two way checkback question

[bb79]

playing 2-way checkback(xyz), with what kind of hands do you (or should we agree on to) bid 2♠ in these situations?

a] 1♦-p-1♥-p-1NT-p-2♣*-p-2♦-p-2♠

b] 1♦-p-1♥-p-1NT-p-2♦**-p-2♠

c] 1♦-p-1♥-p-1NT-p-2♠

 

*forces 2♦

**GF

 

how do you bid with ATxxx - KQJxxx - x - J ?

[Echognome]

I'm sure several people's answers may vary. The way I like to play them:

 

a] Shows an invitational hand with 4-4 in the majors. Why? Because we can bypass bidding 1♠ to show a minimum balanced hand. Thus, with an invite with 4-5 in the majors, we first bid 2♥ and then opener can bid 2♠ showing 4 to find your spade fit.

 

b] Opener is showing a 4-card spade suit in a minimum balanced hand. He is almost surely 4=2=4=3 for his 1♦ opening.

 

c] Natural reverse showing 4-5 majors and GF values.

 

Bonus question - I would game force the hand and choose option c] to show it.

[awm]

Depends on how often opener bypasses spades. Assuming fairly often I like:

 

A: invite with 4s and 5h; I want opener to pass the 2h invite on 4243 min

B: shows 4s no 3h

C: invite with 4s and 4h

 

If opener rarely or never bypasses I like:

 

A: three suited invite short diams

B: honor-doubleton in heart

C: three suited invite short clubs

[Quantumcat]

I don't think the reverse is forcing to game. Why would you have two ways to force to game? I think it is some kind of shapely thing that can make game if partner has the right cards, otherwise not. If you have a definite force to game, you would bid 2♦, gameforcing.

 

1) is invitational with 4-4 majors

-- if five hearts and four spades, he bids 2♥ after 2♦. Opener bids 2♠ if he has four, and if responder does not, he bids 2NT to complete the invite, or 3♠ if he has four spades. If opener has three hearts and does not want to accept, he passes.

2) opener has four spades and two hearts (just describing his hand while he can)

3) shapely, needs opener with good cards to make game

 

With 3,

1♦ 1♠ 1NT 3♥ would be the same hand, but spades longer or equal

[Mbodell]

For me:

 

a] nf game invite with 4♠ and 4♥

 

b] opener has 4♠ and not 3♥ and thus is generally 4243 but could certainly be 4252 or, depending on rest of system, even 4144 or 4234 (strong club).

 

c] nf hand with 4♠ and 5♥. If you want to invite use 2♣, if you want to gf use 2♦ or jumps to the 3 level. If you are 44 in the majors and plan to sign off you can plan ahead and bid ♠ first.

 

d] It depends a little on your nt range, but assuming 1♦...1nt shows 12-14 then I'd go 1♦-1♥-1nt-2♦ and then bid 3♠ over 2nt, and 4M over 2M.

[Finch]

Rather than take sequences individually, I like to have a general rule about how these things work.

 

My rules for 2-way checkback are:

- (Virtually) all game forces go through 2D. So responder's 2/3-level rebids that aren't 2D are usually invitational

- Invites includes five cards in responder's major go through 2C. Invites with only four cards in the major don't.

 

When you then look at the auctions in detail, you discover that you have a few bonus sequences and/or weak hands that you need to fit in, but these are the general principles. So following this theory above, you can work out the meaning of e.g. all the sequences starting 1D - 1S - 1NT (I'll come back to the heart ones)

 

1D - 1S - 1NT - 2C - 2D (forced) -

2H = 5 spades, four hearts invitational

2S = light invite with 5 spades, NF

2NT = strong balanced invite with 5 spades

3C/3D/3H = 5-5 invites

3S = 6-card invite

3NT = choice of games with 5 spades seriously suggesting 3NT

 

while

1D - 1S - 1NT -

3C/3D = canape invites (4-6) NF

2NT = INV without 5 spades

etc

 

So assuming that opener always rebids 1NT with a balanced hand, even with 4 spades, you get to this point:

1D - 1H - 1NT - 2C - 2D

2H = weak 4/5 majors (or you can play this as 4/5 majors invitational if you want)

2S = 4/5 majors invitational

2NT+ as above

 

while

1D - 1H - 1NT -

2S = 4-4 invite

etc

 

 

so for your sample auctions I agree with awm.

