BPO-006E

[Blofeld]

4♠ was my first thought with this hand, but then I started constructing a few hands for partner, and decided that 4♠ was a bit much.

[Guest Jlall]

A wild gamble? Even opposite a minimum with 2 small trumps such as xx Axxx Axx QJxx, not even an opening bid imo, game is fine red at imps. I don't care how much you involve partner, he will not bid a game with that hand and many others unless you force the issue.

[Walddk]

A wild gamble? Even opposite a minimum with 2 small trumps such as xx Axxx Axx QJxx, not even an opening bid imo, game is fine red at imps. I don't care how much you involve partner, he will not bid a game with that hand and many others unless you force the issue.

I didn't say that 4♠ doesn't make if you bid it directly, I described it as a wild gamble because it will go down much more often than not, even opposite a maximum 1NT rebid.

 

Roland

[Winstonm]

(I am always right, I am sure you have noticed).... :-)

 

I've noticed that, Ben, and it's really starting to piss me off....means I'm always wrong. :D

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

BTW Winston, in early 1980's I lived in Oklahoma City and played weekly iwht Fred Chen, didn't you live and play there then?

 

Yes, I did.

[Guest Jlall]

I didn't say that 4♠ doesn't make if you bid it directly, I described it as a wild gamble because it will go down much more often than not, even opposite a maximum 1NT rebid.

 

Roland

Ok, I don't think you are right but only a computer simulation would tell us. And even then, the advantage of auctions like 1C-1S-1N-4S is theyre often in the dark defending, so it will even make when it shouldn't sometimes.

 

Saying it will go down much more often than not on hands that partner would not accept an invite on seems more reasonable, and perhaps true. That is the crux of this problem.

[pigpenz]

3♠ invitational for me, dont like the 7222 part

close to NMF but prefere to invite

[Al_U_Card]

Since we get a lot of 1NT rebids with a stiff S (at least on other threads anyway) Could the 3S bid be a request for 3NT with a stiff and pass with a mini and 4S with a doubleton S and a max? Seems like you can have your cake and eat it too....and the 2D then 3S bid might well be the slam try in S in 2-way NMF.

[HeartA]

I voted for 3♠. If xyz is included in the system, 3♣ would be my choice.

[han]

I'd like to be in 4S for sure opposite:

 

♠xxx ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣AQxx.

 

and maybe even opposite as little as

 

♠xxx ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣AJxx.

 

This is a 4333 9-count, so obviously nobody can feel completely comfortable with an invite. Not considering a direct 4S is blindfold-bridge imo.

 

 

Of course, there are many 14-counts which give you 4 losers of the top. If I didn't think that partner could make a good decision over 3S then I would just blast to game. However, I do think that partner will know which cards are good and which are bad. So I invite. Like mikeh I expect partner to use any excuse to accept the invite.

[inquiry]

So I invite. Like mikeh I expect partner to use any excuse to accept the invite.

With multiple ways to invite, there SHOULD be a way to say, "BID 4♠ now unless you ahve a REALLY GREAT excuse not too...... " as well as a way to say, "IF you have just the right cards, bid 4♠"

 

You might be able to seperate between these two options with just 2C followed by 2 or 3♠. Or you might need one additional tweak, like 2NT forcing 3♣ then 3♠. But at the table, I think the 4♠ blaster was more right than the 2♠ signoff'er.

[Guest Jlall]

2S signoff? wow.

[han]

That is hard to believe. What was their NT range Ben?

[42]

I voted also for 3♠. First impulse was to bid 4♠ but the shape was not thrilling.

With the partner with whom I play 2-way-check-back, 3♠ shows this hand. Slaminv. would go over 2♦.

[Winstonm]

A simple question - Marty Bergen wrote that when he and Cohen were a partnership he used 2C as the only forcing bid in 1 over 1 over 1 auctions. This sacrifices only 1 bid, the ability to play 2C with a weak club hand. I have yet to find a hand using this method where 2-way checkback improves the performance enough to sacrifice yet another natural bid. Can someone espouse on the benefits of 2-way over the Bergen method?

 

Winston

[han]

Playing 2-way checkback you just give up one place to play: 2C. So there are no losses.

 

Are there gains? Many, look for example at mikeh's write up. he has different ways to invite in spades, different ways to force to game in spades, he can make a slam try with 5-5 and spades and clubs, and he can make a slam try showing 4-5 in clubs and 1-3, 2-2 and 3-1 in the other two suits. Most importantly, it is always absolutely clear whether responder is invitational or gameforcing.

 

The benefits seem so obvious to me that I suspect I misunderstand your question Winston. Would you like to see a succesful real life auction using XYZ? I'm pretty sure that good guesswork can get you to the same spot using 1-way checkback. 2-way just allows you to better describe your hands.

[Al_U_Card]

I still use Bergen's CBS 2C method (without the 2D add-on) and have added the CJS for the 4-5 major suit hands with less than 9 hcp. It works fine.

[Winstonm]

Playing 2-way checkback you just give up one place to play: 2C. So there are no losses.

