Checkback Stayman

[1eyedjack]

The EBU system file has a 'Foundation level Standard English' section and the Modern Acol section that is for more advanced players. Both advocate opening a 4 card major rather than a minor, so it's not just for beginners.

As I see it the two documents ("foundation" and "modern") serve two purposes:

 

1) as a teaching tool, and

 

2) to enable a pickup partnership to agree fast on an entire workable system with minimal discussion.

 

As to the second purpose, the pair is free to choose between two methods of varying sophistication based on their general level of experience. But even so, it behoves the publishers to offer limited choice based on the method of prevailing local popularity rather than marginal technical merit.

 

As to the first purpose listed above, the design of "modern acol" may have in part been addressed to those previously acclimatised to foundation level but who have developed enough experience to want to build on those foundations. There is certainly plenty of scope to do so without ditching the "foundation" principles, and it is understandable that the publishers would seek to minimise the inconsistencies between the two, even at some modest cost of technical merit.

 

I doubt that a serious competitive partnership would look to this as an authoritative resource of optimal methods, and I doubt that the publishers would seek to make that claim on its behalf. But there is no doubt that the systems are "workable".

[Liversidge]

you have to consider that people writing bridge books are not doing so because they dream of improving the standard of bridge. outside the portland club [rubber bridge, where even negative doubles are banned] i doubt andrew robson has played acol in the last 20 years.

 

the EBU file is certainly not written by experts.

 

ron klinger is australian. acol is the most popular system in the antipodes (from what i've seen anyway), as it is in england. he unsurprisingly tailors his books to his market.

 

The arguments Robson, Klinger et all give for opening the major with 4432 and 15-17 HCP seem very logical, at least in an uncontested auction. The main thrust is that on your rebid your No1 objective should usually be to show your strength and shape. If you open in the minor then your rebid either hides your major or hides your balanced 15-17. If you open the major you can show both by rebidding 2NT. 1S - 2H guarantees five hearts so an 8 card fit in the major is never missed. I am sure there are counter arguments but I need to start somewhere in getting some underpinning understanding.

 

As for the low calibre of most English Acol players, and authors dumbing down to acommodate it, isn't there a danger in advocating opening in the minor when they are unlikely to have the additional systems/in depth understanding to make the most of it, such as some of the posters here have suggested. I only know one pair that play 5 card majors Acol in the three small clubs I play at, and I am sure noone will have heard of NMF (I googled to find it) or Walsh style or the wide ranging strong No Trump. My partner certainly won't. If we are almost all playing straightforward Acol with 4 card majors in the 'English' style it would be helpful to a novice/beginner to know whether opening the minor is better than the major without having to make a lot of other tweaks to accommodate it, which is where I started with my OP.

[P_Marlowe]

Know what you play, and know what you have agreed

to play.

Know why you play something.

 

If you do know this, you will be doing fine.

Certain treatment may be better than others, but

unless you start playing 100+ or even 1000+ boards

per Month with a fixed partner, dont worry to much

about advantages, that certain treatments may offer.

 

The propability, that it will materialize is low.

 

... and have fun / enjoy the game.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

A couple of examples.

 

1) You open 1S with a 4-3-2-4, 16 or 17 count, and partner responds 1N, 5-9. Do you raise, hoping for 9?

 

Probably not with 16, on frequency grounds. The chances of partner having a 5 or 6 count, and dire resulting prognosis outweighs the remote chance of hitting partner with a 9 count, and not all 25 point hands make game. Yet sometimes partner will have that 9 count, and knowing that you probably would want to be in game.

 

But with 17 the temptation is just too great to risk passing. And yet you will sometimes hit partner with that 5 or 6 count and wish you were a level lower. Even a combined 24 count will fail to make 2N on occasion.

 

And you would be a level lower if you had opened a minor and partner responded 1-red and allowed you to make a narrower range 1N rebid on 15-17.

 

2) You open 1S with 4-3-2-4, 15 or 16 count, and partner responds 1N. So you pass. No difficult decision there. Only problem is you are in a somewhat suboptimal spot when you find partner with a 6 card heart suit but lacking the values for a 2/1 response. Had you opened 1C partner would have been able to respond 1H and then pull your 1N rebid to 2H (assuming not playing weak jump shifts, which would have the same effect).

 

I am sure that others will pile in with other examples both for and against.

[Cyberyeti]

 

the EBU file is certainly not written by experts.

