Checkback Stayman

[rmnka447]

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

1♣-1♦

1NT-2♥(or 2♠)

Well, what about a hand where responder has both majors? With something like ♠ KQxx ♥ K10xx ♦ AKxxx ♣ -, you can bid a major but then potentially lose the other major. So, NMF would be very useful here.

 

The other big advantage for NMF is that it gives you a second way to show length and strength in a major you do hold. How do you differentiate between ♠ xx ♥ AKJxxx ♦ xx ♣ Kxx and ♠ xx ♥ AKJxxx ♦ Kx ♣ Kxx. The auction

 

1 ♦ - 1 ♥

1 NT- 3 ♥

 

can only be used for one of them. Before NMF, in the US, a jump rebid was invitational and with the GF hand responder would have to make a forcing bid -- usually a "hasty" ♣ bid on 3 -- to force partner, then make the jump rebid if opener rebid 2 ♦. NMF gives you a cleaner option

 

1 ♦ - 1 ♥

1 NT- 2 ♣

2 ♦/♠- 3 ♥

 

shows 6+ ♥. You can take your choice as to which is the GF auction and which is the invitational.

[Stephen Tu]

Well, what about a hand where responder has both majors? With something like ♠ KQxx ♥ K10xx ♦ AKxxx ♣ -, you can bid a major but then potentially lose the other major. So, NMF would be very useful here.

4450 is pretty rare distribution. Plus you can handle it naturally, just bid 1c-1d-1nt-2s-2nt-3h?

 

 

The other big advantage for NMF is that it gives you a second way to show length and strength in a major you do hold.

Nobody is arguing against NMF or some other better checkback scheme after 1m-1M. We were just saying that maybe it's not necessary after specifically 1c-1d-1nt. You can use new *major* forcing :).

 

Before NMF, in the US, a jump rebid was invitational and with the GF hand responder would have to make a forcing bid -- usually a "hasty" ♣ bid on 3 -- to force partner, then make the jump rebid if opener rebid 2 ♦. NMF gives you a cleaner option

 

Huh? Before NMF, 1d-1h-1nt-2c was non-forcing, you couldn't really do that. Also, I think in the very old days second round jumps by responder were mostly GF. At least they were that way in all the old Goren books I read. Jumps being invitational is a more modern trend I think. Back then basically there wasn't a way to show exactly invitational.

[Liversidge]

 

- 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!).

 

That advice resonates strongly with me.

 

My partner has played social bridge for many years, i have been playing for three years, beginning with Modern Acol, so we come from different starting points. Our ambition is to become really good players within our bridge community. Our play will get better with practice, but we can accelerate our bidding skills / understanding by reading / discussing / analysing hands that we could have played better.

 

Quite a few of our opponents are a lot better than us, mostly because they have been in playing partnerships for many years. They have their own sets of conventions based on Acol (eg. Benji, weak 2's, Cansino, Standard Blackwood or Gerber), but mostly standard Acol, not Modern. Few if any play splinters, Jacoby 2NT, Michaels, negative double etc.. They tend to do well because they play the hands better, because they have been playing for many years.

 

 

We each have a pair of books on Acol by the same author, one on uncontested auctions, one on contested auctions, and we have gradually been converging our methods to so that now most of what we play is what's in the books. For example, partner didn't realise that 1S - 2H guarantees five hearts, or why. And we have moved from a 1NT showing 15-16 to 15-17, and why (1any - 1any - 2NT rebid after a one level response is game forcing). And we have added other devices such as inverted minors after 1D - 3D -3NT went off, and super accepts after transfers. We play splinters, negative doubles, exit Transfers, Landy and more. The most recent addition was checkback Stayman after 1m-1M, which we like - we have used it twice. I have often checked ideas out on BBO before suggesting them to partner, and have had some really valuable responses (in amongst some where I have no idea what the poster is talking about - way over my head!!).

 

Last week, when I saw partner opening 1C with four weak clubs and four good spades, I realised that this is an area where we have not yet 'converged'. He still bids up the line as he has done for many years, but will rebid 1NT with a balanced 15-17 hand. Rather than address that whole area just now, I wondered whether we could just tweak Checkback to include 1m - 1m -1NT. Hence my question on BBO.

 

The responses have been interesting and much appreciated. Posters have put a lot of time into their responses / advice. Unfortunatley much of it has not been very helpful in answering my question. I have been trying to follow it by googling Walsh, Drury, NMF, New Major Forcing, 5 card majors, and more, and generally feeling that partner and I were, like everyone else at our clubs (and the UK) playing an inferior system, and were referring to sources from authors we trusted but are now beginning to doubt.

