What's the best response to two-way checkback here?

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&w=sk2hak6dkqj72c976&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1c(prepared%2C%20with%20weak%20NT)p1d(Hs)p1np2d(GF%20checkback)p]133|200[/hv]

 

I've only recently started playing 2-way checkback, so not sure if there's an 'expert standard' here. Should North show his 3 hearts first, effectively giving up on showing the fifth diamond, or bid 3♦, when chances are good P's only interested in one of the majors? Is the answer strongly based on the respective suit qualities, or mainly systemic?

[MrAce]

Show 3 card M first.

He already made a GF 2♦ so over your 2♥ he can bid 2 NT if he needs to learn more about your hand. If he does not, do not leak more info than what pd needs.

Make sure to have agreements about bids over his 2 NT..

[Phil]

2♥ is obvious. If partner is interested in other contracts he will slow it down with 2♠ or 2N then you can show your good diamonds.

[wank]

it's just common sense - if you don't piss all your space away you'll have time to show both interesting parts of your hand.

[Jinksy]

But am I right in thinking that over 2N, opener would be expected to show most 4-card suits, unless his hand is particularly unsuitable for a minor contract?

[nullve]

1N is how many points and hearts?

[Vampyr]

But am I right in thinking that over 2N, opener would be expected to show most 4-card suits, unless his hand is particularly unsuitable for a minor contract?

 

This is what I was thinking.

[Phil]

But am I right in thinking that over 2N, opener would be expected to show most 4-card suits, unless his hand is particularly unsuitable for a minor contract?

 

I see where you are going with this.

 

Because 1♣ doesn't really show clubs, its hard to unwind all of our fits.

 

You might consider a different structure other than 2♦ checkback.

 

In my T-walsh partnerships, 2♦ is weak or strong hearts, so if responder has a game force without 4♥, he bids something else (2♠ for us}. That makes it easier to take your eye off of trying to find a 5-3 heart fit that doesn't exist.

[Jinksy]

1N is how many points and hearts?

 

15-17, 2-3.

[Phil]

So think of your continuations after 1N as if partner opened a strong NT, and partner does not have four hearts.

 

If you start from that basis, building a response structure is a lot easier, and I would suggest you do not try to mirror a partnership that plays 'natural'.

 

Here's what we do:

 

2♣ - puppet to 2♦ for invitational hands

2♦ - transfer back to hearts, w/s

2♥ - 4-4 in the majors, GF

2♠ - transfer to clubs, however, after 1♣ - 1♠ (no major) - 1N - 2♠ is a range ask OR clubs.

2N - diamonds

3♣ and higher....you really don't need although we define them as shortness with 5 of the other minor and 4M (I think)

[aawk]

[hv=pc=n&w=sk2hak6dkqj72c976&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1c(prepared%2C%20with%20weak%20NT)p1d(Hs)p1np2d(GF%20checkback)p]133|200[/hv]

 

I've only recently started playing 2-way checkback, so not sure if there's an 'expert standard' here. Should North show his 3 hearts first, effectively giving up on showing the fifth diamond, or bid 3♦, when chances are good P's only interested in one of the majors? Is the answer strongly based on the respective suit qualities, or mainly systemic?

 

 

Is the bidding you gave us correct ?

 

If so why did west open 1♣ with a 5 card d ? Why should west show his 3 card ♥ if east bid 1♦ ?

 

Should the bidding be : 1♣-1♥-1nt-2♦ ?

[Fluffy]

Unless you go really artifical the most common treatment is to go up the line

 

So here you bid 2♥. obviously as it is cheapest, and then partner can bid something and you bid 3♦.

 

If you had something like

 

♠Qxx

♥AKxx

♦Kxxx

♣Jx

 

After

 

1♣-1♥ (♠)

1NT-2♦

 

You would bid 2♥ (up the line) before raising spades

[Vampyr]

This is what I was thinking.

 

LOL I was thinking this because I didn't read the notes! 1♦ was a transfer.

 

Is the bidding you gave us correct ?

 

If so why did west open 1♣ with a 5 card d ? Why should west show his 3 card ♥ if east bid 1♦ ?

 

Should the bidding be : 1♣-1♥-1nt-2♦ ?

 

You made the same mistake I did, not reading the notes. 1♦ was a transfer to hearts.

 

West probably opened 1♣ because he played a potentially short club with a 1♦ opening promising an unbalanced hand.

[Finch]

We show 3-card major suit support before a 5-card minor, so bid 2H here.

If responder bids 2NT next I will bid 3D showing 5

If responder is interested in a 4-4 minor suit fit for slam purposes he will bid 3C/3D rather than 2NT, so your 3m over 2NAT should show a 5-card suit. (If responder is interested in slam then right-siding considerations are pretty minor)

 

As others have posted, there are other approaches than 2-way checkback, transfers being the most obvious, but we find this approach works OK in the context of our 1NT rebid being 18-19 balanced.

[aawk]

LOL I was thinking this because I didn't read the notes! 1♦ was a transfer.

 

 

 

You made the same mistake I did, not reading the notes. 1♦ was a transfer to hearts.

