[pork rind]

BIDDING

NORTH WEST SOUTH EAST
1D       P     1S       P
1N       P        2C        P
2H       P        P        P

---

PARTNER SAYS I SHOULD BID 2NT ON THE SOUTH HAND AND THEN HE WILL SHOW THE SPADE SUPPORT. I THOUGHT HE HAD A WEAK HAND WITH 5D, 4H AND AT MOST A DOUBLE SPADE. FINAL SCORE WAS OK. I THINK IT WAS JUST LUCKY THAT 4S MAKES CAUSE HIS HEARTS WERE WHAT HIS DIAMONDS COULD HAVE BEEN. WHAT DO YOU THINK????
CHECKBACK WAS NOT DISCUSSED. SHOULD I CONSIDERTHIS A STANDARD PART OF 2/1?

[mr1303]

The way I play checkback is I show support for partner's major before introducing a new 4 card major, so I think 2S would be the bid on the North hand.

Don't think that you have any reason to suggest a 5 card diamond suit here. I think N is showing 2443 more than 2452, although I agree the latter is possible.

After 2S by N, the S hand is possibly worth 1 more bid, although it does look like there is wastage from the S point of view. So given that you play the methods you do play, this game is hard to find. Playing 14-16 NT however:

1NT 2H
2S 2NT (Keri, 5 spades 4 card minor)
3D (3+ spades, 4 card minor, non min) 4S (sign off)

[inquiry]

If you are playing 15-17 1NT opening bids, your partner's hand is a monster for his 1NT rebid. He has such good values, any encouragement from you is enough for him to bid game (for Zar counters, in support of spades his hand is worth a whooping 31 zar points, more than a full trick better than a minimum opening bid).

But enough for the evaluation, let's answer a few questions.

1) Is checkback part of 2/1 GF? If you play "BBO Standandar Advanced", you are assumed to play "2-way check back". I would think that without this specific agreement, all experts/advanced players probalby use nmf by responding (aka checkback). So without discussion, I would have taken 2C by you as checkback (not 2 way checkback unless we agreed to that specifically, or were playing BBO Advanced...also known as xyz convention).

2) Now to the use of checkback with this hand. Checkback should be used on a hand with good game ambition. With a parnter who is limited to 14, at most, this suggest a good 10 hcp to 11 hcp. Here you have a queen rich hand with only 9 hcp. To use checback here is very, er, optomistic.

Now, if you want to know my opinion, the problem is that your partner choose a 1NT rebid instead of raising. With his hand, I would have raised spades immediately. After a spade raise, your hand is almost good enough to blast to game, but you will just invite and your partner would clearly accept. So the fault is not your lack of a 2NT bid (why bid 2NT when 14+9 = 23, your maximum for notrump?). So if we are to cast stones for the auction, imho, the 1NT bid deserves the stone aimed at it. See how easy the bidding becomes after a simple 2S raise?

BTW, over checkback, I agree that the first priority is to show three card support for partners major.

Ben

[Free]

The way I play is following:

2♦ = minimum, no support
2M = minimum, 3 card support
Other bids show maximum hand, and everything at 3-level shows 3 card support and describes the hand more.

Here it would be:

2♦ = minimum, no support
2♥ = max, 4♥, no 3 card ♠
2♠ = minimum, 3 card support
2NT = max, no 4 card ♥, no 3 card ♠
3♣ = max, 4 card ♣, 3 card ♠ (so should be 3-2-4-4)
3♦ = max, 5 card ♦, 3 card ♠ (so 3-2-5-3 or 3-3-5-2)
3♥ = max, 4 card ♥, 3 card ♠ (so 3-4-4-2 or 3-4-3-3)
3♠ = max, 3 card ♠, no sidesuit (so 3-3-4-3)
3NT = max, 3-3-4-3, stops in all suits except ♠

The exact bidding with these hands:

1♦ - 1♠
1NT - 2♣*
3♥ - 4♠

[inquiry]

Free's reply does, however, point out a problem with nmf. The question of what opener's priorities are in responding to nmf.

Some suggest that the first priority is to show three card support. Others suggest the first priority is to show a side four card major. Then their is extra value showing bids and rather or not you should use them.

I play RFR (reverse flannery by responder), so that, for instance, 1m-2H shows 5S and at least 4H, not forcing. So I can rebid 2H over 1H with some degree of comfort. Thus, for me, clearly the first priority has to be to show three card support for spades. I can understand others whose first priority is to show the side major. However, I also play two way checkback, so that with spades and hearts, GF, I would have rebid 2D over 1NT. With a good invite hand with spades and hearts, I would start 2C and over forced 2C, rebid 2H. So my 2H rebid while showing values (better than a jump to 2H) denies strong game try.

