[Jinksy]

---

IMP teams.

Systemic agreements are to not let them play in 2m undoubled. Partner's X of 2♦ would have been optional - neither pure penalties nor pure takeout (so his pass is consistent with either of the latter)

[MrAce]

I pass and say sorry to pd if he has 24 hcp.

[GrahamJson]

It seems like a crazy system to me. How can you have a forcing pass without the option for responder of doubling for penalties?

As it is I would be tempted to pass.

[Jinksy]

North is a substantial favourite to hold more diamond honours than S on this sequence, so there's not that much value in a penalty X. In any case, if you want to penalise, you X, and P will pass unless he has (approx) the sort of hand that would have pulled an outright penalty X had you somehow been acting first.

[nige1]

Jinksy writes "IMP teams. Systemic agreements are to not let them play in 2m undoubled. Partner's X of 2♦ would have been optional - neither pure penalties nor pure takeout (so his pass is consistent with either of the latter)."

IMO it's OK to play a forcing pass, provided double is Take-out or Penalty (but not ambiguous). If forced to play Jinksy's method, then I rank
- Double = OPT -- the least evil. Presumably, if you had doubled 2♣ it would have been optional. So your earlier pass denied that possibility. Hence, In view of LHO's 2♦ preference, partner can deduce that you hold a club suit. In a forcing-pass context, double is your best hope.
- 2♥ = NAT, but should show 5 cards or a better suit.
- Pass = Anti-systemic psych. Breaking agreements undermines partnership confidence. Better to suck up a bad result and use the experience as an argument for changing your agreements. Unless, of course, forcing doesn't really mean "forcing" but just "highly invitational"

---

[gszeszycki]

QUOTE IMP teams.

Systemic agreements are to not let them play in 2m undoubled. Partner's X of 2♦ would have been optional - neither pure penalties nor pure takeout (so his pass is consistent with either of the latter). UNQUOTE

Partner is strong so game is a real possibility. if we examine the evidence we find p has 3-5 spades 3-5 hearts (but probably not both (5) since a 3d call is probably available for that) 3-5 dia 0-2 clubs.

Our hand is worth zero on defense so that means p will be defending by themselves. On offense we might have a spade ruff (or two) and be able to use the entry(ies) to take probably successful finesses. The bidding seems to indicate pure penalty since it is totally unreasonable to assume p has a tox with a max of 2c. SOO does the pure penalty mean p expects to always have 6+ tricks in defense or is it merely a strong suggestion that 2d x looks like our best spot? At MP where just defeating 2d is probably worth some MP, x seems ok. Imps though is another story. Unless 2dx is slated to down 2 (p can take 7 tricks in their hand) bidding 2h will rarely be a horrific result and may allow us to make a game. That is what the risk vs reward concept means.

2H is not necessarily the end of the bidding since p can still come back with 2n 3n 3h 4h 2s (even 3d then we wish we had passed). With such a horrific hand for defense it just seems prudent to run flee scurry for cover and hope to survive.

Another consideration is it possible p meant the pass as TOX for the majors (since south showed both minors) we do not know for sure. If p is showing the major suit tox then leaving 2d in might be a disaster with them making and our side having a heart game. Without a clear understanding of this particular auction it seems much clearer to bid 2h due to the fog of war.

2h = 7
p = 3
x = 1

[ggwhiz]

Partner didn't double 2♦, doesn't have many clubs and didn't bid spades.

I'm bidding 2♥ and ditching this agreement forthwith, especially the fact that if partner doubles 2♦ it doesn't mean anything.

[Jinksy]

 nige1, on 2016-November-23, 04:02, said:

- Double = OPT -- the least evil. Presumably, if you had doubled 2♣ it would have been optional. So your earlier pass denied that possibility. Hence, In view of LHO's 2♦ preference, partner can deduce that you hold a club suit. In a forcing-pass context, double is your best hope.

P's double was optional. Yours, under the presumptive values (even in diamonds) is just takeout.

Quote

- Pass = Anti-systemic psych. Breaking agreements undermines partnership confidence. Better to suck up a bad result and use the experience as an argument for changing your agreements. Unless, of course, forcing doesn't really mean "forcing" but just "highly invitational" [/hv]

In this case it means 'P will pass with an arbitrarily strong hand if he didn't have a more suitable call available'.

[msjennifer]

I feel we can't beat them in 2 diamonds]I cannot make a TOD as I do not wish P to bid 2♠..A 2♥ bid appears the only solution(personal opinion) and that's what is my bid.

