[Shugart23]

I began teaching my son Precision with using a strict NT range of 13-15 4333,5332, and 4432 shape in all seats about 6 months ago. I am now introducing him to
Kamikaze NT, which my wife and I used 8-10 years ago, so it has been a while, and I need to refresh my memory

I would like some advice on what I am telling him. We are strictly playing matchpoint, not IMPS because that makes a difference.

I am telling him we will use the weak NT in 1st or 2nd seat, any color and in 3rd seat white with 10-12 HCP and no singleton or void. (Some hands there may be a choice between bidding 1NT or a different bid and this will be a matter of judgement)

We have our escapes for 1NT-double, but I haven't told him escapes for 1NT-Pass-Pass -Double, mostly because I don't remember what I used to do. Can someone make a suggestion as I don't really want to reinvent the wheel.

Our escapes from 1NT-Double are as follows:
Redouble asks Opener to bid 2C and partner will pass or correct to a 5 card suit.
A suit bid promises 4+ cards along with a 4+ card Spade suit
A Pass asks opener to redouble at which point we scramble to find a our 7+ card fit.

Comments are warmly appreciated

[DavidKok]

I collected and summarised 52 different runout conventions a long time ago in an attempt to get a better understanding of the options. Unfortunately I can no longer find the source website, though I still have my own analysis and results.

To me there are a few main questions you should try to answer if you want to look into this:

• Do you want to retain the option to play 1NTX?
  
• Do you want to use an artificial XX? Before you answer, keep in mind this means playing a different system on 1NT-(X) and 1NT-(P)-P-(X); P-(P).
  
• How much work are you willing to put in? Some of these systems are very complicated.
  
• Some, if not most, of these 52 defences likely benefit greatly from the opponents being unfamiliar with them. Is this something you want to take into account?

I've played a lot of Kamikaze (9-12 or 10-13) NT. On balance I think it's good but not amazing, and both the negative inferences from passing and the complications on stronger balanced hands are not given sufficient consideration.

[Shugart23]

Thanks David. Complicated is no barrier to my son and me. My wife and I played 10-13,for many years and very much enjoyed it and had great success. ( We stopped when we left the world of precisions and entered the canaoe world)

I assume you had variable nt ranges depending on seat and colors. Do you remember what they were ? Was your 1d range 14-15 then?

Looking for 1Nt-p-p-double -escapes recommendations by you or any one

[DavidKok]

I played this in Dutch Doubleton, but the same works well in Precision. I recommend:

Not vulnerable, first and second seat:
1NT 10-13, 1♦ 14-16.

Not vulnerable, third seat:
1NT 9-14, 1♦ 15-16.

All other positions and vulnerabilities:
1NT 14-16, 1♦ 11-13.

If you wish to adopt the 9-12 range you have to move the rest of the ladder in, which is uncomfortable. Having to open a balanced 16-count with 1♣ is not ideal.


As for runouts, I don't have strong opinions. I used to like Dig-out Spelvic and Lionel, but these days I'm not so sure. In general when fixed I want to not give the opponents room to coordinate a defence. Based on that natural runouts with XX starting a scramble and pass an offer to play is solid, though it won't scare the opponents much.

[mycroft]

A quick reminder (David's got the practical questions): if you "wish to adopt the 9-12 range, you have to" leave the country. Not legal in any ACBL game.

Also, you're definitely going to be helping with the "opponents who are frustrated by your frequent Alerts" quotient by playing this.

Suggestion: play 11-13 instead of 10-12. It nicely divides the Precision range into 2, you don't have to distort anything, you still get a "weak NT". Edit: you say you're playing the traditional (I'd say incredibly old-fashioned) 13-15. Okay, then 10-12 works. I'd look at pulling your flat 16s out of 1♣ like almost everybody does these days instead, though.

