[kenrexford]

After about a decade of silence, I finally talked my wife into a relaunch of the original RUNT. One of my favorite little conventions to whip out.

The simple version (there is a MUCH more complicated version) is just a simple 1NT overcall to show 0-10 HCP, takeout (at least 3+ in all unbid suits). I swore to her that the call would come up two times, and that we would get two tops when it happened.

The first was a 1NT overcall of a 1♠ opening with ♠xxx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣10xxx. Responder bid 2♠, Advancer popped in 3♥, and 3♠ bought the contract, making five for a top when the field bid the easy game.

The second was a red 1NT overcall of a 1♥ opening with ♠J108x ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣Jxxx. Responder and Advancer passed to Opener, who reopened 2♥. Responder blasted 3NT, played there. Advancer found the killing defense to set 3NT three tricks; the field made 4♠, half bidding it and half signing off at 3♠.

Two times, two tops.

Gotta love that RUNT. LOL

[jjbrr]

i double

[kenrexford]

jjbrr, on Mar 25 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

i double

Yeah, RUNT without a very complicated escape structure eventually falls to the double. Even then, you eventually get caught. That's why you can only whip it out once every decade. LOL

[Free]

You really do this with 4333 0HCP?

[whereagles]

you trying to get a divorce, Ken?

[jjbrr]

kenrexford, on Mar 26 2010, 05:58 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 25 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

i double

Yeah, RUNT without a very complicated escape structure eventually falls to the double. Even then, you eventually get caught. That's why you can only whip it out once every decade. LOL

One weakness in my bridge game is that I'm really not great at creating action to stomp bad players. I'm not too creative or imaginative, and I would be reluctant to adopt methods like RUNT because they seem vulnerable to what should be obvious penalty doubles.

I suspect you'll agree that in the real world, what's obvious is not always obvious to the nice LOL on my left, so things like RUNT can really wreak havoc on these people.

Anyway, it does sound like a fun convention. Next time you let it out of its cage, keep us posted

[mikeh]

Sounds like a convention to use at the club where there are no good opps. Frankly, I think it is highly inappropriate.

Weak players go to the club to have an enjoyable time. When you haul out an unfamiliar destructive gadget, with or without pre-alerts and a suggested defence (I assume you do pre-alert and have defences?) you are f**king around at the expense of everyone else in the room.

If this gadget has any merit (and as others have suggested, decent opps will often start and end with double when you are in trouble), get it approved by the ACBL (maybe it is already legal for all I know) and play it in real bridge. If you won't, well...that says a lot about why you play it...and nothing nice about your reasons either.

The club game should not be all about you, Ken. Piss off enough weak players, who feel you are screwing them, and your club game will lose tables.

If you in fact play it only against opps who should be able to handle it, with prealerts, then I take all of this back.

[hanp]

Whether this is pre-alertable in ACBL land I don't know. For the rest I agree with mikeh.

[rbforster]

A club game should not be all about you. It should be about letting weaker players flounder their way to the wrong game on their own, and/or go down on your spectacular defense by breaking up the automatic squeeze they wouldn't have noticed happening by shifting at T2. If you jump start this process by making a preemptive 2 or 3 level bid, it's just not fair.

hanp, on Mar 26 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Whether this is pre-alertable in ACBL land I don't know. For the rest I agree with mikeh.

It's clearly allowed under competitive bids on the GCC. No special defense is required. If the opps don't know where the red card is when you overcall 1N and they have a 10+ hand, they're hopeless even if they didn't understand or ask about the alert.

Quote

3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either
...
b) three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three suits.)

Never mind that shortness is not required here, so that technically 3334 is takeout of clubs...

As for prealerting, if you do overcall at the one level with less than 6 HCPs, that's prealertable. If you played RUNT with a range of 6-10 instead of 0-10, a prealert would not be required. Read more about the ACBL Alert Procedures if you care - ACBL Alert Procedures.

[kenrexford]

For the record, for those who have this silly response...