 

After a good night's sleep, my conclusion is that we will stick with what we have got, and add to it as and when we think it is useful and we can absorb it. I will suggest to partner that we add 1m - 1m - 1NT to our CBS, since I have not read anything that suggests it is a bad idea, and we will 'suck it and see'

[helene_t]

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).

My point is that if you play 4cM (majors first with 4432) you know that a nt rebid denies a four card major, you don't need to discuss whether you play Walsh, and you know that a raise is unbalanced.

 

Playing 5-card majors you know that 1M is 5.

 

Playing 4cM (minor first with 4432) you know neither.

 

I realize that this doesn't "prove" that the latter style is inferior. After all, when it goes

1♠-2m

2NT-3♠

3NT

you know that opener is exactly 4333. Things like this could in theory be significant.

 

But to me it feels completely backwards to build a system primarily on conveying minor suit length information. The criterion for opening a major suit could, other than the exact length, conceivably be based on suit quality, strength of the hands, balanced vs unbalanced. But that the bidability of a major suit depends on whether I am 3-3 or 2-4 in the minors just can't be right. You might as well play that a 4-card major may or may not be biddable depending on what you had for dinner.

[Stephen Tu]

Liversidge, you still aren't getting it.

 

The main thing isn't checkback after 1c-1d-1nt. It's playable, it's arguably not necessary. But THIS ALONE WON'T SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM OF MISSING 4-4 major fits! It's not the primary fix needed.

 

Think about it, you have a 4342 6 count. Partner is 4234. Partner opens 1c. You respond 1d. He rebids 1nt. Now what? If you checkback, fine, this time you survive, as partner has spades. But next time, partner is 2434, has hearts but not spades. You end up in 2nt with 15 opposite 6, and go down. Generally it's too dangerous to try to checkback with <= 8, you go down in 2nt too often with no compensation, and checkback followed by 2nt is supposed to be invitational so you end up in 3nt down too often also. So with weak non-invitational hands, either you don't checkback and miss 4-4 M fits, or you do checkback and get to 2nt/3nt with insufficient values too often.

 

Bidding 1d, up the line bidding, is incompatible with opener bypassing 1M to bid 1nt with 15-17 balanced. One partner is bidding up the line while the other is not. This doesn't work very well.

 

The most important thing is to bypass 1d to bid a major with weakish hands and 4-4 hands in general. Adding checkback without doing this won't solve your issue. Either that or convincing your partner to open the major.

[Liversidge]

The most important thing is to bypass 1d to bid a major with weakish hands and 4-4 hands in general. Adding checkback without doing this won't solve your issue. Either that or convincing your partner to open the major.

 

Apologies, Stephen,

 

I had already take on board the advice you gave in your earlier post - it made a lot of sense and I should have acknowledged that in my last post.

 

My thought is to propose to partner that, for the time being, we will both open 'up the line', and that responder will show the 4 card major in preference to a minor when weak, and if stronger then show the minor in preference to the major, followed by Checkback if opener rebids 1NT. We both know that Checkback should only be used with a reasonable probability of game. That way the change to his current methods is small, logical and easy to remember- "if as responder you are only strong enough for one free bid, prefer to show your major".

 

It does mean me switching to opening in the minor, but in time I can work on persuading him to switch, as per our shared bidding reference books, so we are both working off the same hymn sheet.

 

Hope that sounds like a reasonable approach.

[Vampyr]

And we have moved from a 1NT showing 15-16 to 15-17, and why (1any - 1any - 2NT rebid after a one level response is game forcing).

 

Do you have any way to show 18-19?

[helene_t]

presumably 18-19 is game forcing if you don't respond on random 5-counts. I think that is a reasonable approach.

[1eyedjack]

presumably 18-19 is game forcing if you don't respond on random 5-counts. I think that is a reasonable approach.

You still have to have a rebid to show the hand type, and 3NT is a bit kludgy

[helene_t]

Yes, that's what I say, presumably 2nt shows (or includes) 18-19 and is game forcing.

[Tramticket]

Good luck with developing your system Liversidge.

 

Opening the minor first is not my system (I will always open the major with two four-card suits) and I'm not sure that I am aware of any good MODERN books on this approach.

 

Things to consider include:

- Responses: As Stephen Tu noted above, if you are not always opening your four-card major, responder needs to respond in a four-card major rather than responding up-the-line (the preferred approach if you always open the four-card major). This is important as the major might get "lost" - particularly if the opponents interfere.

- Rebids: Do you always rebid 1NT with a balanced hand in the strong NT range (relying on check-back to identify any major suit fit)? Or can you sometimes rebid the major?

- Since you open a minor in preference to a major, the 1M opening will "often" show a five-card suit. A One Spade opening will nearly always promise a five-card suit (assuming you open 1H with 4-4 in the majors). When is it safe to raise (or compete) on a three-card suit?