[mycroft]

As a weak NT player who plays a similar runout scheme, I really really love opponents who let us play 2m undoubled. It is almost never a bad result, and when it is, it's -150 into -140 or -200 where we're getting a zero from having opened. I strongly encourage all of our opponents to ditch "don't let them play 2m undoubled" agreements.

Having said that, like a lot, I wonder what the double of 2♣ would have been. I happen to like XXX (no comment), where the pass denies "something to show, implying that we're not getting enough defending" (whether that's a low defence-to-offence ratio or just we likely have game and we're not getting enough) or "cards" (X). So partner knows I'm not "strong". Partner also doesn't have "pure penalty" or "pure takeout". Maybe he can make the best guess?

I don't mind giving away -180 (don't expect 380, but if they get it when we're set to overruff the clubs then it may not be a bad score - even 580 might be good) at IMPs. If I bid us out, I give up on +200, and might not even scramble to a plus. I also give up on -90, which will beat any contract we get set in (but -110 won't).

There are bad hands for any system; this might be the one I'm eating for the ones I get back when they actually did step out too far.

[mikestar13]

2♥ seems to be the best of a very bad lot. The method as presented is unplayable.

[Jinksy]

X of 2♣ would be normal takeout for us, given that it's a likely place for them to play (but the honours still rate to be to our left).

[m1cha]

 Jinksy, on 2016-November-22, 18:08, said:

Systemic agreements are to not let them play in 2m undoubled. Partner's X of 2♦ would have been optional - neither pure penalties nor pure takeout (so his pass is consistent with either of the latter)

You must be aware that your only systemic option is to double! Any other call automatically violates your system agreements since there is no way back to the penalty double if your partner has the penalty hand. And if you had an agreement about with what kind of hand you run from the penalty option, you'd certainly have told us, wouldn't you?
Having said that, I guess I would also try 2♥.
Can we assume that partner has a more or less balanced hand because otherwise he'd bid his own suit(s) earlier? If so, playing 2♥ looks like a good spot to me. Opponents obviously have a good fit in ♦, and ours is not in any of the black suits.

[Jinksy]

at the people claiming it's unplayable.

Imagine P had doubled for penalties (also 'unplayable'?). Would you have passed? Then double now. Or would you have bid? Then make that bid now (or pass).

[Jinksy]

The full hand:

---

Bidding 2♥ will land you in a dodgy game that makes on the actual distribution (I think it needs a 3-3 spade split to avoid you getting forced in clubs). Doubling will pick up 500. At the table West passed, and the opps bid the game, so we lost 9 IMPs.

[MrAce]

 Jinksy, on 2016-November-26, 05:05, said:

The full hand:

Bidding 2♥ will land you in a dodgy game that makes on the actual distribution (I think it needs a 3-3 spade split to avoid you getting forced in clubs). Doubling will pick up 500. At the table West passed, and the opps bid the game, so we lost 9 IMPs.

It needs more than 3-3 ♠ to make game to start with. Such as 3-2 hearts. I did not check all of it but just 3-3♠&3-2♥ together brings it down to low 20% game.

Of course everything is playable as long as there are people willing to play. But this method is an AWFUL one. Here is why.

• One of the things you will figure out in the future is that when you DBL 1 NT and if it is not a good time to double, opponents tend to run from 1 NT double A LOT! Because they are not sure whether the doubler has a long running suit or not. Or just like in your example, some idiots do not have the option of sitting on 1 NT doubled. They have to play it either redoubled or run to a suit.
• In your agreement, there is NO WAY your side can bail out when they (NT opener or his pd) make the wrong choice and run from 1 NT doubled. They bail you and your method puts you right back into the fire. This alone is a HUGE downside.
• Forget about making wrong choice, if opponents know your methods, they can and they will set you up as they please.

[Jinksy]

 MrAce, on 2016-November-26, 06:53, said:

It needs more than 3-3 ♠ to make game to start with. Such as 3-2 hearts. I did not check all of it but just 3-3♠&3-2♥ together brings it down to low 20% game.

Of course everything is playable as long as there are people willing to play. But this method is an AWFUL one. Here is why.

In your agreement, there is NO WAY your side can bail out when they (NT opener or his pd) make the wrong choice and run from 1 NT doubled. They bail you and your method puts you right back into the fire. This alone is a HUGE downside.
• Forget about making wrong choice, if opponents know your methods, they can and they will set you up as they please.

