[Liversidge]

gwnn, on 2017-March-14, 12:48, said:

Sometimes responder also doesn't know whether or not he has a willingness to play 1NTx or whether it's the least of all evils. That's when he passes and opener should respect that

When playing Exit Transfers my understanding is that the redouble is mandatory. Responder may know exactly what he is going to do after the redouble, and opener should not try to second-guess him.

I am not trying to defend Exit Transfers - after the above comments I am giving it up, and with it the XX.

[gwnn]

Liversidge, on 2017-March-14, 14:08, said:

When playing Exit Transfers my understanding is that the redouble is mandatory. Responder may know exactly what he is going to do after the redouble, and opener should not try to second-guess him.

I am not trying to defend Exit Transfers - after the above comments I am giving it up, and with it the XX.

Oh yea sorry I thought you were making a generic point about pass possibly being a weak 4432/4333 in natural methods since your post applied quite well for that case too.

Just to clarify what I meant by transfers, they're easier:
1NT-x-?
pass = offer to play
xx = clubs
2♣ = diamonds
2♦ = hearts
2♥ = spades
2♠ = some strong hand I guess?
2NT = some strong hand I guess?
jumps = natural preempts

I guess you could play cheap transfer + bid a suit as a canape two-suiter (in case we have a 5-4 fit or something) but I never thought about this...

1NT-x-p-p
?
natural bids with 5-6 card suits by opener (doubler will be on lead)

1NT-p-p-x
transfers (doubler will be on lead)

1NT-p-p-x
p-p-?
natural (doubler will be on lead)

I never had good experience with running with 4432's (we "find" a 4-3 on the 3 level sometimes), although to be fair, I never had too much good experience with sitting either (usually we miss some juicy 44/54 fit and opps asked "huh these dudes don't play runouts?)!

[m1cha]

eagles123, on 2017-March-13, 06:27, said:

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

How about playing 1NTxx instead?

With one partner I was playing a mini 1NT for years. We used the following escape system which we developed to minimize the possibility of playing in a misfit. It's also quite easy to memorize:

• XX with any weak 5-card suit, opener bids 2♣ to pass or correct;
• 2(any) is 4-4+ in that suit and ♠ except that 2♣ can also be any 4333
  (The advantage over some other systems is that opener can choose to play in ♠ - which can be important if you play matchpoints or want to snatch the contract from the opponents.);
• pass is forcing, opener must redouble! After that, from responder

• 2♣ is clubs and a red suit 4-4+;
• 2♦ is both red suits 4-4+;
• 2♥/2♠ is invitational in that suit (preferaby used if opps interfere again);
• pass means you want to play a full game on the 1 level.

With 5-4 you bid 4-4 or the 5-card suit depending on the suits and their qualities.

To be fair, playing 1NTxx instead of 1NTx has a down side: Since it's a full game, opps usually run ...

[Vampyr]

m1cha, on 2017-March-14, 16:48, said:

How about playing 1NTxx instead?

....

To be fair, playing 1NTxx instead of 1NTx has a down side: Since it's a full game, opps usually run ...

Yeah, the undertricks are pretty expensive too.

[m1cha]

GrahamJson, on 2017-March-14, 10:26, said:

The problem with most other systems is that you can often end up one level higher in a 43 fit, which may not generate an extra trick, let alone two.

True. But it may. And if not, it may not matter because your opponents will find it hard to double your 2-in-a-suit because they don't know if you are playing in a 4-3-, 4-4-, or 4-5-fit.

[m1cha]

Vampyr, on 2017-March-14, 19:06, said:

Yeah, the undertricks are pretty expensive too.

Undertricks? Which undertricks?

Well, sh** happens, of course, but you run when you're weak and you don't play redoubled unless you are sure you have at least 20 HCP. And if the opponents want to know, they also get this information, and that's why they run. While undertricks can certainly happen, they're not what we worry about.

