and a higher, 4-3 or better."
>
> >We play that a pass is a pass. Not being able to play 1NTX, without
> >the second X, seems too much of a gamble with a decent balanced
> >responding hand. The two-suiters are handled by bidding a five-card
> >suit. The really bad balanced hands are handled by letting advancer
> >make the error and pull the double.
>
> And if responder doesn't have a five-card suit?  Holding something like
> Jxxx xxx xx Qxxx I think responder should be able to try to scramble out
> to a black suit -- it's possible that there's a 4-4 fit that will play
> better than 1NT or at least be harder for the opponents to whack.  That
> seems possible enough to me to be worth giving up the ability to play
> 1NT-X.  Certainly there's room for disagreement there.

I have had a lot of experience here. Playing 1NX down one or two has
often been a reasonable board at MP and has often been a small loss or
a profit at IMP. So we give that up so that I can scramble on the
above hand?

I have been passing confidently with that and similar hands. Even good
advancers often pull the double. Since I didn't redouble, my partners
sometimes pull to two of a long minor if advancer doesn't pull. We
aren't _supposed_ to but the failure to redouble means we aren't
trying for a big score.

The times that they left it in and slaughtered it, my partner has
almost never had enough of a fit for either of my flimsy four-card
suits to keep from being massacred anyway.

The last time I had to pass, with three HCP, my LHO (an A player of
some repute around here) grilled my partner as to whether my pass
promised any HCP. When my partner denied that we had any such
agreement, LHO thought about it awhile, decided that just couldn't be
true, and bid. Fine with me.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Douglas Newlands <douglas.newla...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 16/02/12 2:48 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 7:27 am, shuster<shuster...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> This can be slightly improved (called "twisted swine" which we play
> >> over 10-12's).
>
> > Just for everyone else's information, this doesn't have anything to do
> > with being a hand hog.  I think "swine" stands for Sebaski-Woods 1
> > Notrump Escape (using I for 1).  I might have spelled it wrong.
>
> Close but it is Sebesfi-Woods 1N escape. Bob Sebesfi is from Tasmania
> but, I think, in NSW these days.

OK, then. The ACBL's Official Encyclopedia Of Bridge, the Fourth
Edition (the last one I bought), prints it as Sebaski. I wonder if
they've corrected it in later versions. Or perhaps they think there
really is a Sebaski and his partner is Lebensohl. :)

-- Adam

[Travis Crump]

On 02/14/2012 06:28 PM, John from Arran wrote:
> Over the weekend I was introduced to a new way of escaping from 1NT - X
> - ??? and it seems to work very well. If partner holds a five card minor
> then (s)he redoubles and, assuming a pass from fourth-in-hand, opener
> always bids 2C. If partner has diamonds rather than clubs (s)he bids 2D
> - end of auction. If the opposition goes on then there's nothing lost.
>
> Expect to go 1 down, but that's much better than the possibility of
> going down in 1NTX.
>
> Does anyone else have a good way of wriggling out of 1NT - X?
>

I play swine as described elsewhere with the modification that p-XX; 2C
shows clubs and either major, but I thought I'd raise some points that
don't seem to have gotten discussion.

It makes a difference whether you are playing a weak or strong NT, and
more particularly whether other tables are likely to be facing the same
situation. If you are one of the only weak NTs, it is hard to imagine
how 1NX going down could be better than an average minus if not a zero
with the rare exception of possibly exactly down 3 white v red.
Similarly if you are playing strong NTs and the opponents are one of the
few pairs playing penalty doubles. Therefore I don't think it is a big
loss not to be able to play 1NX.

The other consideration when you get doubled is what is your objective.
The 1N-X auction seems to come up once a session[though this might be a
slight exaggeration]; I can only assume the person who said it's only
ever come up twice plays strong NTs. Invariably, the point of the hand
is competing for the part score, and not a big penalty one way or the
other. In this sense it makes sense to try to get as many hand types
across as possible. It is also for this reason I play my runouts even
if X isn't for penalty.

