[TD1995]

In Precision, we often meet this position:
1♦ - 1♥/1♠
1NT - ?
Many players say,"We use 2-way checkback stayman here!". But what is 2-way checkback, and how does it work?

(Sorry for my bad English)

[sty2000]

TD1995, on 2010-November-15, 01:47, said:

In Precision, we often meet this position:
1♦ - 1♥/1♠
1NT - ?
Many players say,"We use 2-way checkback stayman here!". But what is 2-way checkback, and how does it work?

(Sorry for my bad English)

That means that both 2♣ and 2♦ bids are artificial. 2♣ forces 2♦, which you can pass to play there or you can bid your invitational hand naturally. 2♦ is GF relay, asking for more information, pretty much like ordinary checkback, but is always GF.

[blackshoe]

sty2000, on 2010-November-15, 02:47, said:

That means that both 2♣ and 2♦ bids are artificial. 2♣ forces 2♦, which you can pass to play there or you can bid your invitational hand naturally. 2♦ is GF relay, asking for more information, pretty much like ordinary checkback, but is always GF.

That is one way to play it, but it's not the only way. I learned two way checkback Stayman as analogous to two way Stayman over a 1NT opening.

2♣ asks, with invitational values. If responder's first bid was in a major, then first priority is to show 3 card support for that major, second is to show 4 cards in the other major. Suit bids at the 2 level (basically) show minimum strength, 2NT and up show maximum strength and are forcing to game.

2♦ asks, and is game forcing. Now you don't worry about the strength of opener's hand, since you're going to game somewhere anyway.

I'm not sure I'd call the "2♣ is a relay" method Checkback Stayman anyway, since the 2♣ bid is not analogous to Stayman (it doesn't necessarily ask about major suit holdings).

[Free]

It's a combination of 2♣, 2♦ and 2NT continuations. The main idea is that INV hands go through 2♣ (opener is obligated to bid 2♦ and see what responder does), and 2♦ makes the auction GF (asks about opener's hand). Since balanced INV would go via 2♣, the 2NT call is available for whatever you want. It's also played as a puppet to 3♣ to signoff or show a freak hand which doesn't want to ask using 2♦.

The way I play it is as follows:

- 2♣ forces 2♦. It's either a signoff ♦, INV in a suit you bid (3m = 4M with longer 5+ minor), or choice of games (3NT = 5M332 with values in the short suits). Examples: 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥ = INV with 5+♠ 4+♥ ; 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT = balanced INV with usually 4♠. 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-3♦ = INV with 4♠ 5+♦. 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-2♠ = INV with 5+♠ (and not 4♥).

- 2♦ is a GF relay. There are various ways of continuing, but natural and suits up the line works just fine. Example 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♦-2♥ = 4♥ may have 3♠.

- a suit at 2-level is NF. Example 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♥ is less than INV.

- 2NT forces 3♣. It's either a signoff ♣, or a GF 5-5 hand (rebid 3M to show ♣). Example: 1♦-1♠-1NT-2NT-3♣-3♠ shows GF 5+♠ 5+♣.

- Jumping immediately to 3-level in a new suit is INV with 5-5. Example 1♦-1♠-1NT-3♣ shows an INV with 5+♠ 5+♣.

As you can see, pretty much all handtypes have an easy continuation and further develoments are pretty natural.

[blackshoe]

I understand how it works. I just don't associate it with "two way checkback stayman". To me, they're different methods.

[Free]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-15, 10:01, said:

I understand how it works. I just don't associate it with "two way checkback stayman". To me, they're different methods.

What's in a name, 1NT-2♣ "NF stayman" is never passed out either...

[bob100147]

Gavin Wolpert has a nice article on this at http://bridgepro.blo...or-forcing.html

[Stephen Tu]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-15, 04:46, said:

I'm not sure I'd call the "2♣ is a relay" method Checkback Stayman anyway

If 2♣ forces 2♦, the proper name is "2-way puppet checkback".

This is because 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦. (not "relay"). A puppet forces partner to make a specific bid. A relay does not.

[blackshoe]

whatever, it's not a form of Checkback Stayman.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-19, 14:31, said:

whatever, it's not a form of Checkback Stayman.

You're quite right. Similarly, we should refuse to accept the way that these terms are used:

Namyats (it's not reverse Stayman)
Unusual over Unusual (it's not unusual, and doesn't show a two-suiter)
Leaping Michaels (it's not a cue-bid, and doesn't show the same hand as would be shown by a Michaels Cue Bid)
Spiral Cue Bids/Denial Cue Bids (they're not cue-bids)
Grand Slam Force (it doesn't force a grand slam)
Non-Forcing Stayman (it's forcing) *
Gambling 3NT (it's not a gamble - it's a descriptive bid which invites partner to place the contract)
Fourth Suit Forcing (what matters is not that it's forcing, but that it's artificial)
New Minor Forcing (ditto)
Fifth Suit Forcing (there are only four)
Precision 1♦ (for obvious reasons)
Precision 2♣ (ditto)
Weak-only Multi ("multi" implies more than two)
Multi-Landy (ditto)

Alternatively, we can accept that the language of bridge has evolved in the same imperfect way as all languages. The meaning of a word or phrase is determined by how people actually use it, not by how they should use it.

* Thanks Free - I hadn't thought of that one.

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 05:58, said:

Namyats (it's not reverse Stayman)
Unusual over Unusual (it's not unusual, and doesn't show a two-suiter)

You can always use the alternative designation of Mitchell Transfers if you prefer...

