Forcing continuations...

[NickRW]

I've been playing xfer walsh after 1♣ for a little while. We've played xfer completion as semi forcing - responder is allowed to pass with 4 cards in the major and up to about 7 points, otherwise responder must bid again - which is typically 2 or more of the major with 5 cards and something else, often 1NT, with 4 cards.

 

What do people do, however, when responder wants to investigate slam? Clearly with shortage one can splinter - but what if there is no shortage - and what if the shortage is clubs (splintering in clubs is going to sound like double fit)?

 

Nick

[kgr]

We play:

1♣-1♦

1♥-??

 

1♥=3c♥ and forcing

We play that 2♦ is 5c♥ and asking strength/shortage

(We don't have a good bid with a 4c♥ and slam interest)

[Free]

You can still play 2-way checkback without much problems.

[paulg]

We play transfers at the two-level, 2♠ is range asking and three-level bids are shortage (with other suits balanced) and four-level bids splinter.

 

We do splinter into clubs, as we can transfer into clubs so show the double fit.

[655321]

I have always played 2 way checkback here.

[spotlight7]

Hi:

 

XYZ convention.

 

Regards,

Robert

[blackshoe]

"2 way checkback" is shorthand for "2 way Checkback Stayman", which is a convention used after a 1NT (or, for some, 2NT) rebid. So I don't think it's right to call whatever you're doing here "checkback". I don't think "XYZ" fits either, with 1♦ being a transfer. Perhaps whatever it is needs a new name?

[phil_20686]

"2 way checkback" is shorthand for "2 way Checkback Stayman", which is a convention used after a 1NT (or, for some, 2NT) rebid. So I don't think it's right to call whatever you're doing here "checkback". I don't think "XYZ" fits either, with 1♦ being a transfer. Perhaps whatever it is needs a new name?

many transfer walsh players play that completion shows a weak nt rather than support. Then the auction is identical to 1c-1h-1n in std system so it seems natural to call it checkback.

 

I have also seen it called "Generalised Checkback" when you play it after 1c-h-1s in a natural system, or 1c-1d-1s in xfer walsh.

[Phil]

I play xyz but transfers make a lot of sense.

[nigel_k]

You can also play that 2♦ is artifical and game forcing after both 1♣-1♦-1♥ and 1♣-1♥-1♠. Obviously this creates some awkward problems on hands with diamonds, but it is a simple way to deal with all the GF hands and still be able to play 2♣.

[NickRW]

Yes. On reading the replies I wondered how do you play 2♣. But I am not sure that really worries me that much - I have, at present anyway, already got inverted minors in the mix - so we don't play 2♣ normally anyway.

[MickyB]

Nick - I don't think you actually say what hands you are "completing the transfer" on. I assume it is most hands with three-card support, am I right?

[NickRW]

Nick - I don't think you actually say what hands you are "completing the transfer" on. I assume it is most hands with three-card support, am I right?

Yes, I didn't say that - though I suppose I kinda implied it. Opener normally completes the xfer at the 2 level or higher with 4 card support; with 2 card support is not that interested in responders suit and rebids normally as if we hadn't been using xfers; with 3 card support the xfer is normally completed at the 1 level (but won't do this with a hand that really wants to be in game opposite a random 7 count as responder can pass with 4 cards and 7 or worse).

 

Not sure whether that is best - the merit as far as I was concerned was that it was and is simple - some months back we threw out a whole raft of stuff and dragged in a bunch of (to us) new ideas - xfer walsh amongst them - and then spent a long time working on the sequences after 1NT - so had to keep the rest simple. However a strong responding hand the other day made me think we need to give some attention to other things - hence this thread.

[jdonn]

Jlall and I played the following, which is unlike what most people play (and I hope I'm remembering it accurately). Over the 1♥ bid showing 3 with anything less than a game force,

1♠: Artificial force, including many hands that are either strong or weak

1NT: 4-4 majors, 6-10, not forcing.

 

After 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ opener's rebids were mostly natural.

 

1NT, 2♣, 2NT, 3♣: All the same as normal rebids after 1♣ p 1♥ p except including 3 hearts, you can play any type of checkback over the notrump bids and artificial cheap diamond calls over the club bids.

2♦: 12-18 1345, you can then play an artificial 2♠ bid by responder

2♥: 12-15 4315, you can then play an artificial 3♦ bid by responder

2♠: 16-18 4315, you can then play an artificial 3♦ bid by responder

[Zelandakh]

How about 4=3=0=6? None of the bids seem to be available from your description. I am guessing you can relax the 5431s?

[helene_t]

With Shogi I play the same as Josh and Justin. With Manudude03 I also play the transfer accept as 3-card support and semiforcing but we play two-way checkback.

[Gerben42]

I have just agreed 2-way Checkback after the accepted transfer with my partner.

 

We accept the transfer with any 3-card support hand except 11-13 NT (which just bypasses the 3-card support) and 17-18 NT (we play 14-16 NT).

[fromageGB]

Both my main partnerships play a less-common variant of t-walsh, where a 1♠ response is a transfer to 1NT. This can then be left/raised, but equally over the 1NT we play Stayman and red transfers. Thus transfer to 1NT and rebid at the 2 level is an invitational hand with 4 or 5 card major(s). So a 1♦ response completed to 1♥ followed by a raise to 2♥ is therefore an invitational hand guaranteeing a 6 card major. This sort of device allows accurate description of responder's hand and solves many problems - you can show the length as 4, 5 or 6, and the strength as weaker, invitational, or GF - all of these can be shown yet still stop in 2M or 2NT having made an invitation, declined.