 

West probably opened 1♣ because he played a potentially short club with a 1♦ opening promising an unbalanced hand.

 

 

That explains a lot :).

 

It would be helpfull if all alerts would be explained better (why 1♣ with 5 card ♦, range for 1♦).

 

West bid 1nt with a 3 card ♥ so after 2♦ being game forcing west must bid 2♥ first because any other bid would denie a 3 card ♥ (if not why play checkback). The 5 card ♦ can be introduced after east bid for example 2nt after 2♥ (stronger then direct 3nt) to ask partner if he got anything else to show.

[Jinksy]

We show 3-card major suit support before a 5-card minor, so bid 2H here.

If responder bids 2NT next I will bid 3D showing 5

If responder is interested in a 4-4 minor suit fit for slam purposes he will bid 3C/3D rather than 2NT, so your 3m over 2NAT should show a 5-card suit. (If responder is interested in slam then right-siding considerations are pretty minor)

 

As others have posted, there are other approaches than 2-way checkback, transfers being the most obvious, but we find this approach works OK in the context of our 1NT rebid being 18-19 balanced.

 

Is the idea that with eg 5-5 in the red suits, responder would bid a GF 3♦ over 1N?

[akwoo]

Is the idea that with eg 5-5 in the red suits, responder would bid a GF 3♦ over 1N?

 

With a concentrated 5-5 in the red suits, responder would bid a GF 3♦ over 1N so that opener can evaluate their hand for slam based on wastage in the blacks. But given the hand shown, responder can't really have a concentrated 5-5 in the reds, so life is much tougher.

 

(But I agree with 2♥, leaving partner room to further describe their hand.)

[nekthen]

FWIW. I bid 1♥ to show exactly 3 card support (unlimited) in my T-Walsh sequence but I play 4 card suits.

P can follow up with

1♠ 4 4 weak (5-9)

1N weak

2♣ weak with diamonds or an invitational hand (xyz)

2♦ GF

2♥ weak with 5♥

[rmnka447]

In any checkback scheme, the decision to show support for responder's "major" or bid the other major first is a matter of partnership agreement. My experience is that most players, but not all, choose to show support first. Here in a transfer environment, it would make sense to choose "support first" as a reasonable way to achieve the aims of the transfer.

 

So over 2 ♦, the bid here is clearly 2 ♥. Opener gets to declare in ♥ whenever that is the right strain. If opener had 2 ♥ and 4 ♠, then over 2 ♦, opener should rebid 2 ♠ which denies 3 ♥. If opener holds 3 ♠, 2 ♥, and 5 in a minor, opener can rebid 3 of the minor.

 

Typically, but not exclusively, when using checkback, responder is looking for a major fit either a 5-3 fit in responder's "shown" (1 ♦= ♥) major, or, responder holds 4-4 in the majors and is looking a 4-4 fit in the other major. Since the priority is to show support first, then logically a 2 NT responder rebid after the 2 ♥ reply to checkback tends to deny the 5-3 fit and suggests that responder is 4-4 in the majors. If opener has 4 ♠ along with the 3 ♥ shown, then over 2 NT opener should bid 3 ♠ to show the 4 ♠ and avoid missing a potential 4-4 ♠ fit.

 

With the actual hand asked about, after 2 ♥ followed by 2 NT, opener can bid 3 ♦ showing the 5 ♦. Without 5 in a minor, opener simply bids 3 NT.

 

One special case you might want to consider is what to do when opener has 4-3-3-3 hand with a 4 card minor. with a lack of ruffing potential, either 3 NT or 4 of a major might be right. In the game forcing 2 ♦ checkback, you might consider a 3 NT rebid as showing exactly this hand. Responder, even with a 5-3 major fit, is in position to judge which contract may play better.

[chasetb]

Sorry, double post! Edited October 4, 2016 by chasetb

[chasetb]

In Standard, you always show the 3-card support first, therefore you bid 2♥.

 

I'm not sure about 'Expert Standard', but I do know that a lot of Meckwell Light players play it that bidding 3m shows 3-card support and a 5-card minor, which would work really well for you. In the sequence 1♣-1♦; 1NT*-2♦, the responses are:

2♥ = 3 hearts, no 5-card minor

2♠ = not 3 hearts, but I have a 5-card minor

2NT = not 3 hearts, no 5-card minor (ostensibly 3244 just for this particular sequence)

3♣ = 3 hearts + 5 clubs

3♦ = 3 hearts + 5 diamonds

 

*I'm assuming that your bid of 1NT denies 4 spades, if I am wrong then you have to change 2♠ to showing that, and likely have to bid 2♥, then 3♦ next round.

[Stefan_O]

In any checkback scheme, the decision to show support for responder's "major" or bid the other major first is a matter of partnership agreement. My experience is that most players, but not all, choose to show support first.

 

Isn't the default that you just bid stuff up-the-line?

 

So after

1C-1S

1NT-2D (GF)

?

with 4h+3s, you bid 2H because it is the cheaper bid.

 

1C-1D(hearts)

1NT-2D(GF)

?

with 4s+3h, again you bid 2H because it is the cheaper bid.