[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-02, 15:28, said:

Some of us feel that within the range we might need to clarify 11 or 12, vs. 13 or 14. But, true, we see a lot of blasting to game by responders who have 11's and 12's with varying degrees of success.

Also, It seems more sensible if responder is the one to invite; opener can clarify the range then.

[MrAce]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-01, 23:34, said:

I would assume with no agreement that 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand. If you have no way to check back, you probably shouldn't be playing 5-card majors.

Imho you assume it wrong. By default you bid up the line. Showing an unbalanced hand requires pdship agreement + probably alert to opponents.(i may not be correct on the alert part, has been awhile)

I also disagree with people who says this has nothing to do with judgement. Especially at MP and even at IMP, if the final contract will be 3NT, i would definitely bid 1♠ when i don't want them to lead this suit, which is likely if i don't. For example with xxxx spades i would consider it as auto 1♠. It is like almost risk free psyche. I suggest that rebiding 1M in this type of situations to be flexible and not necessarily promise an unbalanced hand. This also has another benefit which is not to disclose your hand to pd if opponents are the ones who will benefit more from this information.

Put yourself in the shoes of opponents. On one hand they promise an unbalanced hand, most of the time that means 5-4 in shown suits by opener, an info that helps a lot before you lead vs their 3NT or wherever they end up with and during the overall defense. On the other hand all they shown is 4 card spade and 3+ clubs ! Which one would you be annoyed to defend against when they reach to their final contract ?

[Vampyr]

MrAce, on 2013-September-02, 16:26, said:

Imho you assume it wrong. By default you bid up the line. Showing an unbalanced hand requires pdship agreement + probably alert to opponents.(i may not be correct on the alert part, has been awhile)

It is not alertable in the EBU, where rebidding 1NT is the default. I don't really consider bidding a three-card suit and then a four-card suit "up the line".

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-02, 16:01, said:

Also, It seems more sensible if responder is the one to invite; opener can clarify the range then.

That isn't helpful. NMF or checkback is invitational plus, and it is by responder. If opener's continuations do not include his range within the 1NT rebid, then checkback falls apart.

For instance, if the only way to deny a 3-fit is to bid 2NT after NMF, then responder will not know whether Opener has an acceptance or not. Jumping to 3NT by opener is just brutish, and wasteful of space for those occasions where Responder had a different plan like slammish for a different strain.

Anyway, I have learned the futility of trying to convince anyone here of anything. I was merely pointing out that adjustments to other parts of ones system are necessary when they choose 1NT as a rebid or 1S as a rebid. Whether people want to make those adjustments is their problem.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-02, 17:14, said:

For instance, if the only way to deny a 3-fit is to bid 2NT after NMF, then responder will not know whether Opener has an acceptance or not. Jumping to 3NT by opener is just brutish, and wasteful of space for those occasions where Responder had a different plan like slammish for a different strain.

In one-way checkback a 1♦ bid denies a fit nod denies four if the other major. Now 2NT is invitational. It truly is a simple method.

Many people, however, use bids of 2NT and above to show hands in the higher range. This works fine too.

[the hog]

1NT because you have a balanced hand. Show your shape first.You limit your hand and show your shape. This is far more useful than bidding 1S.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-02, 17:38, said:

In one-way checkback a 1♦ bid denies a fit nod denies four if the other major. Now 2NT is invitational. It truly is a simple method.

Many people, however, use bids of 2NT and above to show hands in the higher range. This works fine too.

1D-1H
1N-2C (where the Spade suit is still in question)
2D=according to your choices, minimum or maximum with 2 hearts and either 4 or five Diamonds.

In our version, where Spades have been denied by the 1NT rebid, 2D shows lower value and 5 Diamonds. We can't have the lower value with only 4 diamonds and 2 hearts, because 3-2-4-4 opens 1C. (Won't even tell you what the impossible 2S bid shows in this situation; it would spoil your dinner.)

1C-1H
1N-2D---your version does not have the luxury of bidding an insufficient 2D or of bidding 2S without four of them...leaving 2N unclarified opposite Responder who might have an 11-12 count and has to guess. In ours, 2S is an idle bid to be used for the crap openers with only 2H.

I believe we would have to go to 2-way checkback to handle all the plugs, but perhaps one-way pairs are content to fix it some other way ---like just forgetting a 4-4 Spade fit altogether when Opener is balanced.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-02, 19:20, said:

1C-1H
1N-2D---your version does not have the luxury of bidding an insufficient 2D or of bidding 2S without four of them...leaving 2N unclarified opposite Responder who might have an 11-12 count and has to guess. In ours, 2S is an idle bid to be used for the crap openers with only 2H.

I thought we were talking about simple checkback, one way, so I am not sure of the relevance of your 2♦ bid, and I certainly don't expect opener to do anything over it except pass or correct to 2♥.

