nmf/checkback

[jillybean]

New minor forcing is pretty simple...  Its also most emphatically does not include a puppet from 2♣ to 2♦.

 

Lets assume an auction like

 

1♦ - 1♠

1N

 

A 2♣ checkback bid asks partner to describe his hand further.  Partner should show (in order of priority)

 

1. A 4 card Hearts suit

2. 3 card support for Spades

3. A club stopper for NT

 

Lacking any of these, partner will rebid 2♦

 

2-way checkback uses both 2♣ and 2♦ as checkback bids.

2♦ promises game forcing values

2♣ shows game invitational values

 

Hi, (this was copied from BPO thread)

Why do you show 4 card♥ suit before supporting ♠?

Is 2♣ here gameforcing?

 

ty

jb

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

2C is only inviational, and I would switch the order of priority,

i.e. I would show 3 card support before the 4 card heart suit.

 

... because if responder bids 2S over 2H (=minimum but 4 cards),

this would generate a game force.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Good question.

 

Whether showing 4 hearts or 3 spades has priority is not very important, but it is very important to agree with partner (if you bid 2H and partner thinks that this denies 3 spades while you do have 3, this may lead to a bad spot). A good argument for giving hearts priority is that 4-4 fits usually play better than 5-3 fits. An argument for supporting spades first is that this is more often what partner wants to hear about. However, you have enough room and the opponents are unlikely to bid at this point.

 

Most people do not play new minor forcing as gameforcing. Some auctions get quite subtle. I actually think that 2-way checkback is easier for this reason (you will immediately know whether responder has an invite or GF).

[jillybean]

Thanks, next question -

 

Playing basic checkback, 2♣ is always checkback so you lose the natural 2♣ bid in 1♦:1♠ 1nt:? (or do you use 2♦ here for checkback)

[hrothgar]

New minor forcing is pretty simple...  Its also most emphatically does not include a puppet from 2♣ to 2♦.

 

Lets assume an auction like

 

1♦ - 1♠

1N

 

A 2♣ checkback bid asks partner to describe his hand further.  Partner should show (in order of priority)

 

1. A 4 card Hearts suit

2. 3 card support for Spades

3. A club stopper for NT

 

Lacking any of these, partner will rebid 2♦

 

2-way checkback uses both 2♣ and 2♦ as checkback bids.

2♦ promises game forcing values

2♣ shows game invitational values

 

Hi, (this was copied from BPO thread)

Why do you show 4 card♥ suit before supporting ♠?

Is 2♣ here gameforcing?

 

ty

jb

For me, its a matter of frequency:

 

I'm in the camp that will happily raise partner's 1!S response to 2!S holding three card support. Accordingly, if I hold three card support, I'm limited to 4333 shapes or (rarely) a 4432 that I think is especially well suited for NT contracts

[Walddk]

I actually think that 2-way checkback is easier for this reason (you will immediately know whether responder has an invite or GF).

2-way check back is superior to nmf by about 13½ miles.

 

Roland

[han]

Thanks, next question -

 

Playing basic checkback, 2♣ is always checkback so you lose the natural 2♣ bid in 1♦:1♠ 1nt:? (or do you use 2♦ here for checkback)

I have never heard of this name, "basic checkback". It doesn't seem any more basic than nmf, and I don't think that is more common (at least not in North America).

 

If seems to me that it is easier to forget this form of checkback than nmf. Even those who have never heard of checkback or nmf will treat 1C-1S-1NT-2D as forcing and will probably show 3-card spade support when they have it. That is the beauty of nmf, you can bid it even if you have no agreement.

 

If you are able to remember that 2C is checkback in those auctions then you might as well play 2-way checkback. I've heard that it is superior by many miles.

[mike777]

Mike Lawrence and Marshal Miles and others in their popular books play 2clubs as always checkback, that may be where this "basic" term is coming from.

 

Agree that 2way or xyz is better.

[Walddk]

Playing basic checkback, 2♣ is always checkback so you lose the natural 2♣ bid in 1♦:1♠ 1nt:? (or do you use 2♦ here for checkback)

Right, you can't play in 2♣ if you play some kind of check back - just like you can't play 2♣ when your partner opens 1NT. That's the sacrifice you will have to accept. Cheapest stop in clubs is 3♣. Different approaches to get there, one of which is:

 

1♣ - 1♠

1N - 3♣ = sign off

 

Could be a hand like this:

 

Kxxx

x

xx

QJxxxx

 

 

Roland

[jillybean]

I mean 'basic' because I didn't learn 2way checkback.

