[semeai]

As everyone must do at somepoint, I was playing around with weak/mini notrump runouts.

"Natural" seemed pretty good to me, and stood up under some testing at a teaching table:
bid = 5 card suit
pass = weak, no 5 card suit
redouble = good hand interested in penalty
(with a good hand uninterested in penalty, bid 2NT or game or pass and then bid 2NT or higher)

After pass, opener bids a 5 card suit or redoubles without one, after which you scramble. You can also bid a short suit and redouble for SOS at this point if you like.

Any thoughts on this? I know it doesn't show specific 2-suiters, but is this a huge loss when you'll do fine just bidding a 5 card suit? I like the immediate bid call for penalty, as often enough when they double they're the ones in trouble. I originally wanted pass to be for penalty, but there just wasn't enough room. You could play pass for penalty with e.g. DONT runouts, but I think it gets you in trouble often because sometimes you just want to play opener's 5 card suit instead of having to bid something with random balanced junk.

-----------

The same scheme works after a balancing seat double, but now redouble is free. (Perhaps opener just passes sometimes with 5332 instead of bidding the 5 card suit.)

<random artificial idea>

Here's the idea: Use redouble as a Woolsey double, i.e. 5 of a minor and 4 of a major. The one modification to make is that over the redouble, 2C asks for the minor, 2D *shows 5+ diamonds*, and 2H asks for the major. You can do this because responder shouldn't have a 5 card major to play in after passing 1NT.

</random artifical idea>

[Zelandakh]

Run your tests again comparing natural with a more sophisticated system such as spelvic. Some details

2m shows the minor and spades
2H shows both majors with equal or better spades
2S shows spades with a decent suit (suitable to be raised)
2N is both minors, at least 5-5
3 of any suit is natural and preemptive
XX forces 2C and shows a 1-suiter, after 2C you show the suit. Showing spades this way shows a weaker suit than direct and 2NT or higher is a GF on a freak-type hand
X forces XX, either to play there or with any other 2-suiter. After XX, 2C shows clubs and a red suit, 2D shows reds, 2H is majors with better hearts, while a bid of 2S or higher is a GF 2-suiter (freak)
With a 4333 hand you treat it as if it had a club more. If 2C gets doubled then XX shows the corresponding 4333.

You do lose the natural redouble; what you gain in return is far more imho.

[semeai]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-August-04, 11:29, said:

Run your tests again comparing natural with a more sophisticated system such as spelvic.

Thanks. This is the sort of alternative I had in mind, but I don't like it so much:

1) I rarely held 5-5. When I did, I was usually fine just bidding a 5 card suit.
2) I like bidding my 5 card suits immediately. Sometimes it will be good for partner to raise with a suitable hand with 4 (or 5!).
3) What shapes do you show 2-suited on? I don't like it with 4-4 since it will often be right to play opener's 5 card suit. I don't like bidding 5-4 as a 2-suiter here without distinction between the 5 and the 4 and without that ability would just show it as 1-suited (we know partner is semi-balanced).
4) The penalty hands did come up and I got them almost as often as they got me. Possibly I was doubling 1NT too aggressively in my tests. I doubled the 10-12 notrump with a balanced 14 (or good 13) in direct seat and had both sides play "first double takeout, subsequent doubles penalty."

[In case it seems nonsensical that I got them almost as much as they got me when they're stronger, I'll note that they lack one of pass/redouble to work with.]

One thing to add: My tests were with a 10-12 notrump and not vulnerable (which is when I'd play it). This may matter. I didn't directly test against anything specific, I was mostly just making sure I didn't get doubled much and got to double them often enough to make xx worth it.

----------

I tried just now to come up with something that gives up the redouble for penalty but keeps the "opener bids a 5 card suit opposite a scramble hand" (with the goal of also adding some 2-suiters with the extra room), but I couldn't make it work. If redouble isn't strong, you need pass forces redouble for strong hands, and redouble for the scramble doesn't work, as opener can't scramble and show 5 card suits at the same time.

[This section is made mostly irrelevant by wclass's comment that you bid the 2-suited hand with equal or better minor.]

[wclass___]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-August-04, 11:29, said:

Run your tests again comparing natural with a more sophisticated system such as spelvic. Some details

This is somewhat close to my preffered runout scheme. Instead i use direct 2♥ and 2♠ as pure natural 5+runouts.And after Pass-XX, 2♣=♣+♥;2♦=♦+♥;2♥=♥+♠. I don't care much about minors (I pass redouble first) , there are 4333 hands out anyway.

