[1eyedjack]

 Vampyr, on 2017-March-18, 11:15, said:

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]

 1eyedjack, on 2017-March-18, 11:45, said:

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]

 Vampyr, on 2017-March-18, 08:42, said:

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]

 nige1, on 2017-March-13, 17:39, said:

... 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)...

 paulg, on 2017-March-18, 16:07, said:

IMO it is better just to read the regulations.

EBU Blue Book 4 H 3 (d) said:

Players should not alert: ...A bid of two of a suit by responder when an opening 1NT has been doubled, 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

 steve2005, on 2017-March-18, 18:42, said:

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]

 gwnn, on 2017-March-17, 09:15, said:

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]

 aguahombre, on 2017-March-19, 23:30, said:

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]

 aguahombre, on 2017-March-20, 11:08, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-20, 03:38, said:

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]

 aguahombre, on 2017-March-19, 23:30, said:

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]

 gwnn, on 2017-March-21, 09:46, said:

*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.

[gwnn]

 helene_t, on 2017-March-21, 10:08, said:

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)

 ldrews, on 2017-March-12, 07:36, said:

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.)

This post has been edited by JLilly: 2017-July-28, 16:38

[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]

 steve2005, on 2017-March-12, 10:39, said:

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]

 JLilly, on 2017-July-28, 16:12, said:

(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