[Liversidge]

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.

[silvr bull]

After an immediate double of our 1NT open, we use a simple escape method (described by someone else here) that does not use transfers:
Pass is to play, so responder needs to have some useful cards;
XX asks opener to bid his best minor. If responder has Ds, then he can correct opener's 2C to 2D;
2D asks opener to bid his best major.
2C, 2H or 2S are to play and presumed to be weak.

Note that this works only if the double is immediate. If 1NT P P X P P, we do not have an escape method, so we pass after 1NT P only if we are willing to play in 1NT X.

[Cyberyeti]

Another simple method is to XX with a 5+ card suit, partner bids 2♣ and you pass or correct, with 2 4 card suits, you bid the lower, with a 4333 you make something up.

[Vampyr]

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.

[Liversidge]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-March-12, 02:40, said:

Another simple method is to XX with a 5+ card suit, partner bids 2♣ and you pass or correct, with 2 4 card suits, you bid the lower, with a 4333 you make something up.

That's what I had in mind when referring to DONT, an adaption I came across recently. It also deals with the double in the protective seat - opener passes, responder redoubles asking opener to bid 2♣, and then responder either starts the runout, bids a 5 card minor that he could not bid on the first round, or passes, happy to play in 1NT doubled.
It is simpler than Exit Transfers, so easier for my new partner to learn. The only disadvantages I can see is that after an immediate double it is not possible to transfer any 5 card suit so that declarer's hand is hidden, and you can't leave a redouble in for penalties.

[helene_t]

 Liversidge, on 2017-March-12, 06:00, said:

and you can't leave a redouble in for penalties.

You can't do that playing exit transfers either. You could play something involving pass-forces-opener-to-redouble but I think this is very bad, especially when playing weak NT as you are more likely to want to play 1NTx than 1NTxx. Especially at matchpoints when 1NTx making is usually a top anyway so redouble is not necessary. Also, redouble by opener gives opponents an extra round to run out.

I think that if you find DONT simple you should go for it since it is technically better than transfers. Right-siding is not that much of an issue. For some reason, many club players overrate the value of letting the strong hand declare (as if a weak nt opener was that strong anyway). I think the reason for this is that some teachers have used that is a motivation for getting students to learn transfers, which is wrong since transfers are primarily played for other reasons.

[ldrews]

 Liversidge, on 2017-March-12, 01:36, said:

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.

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

[1eyedjack]

DONT is really a defence to 1N, not a re-defence to X of 1N. Or so I have always understood.

The only DONT rule that I think is clearly of value is DON'T play exit transfers.

[steve2005]

 1eyedjack, on 2017-March-12, 08:03, said:

DONT is really a defence to 1N, not a re-defence to X of 1N. Or so I have always understood.

The only DONT rule that I think is clearly of value is DON'T play exit transfers.

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

[1eyedjack]

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

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

I don't see any inconsistency with your assertion that many people play something similar over a double and my earlier statement of the classic reference to DONT, although on the occasions when I encounter something like it employed by the opening side I have seen it referred to by a variety of names but never as DONT. When I have to choose between personal experience and assertions like this by some unknown individual on the internet then you may forgive me I am sure if I go with personal experience every time.

If you feel strongly about it, and I certainly do not, then you can if you wish submit a correction to Wikipedia's entry, as they make no reference to its being used by responder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DONT

I don't know if there is a procedure for correcting Bridgeguys.com page but if there is a way then perhaps that also

http://www.bridgeguy...tions/dont.html

Your attribution as "nonsense" is frankly something of an overbid

[StevenG]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-March-12, 02:40, said:

Another simple method is to XX with a 5+ card suit, partner bids 2♣ and you pass or correct, with 2 4 card suits, you bid the lower, with a 4333 you make something up.

This is my preferred method. It works well, at least in the part of England I play my club bridge.

[Liversidge]

 1eyedjack, on 2017-March-12, 08:03, said:

DONT is really a defence to 1N, not a re-defence to X of 1N. Or so I have always understood.

The only DONT rule that I think is clearly of value is DON'T play exit transfers.

http://www.bridgehan...scow_Escape.htm

This refers to a DONT runout after 1NT doubled. I have come across other references including one in PDF format which which I have downloaded but can't remember the source. The relevant paragraph is:

It is based on the DONT convention played by many pairs when competing over 1NT opening bids. I have therefore named this approach “DONT Runouts”. It lets you to find the best place to play when the opponents have doubled your partner's weak 1NT opening bid.

Interestingly the writer claims to have invented it.

[Liversidge]

Just found the source for the second reference to a DONT run out after 1NT doubled:
http://www.bridgesig...WeakNTPart3.pdf

The writer is Howard Schutzman, and the site describes him as a teacher and expert player on BBO. His BBO nickname is hondo717.