Anway back to normal checkback. The simpliest structure seems to bid 2H or 2S (with priority being whatever you like) with appropriate hand, and 2D (or 2NT if 1C was opened so that 2D is checkback) without the side major or 3 card support.

Structures like free's abound however. Some play 2NT rebid on this auction show three card support and a maximum. while bidding 2S shows 3 card support and a minimum. With 2D being all other hands.. the log is with max you can correct 2NT to 3NT when partner bids that over 2D. I do however, like the 3H bid as 4 card heart and 3 card spade, maximum. I have even seen pairs play this...

1D-1S-1NT-2C-2H <<--- where 2H shows 54 in the minors.

So it may pay to discuss how you want to play nmf with opener and responder rebids.


Ben

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Feb 7 2005, 03:08 PM, said:

Some suggest that the first priority is to show three card support. Others suggest the first priority is to show a side four card major.

I think first priority is to show ALWAYS HEARTS IF I HAVE THEM (either 3 cards or 4 cards), in any sequence, to save space:

a. responder first bid was spades: then if I have 4H and 3S I'll bid H; if responder does not like H, I'll show spade at next round.

b. responder first suit was H: then opener will show 3 card support in H even holding 4S; if responder does not like H I'll show my 4 card spade suit later.

[Free]

From the moment you're in a checkback auction, I like 'full' relays... If you want to keep it still simple, this structure is very useful to find the best Major fit whenever opener is maximum. If you want to be able to rebid 1NT with 5-4m, there won't be much problems either, because there's room enough to investigate, but you'll need to change some responses. Example, if you open 1♣ and you end up in checkback, bidding 3♦ means you had 5♣-4♦ (but you need a 3 card support for that, and usually you'll already support because of your distribution on your 3 card).

[Double !]

Just a simple little question: Doesn't the responder promise a rebid after using nmf or checkback/ does it not show at least game invitational values and is, therefore, forcing to at least 2NT? (or, at least to two of responder's suit if 2C is a relay to 2D?) Therefore, playing nmf, would not one bid hearts first, knowing that a correction to spades can be made next if indicated?

Oh, Great, now I have to go back and read up on, nmf, checkback and xyz again............................................!

[pclayton]

Double !, on Feb 7 2005, 09:18 AM, said:

Just a simple little question:    Doesn't the responder promise a rebid after using nmf or checkback/ does it not show at least game invitational values and is, therefore, forcing to at least 2NT?  (or, at least to two of responder's suit if 2C is a relay to 2D?)  Therefore, playing nmf, would not one bid hearts first, knowing that a correction to spades can be made next if indicated?

Oh, Great, now I have to go back and read up on, nmf, checkback and xyz again............................................!

I've played it both Free's way and this way. I don't like the idea of jumping around with a maximum just to tell responder that you aren't a minimum. I guess you can play at the 2 level this way, but if responder IS slammish, youve gobbled up an unnecessary level of bidding.

Play 'xyz' - you won't have these 'issues'.

[pclayton]

mr1303, on Feb 7 2005, 05:49 AM, said:

The way I play checkback is I show support for partner's major before introducing a new 4 card major, so I think 2S would be the bid on the North hand.

Don't think that you have any reason to suggest a 5 card diamond suit here. I think N is showing 2443 more than 2452, although I agree the latter is possible.

After 2S by N, the S hand is possibly worth 1 more bid, although it does look like there is wastage from the S point of view. So given that you play the methods you do play, this game is hard to find. Playing 14-16 NT however:

1NT 2H
2S 2NT (Keri, 5 spades 4 card minor)
3D (3+ spades, 4 card minor, non min) 4S (sign off)

Even playing a 12-14 NT (instead of 14-16), this sequence works:

1N - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
3♠ - 4♠

2♣ - puppet to 2♦
2♠ - invitational with 4-5 spades
3♠ - max with THREE spades

[Free]

Double,

yes, checkback is with invitational+ hands. However, I think this hand qualifies as an invitational or even GF hand if partner has a fit. It has a nice distribution...

[inquiry]

Free, on Feb 7 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

yes, checkback is with invitational+ hands. However, I think this hand qualifies as an invitational or even GF hand if partner has a fit. It has a nice distribution...

On the other hand, partner is unlikely to have a fit if you generally raise with three card support after 1m-P-1S... :-)

Let's assume partner doesn't have 3 card support and the bidding has gone as shown.. 1D-P-1NT-P-2C-P-2H... what is responder to do?

With his 9 hcp and no fit, 2NT will invite 3... with if you are lucky 23 hcp between the two hands, and maybe as few as 20 if your parnter opens 11 point hands. No, pass over 2H seems safest... but what do you do if partner bids 2D? No four hearts, no three card support? This is skating close to the edge. West has to raise spades immediately...

Ben

[Double !]