[Stephen Tu]

I prefer to just follow

http://www.jeffgoldsmith.org/system/2waycheckback.html

so I can point partners to a reference, reasonable set of rebids worked out by strong players.

[skjaeran]

Never bypassing 1♠ over 1♦-1♥ and having all invites through 2♣:

 

a] Invite with 5-6

b] 3253 with very strong spades (I open 1♣ with 44m)

c] GF with 5-6

[Phil]

I prefer to just follow

http://www.jeffgoldsmith.org/system/2waycheckback.html

so I can point partners to a reference, reasonable set of rebids worked out by strong players.

I don't think Jeff has updated any of these system notes in well over five years and much of the information is closer to 15 years old. True, it was very cutting edge in 1995, so its not that outdated, but I would try to find a more current resource.

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think Jeff has updated any of these system notes in well over five years and much of the information is closer to 15 years old

 

That matters why? Have the computers invented new distributions not possible back then?

 

What do you think is clearly flawed with his "old" method?

[Phil]

I don't think Jeff has updated any of these system notes in well over five years and much of the information is closer to 15 years old

 

That matters why? Have the computers invented new distributions not possible back then?

 

What do you think is clearly flawed with his "old" method?

? Don't you think certain treatments evolve after they've been out a few years?

 

Do you read textbooks that are 15 years old and have been updated?

[peachy]

It is a reasonable rule to agree that all GF hands go through 2D which means that everything else is either invitational or weak.

[Stephen Tu]

? Don't you think certain treatments evolve after they've been out a few years?

 

Some treatments do, but not necessarily all of them. If the method covers all the likely hand types in a reasonable manner, what do you need to change? Maybe there are some third/fourth round wrinkles you can extend but I don't see anything that jumps out at me as bad about using that page as a starting point. Again unless you can point to an actual flaw and how it's been corrected, your criticism is kind of ridiculous.

 

Do you read textbooks that are 15 years old and have been updated?

That only matters for certain subjects like contemporary history class. If you take university first-year physics textbook, for example, it doesn't matter much whether you study from edition published last year or one published 30 years ago, information content will be the same. Maxwell's equations haven't changed in the interim.

[thebiker]

Why is it necessary for people to be so critical of posters who describe methods that may be a bit old. Surely if there are more modern treatments available, people could describe those, state the +'s ans -'s and leave the main audience the chance to make their own decison

Most of us read the Forums for information - not to follow pointless wrangles

 

 

Brian Keable

alias "thebiker"

[awm]

The methods I described are basically the same as what Goldsmith has on his page. There are only a couple differences between what I play in most partnerships and what he describes. These are:

 

(1) His methods include 2♣...3♣ as signoff, 2♣...2NT as invite with clubs, and a jump to 3♣ as game force. This is a bit hard on the memory (in the sense that all other sequences starting with 2♣ are invitational), and I don't see a huge problem bidding 2♦ on the club game force. So I prefer the jump to 3♣ as signoff, 2♣...3♣ as invitational. I also have another use for 2♣...2NT, which I play as four-card support for opener's minor and invitational (i.e. opener can opt to leave it in 2NT holding a 3-card minor or very notrump-oriented hand; this also helps with close game decisions when opener has a 5-card minor).

 

(2) He likes a version where responder's 2NT bid is a puppet to 3♣ (he lists this on his webpage as an optional treatment suggested by Ed Davis, but Goldsmith is from my district and I know he prefers this version). I think this has somewhat dubious merit because bidding 2♣ on the 2NT invite gives opponents another chance to lead direct or interfere, and the extra sequences you get really aren't necessary. It's also another place where people have memory issues (an auction that "seems" natural but isn't).

 

Note that his version does not make as much sense in a partnership that bids up the line, since for example 1m-1♥-1NT will never contain four spades. Thus there is no particular reason for responder to show a four-card spade suit via 2♠ or 2♣...2♠ and these sequences should be assigned an alternative meaning.

[Phil]

OK, I re-read Jeff's methods here. I will note that the article is dated 1996, and he generally makes a point of changing the date when he updates his articles, so I have no reason to think the date isn't accurate.