 

 

I thought it came from the standard English file which was written by Sandra Landy. You may not consider a Venice cup winner an expert, but I do.

[Stephen Tu]

If we are almost all playing straightforward Acol with 4 card majors in the 'English' style it would be helpful to a novice/beginner to know whether opening the minor is better than the major without having to make a lot of other tweaks to accommodate it, which is where I started with my OP.

 

You don't really have to make a lot of tweaks. The only real tweak semi-necessary is to bid 1M not 1d after partner's 1c opening on 4M4d, and 1M instead of 1d on 4M5d/4M6d when not strong enough to force to game after a strong 1nt rebid. You'll reach almost all of your major fits, with the exception of 4-4 spade fit when responder is 4-4/4-5 in the majors but not strong enough to initiate some sort of checkback sequence after 1m-1H-1nt, you end up in 1nt instead. You'll do OK. You might play some schemes to be able to cater to weak 4M6d to play a diamond partial after 1nt/2nt rebids, (puppet 2-way checkback/XYNT/Wolff), but those hands come up infrequently enough and you'll survive playing those hands in NT often enough that you don't even really have to put in convention to cater to that. But for me 2-way puppet checkback is quite useful just for the other hands and you get the signoff in diamonds for free, that you should look into it. ( http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/TwoWayCheckback.html )

[helene_t]

I would strongly recommend opening the major. The whole point of playing 4-card majors is that a minor suit opening denies a balanced hand containing a 4card major. That has a number of advantages. There are also advantages of not opening the 4-card major but those are arguments for playing 5-card majors. Opening the minor while not taking the full step to 5-card majors means that you have the disadvantages of a 5-card major system without the advantages.

[wank]

The arguments Robson, Klinger et all give for opening the major with 4432 and 15-17 HCP seem very logical, at least in an uncontested auction. The main thrust is that on your rebid your No1 objective should usually be to show your strength and shape. If you open in the minor then your rebid either hides your major or hides your balanced 15-17. If you open the major you can show both by rebidding 2NT. 1S - 2H guarantees five hearts so an 8 card fit in the major is never missed. I am sure there are counter arguments but I need to start somewhere in getting some underpinning understanding.

 

the counter argument to that specific point is that if you open the minor, responder will bid a major, allowing you to raise to 2. it's not necessary to differentiate between a balanced 15 count and a 5431 12 count at that stage (can clarify on the next round if responder is strange enough) because they both have similar playing strength in a suit contract. you have however shown your other suit so you're ahead in that regard.

 

if responder doesn't bid a major, it's either because he has enough values to bid again over 1NT (see what i said earlier about bidding majors before diamonds on very weak responding hands), or he hasn't got 1, in which case it's much better if opener keeps his major quiet as it makes it harder for the defence.

 

the only problem is when responder has exactly 4 spades and 4+ hearts with a weak hand. then it goes 1m-1H-1NT and the spades will be lost.

[Liversidge]

I would strongly recommend opening the major. The whole point of playing 4-card majors is that a minor suit opening denies a balanced hand containing a 4card major. That has a number of advantages. There are also advantages of not opening the 4-card major but those are arguments for playing 5-card majors. Opening the minor while not taking the full step to 5-card majors means that you have the disadvantages of a 5-card major system without the advantages.

 

So, referring back to my first post: playing Modern Acol, 4 card majors etc., if partner insists on opening in the minor, and the bidding goes 1C - 1D - 1NT, can we use 2C as Checkback, just like we do with 1m - 1M - 1NT? I can't see why not, but don't want to extend our current understanding on Checkback if there is a good reason not to. If responder is 5-4 mM it allows discovery of a major fit if there is one.

[Liversidge]

the counter argument to that specific point is that if you open the minor, responder will bid a major, allowing you to raise to 2.

If partner has Kxxx xxx KQJxx x, and I have four spades and 15-17, then in our system partner would respond 1D and I would rebid 1NT, giving preference to showing shape and strength.

[helene_t]

So, referring back to my first post: playing Modern Acol, 4 card majors etc., if partner insists on opening in the minor, and the bidding goes 1C - 1D - 1NT, can we use 2C as Checkback, just like we do with 1m - 1M - 1NT? I can't see why not, but don't want to extend our current understanding on Checkback if there is a good reason not to. If responder is 5-4 mM it allows discovery of a major fit if there is one.

