Reverse 2-way checkback?

[yunling]

I come up with an idea that

 

1m-1M-1NT-?

 

2♣:relay to 2D, SO or GF

2♦:invitational checkback

 

I think this can help responder better descibe his hand when he is interested in slam.

 

What do you think of this idea?

[helene_t]

What is opener supposed to do in response to 2♦ with a minimum with two hearts? If he bids 2♥ then responder would still not know if you have a fit when he has five. But if he bids something else (e.g. 2NT) you can't stop in 2♥ in the 5-2 fit.

[yunling]

What is opener supposed to do in response to 2♦ with a minimum with two hearts? If he bids 2♥ then responder would still not know if you have a fit when he has five. But if he bids something else (e.g. 2NT) you can't stop in 2♥ in the 5-2 fit.

 

just do whatever you do after (1C-1H-1NT-2C-2D-2H-?), bid 2H when you would pass that 2H, so it doesn't promise 3.

[mgoetze]

What do you think of this idea?

Nothing good.

[ggwhiz]

So many Bridge players love to reverse everything.

 

One of our pairs a couple of years ago decided to play reverse Smolen after a lengthy discussion in the bar. When they said they would alert it somebody said Why? That's Standard American.

[gnasher]

I come up with an idea that

 

1m-1M-1NT-?

 

2♣:relay to 2D, SO or GF

2♦:invitational checkback

 

I think this can help responder better descibe his hand when he is interested in slam.

 

What do you think of this idea?

 

After 1m-1♠;2♦, are you expecting opener to show a 4-card heart suit if he has one? If so, you're pointlessly leaking information on all the hands where responder has a 5-card invitation.

 

The idea of making opener bid step one so as to allow responder room to describe his hand is a good one, but there's no need to swap the 2♣ and 2♦ bids. Just play 2♣ as in standard 2-way Checkback, and 2♦ as a puppet to 2♥, followed by 2♠ and 2NT as further puppets. That gives you loads of space - three ways to bid 3♦/♥/♠/NT, and two ways to bid 3♣. This is one of the few sequences where I ran out of hands before I ran out of bids.

[fromageGB]

I don't play any checkback, so can't speak from solid knowledge, but I thought the use of 2♦ response to 2♣ invitational check, was that this is a negative denying support. By using 2♦ as the invitational check, you have lost a vital bid. Bidding partner's suit would now mean that you may or may not have support, and if responder has a 6 card suit he will not know whether to bid game or not. No?

 

Of course responder may not bid this way with an invitational 6, but in some other manner. Other bids could then be impacted. However, the point is that it is a useful bid that has been lost, and when responder has a slam going hand I would have thought that the extra space you save by bidding 2♣ rather than the (I assume) alternative 2♦ is a drop in the ocean compared with all the space you have anyway.

[chasetb]

I have two points:

1.) Swapping the two bids is akin to playing New Minor Forcing - no top pairs I know of use it. Checkback Stayman, which is also rarely used (if at all?) is also inferior to XYZ (2-way checkback) but still superior to NMF for the mere fact that you can stop in 2M or 2D.

2.) If used properly, you have ALL the space you need just playing normal XYZ. In fact, like Gnasher I basically ran out of hands for a few sequences. I started by using the responses off of the link below, then modifying them for Precision.

 

http://bboinquiry.blogspot.com/2005/06/wnat-is-xyz.html

[awm]

This will create some problems on the invitational hands. For example:

 

1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♦!

 

One possible hand for responder is a 5/4 majors invite. If opener wants to play 2♥ opposite that, he must bid it now. So presumably opener's 2♥ says "I would want to play in hearts opposite a 5/4 majors invite." Okay.. but now opener must bid 2♠ on both the following hands:

 

(1) Hand that would want to play 2♠ opposite a 5/4 majors invite.

(2) Hand with 4♥ that would accept a 5/4 majors invite, but wants to play 2♠ opposite any other type of five-spade invite.

 

Unfortunately responder is now truly fixed when holding 5/4 majors after the 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦-2♠ sequence.

 

Of course, this sort of problem would be okay if you are gaining a lot on the game-force hands. However, the fact is that the vast majority of game force hands will have five cards in the major. The reason is that with game values you bid your suits in length order. If you bid a four-card major on a GF hand, then generally you have a balanced hand and will just raise 1NT to an appropriate level. So you will see an awful lot of 1m-1M-1NT-2♣-2♦-2M, where you haven't really saved any space and in fact lose ground to 1m-1M-1NT-2♦-2M where you actually know the 5-3 fit a round earlier.

[mgoetze]

I don't play any checkback, so can't speak from solid knowledge, but I thought the use of 2♦ response to 2♣ invitational check, was that this is a negative denying support. By using 2♦ as the invitational check, you have lost a vital bid. Bidding partner's suit would now mean that you may or may not have support, and if responder has a 6 card suit he will not know whether to bid game or not. No?

No.

[Free]

I don't see the point