[mw64ahw]

An old favourite from David Stevenson's website
Responses to 1NT when it has been Doubled

[mw64ahw]

Shugart23, on 2024-October-31, 07:18, said:

Redouble asks Opener to bid 2C and partner will pass or correct to a 5 card suit.
A suit bid promises 4+ cards along with a 4+ card Spade suit
A Pass asks opener to redouble at which point we scramble to find a our 7+ card fit.

Comments are warmly appreciated

Sounds very much like Chris Ryall's Dig-Out Bridge Convention - Bidding and Responses

[DavidKok]

mw64ahw, on 2024-October-31, 10:11, said:

An old favourite from David Stevenson's website
Responses to 1NT when it has been Doubled

Thank you! This is the website I was thinking of - it has around 50 runout schemes, and I collected one or two more elsewhere to throw into the mix.

[Shugart23]

mycroft, on 2024-October-31, 09:45, said:

A quick reminder (David's got the practical questions): if you "wish to adopt the 9-12 range, you have to" leave the country. Not legal in any ACBL game.

Also, you're definitely going to be helping with the "opponents who are frustrated by your frequent Alerts" quotient by playing this.

Suggestion: play 11-13 instead of 10-12. It nicely divides the Precision range into 2, you don't have to distort anything, you still get a "weak NT". Edit: you say you're playing the traditional (I'd say incredibly old-fashioned) 13-15. Okay, then 10-12 works. I'd look at pulling your flat 16s out of 1♣ like almost everybody does these days instead, though.

[shugart24]

mycroft, on 2024-October-31, 09:45, said:

A quick reminder (David's got the practical questions): if you "wish to adopt the 9-12 range, you have to" leave the country. Not legal in any ACBL game.

Also, you're definitely going to be helping with the "opponents who are frustrated by your frequent Alerts" quotient by playing this.

Suggestion: play 11-13 instead of 10-12. It nicely divides the Precision range into 2, you don't have to distort anything, you still get a "weak NT". Edit: you say you're playing the traditional (I'd say incredibly old-fashioned) 13-15. Okay, then 10-12 works. I'd look at pulling your flat 16s out of 1♣ like almost everybody does these days instead, though.

I don't want to move to 9-12, but I thought you could have less than 10 HCP or more than a 3-point range as long as you don't have any systems..eg. Stayman, etc. Has this changed ? With my wife, I dabbled with 9-15 white in 3rd seat but that was 8 years ago

Our flat 16's don't cause us a problem. After 1C and a positive response, if the Opener ever bids 2NT he tells responder he has a flat 16, systems are on and Responder is free to Pass, so we aren't stuck bidding 3NT with a 16 opposite 8.

[DavidKok]

The losses on flat 16s aren't in your constructive auctions, especially not if you deal your partner a positive response. Any system can do well on an uninterrupted auction with a game force at the 1-level. It's the competitive auctions holding the balanced 16, and the ones where partner has to be cautious because you might have one even if this time you do not, where you pay up.

[mycroft]

Yes, that has changed.

As I was saying for at least the last decade of the GCC, the point behind DISALLOWED, 7 (the "you can't play any conventions, even conventional defences to conventional defences, if you play..." one) was that "when the GCC was written, the Laws disallowed banning natural calls. Even in 1997, the limitation was 'a king below average strength for a 1-level opener'. We can't ban this, so we make it impossible to play." And I was saying since 2007, "the Endicott Fudge" isn't necessary any more, because the Laws now say that RAs can restrict "special partnership understandings", and SPUs are basically "whatever they want them to be." So, if you're a fan of 9-HCP 1NT openers, you don't want GCC updates, because the first one will be turning DISALLOWED, 7, into "you can't..." rather than "if you do, you can't..."

And sure enough, when the new convention charts came in, "you can't." And also "we don't allow you to claim 'judgement' to do what we are telling you 'you can't.' " Cue blackshoe, who is theoretically right, and practically wrong (provided they do, in fact, want to ban the 9-HCP 1NT opener. The slippery slope has been being slid down for 60 years, it's not a boogeyman argumentative fallacy here).