You can but to find a major suit fit, responder can just bid his major:

1♣-1♦

1NT-2♥(or 2♠)

 

Note that if you don't play CBS in this auction,

1♣-1♦

1NT-2/3 ♣ (or 2/3 ♦)

are all nonforcing. So how to you force to game with club support here? Maybe it is so that with 10-11 points you would have made a limit raise initially, and with more you would have made a strong jump shift in diamonds?

 

Playing CBS, you can bid 2♣ first and then 3♣ or 3♦ afterwards to show a hand with interest in a minor suit slam.

[rmnka447]

There are two ways to play NMF.

 

One is always to support first and the other is to show any unbid 4 card major first. Whichever way you play changes the meaning of the 3 ♠ bid. If you play "support first", then 3 ♠ shows 4 ♠ and less than 3 ♥. If you play "show the other major first", then 3 ♠ shows 4 ♠ but doesn't necessarily deny 3 ♥.

 

So it's important to be sure that you are aligned on how you'll respond to the NMF bid over 1 NT. And it's probably smart to play the same way over 2 NT to eliminate any possible confusion.

 

Here in the US, most people will always bid 1 ♠ over a 1 m - 1 ♥ auction when holding 4 ♠. So after a 1 NT rebid, a NMF bid after an initial 1 ♥ response is virtually always asking about support. I think that's probably why it seems like most people play "support first" here rather than "bid the other major" first.

 

I don't see any problem with playing NMF over 1 ♣ - 1 ♦ - 1 NT either.

 

It just takes time to work out the bidding sequences and what they mean.

[wank]

If partner has Kxxx xxx KQJxx x, and I have four spades and 15-17, then in our system partner would respond 1D and I would rebid 1NT, giving preference to showing shape and strength.

 

this hand isn't a problem. responder can bid 2S natural, or you can take up some version of checkback and locate the fit that way.

 

the problem hand is kjxx xxx kxxxx x. now this hand is too weak to introduce spades after 1C-1D-1NT. the solution whilst opening the minor first, is for this hand to respond 1S. you should only do that on 1-bid hands, otherwise bid up the line.

[wank]

I would strongly recommend opening the major. The whole point of playing 4-card majors is that a minor suit opening denies a balanced hand containing a 4card major. That has a number of advantages. There are also advantages of not opening the 4-card major but those are arguments for playing 5-card majors. Opening the minor while not taking the full step to 5-card majors means that you have the disadvantages of a 5-card major system without the advantages.

 

 

by the way, i agree with helen's comments about opening 1 major in isolation. however, an individual bid in a bidding system is never in isolation. it's the combination of the major first approach with a weak no trump which has unfortunate side effects. the major first approach works very well with a strong no-trump.

[Stephen Tu]

this hand isn't a problem. responder can bid 2S natural, or you can take up some version of checkback and locate the fit that way.

 

the problem hand is kjxx xxx kxxxx x. now this hand is too weak to introduce spades after 1C-1D-1NT. the solution whilst opening the minor first, is for this hand to respond 1S. you should only do that on 1-bid hands, otherwise bid up the line.

 

Arguably you should also do this with 4x4x, bid 1s rather than 1d, even with GF values worth multiple bids. Let's you differentiate vs. 4M5+d with less artificiality & less revealing auctions.

[1eyedjack]

The whole point of playing 4-card majors is that a minor suit opening denies a balanced hand containing a 4card major.

I never thought that. I thought that there were two points to paying 4 card majors

1) There are occasions when your 4-4 major fit may go undiscovered if you don't open it, and

2) Your minor suit opening can be relied upon to be a genuine suit.

 

As to the first it is true that this benefit is foregone on those hands that you open a minor with 4-4, if that is your style, but that does not of itself make a convincing case for 5 card majors, as they would be in the same boat. Indeed they would be in a slightly worse boat on this particular point as they would not have the benefit of showing a genuine minor; which is of course a low priority but not a nil priority.

 

Occasionally I see repeated the observation that you "might as well play 5 card majors as you are 90% of the way there already". The conclusion may be correct (for the record I believe that it is) but the logic, or justification, in the sentence is flawed. Seldom in life are extreme positions optimal, so if going purely by life experience and nothing else you might expect this compromise solution (that of opening 4 card majors but preferring a minor given a choice) to be preferred over either extreme (always opening the major v promising 5).

[Liversidge]

You can but to find a major suit fit, responder can just bid his major:

1♣-1♦

1NT-2♥(or 2♠)

 

this hand isn't a problem. responder can bid 2S natural

 

If that is correct then it would make my question redundant, but surely 1C - 1D - 1NT - 2S is a responder's reverse showing 12+ points Forcing. All my Acol resources (EBU file, Klinger etc.) say so.