Travis

[Will in New Haven]

On Feb 16, 7:25 pm, Travis Crump <pretz...@techhouse.org> wrote:
> On 02/14/2012 06:28 PM, John from Arran wrote:
>
> > Over the weekend I was introduced to a new way of escaping from 1NT - X
> > - ??? and it seems to work very well. If partner holds a five card minor
> > then (s)he redoubles and, assuming a pass from fourth-in-hand, opener
> > always bids 2C. If partner has diamonds rather than clubs (s)he bids 2D
> > - end of auction. If the opposition goes on then there's nothing lost.
>
> > Expect to go 1 down, but that's much better than the possibility of
> > going down in 1NTX.
>
> > Does anyone else have a good way of wriggling out of 1NT - X?
>
> I play swine as described elsewhere with the modification that p-XX; 2C
> shows clubs and either major, but I thought I'd raise some points that
> don't seem to have gotten discussion.
>
> It makes a difference whether you are playing a weak or strong NT, and
> more particularly whether other tables are likely to be facing the same
> situation.  If you are one of the only weak NTs, it is hard to imagine
> how 1NX going down could be better than an average minus if not a zero

> with the rare exception of possibly exactly down 3 white v red.
> Similarly if you are playing strong NTs and the opponents are one of the
> few pairs playing penalty doubles.  Therefore I don't think it is a big
> loss not to be able to play 1NX.

Down one NV in a partscore hand is fairly common. So is making one
doubled. So you must be talking about very weak hands where you have
little hope of taking six or seven tricks. _However_ you lose the
option of playing 1NTX on those hands and have to play it redoubled or
run. Since you don't know whether you will be dealt:

KJX XX QJXX JTXX, where playing 1NTX must be right, or XXX JX XXXX
XXXX, where an escape to a fit, if you _have_ a fit, is better, I
think it is a big loss.

>
> The other consideration when you get doubled is what is your objective.
>  The 1N-X auction seems to come up once a session[though this might be a
> slight exaggeration]; I can only assume the person who said it's only
> ever come up twice plays strong NTs.  Invariably, the point of the hand
> is competing for the part score, and not a big penalty one way or the
> other.  In this sense it makes sense to try to get as many hand types
> across as possible.  It is also for this reason I play my runouts even
> if X isn't for penalty.

And I don't play runouts, whether the double is for penalties or not.
Your "invariably" has tons of holes in it. People double when they
shouldn't and they double when they should but they are unlucky.

[Travis Crump]

On 02/16/2012 07:41 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:25 pm, Travis Crump <pretz...@techhouse.org> wrote:
>> On 02/14/2012 06:28 PM, John from Arran wrote:
>>
>>> Over the weekend I was introduced to a new way of escaping from 1NT - X
>>> - ??? and it seems to work very well. If partner holds a five card minor
>>> then (s)he redoubles and, assuming a pass from fourth-in-hand, opener
>>> always bids 2C. If partner has diamonds rather than clubs (s)he bids 2D
>>> - end of auction. If the opposition goes on then there's nothing lost.
>>
>>> Expect to go 1 down, but that's much better than the possibility of
>>> going down in 1NTX.
>>
>>> Does anyone else have a good way of wriggling out of 1NT - X?
>>
>> I play swine as described elsewhere with the modification that p-XX; 2C
>> shows clubs and either major, but I thought I'd raise some points that
>> don't seem to have gotten discussion.
>>
>> It makes a difference whether you are playing a weak or strong NT, and
>> more particularly whether other tables are likely to be facing the same
>> situation. If you are one of the only weak NTs, it is hard to imagine
>> how 1NX going down could be better than an average minus if not a zero
>
>> with the rare exception of possibly exactly down 3 white v red.
>> Similarly if you are playing strong NTs and the opponents are one of the
>> few pairs playing penalty doubles. Therefore I don't think it is a big
>> loss not to be able to play 1NX.
>
> Down one NV in a partscore hand is fairly common.

Aren't you -100 against -90 or +50 at other tables?

So is making one
> doubled. So you must be talking about very weak hands where you have
> little hope of taking six or seven tricks. _However_ you lose the
> option of playing 1NTX on those hands and have to play it redoubled or
> run. Since you don't know whether you will be dealt:
>
> KJX XX QJXX JTXX, where playing 1NTX must be right, or XXX JX XXXX
> XXXX, where an escape to a fit, if you _have_ a fit, is better, I
> think it is a big loss.
>

While specifics might vary, I'm not averse to gambling on 1NXX with a
balanced 8 count. You have close to the same problem playing simple
methods. Opposite 12-14 do you XX with a balanced 8-9 count? If you
just pass are you better or worse off if they run?