Quote

3) What shapes do you show 2-suited on? I don't like it with 4-4 since it will often be right to play opener's 5 card suit. I don't like bidding 5-4 as a 2-suiter here without distinction between the 5 and the 4 and without that ability would just show it as 1-suited (we know partner is semi-balanced).

I have only played style where you do show 2 suited hands with 4-4 and i'm not going to change it anytime soon. With 5M-4m i prefer to bid 2M.


I don't think openers possible 5 card suit is a big problem here, if he doesn't have clubs he can introduce it at 2nd level anyway, but even if it is clubs we might as well be short in clubs and 5-2 fits doesn't play much better than 4-3 if better at all.

[semeai]

 wclass___, on 2011-August-04, 14:01, said:

I have only played style where you do show 2 suited hands with 4-4 and i'm not going to change it anytime soon. With 5M-4m i prefer to bid 2M.

Okay, that's playable. Bidding a 2-suited hand with a minor shows equal or better minor, then.

Quote

I don't think openers possible 5 card suit is a big problem here, if he doesn't have clubs he can introduce it at 2nd level anyway, but even if it is clubs we might as well be short in clubs and 5-2 fits doesn't play much better than 4-3 if better at all.

The distinction between 5-2 and 4-3 is going to be a major difference. My guess is/was that 5-2 is better when both hands are semi-balanced and weak. This could use some analysis.

You could also miss 5-3 and play in 4-3. Then again, my scramble could miss 4-4 and play in 4-3, so maybe that's even.

Added: Over the 2m 2-suited bid, you do play a 4-3 over a 5-2 again, as well as a 4-4 over a 5-3 (likewise my guess is that given the conditions, 5-3 is better). You will play 4-4 instead of 5-2 sometimes, though.

[nigel_k]

I think it's a bit wasteful to have two ways to play 1NT-XX. The extra space to find your best spot when you need to run is quite important. My preferred method is to XX with spades and another, and pass (forcing XX) either with a good hand intending to play 1NT-XX or with a non-spade two suiter. So you can reach 2♠ quickly whenever you have a 4-4 fit there and make it as hard as possible for the opponents. This method also maximises your chances to play in your best fit, much better than just scrambling with any two suiter.

[semeai]

 nigel_k, on 2011-August-04, 14:36, said:

I think it's a bit wasteful to have two ways to play 1NT-XX. The extra space to find your best spot when you need to run is quite important. My preferred method is to XX with spades and another, and pass (forcing XX) either with a good hand intending to play 1NT-XX or with a non-spade two suiter. So you can reach 2♠ quickly whenever you have a 4-4 fit there and make it as hard as possible for the opponents. This method also maximises your chances to play in your best fit, much better than just scrambling with any two suiter.

I don't have two ways to play 1NTxx. Over a pass, opener always bids a 5 card suit if he has one.

Basically, it seems there is some trading that's unclear to me (the various stuff at the end of my previous post in reply to wclass, plus similar things) in order to get the immediate redouble, which does make it harder on them. I don't know if the trading is good for one side or the other. It will depend on how often 1NT openers have 5 (or 6) card minors, and also on how often they have 5 card majors (you're not so comfortable bidding your own major over a 2-suited bid if the 2-suited hand could have a 5 card suit).

Added: Sorry to be so contrary. If this is all nonsense, keep letting me have it.

[dake50]

Do you accept any 5-2 or 4-3 landing?
Or continue to find 4-4 or 5-3?
Quits in a 5-1 or 4-2 when the better fit is not found?

[semeai]

 dake50, on 2011-August-04, 21:12, said:

Do you accept any 5-2 or 4-3 landing?
Or continue to find 4-4 or 5-3?
Quits in a 5-1 or 4-2 when the better fit is not found?

Good questions. It depends on the logic of the auction, and there's also a trick (which you add as a conventional agreement) if you're willing to play just about anywhere undoubled.

First, if you're 4441 and partner shows a 5 card suit in your 1, you probably stick it out until doubled, and then make the decision to redouble/run for rescue or not (probably you do).

When responder is 4-4 majors, you do better than the above artificial runouts: if opener bids a 5 card minor, you can choose to bid 2H over it (majors, scrambling) or not. If opener redoubles without a 5 card suit, you bid 2H and are in the same spot as the artificial runouts, but with certainty partner isn't 2-2 in the majors.

When responder has a diamonds and a major, you also do similarly. First of all, you get to see if partner has a 5 card suit (if it's a major, you might be stuck playing a 5-2; if it's clubs, you can choose to play it or show your suits). Then after that it's playable that 2♦ after the scramble shows ♦+♠ and to show ♦+♥, you first bid 2♣ and then redouble for rescue.

