[vitorlopes]

Playing checkback (or checkback stayman) what is the diference between the following auctions:

1♦ P 1♥ P
1NT P 2♣ P
2♦ P 2♠

And

1♦ P 1♥ P
1NT P 2♠

What responder shows in each situation?
Assume that checkback is forcing 1 round at least.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Well, the 2nd one should be forcing since Responder has Reversed ( ostensibly showing 4-4 in the majors ) .

The 1st one should be forcing too ( showing 5h/4s ) .

[jillybean]

The 2nd auction is a reverse, is game forcing and shows 5+H/4S, hearts must be longer than spades here.

The 1st auction is showing 5H/4S and depending on how you play checkback, may only be invitational.

[P_Marlowe]

It may depend on the flavour you have agreed to play, but using a flavour similar to NMF

#1 GF with 5+ hearts, spade values, this assumes that 2D denied 3hearts, 4 spades.
3H instead of 2S would set hearts, so if reponder has a 6 card suit, it will be a broken suit

#2 54 in the majors, inv+ strength

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

If you have agreed to bypass a spade suit to rebid 1NT showing a balanced hand (quite a common treatment), then with invitational values and 4=4 in the majors, you should check back if you'd play spades knowing partner has 4 (and are willing to play 3NT with the opponents knowing the majors layout if partner doesn't). With an invitational 4=5, you should check back as well (and know which major partner will show first with both - hearts first? partner's suit first? unbid suit first?)

With a game-forcing 4=5, reverse.

If you won't have a 4-card spade suit for a 1NT rebid, then you're starting to show 5=6, especially for the NMF auction (which becomes "partner do you have 3 hearts?"). The reverse is a convenient low way to set a game force with 4=5, even if you're never going to play in spades.

With the above style of bidding, you need to know what to do with a random unbalanced minimum with 5 hearts. Can you bid 2♥ directly (to play) because partner guaranteed 2? Do you need 6, and maybe have to pass in a bad 1NT?

XYZ and XYNT do work well, but require a completely different set of responses, so a completely different way of deciding how to bid your hand. If it's common in your area (or if you're only ever going to play 2/1 in one or two partnerships), and you can understand what the convention is giving you, it's definitely worth looking at. Unfortunately, in our area, XYZ was taught by someone who understood 90% of it to just-past-newbies who could really only use 60% of it even if they learned it all, and of course, not 90% of it was taught to them. So they don't know how to use it beyond the basics, and don't know how to incorporate the information in the response to do the right thing. I'd learn to play it myself, if I could count on random partner actually getting more out of it than NMF even though *I'm* the one learning it.

[trevahound]

XYZ and 2wNMF are very common in this area (Seattle-ish). Locally we play the second sequence as 4♠/4♥ and invitational, while the first shows 5♥/4♠ and invitational values. All GFs unsure of strain go through 2♦ (leaving plenty of room to shape out, normally), so neither is needed naturally forcing.

Brian Zaugg

[Fluffy]

The first one is an artificial shape enquiry to find if partner has 4 clubs or 5 diamonds

[sfi]

vitorlopes, on 2013-January-08, 07:52, said:

Playing checkback (or checkback stayman) what is the diference between the following auctions:

1♦ P 1♥ P
1NT P 2♣ P
2♦ P 2♠

And

1♦ P 1♥ P
1NT P 2♠

What responder shows in each situation?
Assume that checkback is forcing 1 round at least.

In similar situations (where both are forcing), I tend to have a meta-rule that the direct action is more distributional. So the first one would be 4-5 at least, while the second one is 4-4. Whether that works in this specific instance depends on what other options you have over the 1nt rebid and what 2♦ meant.

[blackshoe]

As I play it, the first auction shows an invitational hand with five hearts and four spades, and the second auction shows an invitational hand with 4-4 in the majors. I play 2♣ as invitational checkback, and 2♦ as GF checkback, and if I had 4-4 in the majors and GF values, I would jump to 3♠ instead of bidding 2♠ in the second auction.