After 1S - (2NT), 3C showing hearts is certainly unusual and does show 2 suits.

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 05:58, said:

Leaping Michaels (it's not a cue-bid, and doesn't show the same hand as would be shown by a Michaels Cue Bid)
Spiral Cue Bids/Denial Cue Bids (they're not cue-bids)
Grand Slam Force (it doesn't force a grand slam)

I do not see cue bid in the description. There is not much difference in hand types between 2S - 3S (Michaels) and 2S - 4m (LM) is there?

If 1S - 3S - 4D showing a diamond control and denying a club control is a cue bid, it is totally illogical to say that 1S - 3S - 4D showing a club control and denying a diamond control is not.

I always thought this one (GSF) was strange too since alternative meanings of 5NT were also forcing.

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 05:58, said:

Non-Forcing Stayman (it's forcing) *
Gambling 3NT (it's not a gamble - it's a descriptive bid which invites partner to place the

The term forcing in some other countries is used to mean game-forcing. For example, when I play Benji Acol in Germany and I open 2D (=any GF hand) my partner simply answers "Forcing" and everyone know precisely what she means. Thus Non-Forcing Stayman to mean "does not force to game" is perfectly logical. Note also that NF Stayman and Forcing Stayman together represent "Double-Barelled Stayman" which has nothing to do with barrels (or guns).

The gamble comes from partner who tended to pass even without decent stoppers in the side suits. The defence of leading an ace to see dummy has changed that mentality somewhat.

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 05:58, said:

contract)
Fourth Suit Forcing (what matters is not that it's forcing, but that it's artificial)
New Minor Forcing (ditto)
Fifth Suit Forcing (there are only four)

Perhaps that is what matters to you, but when partner psses it is the forcing characteristic that becomes important to me!

ditto for NMF.

I have never even heard of this (5SF). What is it?

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 05:58, said:

Precision 1♦ (for obvious reasons)
Precision 2♣ (ditto)

The original 1D opening in precision promised 3+ cards in diamonds. The modern nebulous diamond concept came later. therefore for the term "nebulous 1D opener" is more appropriate for what you are trying to say and seems to adequately get across the point you are making.

The results may or not be precise but there is little doubt that a 2C opening in precision is more precise in its hand definition than either a 1C or 2C opening in standard. This is hardly the point though for both of these examples. It is a 2C (or 1D) opening in the precision system. Why is this any less descriptive than "Acol 1D"?

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 05:58, said:

Weak-only Multi ("multi" implies more than two)
Multi-Landy (ditto)

Multi means 'many' which is a concept relative to the context. The context for a Multi-Coloured 2D Opening is a set of 'allowed' possibilities. Since only 2 of those are weak the designation is perfectly sensible.

The same applies to 'Multi' in M-L as the previous entry. Some players play that 2D shows H or S or a strong 2-suiter, others merely allow for the weaker 1-suited types. Perhaps you have not come across the former method.

gnasher, on 2010-November-20, 05:58, said:

Alternatively, we can accept that the language of bridge has evolved in the same imperfect way as all languages. The meaning of a word or phrase is determined by how people actually use it, not by how they should use it.

Exactly, a watch does not have eyes; a television does not make you look further; a wireless modem has a wire in the back of it; a flying fox is not a fox; a flying squirrel does not fly; nor does a flying fish; and so on. Like it or not when people say "2-way Checkback Stayman" they usually mean the scheme where 2C is a puppet to 2D. Perhaps the alternative name thrown up in this discussion might be popularised but honestly, who cares?

Edit: had to lump things together to get past the quote filter.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-20, 07:11, said:

You can always use the alternative designation of Mitchell Transfers if you prefer...

I could, if I wanted to attract a lot of blank looks. Where I come from it's usually called South African Texas.

Quote

After 1S - (2NT), 3C showing hearts is certainly unusual and does show 2 suits.

Hearts and hearts?

I've lost the willpower to nitpick the rest of your nitpicks, so I'll just answer this one:

Quote

I have never even heard of this (5SF). What is it?

It's when, following Fourth Suit Forcing, somebody bids the fourth suit again as a further artificial expression of doubt. For example

1♦-1♥;2♣-2♠;3♠

or

1♦-1♥;2♣-2♠;3♦;3♠

where the 3♠ bid denies the ability to make a natural call and asks partner to do something descriptive.

[campboy]

The way I heard it, Namyats was called that because Sam Stayman had invented it but the name Stayman was already taken.

[mtvesuvius]

I've also seen 5th suit forcing used in auctions where you have a WJS available, and therefore things like this cannot exist:

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♠

Where 2♠ is a GF, and 2♥ is a relay to 2♠ for an Invitational hand, or a hand that forgot to make a WJS (or was slightly too strong).

In addition, another term used is "Two-Way New Minor Forcing"... This seems to be a better description IMO.

[blackshoe]

The way I heard it, Stayman originally thought to make 4minor weaker than 4major, and 3 of his friends told him he had it backwards.

<insert Humpty Dumpty's discussion of the meaning of words here>

[glen]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-November-20, 12:40, said:

... another term used is "Two-Way New Minor Forcing"... This seems to be a better description IMO.

Except that at the club it went 1♣-1♥;-1NT-2♣ Alert!
Q. What's 2♣?
A. Puppet to 2♦, either ♦ signoff, any invite, or choice of games between 3NT and 4♥
Q. What's this convention called?
A. The ACBL terms it Two-Way New Minor Forcing
Q. But ♣s is not a new minor!
A. Okay, it should have been termed Two-Way Both Minors Forcing