2♣ showing ♣+higher or any 4333 is not as easy, but there's more room and also it's known that responder has at most one doubleton since he has no 5 card suit, so if opener is 4-4 in two suits, he knows one of them will be a 4-3 or better (basically it's the same situation as responder having 4-4 but in reverse, plus the added benefit that partner is never 2-2 in your suits and in fact has no 5 card suit).

After 2♣, with 4 clubs, opener passes and you're fine. With 2 clubs, opener has 4-4 somewhere. With majors, he bids 2H (maybe make them show you the double of 2C before bidding 2H). With ♦+♠, bid 2♦ (maybe after a double). With ♦+♥, wait for the double of 2♣ and then redouble for rescue. None of this interferes with responder's plan to bid 2♣ and then redouble with ♦+♥.

After 2♣ with 3 clubs, you have options. You certainly can pass and make them show you the double. Then you can choose to play it there, or to redouble/bid 2♦/bid 2♥ with 4-4 reds/pointeds/majors respectively. With a 4333 hand, you have to lie or guess somehow, but this is expected.

The whole procedure of making them double you and then running has its benefits. Sometimes they just can't sit for a certain suit and you're free even if it wasn't where you were going to end up.

--------------------

TL;DR: If you play some conventional sos redoubles (redouble of 2♣ by either partner shows ♦+♥) you can find all 4-4 fits if neither partner is 4333, at least if you're willing to play undoubled without a fit (if the opponents methods even allow it).

If you don't want to risk playing undoubled without a fit or don't want to play conventional sos redoubles, you can do the above, but have 2♦ by responder over redouble or by opener over 2♣ be ♦+higher (2♥ by responder over redouble or by opener over 2♣ is still 4-4 majors). Then you'll have to play in a 4-3 when there's a 4-4 sometimes (when someone has diamonds & a major and the other partner has 3 diamonds and is 4-2 or 2-4 in the majors).

[Vampyr]

 semeai, on 2011-August-04, 09:55, said:

As everyone must do at somepoint, I was playing around with weak/mini notrump runouts.

"Natural" seemed pretty good to me, and stood up under some testing at a teaching table:
bid = 5 card suit
pass = weak, no 5 card suit
redouble = good hand interested in penalty
(with a good hand uninterested in penalty, bid 2NT or game or pass and then bid 2NT or higher)

After pass, opener bids a 5 card suit or redoubles without one, after which you scramble. You can also bid a short suit and redouble for SOS at this point if you like.

This is basically what I do, except for that last. It works fine; actually, you would be surprised how often 4th hand rescues you!

The only thing that is important about runouts, in my opinion, is that you don't lose the ability to play 1NTX.

[Zelandakh]

 semeai, on 2011-August-04, 22:29, said:

<too long to quote in full>

Some of this regards the theory of "the wriggle", where you keep transferring into a suit and, assuming the opps double you, you get to transfer again next time with a XX. The opps can never be sure when your suit is real, the trouble is that nor does your partner and that is often more important. Showing 3-suiters by indicating the short suit and redoubling is a very old trick that comes (I think) from rubber bridge where SOS redoubles are the norm. You can do this in most of the methods. It is wrong to say that it is less optimal in other runout schemes though, for example in spelvic, with 4414, you can bid 2C to show the black suits and then if the opps double you in 2C you can remove to 2H which specifically shows this hand. This trick works for any 3-suiter when playing a specific 2-suited scheme. Note that in my version of spelvic you cannot pull the 1-suiter -> 3-suiter trick with specifically 4=4=4=1 since this is used to show 3=3=3=4. Instead you bid 2D and follow with 2H if necessary.

I also note that you perhaps might find schemes based on a "negative" XX useful. These methods usually use natural 1-suited runouts with pass being a puppet to XX for 2-suited runouts. That frees up XX to be weakness without a suit, often 4333, and Opener is expected to bid their best suit. You can, of course, switch XX and 2C here, or switch the whole thing around and make XX 1-suited, 2C "negative", and split the 2-suiters amongst the remaining calls. There are a bunch of possibilities here. Just in passing I feel it is helpful to note Dave Stevenson's sitehere which contains the majority of major options, at least in outline. I think this is generally the best place to start for an I/A pair looking to agree on a runout system.

[SteelWheel]

My own $0.02 on runout structures from 1NTX:

I am strongly opposed to all structures which either do not provide a mechanism for our side to simply play 1NTX, or which do not allow us to immediately redouble for business.

My favorite "keep it simple" structure:

Pass=Let's try it here
XX=Opponents just made a mistake, we really do have the balance of strength
2♥ or 2♠ = natural, to play
2♣ or 2♦ = either natural and to play OR shortness in the bid minor. Their double and our redouble exposes the "takeout" version of the bid.