[Al_U_Card]

Marty Bergen espoused 2C only checkback with a series of continuations that were fairly easy to remember and covered most situations. I have heard that there is also a possibility of showing the lower ranking fit suit first (whether its the other 4 card major or 3 card support.) As with all agreements, agreement is the thing... :lol:

[Walddk]

I mean 'basic' because I didn't learn 2way checkback.

Not sure what "basic" is, but no one I know can play in 2♣ if they want to check back after a 1NT rebid by opener. If you don't want that gadget on your cc, 2♣ will obviously be natural on an auction like:

 

1♣ - 1♥

1N - 2♣

 

I don't know anyone who plays 2♣ as natural here. If you do, jb, then "pleased to meet you" :lol: And if you don't, I will be even happier :)

 

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Thanks, next question -

 

Playing basic checkback, 2♣ is always checkback so you lose the natural 2♣ bid in 1♦:1♠ 1nt:?

Hi,

 

yes, but this is not the problem.

Playing 2C always as checkback, you cant play 2C,

when opener opens 1C, i.e. in a seq. like

 

1C - 1M

1NT - ...

 

you have to pass.

The disadvantage, 2C may be a safer partscore, the

adv. you have more room, i.e. opener can bid 2D

as a negative, ... or whatever, I play straight nmf.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I actually think that 2-way checkback is easier for this reason (you will immediately know whether responder has an invite or GF).

2-way check back is superior to nmf by about 13½ miles.

 

Roland

This maybe true, but I doubt that the superiority will

show up, if you only play a couple of boards per week.

 

As always, it is a matter of how often you play.

If you play 500-1000 (*) boards a week, the differences

between simple nmf and 2 way checkback matter,

but if you play only < 50 boards per week (*), it wont

matter, but it may create unpleasant results.

 

(*) with a regular partner

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

I like to always bid hearts first (regardless of whether it's support or the other major). This leaves room for 2S from partner.

[han]

As always, it is a matter of how often you play.

If you play 500-1000 (*) boards a week, the differences

between simple nmf and 2 way checkback matter,

but if you play only < 50 boards per week (*), it wont

matter, but it may create unpleasant results.

 

(*) with a regular partner

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Disagree, it will matter, just less often per week (obviously).

 

You think it may create unpleasant results, I think it may create pleasant auctions where both partners actually know what's going on.

[P_Marlowe]

As always, it is a matter of how often you play.

If you play 500-1000 (*) boards a week, the differences

between simple nmf and 2 way checkback matter,

but if you play only < 50 boards per week (*), it wont

matter, but it may create unpleasant results.

 

(*) with a regular partner

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Disagree, it will matter, just less often per week (obviously).

 

You think it may create unpleasant results, I think it may create pleasant auctions where both partners actually know what's going on.

... it will create pleasant results, ... if they remember the auction,

which may not be the case, if the auction surfaces, once every

2nd week.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

I don't know anyone who plays 2♣ as natural here. If you do, jb, then "pleased to meet you"  :)  And if you don't, I will be even happier  :D

 

Roland

I'm sorting out what I've learned, what I think I've learned and what other people have told me I should learn.. so likely I won't play 2♣ natural here ;)

[luke warm]

I actually think that 2-way checkback is easier for this reason (you will immediately know whether responder has an invite or GF).

2-way check back is superior to nmf by about 13½ miles.

 

Roland

i agree with this 100% (of course roland doesn't need my agreement)... as for which major to show first, i was taught to show whichever comes first, so that usually means hearts

 

1c : 1s

1nt : 2c

 

now 2h with 3=4=2=4 ...

 

with 4=3=2=4 on

 

1c : 1h

1nt : 2c

 

now 2h again... i play the same in 2 way after 2d gf

[pclayton]

A good agreement in NMF style auctions is that opener bids the other 4 card major 1st. Its especially important in auctions where Opener has shown a strong hand with a 2N rebid instead of 1N, to right-side the contract.

[mike777]

A good agreement in NMF style auctions is that opener bids the other 4 card major 1st. Its especially important in auctions where Opener has shown a strong hand with a 2N rebid instead of 1N, to right-side the contract.

If I am reading BWS correctly they bid the 3 card major first before the major.

[joker_gib]

Just for your information : in France and in Belgium, it is very common that the 2♣ Roudi (from Roudinesco) is played. It is very simple and very effective :

 

1m 1M

1NT 2♣ = at least invit with 5M or not

 

2♦ : mini, 2 cards in M

2♥ : mini, 3 cards in M

2♠ : maxi (14), 3 cards in M

2NT : maxi, 2 cards in M

 

with the inference that :

 

1m 1M

1NT 2NT = transfer to 3♣ cause you can't play 2♣ anymore.

 

Alain