I'm not sure I understand the criticism (but I think I disagree with it either way). Are you complaining about the forcing pass or the meaning of the X?

Forcing pass I'm fairly ambivalent about, but I strongly disagree it's unplayable - it's a common treatment in England for just the reasons Mycroft gave. Sometimes you overcompete and once in a while you double their making contract, other times you can compete more accurately or double their nonmaking contract.

As for the double, IMO it's a clear improvement over normal 'takeout' or 'penalty' options. With those (and assuming you're playing the same principles regardless of who runs), suppose the 1N bidder runs to 2D nat to your right, LHO silent - whichever you play, you have no good call with such as (hand1) AQxx KQx QTx Kxx. You don't have a penalty X (or if you penalty X on these hands, you'll miss penalties every time you have a diamond holding like KJTx and P can't let you penalise with a singleton), but 'takeout' when the canonical hand would be such as (hand 2) AQxx KQTx x KQxx is horrible too (aside from anything else if P passes under the bidder they might well make).

Similarly, say on the same sequence you hold (hand 3) AQJxx x QTx KQJx. Again, you don't have anything close to a penalty X, but you don't have a takeout X either.

Solution: instead of partitioning desire to X two ways, partition it three ways. You can now X (the middle road) on hand 1 and hand 3, allowing partner to pass with such as xxx xxx KJx Axxx. On hand one, if they run to 2♥ or 3♣ you'll make the same kind of X a second time. If they run to 2♠ you'll make a penalty (or penalty-seeking) pass.

On hand three if they run to 2♥ you can bid 2♠ (pulling partner's X if necessary - leaving it in would be a poor idea even if his X was straight penalties IMO).

You have to decide systemically where you expect to find the honours where responder rather than opener has shown the suit and so who is 'under' it (we've found that assuming they're with opener works better), but otherwise the principles are the same.

So you lose pass-and-pull as a strong forcing bid, which costs you something in game-bidding clarity, but in exchange you gain the ability to X them more effectively. I'm not sure what you're contrasting this treatment with, but vs most common treatments it makes it easier to penalise them, not harder! It might well not be the optimal approach, but again I think 'unplayable' is a huge overbid. We've playtested it a lot and got better results than any of the standard treatments.

[MrAce]

Obviously you do not understand it and I do not have the energy to type it.

[Jinksy]

I reread your comment, and I think you're saying when they were making 1Nx, they run and we stick our neck in the noose again by having a forcing pass?

If so then sure, that's a downside of playing a forcing pass, and I can believe it's better not to. But I just don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you say. They normally don't know any better than we do when they run (or they wouldn't have run), so getting doubled and taken for 300+ is very rare. I can think of at least one near top-tier UK player who plays this method, so I assume he's had good experiences with it (and probably more of them than players of equivalent strength in countries where the weak NT is less prevalent).

[mycroft]

I think it's absolutely necessary to agree how far a penalty double of 1NT (no matter what the strength) forces your side. It can be "no force at all, they can play 2♣ undoubled"; it can be "if I run, that kills any force"; it can be "through 2♦, where double is not game"; it can be "through 2♠" (obviously you'll pull 2Mx more often though); it can be whatever. But I think it's absolutely necessary to have an agreement, and I think a lot of players at least in my area do not. Whether that is because they don't play penalty/strong NT, so it's just against us, or whether they just haven't thought of it, I don't know.

I believe quite strongly in a cards double by advancer; that goes double if there is no force (but you'd better also have an agreement how far 1NT-X-run-X forces you!) If you want to go full XXX and the second double is takeout, fine; but I don't think it plays well without a "forced through ..." somewhere, because you don't have a call when you have cards and their suit.

I happen to play "forced through 2♦, advancer's double is cards" myself. I happen to like it. Not only because it beats my preferred runout, and my preferred runout is very successful in the ACBL; I understand MrAce's objection to it (you've just turned -90 back into the -180 they were booked for before they rescued you), but from experience, for every time that happens, there are 3 or so times they've just turned +200 or +300 into +100 with +110 or +140 available, and scored by the rest of the room that didn't have to defend an opening 1NT.

I am sure that some of my experience is biased by the fact that there are about three weak NT pairs in our city (so auctions that start 1NT-X are tops or bottoms already), and by the fact that our runout system allows us to both grudgingly play 1NTx and enthusiastically play 1NTxx (many can't do one or the other) - so we rarely run from a making contract.