This overcall that I call "RUNT" has been around for YEARS. It is often called a Baron 1NT Overcall. See, e.g., http://www.bridgehan...mp_Overcall.htm

The call is 100% GCC legal, as it has been specifically provided for on the GCC. Compare that, for example, with the paranoia about opening 2♥ to show a weak two in hearts simply because you have a treatment requiring a four-card minor also, which is disallowed on the GCC. Hence, to the ACBL, a Baron 1NT Overcall for takeout is deemed easy enough to merit inclusion on the GCC.

3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either
a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5–4 distribution and at least one
known suit (At the four level or higher there is no requirement to have
a known suit.) or
b.) three-suit takeout (at least three cards in each of the three suits.)

Apparently, it is only a "level 2" convention on the EBU "Orange Book" from 1998, whatever that means, but it seems low.

I first found mention of Baron 1NT in a book from about 1950-something.

The fact that it is a very successful convention against the average player of today, and is therefore used by me (last night), somehow suggests that I am a cruel ogre of a player, making a mockery of the game and of the opponents, driving them from the game in fear? Please. Any preempt anyone every makes against these people does the exact same thing. The fact that a weak takeout seems odd and therefore against the spirit of the game to you is silly.

Let me see if I understand this. The ACBL devises the GCC to protect the idiot masses from anything "too out there" for their sensibilities to handle. A convention that has been approved and on the books for decades, however, works so well in real practice that it devastates the real opposition. It should not be used, however, because it is so damned effective, to the point of making the opponents look like and feel like completely hopeless. In fact, I should be ashamed of myself for using this GCC-approved convention, despite the fact that every time I use this GCC-legal convention I get this result. Why? Because using a convention that is so friggin' effective that it actually makes the opponents look that bad is poor sport?!?!?

By the way, how many people who are convinced that Baron or Runt is easily countered have ever played Baron or Runt or played against Baromn or Runt?

[mikeh]

Ken: as a lawyer you are probably familiar with the proposition that the most dangerous lie of all is a half-truth. Using a half truth allows the liar to argue, with some plausibility, that he isn't lying...after all, demonstrably some of what he alleged is true...and the liar tends to obsfucate the false part...

Calling your runt the baron 1N is a classic.

Baron shows a weak 3-suited takeout of an opening bid. Your very first example of your pet convention boasted about using it on a 4333. Only a half-truth teller would seriously contend that this hand was a 3-suited takeout.

And only a liar would now argue that he intended that bid as a psyche (leaving aside the ethical issue of whether, against weak players, one should psyche an unusual artifical call)...so I do not expect to see that feeble reply.

Baron is legal. It isn't played much, presumably because it is a horrible convention, that leads to many disasters for its proponents once they venture beyond baby seal territory. But your runt is not baron.

Your runt is primarily a device intended to disrupt the opps' bidding, as a simple thought exercise will show.

Opposite a genuine 3-suiter, advancer with a weak but shapely hand should bounce the auction to a sacrifice as soon as possible. Playing opposite a hand that, based on the only two examples boasted of by its inventor, will be 3334 or 4432, such bouncing makes no sense...and the users of the device KNOW that. They may announce: weak 3 suiter, but they KNOW that they are lying.

And if they tell the truth: weak hand, any shape, frequently balanced, then they can't pretend to be playing Baron...they have to admit to playing an illegal convention designed merely to take advantage of the opps' lack of skill.

Let's face it: who can possibly take pride in beating weak opps by using this device? It's one thing to beat up on the weaker players by using methods you;d use in real bridge....it is quite something else and something, in my view, unpleasant, to use an illegal and hideous gadget only against those unable to play properly and then boast about how great you are.

[kenrexford]

mike, first tell me that you have never had tdt3 and doubled 1S. then tell me how 0 to 10 and 3+ in every side suit is not a correct definition of the bid and what the gcc says. if I define the bid properly and the gcc approves it then I am no liar. are you a liar and guilty of nondisclosure when you double with 3433? please.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Mar 27 2010, 02:51 AM, said:

then tell me how 0 to 10 and 3+ in every side suit is not a correct definition of the bid

I think it starts when you use the word "Takeout" as a prefix...

[nige1]

kenrexford, on Mar 27 2010, 02:51 AM, said:

then tell me how 0 to 10 and 3+ in every side suit is not a correct definition of the bid

hrothgar, on Mar 26 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

I think it starts when you use the word "Takeout" as a prefix...