Now, for those on the other half of the DISALLOWED, 7 line (as I am, when playing EHAA), you have been given significantly more leeway, at least on the Open Chart. Of course, the same hard line applies to the 9-point range, but still, it was 7. Thoughts on whether that was because, while the 10-HCP barrier was treated as "ils ne passeront pas", using 'judgement' to consider AT9xxx and out a '5-11' was given a wink and a wave, might be given. But not by me. Nor will I accept bets on, were I playing EHAA, AJT9xxx and out would have been given the same wink and wave, in my '6-12'.

[awm]

The runout structure given here doesn't put a lot of pressure on opponents; pass forcing redouble gives them two chances to run (directly with a real suit or after the redouble with a scramble) as well as letting doubler "pull his own double" with a suit-oriented hand. You're also not making maximum use of two bids on five-card suits (starting with redouble and bidding them later can give opponents an easier time).

I'd suggest something like:

Pass = four spades or any 4333 or a hand that wants to play in 1NTX or XX
XX = 5+ clubs, or 4/4 red suits, or a shapely five-card major hand with game interest opposite a fit, or game try in a minor
2♣ = 4/4 clubs and a red suit
2♦/2♥/2♠ = five card or longer suit (to play)
2nt = 5+/5+ minors (preemptive)
3X = preemptive with a 6+ suit

After 1NT-X-Pass-Pass:

Redouble = 4 spades (now weak with spades bids 2♠, 4333 weak bids the four-card suit, hand that wants to play 1NTXX passes)
Suit bid = 5+ suit (usually we can play here)
Pass = not four spades, no five-card suit

After 1NT-X-XX-Pass, opener bids 2♣ and:

Pass = 5+♣
2♦ = red suits
2Major = 5+ major, mild game interest
3Minor = 6+ minor, mild game interest

The advantages here include preempting the opponents more when you have a long suit, putting the opponents in a riskier situation over 1NT-X-Pass (since it could pass out), and having a way to show some mild game interest on shapely hands (I'm thinking like a 5-5 ten count here, where you could easily imagine making game on an eight or nine card major fit but you won't really be making 3NT on power and 1NTX is risky if you're wide open in one of responder's short suits -- people do like to double with a running minor).

[Shugart23]

awm, on 2024-October-31, 14:29, said:

The runout structure given here doesn't put a lot of pressure on opponents; pass forcing redouble gives them two chances to run (directly with a real suit or after the redouble with a scramble) as well as letting doubler "pull his own double" with a suit-oriented hand. You're also not making maximum use of two bids on five-card suits (starting with redouble and bidding them later can give opponents an easier time).

I'd suggest something like:

Pass = four spades or any 4333 or a hand that wants to play in 1NTX or XX
XX = 5+ clubs, or 4/4 red suits, or a shapely five-card major hand with game interest opposite a fit, or game try in a minor
2♣ = 4/4 clubs and a red suit
2♦/2♥/2♠ = five card or longer suit (to play)
2nt = 5+/5+ minors (preemptive)
3X = preemptive with a 6+ suit

After 1NT-X-Pass-Pass:

Redouble = 4 spades (now weak with spades bids 2♠, 4333 weak bids the four-card suit, hand that wants to play 1NTXX passes)
Suit bid = 5+ suit (usually we can play here)
Pass = not four spades, no five-card suit

After 1NT-X-XX-Pass, opener bids 2♣ and:

Pass = 5+♣
2♦ = red suits
2Major = 5+ major, mild game interest
3Minor = 6+ minor, mild game interest

The advantages here include preempting the opponents more when you have a long suit, putting the opponents in a riskier situation over 1NT-X-Pass (since it could pass out), and having a way to show some mild game interest on shapely hands (I'm thinking like a 5-5 ten count here, where you could easily imagine making game on an eight or nine card major fit but you won't really be making 3NT on power and 1NTX is risky if you're wide open in one of responder's short suits -- people do like to double with a running minor).