 

He does make the caveat about this structure is for weak NT's, because there are a lot of tweaks for weak NT's, especially the preference for showing a 4OM in preference to 3M after 2♦. As far as I'm concerned, this use (and others) makes a lot of the structure less effective for a strong NT structure.

 

--He suggests 1m - 1♥ - 1N - 2♠ be played as invitational and 4-4. I believe this is now generally played as 4-5 GF or even 5-6 GF. Similarly, he states 1m - 1♥ - 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ is a 4-5 invite which makes little sense to me because one of the primary purposes of 2-way NMF is to be able to play hearts in this sequence at the 2 level on a 5-2 or 5-3 fit.

 

--Using 2-way is dubious after 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N, especially in a Walsh or a Weak NT structure, although the follow-ups depend on what you use 1♣ - 2♦ for.

 

--He suggests 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♦ - 2♠ to be a good doubleton. This makes no sense to me whatsoever, unless you play Flannery and the opener has an automatic raise on the previous round with 3.

 

--He suggests 1m - 1M - 1N - 2♦ - 3m to be a 6 bagger. This seems like an odd use, since we won't be rebidding 1N very often when we hold a 6 card suit. Again, this may be influenced by weak NT's, but it should be more explicit IMO.

[aguahombre]

What Skaeran said...both style and solutions :blink:

[cherdanno]

(2) He likes a version where responder's 2NT bid is a puppet to 3♣ (he lists this on his webpage as an optional treatment suggested by Ed Davis, but Goldsmith is from my district and I know he prefers this version). I think this has somewhat dubious merit because bidding 2♣ on the 2NT invite gives opponents another chance to lead direct or interfere, and the extra sequences you get really aren't necessary. It's also another place where people have memory issues (an auction that "seems" natural but isn't).

I strongly disagree with your view here. I have been playing something similar for a few years now (2N forces 3♣, either to play, or a slam try with 4 in my major and 5-card support) and find it extremely useful. It is a big benefit to distinguish slam tries with 4 in my major from those with 5 in my major. It is extremely useful to show shortness with such hands, sometimes just to pick the right game.

I can't remember a single lead-directing double on such an auction.

[skjaeran]

(2) He likes a version where responder's 2NT bid is a puppet to 3♣ (he lists this on his webpage as an optional treatment suggested by Ed Davis, but Goldsmith is from my district and I know he prefers this version). I think this has somewhat dubious merit because bidding 2♣ on the 2NT invite gives opponents another chance to lead direct or interfere, and the extra sequences you get really aren't necessary. It's also another place where people have memory issues (an auction that "seems" natural but isn't).

I strongly disagree with your view here. I have been playing something similar for a few years now (2N forces 3♣, either to play, or a slam try with 4 in my major and 5-card support) and find it extremely useful. It is a big benefit to distinguish slam tries with 4 in my major from those with 5 in my major. It is extremely useful to show shortness with such hands, sometimes just to pick the right game.

I can't remember a single lead-directing double on such an auction.

Agree with Arend here.

I prefer all invites through 2♣, reverses at the 2-level to be GF and all jumps to be GF - jumps in another suit (also openers) shows 5-5, jumps in my own suit invites slam with a very good suit.

[Stephen Tu]

Phil, all your criticisms are due to *style* issues, whether one bypasses 1s to rebid 1nt, raise 1h-1s on 3, etc. None are due to anything being "outdated".

 

Any player reading the method should be able to easily see what doesn't fit with the partnership bidding style and make the logical replacements. It's silly to assume that anything should be played verbatim, in a vacuum completely independent of other partnership agreements.

 

Don't criticize something as "outdated" when it's merely a different *style* of bidding from what you are used to. You recommend people to seek out a more current source, but (1) you didn't provide a source, and (2) there's no guarantee such source won't have different stylistic choices from the rest of your system anyway.

[Phil]

Phil, all your criticisms are due to *style* issues, whether one bypasses 1s to rebid 1nt, raise 1h-1s on 3, etc.  None are due to anything being "outdated".

 

Any player reading the method should be able to easily see what doesn't fit with the partnership bidding style and make the logical replacements.  It's silly to assume that anything should be played verbatim, in a vacuum completely independent of other partnership agreements.

 

Don't criticize something as "outdated" when it's merely a different *style* of bidding from what you are used to.  You recommend people to seek out a more current source, but (1) you didn't provide a source, and (2) there's no guarantee such source won't have different stylistic choices from the rest of your system anyway.