[aguahombre]

Our answers are different from the esteemed forum members as a whole, because 1NT denied 4 spades for us. If, a 4-4 spade fit is conveniently out of the picture, then:

The first one would be slammish for diamonds with short clubs ---opener already having shown only 11-12 and 5 diamonds. 3D, instead of 2S would also be slammish for diamonds, but relatively non-descript at that point.

The second one would be 5-6 g.f. in majors. Again, this will not be mainstream; but, we are content to not have the possibility of opener holding 4 spades complicate continuations after NMF and allow opener to show 11-12 vs. 13-14 while denying a heart fit.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

In both cases, since opener has denied 4 cards ♠ , Responder is NOT trying to find a ♠ fit, but giving info to Opener to evaluate a NT game -- needing ♣-stop(s) .

If Responder wanted to show a GF with ♦ support, he would use the NMF auction and rebid 3D ( not 2S ) to cancel any interest in ♥ .

If responder had the rare 6h/5s hand, he would use the NMF auction and rebid ♠ twice.

[sfi]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-January-09, 16:47, said:

In both cases, since opener has denied 4 cards ♠ , Responder is NOT trying to find a ♠ fit, but giving info to Opener to evaluate a NT game -- needing ♣-stop(s) .

Of course, not everyone has this agreement. It will affect how you structure the responses, but you also might want to keep alive the possibility of playing in a 4-3 fit.

[blackshoe]

For the record, for me, opener's 1NT rebid does not deny 4 spades. If I rebid 1♠, I have an unbalanced hand or a weak doubleton in the unbid minor.

[Fluffy]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-09, 12:27, said:

Our answers are different from the esteemed forum members as a whole, because 1NT denied 4 spades for us. If, a 4-4 spade fit is conveniently out of the picture, then:

For me it doesn't matter, I always bid 2♠ with 5♥-4♠. Show your suits to balanced hands is my natural approach.

After 2♣-2♦ I think we can conclude opener does not have 4 spades regardless of what 1NT meant so it doesn't make a difference there.

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 04:26, said:

For me it doesn't matter, I always bid 2♠ with 5♥-4♠. Show your suits to balanced hands is my natural approach.

I will assume you meant only if your responding hand is G.F. But even so, 2S gobbles up space which might have been better used.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-10, 08:42, said:

I will assume you meant only if your responding hand is G.F. But even so, 2S gobbles up space which might have been better used.

Isn't 2S the cheapest forcing bid here ( not to mention descriptive ) :

1D - 1H
1NT - 2S

EDIT: I should have qualified -- cheapest descriptive forcing bid if no reason to use NMF or checkback .

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2013-January-10, 09:40

[aguahombre]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-January-10, 09:02, said:

Isn't 2S the cheapest forcing bid here ( not to mention descriptive ) :

1D - 1H
1NT - 2S

This must be an attempt at humor in a thread predicated on the use of NMF or checkback.

[fromageGB]

Playing this method I would say :

(1) 2♣ is artificial, at least invitational, asking for shape clarification, and 2♦ shows 5 and denies 3 hearts and denies 4 spades. Bidding the major takes preference, hearts if both, as responder could then bid spades with 4. Responder's 2♠ over 2♦ shows stops for helping the NT game judgement, probably 4 cards, forcing to 2NT. As responder could have bid 2NT, it implies weakness in clubs if responder is just invitational. However, if responder continues with another bid, it sets a game force, in an unbalanced hand. His next bid patterns out (ie bids a new 3+ card suit).

(2) Responder has a 4522 shape in a game force hand. The balanced shape is guaranteed, as he failed to bid the first sequence.

Before I switched to an unbalanced 1♦ open I used to play this way.

[lycier]

1-It is a invitational hand with 4-4 majors.

2-it is a reverse bid,game force with 5-4 majors.

[Zelandakh]

I know it is not standard but the way they teach NMF in the BIL, bidding via 2♣ shows a stronger hand type than bidding direct. Hence 2 would be invitational and 1 would be game-forcing. Obviously there are lots of possibilities here and I do not know anyone who actually plays that way. It is actually simpler in practise to play 2-way Checkback, even though it is usually seen as a "more advanced" method.