Is it theoretically best? I don't know. I haven't had a disproportionate number of disasters with this system vs any other. I realize that some better players may be able to work out when to not double and play for +100 per undertrick when our side is vulnerable, as we struggle in our 2-1 fit--but it's never happened to me in real life.

What I do know is that it's easy to teach to a new pard, lotsa fun (remember playing bridge for fun?), and any theoretical flaw it may have is in fact just that--theoretical.

[wank]

i've seen this scheme before. the people playing it normally refer to it as 'natural'.

[JLOGIC]

I am strongly opposed to runout systems that do not let you bid 2M natural over the double, such as Zelandakhs first reply.

For the same reason I don't like transfers, I would hate to have to redouble to get out in 2M. 1N X 2M is very preemptive, and makes the auction very hard for the opponents. At this point it is like a preempt, and it will give the opps a hard time judging whether to play 3N or not, whether to play 4M or not, etc just like in any preempted auction. XXing just gives them so many more options and doesn't even help us much. I think preempting them is still a priority when we can.

Compared to hands where we might play 2m, now I think preempting them is not a priority since 2m is not very preemptive either.

You could easily chance Zelandakhs structure to:

-Direct 2M natural
-XX then 2H majors with better spades
-Telling them whether you have a weak 2S bid or a strong 2S bid is not only anti-preemptive, it will also help them judge the auction. I play XX then 2S as invitational to game in spades but you can just as easily not bid it ever and it will be better than neither being invitational but one being better.

I also think pass forcing a redouble is a mistake. Partner should be able to bid 2m naturally. Even if we want to play 1N XX which is not that likely, they usually have somewhere to run. I don't think it is a priority over a balanced runout which is extremely common. Being forced to XX 2C is not good when we belong in 2C, and with a shape like 3442 it is very nice to be able to play a 5-2 club fit over a 4-3 red suit fit.

[wclass___]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-August-26, 18:20, said:

I also think pass forcing a redouble is a mistake. Partner should be able to bid 2m naturally. Even if we want to play 1N XX which is not that likely, they usually have somewhere to run. I don't think it is a priority over a balanced runout which is extremely common. Being forced to XX 2C is not good when we belong in 2C, and with a shape like 3442 it is very nice to be able to play a 5-2 club fit over a 4-3 red suit fit.

Well, one can change ''pass forcing redouble'' to ''pass forcing redouble unless opener wants to bid his 5m''.

Balanced runouts are indeed common, but i am a big antifan of playing 1N doubled - i would much rather play in suit. I find that if we do go for suit contract it makes opponents hard time deciding what to do compared to 1Nx, which they can usually pass comfortably.

[bigtrain]

 wclass___, on 2011-August-27, 07:18, said:

Well, one can change ''pass forcing redouble'' to ''pass forcing redouble unless opener wants to bid his 5m''.

Balanced runouts are indeed common, but i am a big antifan of playing 1N doubled - i would much rather play in suit. I find that if we do go for suit contract it makes opponents hard time deciding what to do compared to 1Nx, which they can usually pass comfortably.

Definitely concur with the above thoughts. One of the downsides to a penalty/card X of 1NT is it allows the opponents to play 2m, so you should take advantage of it. I suggest...

pass = usually forcing to XX (or possibly a 5-card minor)
XX = 2 suits same shape
P-f-2C = minors or blacks
p-f-2D = reds
p-f-2H = majors
All direct bids are natural.

[JLOGIC]

Yes, sorry if I didn't state it explicitly, I meant to imply that pass should allow partner to bid a 5 card minor, and otherwise redouble, as opposed to forcing a XX always

[Free]

I have good experiences with playing 1NTx. Either we go -1 which isn't a big deal (except V playing MP), we make (good score), or we go +1 (great score). The only difficult situation is when your V and responder has game values. 1NTx+2 loses an imp, but is a bottom in MP. All things considered, I prefer pass a suggestion to play. Even NV vs V you can gain bigtime when going down a lot, 1NTx-3 is better than them making 3NT. Obviously opener can always bid his suit if he feels like it (for example when he has a 6 card suit, or if he psyched).

I also prefer to put up the pressure to opps. Bidding a suit naturally is the obvious choice, a 5-2 fit will usually be playable.

That leaves only RDbl for 2/3-suiters. This allows us scramble into a 4-4 or 4-3 fit, a playable spot. Sometimes it's even better than showing specific 2-suiters or DONT-like escapes, in case of 3-suiters you lose the 3rd suit which may be the best spot, in case of 2-suiters you may lose a 5-3 fit when opener has a 5 card suit. Also 4333's are better handled imo.