I am not suggesting that the sample hand does or does not qualify as GI or GF. I am simply questioning whether or not responder is still expected to make another bid over 2 hearts. If pass is permissible, then I need to reconsider the idea of showing 4 hearts first instead of 3 card spade support. Thank you for your feedback/ advice.

[luke warm]

imo, the sample hand is game forcing *if* there's a spade fit... if there isn't, it's barely invitational (this is just my view)

as far as which suit to show re: 2 way ckback, i play that opener hearts first .. for example, 1m : 1h : 1nt : 2d (gf) and now opener would bid 2h with 3, 2s with 4, else 2nt... if 1m : 1s : 1nt : 2d, opener bids 2h with 4, 2s with 3, else 2nt

[Free]

inquiry, on Feb 7 2005, 07:31 PM, said:

Free, on Feb 7 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

yes, checkback is with invitational+ hands.  However, I think this hand qualifies as an invitational or even GF hand if partner has a fit.  It has a nice distribution...

On the other hand, partner is unlikely to have a fit if you generally raise with three card support after 1m-P-1S... :-)

Let's assume partner doesn't have 3 card support and the bidding has gone as shown.. 1D-P-1NT-P-2C-P-2H... what is responder to do?

With his 9 hcp and no fit, 2NT will invite 3... with if you are lucky 23 hcp between the two hands, and maybe as few as 20 if your parnter opens 11 point hands. No, pass over 2H seems safest... but what do you do if partner bids 2D? No four hearts, no three card support? This is skating close to the edge. West has to raise spades immediately...

Ben

I think that 1NT should be 1♠, otherwise the bidding doesn't make sense.

So after 1♦-1♠;1NT-2♣;? We have several situations:
- 2♦ = minimum, no fit, doesn't say anything about ♥
Here partner can bid 2♠ to play in a 5-2 fit. Ok, we'll miss the better 2♥ partscore.
- 2♠ = minimum, support
Here we have an easy 3♠ imo, invitational, re-evaluate your hand again
- all other show maximum hands. If partner bids 2♥, you can try 4♥ in the 4-3 fit or 3NT (other bids should be slamtry) or just pass. If partner bids 2NT then you can pass. All other bids show fit and max, so no problems over there...

Obviously it's not the greatest hand to checkback with, but I still like loser count, and I think you have an invitational hand. One of the problems is when partner is maximum and no fit, but then we can pass and play 2♥ in a 4-3 fit or 2NT. If partner is minimum and no fit, then we can play 2♠ in a 5-2, or 2NT. In that situation we lose the better 2♥ contract, but nothing's perfect.

[arrows]

Presume that not playing two-way checkback, the first sequence need
discussion is:
1m 1♠
1N 2♥

What is it? Intuitively, it's natural and with a flavor of invitation.
It then follows that when answering a checkback (new minor forcing),
the opener should focus ONLY on responder's first major. Because
responder could have bid a natural invitation, or if s/he has GF value,
you have a chance to investigate ♥ fit later.

Many failed to appreciate this fact and its inference, though they also
play "NMF".

The original structure of NMF, as written by Hardy in his book, is
2♦: 5+ ♦, without support.
2oM: Min without support.
2M: Min with support.
2N: Max without support.
3X: Max, naturally descriptive, and support.

That's all.

[EricK]

The biggest problem with this hand is that the methods chosen "force" North to open with his worst suit!

South's hand is not really much of an invitational one once he hears North bid ♦, but it turns out that the singleton ♦ is a blessing not a curse.

If one can't stomach a 1♥ opening on North's hand or an upgrade to a strong NT, then maybe opening 1♣ (better minor!) is a good idea .

Eric

[Stephen Tu]

(1m-1♠-1nt-2♥)

Quote

What is it? Intuitively, it's natural and with a flavor of invitation

Not in any form of standard american for the last 60 years. This has always been non-invitational, choice of partscores. Don't you want responder to be able to bid his weak 5-5s & 5-4s, without risking the 3 level?

After nmf or checkback stayman, the priority of other major or supporting partner, or hearts first is fairly arbitrary, I don't see a huge advantage in one way or the other. I would never assume without discussion, nor would I ever pass opener's 2♥ rebid. I don't think there is a clear standard here.

[luke warm]

yes, to play 1m : 1♠ : 1nt : 2♥ as anything other than 'pick a partscore' seems wrong to me... you have 2♣ for invitational hands and 2♦ for game forcing hands (along with whatever else you play re: xyz)

[arrows]

Quote

Not in any form of standard american for the last 60 years.

I guess you made a claim you could hardly defend. At least, in the old days,
to bid twice is stronger than bid once, especially when one bids a new suit,
it almost always shows further interest rather than none.

These treatments maybe old-fashioned, but it doesn't hurt to learn some
of the logic behind them on the way of becoming a "modern" master.

BTW, I did made my argument in the context of not play 2-way checkback,
didn't I?