BBO Discussion Forums: Escape from weak 1NT doubled - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Escape from weak 1NT doubled

#61 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,521
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2017-March-18, 11:45

View PostVampyr, 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.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mPosted ImagesPosted ImagetPosted Imager-mPosted ImagendPosted Imageing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.

"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"

"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
0

#62 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,410
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2017-March-18, 11:57

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.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
0

#63 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,408
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-March-19, 04:42

View Post1eyedjack, 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.
London, England
0

#64 User is offline   Wackojack 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 809
  • Joined: 2004-September-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Interests:I have discovered that the water cooler is a chrono-synclastic infundibulum

Posted 2017-March-19, 12:29

View PostVampyr, 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.
May 2003: Mission accomplished
Oct 2006: Mission impossible
Soon: Mission illegal
0

#65 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,541
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2017-March-19, 16:32

View Postnige1, 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)...

View Postpaulg, 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

View Poststeve2005, 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 :(
0

#66 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,521
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2017-March-19, 21:06

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.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mPosted ImagesPosted ImagetPosted Imager-mPosted ImagendPosted Imageing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.

"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"

"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
0

#67 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2017-March-19, 23:30

View Postgwnn, 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.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#68 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,952
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-20, 03:38

View Postaguahombre, 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.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#69 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2017-March-20, 11:08

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.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#70 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,952
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-March-21, 02:59

View Postaguahombre, 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.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#71 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,122
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Harrogate, UK

Posted 2017-March-21, 04:13

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
Maybe seniors should not be forced to deal with modern technology like bidding boxes and screens. --- Vampyr
1

#72 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,408
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-March-21, 06:15

View PostZelandakh, 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.
London, England
0

#73 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,408
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-March-21, 06:17

Please delete
London, England
0

#74 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,591
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Enschede, the Netherlands
  • Interests:matching LaTeX delimiters :(

Posted 2017-March-21, 09:46

View Postaguahombre, 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.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
1

#75 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,122
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Harrogate, UK

Posted 2017-March-21, 10:08

View Postgwnn, 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.
Maybe seniors should not be forced to deal with modern technology like bidding boxes and screens. --- Vampyr
0

#76 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,591
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Enschede, the Netherlands
  • Interests:matching LaTeX delimiters :(

Posted 2017-March-21, 17:04

View Posthelene_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.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4


Fast Reply

  

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users