[Zelandakh]

My recommendation for N/B/I that want to move beyond natural takeouts would be Moscow escapes, which are basically what Nick describes - system on (Stayman, red suit transfers) with XX escaping to a minor (or possibly both majors).

eagles123, on 2017-March-13, 06:27, said:

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

I disagree quite strongly with this. My experience has been that you break even often enough on the 7 card fits playing 1 trick better that the ability to find the better fit ends up being much better overall than the ability to reside in 1NTX on marginal and flat hands.

Liversidge, on 2017-March-13, 06:16, said:

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?

I use a fairly complicated runout system (based on Spelvic) in which I specifically define how to deal with 4333 hands. Basically the rule I use is to pretend you have a club more and redouble if it comes back to you in 2♣X. The long form is this:-

1NT - (X)
==
P = forces XX
... - XX = forced
... - ... - 2♣ = ♣ and a red suit or 3(34)3
... - ... - 2♦ = ♦ + ♥
... - ... - 2♥ = ♥ + ♠ (longer ♥)
... - ... - 2♠+ = freak 2-suiters
XX = forces 2♣
... - 2♣ = forced, one-suited or 3334
... - ... - P = to play
2♣ = ♣ + ♠ or 4333
2♦ = ♦ + ♠
2♥ = ♥ + ♠ (equal/longer ♠)
2♠ = natural, willing to be raised (effectively preemptive)
2NT = ♣ + ♦ (at least 5-5)

The 4333 sequences are then:

4♠333: 1NT - (X) - 2♣ - (X); P - (P) - XX and 1NT - (X) - 2♣ - (P); P - (X) - XX
4red333: 1NT - (X) - P - (P); XX - (P) - 2♣ - (X); P - (P) - XX and 1NT - (X) - P - (P); XX - (P) - 2♣ - (P); P - (X) - XX
4♣333: 1NT - (X) - XX - (P); 2♣ - (X) - XX and 1NT - (X) - XX - (P); 2♣ - (P) - P - (X); P - (P) - XX

What this gives up is the SOS redouble but this method has an alternative way of handling 3-suiters, so the trade-off is worth it. It is not a method I would recommend for N/B though. Nor is it a method I think anyone that has played it would describe as "terrible".

[gwnn]

fred and some other very strong players (sorry weasel word but I can't remember who it was, although I seem to remember Frances was one of them) have also come out in favour of 1NT-x-pass showing an offer to play 1NTx. I don't have extensive experience but I would trust their judgement.

edit: awm wrote a very good case against 1NT-x-p forcing redouble and fred and Frances indeed posted in that thread. (ignore my post there, it's rubbish)
http://www.bridgebas...post__p__174856
edit2: Frances making a similary very good case against 1NT-x-p forcing redouble here:
http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry199178

[benlessard]

At N/B level it doenst matter that much but at stronger level you will want to be able to play 1NTx and avoid transfers.

I think whats best is simply

Pass= pts or 4333
XX= sos at least 44
2Y= to play

opener can XX in balancing seat with a 5 card suit, if your pass was any 4333 you bid 2C and if your pass was pts you convert.

Since you dont use artificial bid (other than the XX) its tougher for LHO to show values or setup forcing pass.

[helene_t]

benlessard, on 2017-March-16, 16:14, said:

XX= sos at least 44

DONT (or whatever the politically correct term for it is) is better since if it goes, with your methods,
xx-2♦
2♥
and opener is 4333 he can't correct to spades as responder might not have spades. So we miss the spades fit.

Conversely, playing DONT(?), if it goes
2♦-2♥
responder knows that he can correct to 2♠ since opener is asking him to do that and would have passed 2♦ if he had a doubleton spades (this all assumes that opener doesn't have two doubletons. I think this is true for most English club players, and almost true for the rest)

[aguahombre]

Just asking here, from lack of experience with using weak nt, BUT: even though it has less stuff, isn't it still a good idea for the big hand which doubled to be on opening lead up to the weak nt hand rather than the other hand leading through it??

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2017-March-17, 08:40, said:

Just asking here, from lack of experience with using weak nt, BUT: even though it has less stuff, isn't it still a good idea for the big hand which doubled to be on opening lead up to the weak nt hand rather than the other hand leading through it??