 

On opener's side, we show strength with the first rebid. Completing the transfer shows 2 or 3 and 12-14 (our 1♣ open guarantees no major shortage unless it has 6 clubs and rebids them, a 1♦ opening having a shortage unless it has 6 diamonds and rebids them), with a jump to 2M showing 12-14 and 4 card support. A jump to 3 shows 4 card support and 17/18. (Our 1NT open is 15/16). Opener with 2 or 3 of the major will break the transfer and rebid 1NT with 17/18. After that 1NT we of course have Stayman and transfers again. Similarly if opener breaks the 1♠ transfer to 1NT by bidding 2NT it is 17/18, and Stayman and transfers again apply.

 

After this start, which describes both fit and strength pretty accurately, we have had no problem with simple ordinary bidding. 3♠/3NT after major agreement is non-serious, and a cue bid bypassing this is serious.

 

We have been playing this for some time now.

[jdonn]

How about 4=3=0=6? None of the bids seem to be available from your description. I am guessing you can relax the 5431s?

Yes exactly, treat as 4315 and upgrade just a little, the point count and shape requirements are all to be treated loosely (in fact there were no strict point count requirements, this is just approximately what they amounted to).

[Free]

"2 way checkback" is shorthand for "2 way Checkback Stayman", which is a convention used after a 1NT (or, for some, 2NT) rebid. So I don't think it's right to call whatever you're doing here "checkback". I don't think "XYZ" fits either, with 1♦ being a transfer. Perhaps whatever it is needs a new name?

Both methods use the same principle:

- 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦ and is used for signoff ♦ or some invites

- 2♦ is a GF relay

- 2NT is a puppet to 3♣ and is used for signoff ♣ or some GF hands

 

Imo it doesn't matter what you call the method, if you know the principles and can apply them to another auction it's just fine.

 

I don't see you complain about another thread where someone wrote "Rubinsohl" instead of "Rubensohl" either...

[Fluffy]

At the start we used some complex 1♠ relay, but now we jus tuse 2 way checkback wich simplifies things. We always bypass the transfer with 18-19 balanced, but not with anything else.

 

 

1♠ over 1♥ is any hand with 4 spades, forcing 1 round. Partner has 2 ways on raising spades with minimum hands: 2♥and 2♠ one showing balanced and the other unbalanced.

 

1NT is to play

 

2♣ as transfer to 2♦, it is better than nat, because it also lets you play a 2m contract, but also show many invites.

 

2♦ is GF with bal/semibal distribution

 

2♥ over 1♠ is a weak 5-4 althou I bet something ore useful is avaible if we explore.

 

2♠ over 1♥ is invitational in hearts with a shortness

 

2NT is invitational with 4 cards in partner's minor

 

3♣ is to play

 

3 other suit is natural forcing (or splinter)

[Zelandakh]

I've been thinking about this and it seems to ne that Josh's method is excellent but perhaps not for everyone. Whereas 2WC is simple but definitely sub-optimal (you cannot play in 2C and your forcing heart raise is at 3 level). A very simple solution is to play 2WC but with your Checkback bids as 1S and 2C. For example

 

1C - 1D - 1H

 

1S = natural 1N/2C bids, weak; or any INV hand without club support

1N = 4 hearts, 4 spades, weak

2C = puppet to 2D, any GF hand

2D = 4 hearts, 6+ diamonds, weak

2H = 5 hearts, weak

2S = 5+ clubs, 0-1 spades, INV

2N = 5+ clubs, 0-1 diamonds, INV

3C = 2=4=2=5, INV

 

After 1S, 2C would be any GF hand and 1N anything else. Then

 

2C (after 1N by Opener) = 5+ clubs, weak

2D = 5+ diamonds, INV

2H = 5+ hearts, INV

2S = 4 hearts, 4 spades, INV

2N = nat, INV

3C (after 2C by Opener) = 5+ clubs, weak

3D (after 2C by Opener) = 4 hearts, 5 diamonds, weak

3N (after 2C by Opener) = bal, weak

 

To make best use of the extra space from your forcing heart raise being at the 2 level you could adapt your Jacoby structure. Or some relay scheme is probably even better. Perhaps

 

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

 

2S = unbal, min (2N = relay with same responses as for max)

2N = bal (3C as range ask, good to find out trump length too if 3=4=3=3 is allowed for 1H)

3C = side void, max

3D = 1 diamond, max

3H = no shortage (2=3=2=6 or bare honour)

3S = 1 spade, max

3N = spade cue, super-max

4m = cue, super-max

4H = junk (no shortage, no keycard, no more than 1 king)

 

I have not gone through it in detail or tested it but this seems to provide all of the advantages of 2WC without the corresponding disadvantages.

[fromageGB]

I think I've lost the plot here. What's all this about checkback, what are we checking for?

 

Anyway, back to the question Nick raised. If responder is investigating slam, the way we do it is to start with a transfer to the 5+ card major (completed with 2 or 3 support) then make a non-specified GF bid of 2♣. Opener clarifies his hand, bidding is natural, and if a major is agreed it will be at the 2 or 3 level and we proceed exactly as we do over say a 2 over 1 then suit agreement, or shortages after J2N ; in our case this involves the use or otherwise of the non-serious 3NT and one level of cue bids to see if anything is wide open before ace asking.

 

If we have no major and just a minor GF we start with a transfer to 1NT, and rebid 3m.

[hanp]

We play 2C as a relay, at least light invitational. 1S is natural and forcing.

[NickRW]

Anyway, back to the question Nick raised. If responder is investigating slam,...

Well, hmm, I haven't had the chance to give this thread a lot of thought yet - even though I started it. Something has to give in my previously simplistic scheme if responder is to be able to find a forcing sequence - so I guess I wasn't expecting people to be saying "checkback" at me - but - like I say - something has to shift.

 

Nick