[Liversidge]

Do you have any way to show 18-19?

1any - 1any - 2NT shows 18-19 - not totally game forcing - can be passed with 6 points

1 any -2any - 2NT shows 15-19 game forcing

 

The move to 15-17 for a 1NT rebid avoids the risky 3NT rebid by opener.

[Tramticket]

Yes, that's what I say, presumably 2nt shows (or includes) 18-19 and is game forcing.

 

Game forcing on 18-19 is still a bit much, even if the responses are up to strength.

 

Personally I rebid 1NT on 15-18 and I am more relaxed with a 19-20 GF 2NT rebid. (But the wide range 1NT rebid does need more "system" to make it work).

[eagles123]

Liversidge I joined this forum probably 4 or so years ago now as a beginner acol player (if you look back in this section of the forum you see I started a whole load of topics) and the most consistent piece of advice I got from people both on here and in private messages was to step away from acol. Of course by reading books and playing hands one always tries to improve all the time, but the single biggest thing that has improved my game in the last few years is switching from acol to strong and 5. I mean even if you just switched to weak and 5 or strong and 4 it would be better.

 

I don't want this to sound harsh but imo as much as we can discuss the nuances of whether to open 4m or 4M etc. the brutal truth is that your base system i.e. acol just isnt very good.

[Tramticket]

Liversidge I joined this forum probably 4 or so years ago now as a beginner acol player (if you look back in this section of the forum you see I started a whole load of topics) and the most consistent piece of advice I got from people both on here and in private messages was to step away from acol. Of course by reading books and playing hands one always tries to improve all the time, but the single biggest thing that has improved my game in the last few years is switching from acol to strong and 5. I mean even if you just switched to weak and 5 or strong and 4 it would be better.

 

I don't want this to sound harsh but imo as much as we can discuss the nuances of whether to open 4m or 4M etc. the brutal truth is that your base system i.e. acol just isnt very good.

 

I can't really agree with this.

 

It is true that very few top-level, world-class players play Acol. But since we are not at that level yet, Acol is perfectly playable. It is far more important to thoroughly know your system than to worry about which system to choose. The biggest difficulty with Acol for aspiring players is that there is less and less good quality material published.

[eagles123]

I can't really agree with this.

 

It is true that very few top-level, world-class players play Acol. But since we are not at that level yet, Acol is perfectly playable. It is far more important to thoroughly know your system than to worry about which system to choose. The biggest difficulty with Acol for aspiring players is that there is less and less good quality material published.

 

I never said it was unplayable just not very good, and my point is that if you're going to put effort into for example playing checkback etc, then surely it's better to start with a better base system

[helene_t]

Over the last eight years (since I moved to Acol Land), I have been playing strong/five in some partnerships (mostly with partners already comfortable with that style), Acol in some partnerships, and in a few partnerships played hybrids and/or converted an Acolist to some other system.

 

For me, personally, Acol doesn't work so great as I get most of my inspiration from this forum, from advanced books, and from Dutch experts. But playing with a partner who doesn't want to spend a lot of time reading BBF and using other advanced sources, I prefer to play Acol as it is an important part of the maturation process of an English bridge player to discuss the hands after the session in the pub together with the better club players. And they mostly play Acol. Even if they don't play Acol in their regular partnerships, Acol is still the lingua franca.

 

Also, most of my partners play Acol in their other partnerships. I don't want to confuse them with bidding theory which may or may not apply in their other partnerships.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with Rowland. Rowland lives in London where the better club players tend to play 2/1. That makes a big difference.

[Tramticket]

For what it's worth, I do think that weak NT / 4-card majors is a good system. The combination of a weak NT and bidding the majors means that you have often forced the opponents to compete at the two-level (so much more dangerous). Yes you take up some of your own bidding space, but you are giving useful and precise information to your partner. I also live near London and play against many players playing a vast variety of systems (London is a very cosmopolitan place!). I am happy and confident playing our variant of Acol.

 

Unfortunately Five-card Majors / Strong No Trump is becoming increasing dominant in world bridge - but I suspect that this is due more to the internet (including BBF/BBO) than intrinsic merit.

[NickRW]

Unfortunately Five-card Majors / Strong No Trump is becoming increasing dominant in world bridge - but I suspect that this is due more to the internet (including BBF/BBO) than intrinsic merit.

 

I suspect that it has relatively little to do with BBO. Strong NT and 5cM has been the dominant force on the world scene for quite some time as far as I can gather. I think it has more to do with a few of the better British players (by which I don't just mean internationals) giving it a go and liking it.