Thanks What do you suggest after 1NT-Pass -Pass - Double -? I suppose this Double is oriented toward take-out and perhaps opener's wisest course is to pass to see what LHO does ? DO you agree ? and if LHO passes ( converts to penalty), what do you suggest the agreement should be for Opener's partner ?

[awm]

Shugart23, on 2024-November-05, 05:00, said:

Thanks What do you suggest after 1NT-Pass -Pass - Double -? I suppose this Double is oriented toward take-out and perhaps opener's wisest course is to pass to see what LHO does ? DO you agree ? and if LHO passes ( converts to penalty), what do you suggest the agreement should be for Opener's partner ?

While you do want opener to pass pretty often, you will have better runouts if he sometimes does something different. I'd suggest something by opener like:

Pass = at least one 4+ major suit
XX = no 4+ major suit, no five-card minor
2m = five-plus minor suit (natural)

After 1NT-Pass-Pass-X-Pass-Pass:

Pass = to play
XX = ask longer minor (can later bid 2♥ pass/correct for opener's major)
2m = natural 5+ suit
2♥ = pass/correct for opener's major

After 1NT-Pass-Pass-X-XX-Pass:

Pass = to play
2m = to play (can be four-card minor, opener promises 3+ in each minor)
2♥ = 4/4 majors (pass or correct)

[kwiktrix]

mycroft, on 2024-October-31, 11:21, said:

Yes, that has changed.

As I was saying for at least the last decade of the GCC, the point behind DISALLOWED, 7 (the "you can't play any conventions, even conventional defences to conventional defences, if you play..." one) was that "when the GCC was written, the Laws disallowed banning natural calls. Even in 1997, the limitation was 'a king below average strength for a 1-level opener'. We can't ban this, so we make it impossible to play." And I was saying since 2007, "the Endicott Fudge" isn't necessary any more, because the Laws now say that RAs can restrict "special partnership understandings", and SPUs are basically "whatever they want them to be." So, if you're a fan of 9-HCP 1NT openers, you don't want GCC updates, because the first one will be turning DISALLOWED, 7, into "you can't..." rather than "if you do, you can't..."

And sure enough, when the new convention charts came in, "you can't." And also "we don't allow you to claim 'judgement' to do what we are telling you 'you can't.' " Cue blackshoe, who is theoretically right, and practically wrong (provided they do, in fact, want to ban the 9-HCP 1NT opener. The slippery slope has been being slid down for 60 years, it's not a boogeyman argumentative fallacy here).

Now, for those on the other half of the DISALLOWED, 7 line (as I am, when playing EHAA), you have been given significantly more leeway, at least on the Open Chart. Of course, the same hard line applies to the 9-point range, but still, it was 7. Thoughts on whether that was because, while the 10-HCP barrier was treated as "ils ne passeront pas", using 'judgement' to consider AT9xxx and out a '5-11' was given a wink and a wave, might be given. But not by me. Nor will I accept bets on, were I playing EHAA, AJT9xxx and out would have been given the same wink and wave, in my '6-12'.

This irritated me to no end. Prior to the CC revisions, we played a LEGAL 1N opening in 3rd seat of 8-14 with no conventions allowed (we played 10+HCP openings in 1st seat, so a passed hand denied as many as 10). It was humourous to explain that a 2C response was clubs...

[mycroft]

Yes, it was legal. Know that for 20 years, they *wanted it* to not be; and enjoy the fact that for about 10 years after they were allowed to ban it, they were too lazy to do so.

(playing EHAA, we played a 3rd-seat 1NT as "8-'we don't have game'." With 3♣ as "10-12, 4 clubs" (which had to be 4♣441 because no other hand shape passed a 10-count) and 3♦ as "10-12, 4=4=4=1" (because natural, and see above). Never came up, but it was in the system.)