 

Are there gains? Many, look for example at mikeh's write up. he has different ways to invite in spades, different ways to force to game in spades, he can make a slam try with 5-5 and spades and clubs, and he can make a slam try showing 4-5 in clubs and 1-3, 2-2 and 3-1 in the other two suits. Most importantly, it is always absolutely clear whether responder is invitational or gameforcing.

 

The benefits seem so obvious to me that I suspect I misunderstand your question Winston. Would you like to see a succesful real life auction using XYZ? I'm pretty sure that good guesswork can get you to the same spot using 1-way checkback. 2-way just allows you to better describe your hands.

Yes, and thank you. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the term 2-way checkback.

[inquiry]

That is hard to believe. What was their NT range Ben?

Well... I actually think it was check back followed by a 2♠ rebid all pass.. .but you get my point. I will try to look the original hand up again.

[mike777]

2C

 

I asked around and it seems the majority of players who use 2 way checkback play 3s as forcing but a significant minority play it as invite. Several books on the matter explain it in terms of detailed partnership understanding not general acceptance.

 

As a side note I hope Ben can respond to my 3d issue from above, thanks. Again it is far from clear that we are playing some version XYZ(think 2d puppet) compared to 2 way checkback:).

[P_Marlowe]

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

No, my vote goes to 4S, we are playing IMP's,

we are red.

There is certainly no way, that we will find out,

if 4S has play or not, ... on a long auction it gets

more likely that they will find the winning defence.

 

Marlowe

[inquiry]

2C

 

I asked around and it seems the majority of players who use 2 way checkback play 3s as forcing but a significant minority play it as invite. Several books on the matter explain it in terms of detailed partnership understanding not general acceptance.

 

As a side note I hope Ben can respond to my 3d issue from above, thanks. Again it is far from clear that we are playing some version XYZ(think 2d puppet) compared to 2 way checkback:).

Here is what BBO Advances says about the issue of checkback on 1m-1M-1NT.....

 

On the SUMMARY PAGE (go to bbo, click explore bridge, click Bridge Base Online Standard, then click and read notes on Bridgebase online advanced... or read it here where I copied directly from that online document)...

 

"2-way new minor forcing over 1NT bid"

 

Then if you read further into the notes, you will find this sentence....

 

After 1 of a minor-1 of a major-1NT, 2♣ = Invitational checkback, 2♦ = Forcing checkback, 3 of minor = To play.

 

It does not use the term XYZ, and it does specifically state that 3 of a minor would be signoff (this is somewhat non-traditional approach especially if it was true xyz).

 

Ben

[Walddk]

2C

 

I asked around and it seems the majority of players who use 2 way checkback play 3s as forcing but a significant minority play it as invite. Several books on the matter explain it in terms of detailed partnership understanding not general acceptance.

 

As a side note I hope Ben can respond to my 3d issue from above, thanks. Again it is far from clear that we are playing some version XYZ(think 2d puppet) compared to 2 way checkback:).

Here is what BBO Advances says about the issue of checkback on 1m-1M-1NT.....

 

On the SUMMARY PAGE (go to bbo, click explore bridge, click Bridge Base Online Standard, then click and read notes on Bridgebase online advanced... or read it here where I copied directly from that online document)...

 

"2-way new minor forcing over 1NT bid"

 

Then if you read further into the notes, you will find this sentence....

 

After 1 of a minor-1 of a major-1NT, 2♣ = Invitational checkback, 2♦ = Forcing checkback, 3 of minor = To play.

 

It does not use the term XYZ, and it does specifically state that 3 of a minor would be signoff (this is somewhat non-traditional approach especially if it was true xyz).

 

Ben

It seems as if it's taken directly from the Danish version of "XY-NT". Forget the "z". It applies after 1x - 1y ; 1NT (rebid).

 

And I repeat that "2-way new minor forcing over 1NT rebid" needs to be rephrased, since neither 2♣ nor 2♦ are new minors in all instances. They are same minors in some cases.

 

Roland

[luke warm]

006E - 2S but this is why everyone was asking about 2 way earlier... 2c then 2s looks better, wish i'd thought of it ;)

 

edit: after this hand and discussion, i think the phrase '2 way nmf' should be taken out and either 2 way checkback or xyz substituted... agree with roland and others that "2 way nmf" makes no sense... 1d/1h/1nt/2d is not a new minor

 

xzy is fine, but i'm prejudiced.. i don't see where 2 way ckback loses a thing to xyz... as for the post earlier about bergen's 2c as only force (losing only one natural bid), i must be missing something... playing 2 way you only lose one bid also, eh? if i want to play in diamonds after

 

1d : 1h

1nt

 

i just bid 2c and pass partner's forced 2d

Edited October 7, 2005 by luke warm

[Double !]

lol

way back when, we referred to this 2C/2D convention as "Double-Barreled Checkback Stayman".

 

I selected an initial rebid of 2C. I feel that the hand is worth a game invitation. Rebid spades next. I am not adverse to playing this hand in 3NT opposite xx in P's hand. Spade A-J-T combo allows a reasonable play to bring the suit in.

 

DHL