Neither is what I would call a modification of DONT, rather they are adoptions of elements of DONT. I should have been more accurate with my original post.

[msjennifer]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-March-12, 02:40, said:

Another simple method is to XX with a 5+ card suit, partner bids 2♣ and you pass or correct, with 2 4 card suits, you bid the lower, with a 4333 you make something up.

This is a part of the " Wriggling" convention which enables one to play in a 5+ card suit with responder or In a suit at least 4-3 fit which opponents may find difficult to penalize( more so if the contract is 2H/S.) With a responding hand which responder would normally have redoubled,he passes and then opener may bid a 5 + card suit of his own or redouble asking responder to a) pass with a hand which normally would have redoubled or b) to bid his only 4 card suit as an escape with a poor hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

some general comments

#1 You want an escape for a NB partnership, I would not worry to much
about wrong / right siding the contract.

#2 answer the question, if you want to allow for playing 1NTx, this is
something you need to do upfront, quite often 1NTx may be your best
contract, the downside is, you loose options in the search for your
best fit

#3 List of methods http://www.blakjak.org/dbl_1nt0.htm

#4 take your pick, dont worry to much

#5 The advantage of a DONT scheme, or lets say, bidding the lowest with
44, is that, the bid can be passed out, which has a lot going for it.
The downside is, that you quite often will start with the minor, and doubling
minors on the 2 level is not a big risk at IMPs, i.e. fear for 2Mx=, that
stops lots of peoble to go for blood, and in consequence helps to escape
without big issues, is not your helping friend.
On a side note: This type of scheme was not introduced by DONT, the Baron
conventions used this kind of method since ???.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nekthen]

I use exit transfers and don't see a problem. Transfers are used all over the place in modern bridge. In fact the version of exit transfers I use includes a dont runout.
http://www.bridgeguy...nsfer_bids.html

So pass asks p to redbl, which starts the dont run out or allows you to pass for game bonus.
The transfer allows you to run to probably your best suit and puts the doubler on lead, if he is LHO.
If RHO dbls, there are two big differences:
1. Partner has passed
2. RHO generally has the same strength as the 1N bidder and is under the 1N bidder

I will generally pass it round to partner who may run to a minor that he was unable to bid on the first round.

Whatever you do, sometimes you will get hammered, but the benefits of the weak NT outweigh the occasional bad result.

[1eyedjack]

My principal objection to exit transfers is that they give the opponents too many bites at the cherry just at the moment when they are most likely to appreciate the favour. If you as the opening side settle into your final resting place as quickly as possible you put them under maximum pressure with minimum opportunity to combine both takeout doubles and penalty doubles in their armory.

If (say) as responder you bid 2D as a transfer to Hearts, then advancer can (1) Pass and later double, (2) double the 2D bid (and later double 2H), or (3) if he has absolutely no interest in penalising Hearts, can cue 2H. With such a wealth of options he can show both a penalty of Hearts or a takeout of Hearts, and with a bid to spare if he can think what to do with it (cue 2H as transfer???)

By contrast, if as responder you just bid 2H to play, then advancer has potentially only one bite, and whether a double is take-out or penalty will have been pre-agreed, but whichever agreement he has he will regret on occasion when he has the other type.

I regard placing the opponents under pressure to be a higher priority than dancing on a pin.

[Vampyr]

 1eyedjack, on 2017-March-13, 04:44, said:

My principal objection to exit transfers is that they give the opponents too many bites at the cherry just at the moment when they are most likely to appreciate the favour. If you as the opening side settle into your final resting place as quickly as possible you put them under maximum pressure with minimum opportunity to combine both takeout doubles and penalty doubles in their armory.

If (say) as responder you bid 2D as a transfer to Hearts, then advancer can (1) Pass and later double, (2) double the 2D bid (and later double 2H), or (3) if he has absolutely no interest in penalising Hearts, can cue 2H. With such a wealth of options he can show both a penalty of Hearts or a takeout of Hearts, and with a bid to spare if he can think what to do with it (cue 2H as transfer???)

By contrast, if as responder you just bid 2H to play, then advancer has potentially only one bite, and whether a double is take-out or penalty will have been pre-agreed, but whichever agreement he has he will regret on occasion when he has the other type.

I regard placing the opponents under pressure to be a higher priority than dancing on a pin.

Another big problem with the method is the inability to play 1NTx.

[Liversidge]

Thanks everyone.
Just one further question - what if responder is 4333? The usual guideline is:
If the holding is 4-3-3-3, most partnerships treat the holding as two-suited.
Not sure what that means but I am guessing that if the 4 card suit is a major then you start with your better 3 card minor?

[eagles123]

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