Quote

I believe we would have to go to 2-way checkback to handle all the plugs, but perhaps one-way pairs are content to fix it some other way ---like just forgetting a 4-4 Spade fit altogether when Opener is balanced.

If you always bid hearts first with the relevant number of both majors, you can get in all of the hand-types.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-02, 19:41, said:

I thought we were talking about simple checkback, one way, so I am not sure of the relevance of your 2♦ bid, and I certainly don't expect opener to do anything over it except pass or correct to 2♥.


If you always bid hearts first with the relevant number of both majors, you can get in all of the hand-types.

Actually "simple checkback" (NMF) is the new minor. The 2nd paragraph does not compute.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-02, 19:56, said:

Actually "simple checkback" (NMF) is the new minor. The 2nd paragraph does not compute.

Oh, I see! "My version" was New Minor Forcing -- I had no idea. In that case I am happy to agree that "my" method is not fit for purpose. I had better start bidding my balanced hands as two-suiters!

My second paragraph is difficult to phrase another way, but I will try...after 2♣ Checkback, opener does not necessarily show support first. If she has 3-card support in one major and 4 cards in the other, she bids the lower one first.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-02, 20:14, said:

Oh, I see! "My version" was New Minor Forcing -- I had no idea. In that case I am happy to agree that "my" method is not fit for purpose. I had better start bidding my balanced hands as two-suiters!

My second paragraph is difficult to phrase another way, but I will try...after 2♣ Checkback, opener does not necessarily show support first. If she has 3-card support in one major and 4 cards in the other, she bids the lower one first.

Sorry, I hadn't considered one-way old minor forcing as a possible convention. If I had, I would then try to figure out an adjustment, such as 2D forcing partner to bid 2C. Seriously, you might as well play 2-way checkbacks if you are going to give up playing in 2C anyway.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-02, 21:16, said:

Sorry, I hadn't considered one-way old minor forcing as a possible convention. If I had, I would then try to figure out an adjustment, such as 2D forcing partner to bid 2C. Seriously, you might as well play 2-way checkbacks if you are going to give up playing in 2C anyway.

I don' t know what it's like where you live, but in the EBU partners not allowed to bid 2♣ over 2♦. Most of my partners do not want to play 2-way checkback anyway.

I have more than once stopped in 2♦ after partner opened 1♣. Considering that 2-way players give up playing in two of either minor, I don't believe that I am really losing a lot by giving up playing in 2♣.

I am not entirely sure, but I think that outside the ACBL "normal" checkback is far more popular than NMF. In England, few people have heard of the latter.

[Mbodell]

MrAce, on 2013-September-02, 16:26, said:

Imho you assume it wrong. By default you bid up the line. Showing an unbalanced hand requires pdship agreement + probably alert to opponents.(i may not be correct on the alert part, has been awhile)

In the ACBL this doesn't require an alert. I'd also by default assume that people bid 1nt with a flat hand, bypassing a major, because IME more (but definitely not all) good players do this. However, this is amongst the things not on a standard ACBL convention card that I discuss with pickup partners (defense to strong club, rebidding 1nt versus up the line, what to play over 1x-1y-2nt, what to play over reverse, some defensive tendencies).

[mgoetze]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-02, 21:32, said:

Considering that 2-way players give up playing in two of either minor,

I don't know what you mean by "2-way players". If I agreed to play "2-way checkback" I would have a high expectation that responder can easily choose to play 2♦.

[gwnn]

It's still bridge and it's still the 1 level. The advantages and disadvantages enumerated above are greatly exaggerated. /rant

One advantage I think not mentioned above for the unbalanced version are the handy sequences
1C-1H
1S-2/3C.
But also read my first paragraph above.

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2013-September-03, 00:34, said:

I don't know what you mean by "2-way players". If I agreed to play "2-way checkback" I would have a high expectation that responder can easily choose to play 2♦.

Yes of course they can. I posted without really thinking.

[GreenMan]

mgoetze, on 2013-September-03, 00:34, said:

I don't know what you mean by "2-way players". If I agreed to play "2-way checkback" I would have a high expectation that responder can easily choose to play 2♦.

Not all versions of 2-way include 2♣ forcing 2♦. Without discussion I'd assume we were playing that way, but when you assume, etc.

[VM1973]

Well I guess 1NT, which after voting turns out to have been the field vote. I've started playing a 12-14 NT opener because otherwise you make a perfectly normal opening bid on a 4-3-3-3 such as: ♠KJx ♥QJx ♦KJxx ♣QTx and then partner has something distributional and bids a lot and later gets p.o.ed because there weren't 26+ zar points in the opener's hand.

[Free]

As sooooooooooooooooo many similar topics have pointed out: it's a matter of style, both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages and there's no clear winner...

[bd71]

Here's a useful thread on the systemic choice of whether to rebid 1♠ or 1N here...

http://www.bridgebas...-balanced-hand/