[Liversidge]

Delete Dupe

[Stephen Tu]

If that is correct then it would make my question redundant, but surely 1C - 1D - 1NT - 2S is a responder's reverse showing 12+ points Forcing. All my Acol resources (EBU file, Klinger etc.) say so.

 

If 1nt is 15-17 then you can fairly safely force to game on a 10 count, or a good 9 with 4M5+d shape. A 12 count isn't necessary. Or, if you want to keep this 12+, then simply bypass diamonds to bid a major with 11-.

 

The main point we are trying to stress to you is that if you are going to open the minor, you really have to bypass 1d to bid a major with your weaker set of hands if you want to get to most of your 4-4 major fits. Because you won't be strong enough to checkback with the low end of the range, since that ends in understrength 2nt contracts if a major fit isn't found. Up-the-line bidding only makes sense if opener is actually going to bid up-the-line. If opener is going to bypass majors to show his shape and strength by bidding 1nt over a 1d response, then 1d better deny a 4 cd major unless responder is prepared to get to game. Up-the-line bidding with opener bidding majors over 1d would also discover 4-4 M fits, but also leads to awkward decisions over whether to bid on after responder's 2nd round 1nt, similar to the problem after 1S-1nt.

 

So if opener bypasses majors, responder should also bypass diamonds. Don't combine up-the-line with bypassing majors by opener, the treatments are incompatible.

[NickRW]

Replying to nobody in particular, but... Acol, with its 4 card majors and weak NT, IMO, plays respectably in the matchpoint arena (which is where it is actually played for 95+% of the time). The reason is that you open 1M and 1N quite a lot and that has a mild pre-emptive effect on the auction. Most auctions have a competitive element and, at matchpoints, competitive partscore boards are as important as the slams, so the pre-emptive effect works for you more than it does against partner.

 

Conversely, at imps, the auctions where opps are silent and you have an unopposed auction to game or above take on more importance. Now you don't want to be pre-empting yourself. Systems that use the 1m openings more frequently, therefore, have more to recommend them.

 

Nick

[nekthen]

 

Note that if you don't play CBS in this auction,

1♣-1♦

1NT-2/3 ♣ (or 2/3 ♦)

are all nonforcing. So how to you force to game with club support here? Maybe it is so that with 10-11 points you would have made a limit raise initially, and with more you would have made a strong jump shift in diamonds?

 

Playing CBS, you can bid 2♣ first and then 3♣ or 3♦ afterwards to show a hand with interest in a minor suit slam.

 

One other route is to play inverse minors. When would you prefer to bid 1♦ to 2♣ when you have a good hand and club support?

[gordontd]

I was amused by the comment that bidding knowledge in England is very poor. I'm not sure where this comes from. Perhaps because Walsk, Drury and other conventions of doubtful value are not widely played.

Have you never asked an experienced partnership which suit they open with a balanced hand outside of their NT range, or what they rebid with such a hand, and found the players haven't properly considered it?

[nekthen]

I think what this forum thread demonstrates clearly, is that you cannot say "I play EBU Modern Acol, but I choose to open my 4 card minor in preference to my 4 card major." It is no longer Modern Acol and you must review every aspect of the system to make sure it still hangs together

[NickRW]

I think what this forum thread demonstrates clearly, is that you cannot say "I play EBU Modern Acol, but I choose to open my 4 card minor in preference to my 4 card major." It is no longer Modern Acol and you must review every aspect of the system to make sure it still hangs together

 

Well, anyone who has learnt that lesson is well on the way to being a good bidder

[Tramticket]

Since this is meant to be the Novice / Beginner forum, let's get back to fundamentals:

 

- Check and agree that you and your partner are playing the same basic system (note, for these purposes there is more than one version of Acol: Opening the Major first leads to a fundamentally different system to opening the minor - one post even suggested "Acol with five card majors" - this is a different system!).

- At this stage any advantage from playing one system rather than another will be slight. Play the system that you have been taught and/or is used by most people at your club.

- Learn your system in depth. Learning the basic system is more important than adding more conventional gadgets. learn which bid to make, but also learn WHY a particular bid is recommended.

- When you are ready to add conventions to the system, make sure that they are compatible with the bidding system that you play and logically consistent with other conventions that you play. (Be careful with a forum such as this - you will receive well-meaning advice from some players based on their own systems rather than yours!).