Checkback Stayman

[The_Badger]

Nobody on earth rebids 1N with that it's a terrible bid.

 

I can double to show 4 hearts, some can't, but you deserve LHO not to raise with 3 and find you're losing 4 or 5 spade tricks and in hopelessly the wrong partscore when partner has either 3 clubs or 4 hearts.

 

And I couldn't agree with you more, Cyberyeti, (believe it or not!) on the 1NT rebid.

 

But players will bid 1NT, irrespective of a ♠ overcall to show either 'shape' - sort of balance(ish) 2425 with a partial ♠ stop, and/or point count, a poorish 17 downgraded to 16.

 

The inference that I was suggesting with my previous post was, in Acol, why use Checkback Stayman, or an semi-unlimited 1NT rebid when there are better options available with natural bidding?

 

In the modern style

 

♠ A J

♥ A J 8 3

♦ K J

♣ K 9 7 6 2

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - pass -

1♥ - would be acceptable and forcing (new suit), and,

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ -

2♥ - would be, in my opinion, be preferable (though I am not totally keen on this as the hand is 5422, perhaps not a great Kaplan and Rubens count (but as I've now checked it, surprisingly 17.05), but we have to compete and show our strength and shape) and forcing (reverse), and,

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ -

Dbl - is an option to show 4♥s but if the ops raise ♠s, how will your partner know that you are either a) being competitive with a minimum hand, or, b) semi-strong , or c) with longer ♣s than ♥s?

 

Acol is neat but not infallible :)

[Cyberyeti]

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ -

Dbl - is an option to show 4♥s but if the ops raise ♠s, how will your partner know that you are either a) being competitive with a minimum hand, or, b) semi-strong , or c) with longer ♣s than ♥s?

 

Acol is neat but not infallible :)

 

I can double 2♠ (or 3♠) with appropriate values. If minimum of course I can't have a weak NT so will have longer clubs as 1444 opens 1♦ for us.

 

We also play (reverse) lebensohl over 1♣-(P)-1♦-(1♠)-X-(2♠) so partner can bid a merely competitive 3♥