[pclayton]

Say pard opens 1N and RHO makes a penalty x. You xx which is ostensibly a single suited runout. RHO now competes with 2♠:

1N - (x) - xx - (p)
2♣ (2♠) - ?

How would play double and 2N here? What would you bid with x Txxx J9xxx Axx?

[the hog]

You said "ostensibly". Dos it have other meanings in your system?
Anyway to answer the question. X = penalties, 2NT = some 2 suiter and Pass with the given hand.

[han]

Passing with this hand is really bad imo. I also don't understand why it is a single suited run-out.

In fact, I have trouble visualising a single suited run-out that might want to double here.

[helene_t]

I suppose x would be one or more of the secondary meanings of XX, whatever they are.

If I intended this as a single-suited runout, I suppose I will have to pass now, since I don't have a hand for 3♦, and presumably the only things I can show is that or some secondary meaning of XX. Maybe 2NT as "in fact my single-suiter was one of those two-suiters we cannot show" would be theoretically superior but unless playing with Ken Rexford I wouldn't torture p with such an inference.

[han]

Well, I have never played bridge with Ron but I'm pretty sure that if he pulled the 2NT followed by 3D on me I would read it as a red 2-suiter. I consider this almost "natural" bidding.

[Hanoi5]

What about passing?

It's difficult to know what to do. You were SOS'ing and they have a pparetly saved you, why continue bidding?

[655321]

Hanoi5, on Jun 11 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

What about passing?

It's difficult to know what to do. You were SOS'ing and they have a pparetly saved you, why continue bidding?

We ran from 1NT in order to get to a safer part score, not out of fear as such - avoiding nasty accidents such as watching the opponents run an 8 card spade suit against 1NTX.

But now, with at least half the deck, and a singleton in their suit, we would like to compete further. Making 3 of a red suit is obviously better than watching them score up 2♠.

(I am assuming partner has a strong NT.)

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Jun 11 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

Say pard opens 1N and RHO makes a penalty x. You xx which is ostensibly a single suited runout. RHO now competes with 2♠:

1N - (x) - xx - (p)
2♣ (2♠) - ?

How would play double and 2N here? What would you bid with x Txxx J9xxx Axx?

takeout/2 places/double unless red@imps

[pclayton]

I didn't mean ostensibly, but that shouldn't affect your conclusions about the hand.

[mikeh]

I think I need more info about our methods. But I assume that we would not have redoubled, ostensibly a 1-suiter, with a 3-suiter, nor a 2-suiter.. I assume we can show 2-suiters some other way, and that we treat 3-suiters as 2-suiters, guessing which suit to risk losing (altho showing the lower, in a p/c sequence, will often effectively bring all 3 suits into play).

If we can't have a 3-suiter or a 2-suiter... just what is left??

I can see psyching the one suiter runout on some horrible 4333 hand, where our other choices were to psych a 2-suiter or end up in a hopeless 1N xx'd... but such hands always pass 2♠. If we have a 4333 that can double 2♠, we'd be trying to play 1N xx'd.

So while the idea of having a penalty double seems unlikely, I can't see any better use for the double, since we have 2N available for takeout, whatever that means. Maybe 2N shows a 6=4 hand of some kind... but why risk ending up in a 4-3 when we are assured of a 6-2 or better in our long suit?

So my answer is that double is penalty and 2N seems impossible.

[kenrexford]

1NT-X-XX as "ostensibly" a one-suited runout means, I presume, a transfer to 2♣ to pass or correct to 2♦.

Just as you might bid 2♦ after 1NT-P-2♦ as a transfer to 2♥, planning to pass, with a "one-suiter" with hearts,m but may have this pattern of 5431, so also you could "transfer" to 2♦ via the XX with 5431 pattern.

So, I'd expect X to show a heart-based "one-suiter," something like 1453/1435,m with 2NT by Opener declining hearts and asking for the minor, 3♣ by Opener doing the same thing but showing real clubs, 3♦ more dangerous (1426 e.g.).

2NT would look more like 5-4 minors, except that this creates a problem of Opener asking for the longer minor. He must pick one. Actually, Responder could easily have 5-5 minors. He might pick one at the two-level but then suggest both at the three-level if he has to be there anyway.

[pclayton]

The person that gave me this hand plays xx as any single suited runout. A direct transfer (or stayman) shows constructive values and invites pard to compete. Occasionally, RHO is horsing around with a single-suiter of his own with an entry, so your bidding system shouldn't go to waste here.

I have a hard time coming up with a hand that wants to run from 1N and now suddenly wants to smack 2♠. KTxx xx Jxxxx xx? Even thats seems dicey to me.

I think double should be 100% takeout and the hand I gave is a good example. After all, this isn't a 2 suiter and bringing in a 5-3 club fit is very attractive.

2N should be 4-5 or 5-4 in the minors probably, although expressing which one is longer is a problem.