>
>>
>> The other consideration when you get doubled is what is your objective.
>> The 1N-X auction seems to come up once a session[though this might be a
>> slight exaggeration]; I can only assume the person who said it's only
>> ever come up twice plays strong NTs. Invariably, the point of the hand
>> is competing for the part score, and not a big penalty one way or the
>> other. In this sense it makes sense to try to get as many hand types
>> across as possible. It is also for this reason I play my runouts even
>> if X isn't for penalty.
>
> And I don't play runouts, whether the double is for penalties or not.
> Your "invariably" has tons of holes in it. People double when they
> shouldn't and they double when they should but they are unlucky.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

It's my experience obviously. Yours might be different depending on the
tendency of the opponents in your area. Though it's hard to interpret
your statement.

[Will in New Haven]

Often against -110 or -140.

>
> So is making one
>
> > doubled. So you must be talking about very weak hands where you have
> > little hope of taking six or seven tricks. _However_ you lose the
> > option of playing 1NTX on those hands and have to play it redoubled or
> > run. Since you don't know whether you will be dealt:
>
> > KJX XX QJXX JTXX, where playing 1NTX must be right, or XXX JX XXXX
> > XXXX, where an escape to a fit, if you _have_ a fit, is better, I
> > think it is a big loss.
>
> While specifics might vary, I'm not averse to gambling on 1NXX with a
> balanced 8 count.

That looks like a lose or break-even gamble to me. Turning -100 into
-200 will be a big loss. Turning +180 into whatever making it
redoubled might be won't be a huge matchpoint win.

 You have close to the same problem playing simple
> methods.  Opposite 12-14 do you XX with a balanced 8-9 count?  If you
> just pass are you better or worse off if they run?

I play simple methods. I pass with the balanced 8-9 count. If they run
when I have this much, it is somewhat random whether they find a
better spot or worse spot than the field. I also pass with weaker
balanced hands and they often still run, which is good for us.

When I DO Redouble, it sets up forcing pass/penalty double conditions.
This often leads to a very good result.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> The other consideration when you get doubled is what is your objective.
> >>  The 1N-X auction seems to come up once a session[though this might be a
> >> slight exaggeration]; I can only assume the person who said it's only
> >> ever come up twice plays strong NTs.  Invariably, the point of the hand
> >> is competing for the part score, and not a big penalty one way or the
> >> other.  In this sense it makes sense to try to get as many hand types
> >> across as possible.  It is also for this reason I play my runouts even
> >> if X isn't for penalty.
>
> > And I don't play runouts, whether the double is for penalties or not.
> > Your "invariably" has tons of holes in it. People double when they
> > shouldn't and they double when they should but they are unlucky.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> It's my experience obviously.  Yours might be different depending on the
> tendency of the opponents in your area.  Though it's hard to interpret

> your statement.-

People do double Weak NT too often around here. This is partly a
problem for them because responder is often in a good position to
punish them. However, it is an even bigger problem because advancer
can't try for game safely with many decent hands. And sometimes when
doubler has a good enough hand to double, his partner is broke and he
gets a bad result anyway.

[Joachim Parsch]

Will in New Haven schrieb:

>
> On Feb 16, 10:26 pm, Travis Crump <pretz...@techhouse.org> wrote:
> > Aren't you -100 against -90 or +50 at other tables?
>
> Often against -110 or -140.

That's my experience, too. Losing -100 in a nonvulnerable 1Nx down 1
is normally a reasonable score, say 30-40%.

> > While specifics might vary, I'm not averse to gambling on 1NXX with a
> > balanced 8 count.
>
> That looks like a lose or break-even gamble to me. Turning -100 into
> -200 will be a big loss. Turning +180 into whatever making it
> redoubled might be won't be a huge matchpoint win.

I agree. I have also played the weak NT (i.e. (11)12-14) more or
less my whole bridge life, and I played a runout system just in
one partnership for a year or so. Playing it was losing strategy
with MPs as well as with IMPs, no matter how weak or strong the
opposition was.

Losing the possibility to play in 1Nx played the biggest role there,
and there were almost no auctions, where we were better off with
this runout system (quite the contrary - there were situations where
we reduced a likely +180 to +110/+90).