Yes that's why some people like and suggested transfers (by whoever is under the doubler).

[NickRW]

Speaking in general about transfers over various strength ranges of NT openers, they are more useful the stronger the NT range. Yes it is useful to have the lead come up to the NT opener, even if the range is quite weak. However, the responding is hand is something of an unknown quantity in terms of exact shape and, especially over the weaker NT ranges, can be quite variable as to strength as well. So there is virtue in keeping the responding hand concealed.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2017-March-12, 03:37, said:

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.

IMO, You must alert when you open 1N and partner replies 2♣ (say) that could be natural but which you never raise, because, systemically, it might instead show a shortage with other suits.

Opponents safest option may be to pass the response, especially if you are vulnerable, hoping that you will be left struggling in what might be a 2-2 fit or worse.

If you fail to alert, however, opponents, duped into assuming your bid to be natural, might be tempted to double, allowing you to escape to a 4-4 or better fit.

CORRECTION. SORRY: PaulG points out that EBU regulations stipulate that such bids are NOT alertable.

This post has been edited by nige1: 2017-July-28, 16:53

[benlessard]

"DONT (or whatever the politically correct term for it is) is better since if it goes, with your methods,
xx-2♦
2♥
and opener is 4333 he can't correct to spades as responder might not have spades. So we miss the spades fit."


If responder is 54??,45??,4?5?,?45?,5?4?,?54?

with Dont ill need to bid my cheapest suit and hope opener guess correctly. With my method I xx opener with 4333,3433,3343 will bid 2D and ill pick my 5 card suit.

So with ?54?/45?? ill play 2H and with 54??,5?4? ill play 2S.

There is also the 2 suiter with a 3 card fragment where XX allow you to sometimes stop in 2C or avoid a double, (op) 3325 vs resp 4243.

But by far the most important of all is when i hold a single suiter i dont want to XX, by XX first I allow LHO to show values and setup FP and bid directly when hes got crap, if I directly bid i put way more pressure on them and i want that pressure when I have a singlesuiter and know where i want to plya not when my hand can be played in 2 or 3 spots.

Also bidding the 5 card suit directly sometimes allow opener to raise (we play 1NT may have 5M), we raise vul with a knowned 10 card fit or sometimes fav with a 9 card fit and a doubleton.

[sfi]

benlessard, on 2017-March-16, 16:14, said:

Pass= pts or 4333

opener can XX in balancing seat with a 5 card suit, if your pass was any 4333 you bid 2C and if your pass was pts you convert.

Nice! You actually have a systemic way to tell the opponents you are in trouble and they should double you. It saves all that nasty guesswork.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2017-March-17, 12:29, said:

IMO, You must alert when you open 1N and partner replies 2♣ (say) that could be natural but which you never raise, because, systemically, it might instead show a shortage with other suits.

Opponents safest option may be to pass the response, especially if you are vulnerable, hoping that you will be left struggling in what might be a 2-2 fit or worse.

If you fail to alert, however, opponents, duped into assuming your bid to be natural, might be tempted to double, allowing you to escape to a 4-4 or better fit.

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.

[1eyedjack]

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

People tend not to alert this.

There may be a correlation between the popularity of an alert and whether the sequence is alertable. That said, the popularity does not define the requirement.

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

The problem is that it is very difficult to defend when you are told "clubs or the other three".

That may be so. But it is not our problem.

[nige1]

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.

• Few people read the rules
• Fewer understand them.
• A tiny band of masochists try to comply with them.

Players rationalise their mushroom policy with the argument that if you divulge the truth about your understandings then it will only confuse your opponents. it seems to persuade many directors but it doesn't convince me.

I'll post this as a question in the laws forum,

[Vampyr]

1eyedjack, on 2017-March-18, 09:15, said:

There may be a correlation between the popularity of an alert and whether the sequence is alertable. That said, the popularity does not define the requirement.That may be so. But it is not our problem.

No? What is your defence to "clubs or not clubs"?