[Vampyr]

For what it's worth, I do think that weak NT / 4-card majors is a good system. The combination of a weak NT and bidding the majors means that you have often forced the opponents to compete at the two-level (so much more dangerous). Yes you take up some of your own bidding space, but you are giving useful and precise information to your partner. I also live near London and play against many players playing a vast variety of systems (London is a very cosmopolitan place!). I am happy and confident playing our variant of Acol.

 

Unfortunately Five-card Majors / Strong No Trump is becoming increasing dominant in world bridge - but I suspect that this is due more to the internet (including BBF/BBO) than intrinsic merit.

 

I play weak and 5 and like it a lot. Actually I think that that and strong and four are the most sensible combinations. If forced to play string and five I prefer to just play 2/1 GF.

[eagles123]

I play weak and 5 and like it a lot. Actually I think that that and strong and four are the most sensible combinations. If forced to play string and five I prefer to just play 2/1 GF.

 

yes i think 4 card majors are fine and a weak no trump is fine, it's just the combination of them both together that I don't like.

[StevenG]

Liversidge I joined this forum probably 4 or so years ago now as a beginner acol player (if you look back in this section of the forum you see I started a whole load of topics) and the most consistent piece of advice I got from people both on here and in private messages was to step away from acol. Of course by reading books and playing hands one always tries to improve all the time, but the single biggest thing that has improved my game in the last few years is switching from acol to strong and 5. I mean even if you just switched to weak and 5 or strong and 4 it would be better.

 

I don't want this to sound harsh but imo as much as we can discuss the nuances of whether to open 4m or 4M etc. the brutal truth is that your base system i.e. acol just isnt very good.

It just isn't possible for many players. Almost nobody around here (ignoring those too good to partner inexperienced players) plays anything other than some variant of Benji (there's the odd 3 weak 2s, and a few precisionistas). So, if you want to play strong and 5, you won't have anyone to play it with, or, if you really insist on muddling through, anyone to help you out when things go wrong.

[Liversidge]

 

- Rebids: Do you always rebid 1NT with a balanced hand in the strong NT range (relying on check-back to identify any major suit fit)? Or can you sometimes rebid the major?

Our 'book' says that we should not be hung up on always rebidding 1NT. If the major is a good one - eg KJ98, and a poor doubleton then rebid the major rather than 1NT.

 

 

- Since you open a minor in preference to a major, the 1M opening will "often" show a five-card suit. A One Spade opening will nearly always promise a five-card suit (assuming you open 1H with 4-4 in the majors). When is it safe to raise (or compete) on a three-card suit?

 

Good point. As I remember it, a 1 Spade opening bid will have 5 spades, or 4 spades & 15+ points, and ditto a 1 Heart opening 97% of the time, only exception being when 4441 with a club singleton. So with 5-8 points I would raise with 3 card support including one honour (AKQJ or 10), 6-9 HCP, and an outside doubleton rather than bid 1NT. I will remind partner of this (it is in our book!)

[Liversidge]

Liversidge I joined this forum probably 4 or so years ago now as a beginner acol player (if you look back in this section of the forum you see I started a whole load of topics) and the most consistent piece of advice I got from people both on here and in private messages was to step away from acol. Of course by reading books and playing hands one always tries to improve all the time, but the single biggest thing that has improved my game in the last few years is switching from acol to strong and 5. I mean even if you just switched to weak and 5 or strong and 4 it would be better.

 

I don't want this to sound harsh but imo as much as we can discuss the nuances of whether to open 4m or 4M etc. the brutal truth is that your base system i.e. acol just isnt very good.

 

Maybe so, but not sure how you reckon that's going to help me. I am retired and have no desire to emigrate. I quite like my playing partner, and, even if I wanted to, I doubt very much if i could find a partner locally that plays strong and 5 card majors or would be willing to team up with me while we both start again from scratch. :huh:

[Cyberyeti]

As I suspect others have hinted at, what you need to achieve is a coherent whole, not bids that look good in isolation where you will find the holes the hard way.

 

I will be playing 2 national finals the next 2 weekends in 2 different partnerships, one where we open the minor, one where we open the major, I prefer the former style, but the latter is perfectly playable.

 

My Acol based 4M system is not one I'd recommend copying, but in a curious sort of way, we solve the issue of 1m-1♥-1N-P missing a spade fit by making our 1N rebid wide ranging and potentially strong enough that we rarely pass it. This has the downside that we play in a bad 2N occasionally, but the considerable upside that we can use 1m-1M-2N as GF unbalanced to solve the death hand issue among others as there is no gap between the 1N rebid and 2N opener (we split at bad/good 19).

 

There are many ways to skin a cat, and unless you're laying at really top level, there is room for most things. Most systems have their issues (if you look through these boards, you'll find a lot of "we missed our 5 or 6-4 club fit in competition because I didn't know partner had more than 2" type threads from the strong/5 brigade).