Not Baron, but explaining RUNT as "take-out" seems just as legal as explaining a double on a balanced 20 count as "takeout".
An appropriate link : Were you gonna RUNT too?

[campboy]

Presumably Ken explains what it shows accurately at the table, as he did in his original post; if he does not that is another issue.

But, this bid is clearly GCC-legal. The GCC uses exactly the same wording: "at least three cards in each of the three suits"; it does not specify any minimum strength.

[kenrexford]

this is why I call it "RUNT" and not Baron. andL we do alert it, explaining this as showing at least 3 cards in each unbid suit with the stated range. If asked to clarify, of course 4333 is stated as possible. Vuln might argue one direction, as would seat. Opposite a passed partner, white on red, caution is less a concern.

when you get responses questioning ethics as to disclosure despite disclosure, ethics about psyches despite no psychic, ethics about the GCC despite tracking the exact wording of the GCC, and ethics of taking advantage of weaker opponents by making legal calls that are not midchart, it seems like someone has some problem with me, personally, or a weird view of reality.

BTW, teopponents had no problem with the call, in the sense of outrage. On the missed game, the lack of max overcall X and RUNT enabled 3H intervention was deemed the problem, and they discussed that tool. On the 3NT, the position of Responder was that she should have doubled and would next time.

They saw the issue as a bridge issue, not an ethics one.

[the hog]

kenrexford, on Mar 27 2010, 03:47 AM, said:

For the record, for those who have this silly response...

snipped

By the way, how many people who are convinced that Baron or Runt is easily countered have ever played Baron or Runt or played against Baromn or Runt?

Ken I played the Baron take out for years when I was mentored by Jim and Norma Borin. It is about 9-12 HCP with typically 4441 or some 5440 shape. Not a 4333.

[mikeh]

Ken, you may be technically correct in stating that a 4333 hand can be defined as 3-suited, since the ACBL defines the required length as 3+ in each suit...thus with 3=3=3=4, after a 1♣ opening, you could bid 1N and argue that this shows the other 3 suits.

I think we all know or at least suspect that that is not what the drafters intended, but some people see rules, even of a game, as defining what they can get away with, rather than as indicating a 'spirit' of the game. I read years ago that this was a difference between Tom Watson and Gary Player as golfers...Tom thought that one should live by the spirit of the rules, whereas Gary thought that it was a triumph to find a way to argue that a rule didn't apply. I may be doing Player a disservice, since memory is fallible, but the distinction between two types of players has stuck with me.

But, you have done EXACTLY what I predicted...you have stressed the technically true parts of your argument while overlooking the fatal flaw.

Regardless of whether you can 'win' your way through on the argument that 3=3=3 in the unbid suits is a 3 suiter, there can surely be no doubt but that the primary purpose is destructive. As such it is illegal under the GCC.

Now, I will be seeing a national level director tomorrow, Matt Smith, and I will ask him his impression. I promise to make a full apology if he tells me I am out of line to view this as an illegal convention.

BTW, how are we to read your earlier assertion that runt is 'often called a Baron 1NT overcall' with your later assrtion that 'this is why I called it runt and not baron'.

if it is baron, why call it runt? If it is not baron, why allege that it is?

[blackshoe]

If one doubles a suit bid, expecting his partner to "take it out" into one of the other three suits, then the double is "for takeout", however many cards it has in the suit bid by RHO.

[Little Kid]

This convention seems awesome! There have been so many times I wanted to enter the auction but simply couldn't conjure up a double (which I already do much more readily than most). Maybe now I could possibly restore some of the integrity of my regular take out doubles . At favourable vulnerability it would be perfect on things like 5440 or 4441 even if you have virtually no hcps, without excessive risk. Although I wouldn't be able to muster up the courage to bid on ♠xxx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣Txxx vulnerable, I could definitely see this working if you adjust your shapes and strength of the bid according to vulnerabilities! Maybe some criteria like hcps in the suits when vul but not in the t/o suit might make it a little safer because it might be harder for opps to find penalty doubles. Anyway, along with another cool convention I found I'm going to try this out!