> You have close to the same problem playing simple
> > methods. Opposite 12-14 do you XX with a balanced 8-9 count? If you
> > just pass are you better or worse off if they run?
>
> I play simple methods. I pass with the balanced 8-9 count. If they run
> when I have this much, it is somewhat random whether they find a
> better spot or worse spot than the field. I also pass with weaker
> balanced hands and they often still run, which is good for us.
>
> When I DO Redouble, it sets up forcing pass/penalty double conditions.
> This often leads to a very good result.

We play it the same way. XX for strength, pass to play. There is
nothing better.

We just play that 2Clubs after the double is artificial in that it
either shows the normal club single-suiter (opener assumes that) *or*
a very weak 2-suiter without clubs, that runs after the opponents
"inevitably" double 2 clubs. Very weak means, that you must not
bid 2C with Axxx, Jxx, Qxxx, xx for example. The risk of the opponents
passing it out is too big, much better to try your luck in 1Nx.

Joachim

[Will in New Haven]

We never had a systemic agreement but I remember a couple of times
running to a short minor and expecting to wriggle out after being
doubled. That's what happened one time and we wound up doing as well
as we could in, I think, 2HX in a 4-3 fit for a loss of not many IMP.
The other time, it turned out that neither of them could double 2C
because they had a 5-4 Club fit and they played the double in that
situation as takeout. When my 2C bid came back to doubler, he reasoned
that advancer must be weak because she was short in Clubs and didn't
double. I made three tricks. I tried very hard to make a trump trick
but they figured out what was going on. -500, we were vulnerable, was
worth 9.5 out of 12 because they were vulnerable also and bid and made
game at most of the tables.

[KWSchneider]

On Feb 15, 10:27 am, shuster <shuster...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This can be slightly improved (called "twisted swine" which we play
> over 10-12's).
> XX forces 2C to show a 1-suited hand
> Pass forces redouble, either for penalty or to show diamonds and black
> suit
> direct bids
> 2C = clubs + major
> 2D = reds
> 2H = majors
> 2S = spades (one of going through XX and direct 2S should encourage
> further competition, our style is going through XX encourages
> competition)
>
> This has advantages:
> 1) It is easier to figure out whether to run from partner's first
> suit, since his choice of second suit is either known or limited.
> 2) When partner passes, he either has diamonds or penalties.  If
> fourth hand bids, the anchor suit provides safety - ie... RHO bids 2C
> and you hold Kx, xxx, Qxxx, AJ10x, you can double.  Partner probably
> has a penalty redouble, but if he was running, you have safety.

This can be improved upon as well. I play [from my former Swedish
partner]:

Only applicable if X by RHO is NOT forcing...

P = forces XX - see below
XX = 2-suiter WITHOUT hearts
2C = c+h

2D = reds
2H = majors

2S = spades [very weak]
2N = minors 55
3m = 6+m

After direct XX then opener bids:
2C = 4+c, or any 4333 hand
2D = 4+d, denies 4+c
2H = 44M [allows 43 major suit fit to be found, for example when
responder is 2=3=4=4]

After pass, forcing XX
P = to play
2x = 5x
2N+ = Rubensohl [all GI+ hands, best for suit play or slam
investigation]

This allows ALL 44 fits to be found at the 2level [including any 44
club fits].

Cheers,
Kurt

[ala]

"Travis Crump" <pret...@techhouse.org> wrote in message
news:jhk6ps$1ts$1...@dont-email.me...

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself,
and you are the easiest person to fool."--richard feynman

[Fred.]

When LHO doubles a weak 1NT for penalties, or
for takeout where RHO has the stuff for a
penalty pass opener's expectation on the hand
has dropped off considerably. The opening side
is looking for the best chance of an upside where
this may well be less than 50-50.

Personally, I like to have 1NTx on my list of
options at least non-vulnerable. There is no guarantee
that the doubling side has the balance of power
and 1NTx may have a fine play. Also, 1NTx is often
difficult to defend, so it is quite likely that
a doubling side with the balance of power will take
fewer tricks on defense than they would take on
offense.

The upside possibilities, in addition to the rare
one you mention include:

(1) 1NTx making when it should.
(2) 1NTx making when the defending side
can make 1NT, or another part score.
(3) 1NTx-1 NV when the defending side
can take 8 tricks in NT or in a major.

Fred.