Stephen, given that:

 

- Jeff implies that he 'always' raises 1♠ to 2 after 1♥ - 1♠; and

 

- Jeff implies that he rebids 1N with a 6 card minor often enough that he wants a bid to show this, instead of the more functional (my opinion) use of showing a good five card minor.

 

I would posit that Jeff's 'style' is a significant deviation from standard. This has nothing to do with what I play.

 

You stated above:

 

Some treatments do, but not necessarily all of them. If the method covers all the likely hand types in a reasonable manner, what do you need to change? Maybe there are some third/fourth round wrinkles you can extend but I don't see anything that jumps out at me as bad about using that page as a starting point. Again unless you can point to an actual flaw and how it's been corrected, your criticism is kind of ridiculous.

 

I believe I did this in my last post.

 

Further:

 

You recommend people to seek out a more current source

 

Somewhere on here, MikeH has a lengthy discussion about xyz. He might discuss 2-way NMF as well, I don't remember, but the systems function very similarly, and IMO, it is a much better resource than Jeff's.

 

It is much more current too :blink:

[cherdanno]

I don't think you have pointed out flaws Phil, just examples where you have a different opinion, or where you think current majority use is s.th. else.

 

Just as an example, rebidding 2♠ after 1H 1S 1N 2D with a good doubleton makes perfect sense to me. Your possible shapes are already very constrained, and it seems useful to distinguish between a good doubleton and a weak doubleton, and surely you can show 3-card support anyway? I don't think this treatment implies that you always raise 1S with 3-card support.

[cherdanno]

You recommend people to seek out a more current source

 

Somewhere on here, MikeH has a lengthy discussion about xyz. He might discuss 2-way NMF as well, I don't remember, but the systems function very similarly, and IMO, it is a much better resource than Jeff's.

 

It is much more current too :)

I suppose you mean http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...t=0entry90802 .

I am not sure though, Mikeh's post agrees with two of Jeff's treatments you don't like, maybe you are referring to a more recent post by Mikeh? It also says nothing about many other sequences that you need to discuss, are you really sure it is a better resource than Jeff's website?

[awm]

I strongly disagree with your view here. I have been playing something similar for a few years now (2N forces 3♣, either to play, or a slam try with 4 in my major and 5-card support) and find it extremely useful. It is a big benefit to distinguish slam tries with 4 in my major from those with 5 in my major. It is extremely useful to show shortness with such hands, sometimes just to pick the right game.

I can't remember a single lead-directing double on such an auction.

The possible lead-directing double isn't over the 2NT auction, it's the auction:

 

1m-1M-1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT

 

Here opponents actually have some values, and the artificial 2♣ call gives them the opportunity to double for the lead on hands where overcalling 2♣ in a live auction over 1M might be dangerous. I have seen this one come up a few times. By playing this method, you force all "natural 2NT" invites to use the sequence above. Yes, I have seen this lead directional double made more than once.

 

I've been playing without this artificial 2NT for many years now and have never missed it. There are a huge number of sequences made available by 2-way nmf already, and in some partnerships I haven't even defined all of them and still don't really miss them.

 

I've seen my opponents use the version where 2NT is a relay on several occasions. One thing I can say is that I've never lost IMPs on such a hand, nor have I seen any "great auctions" that I couldn't reproduce on such hands. However, on at least three occasions in the last few years I have seen opponents have an "accident" related to this method when a 2NT call is intended as natural and taken as a puppet to 3♣. Any method where the accidents seem to outnumber the wins is a bad method in my book.

[Stephen Tu]

If you want to show strong doubleton spade after 1h-1s-1nt-2d with 2s, what's horribly wrong with 3s with 3 cd support?

 

"different style from me" is not the same as "outdated". If you want to criticize his style as "horribly non-std", OK (I don't agree, almost all of it can be used in a standard system, with minor tweaks), but "outdated" is not an accurate criticism.

 

Your first two responses in the thread saying essentially "it's bad because it's old" were totally silly. 15 years old in bridge is practically modern, in comparison with a lot of 40, 50 year old stuff that is still considered standard and used by most players!

 

Jeff's site is also easier to find than some discussion buried in a forum, even if you may not agree with a small % of his picks, isn't that easy enough to discuss with a partner?