[The Casual]

My partner and i recently adopted a 2/1 approach in bidding and someone mentioned the need for a checkback bid for a 5-3 major fit in a sequence such as: 1!C>1!S>1NT. As far as I know, two common conventions for that are New minor forcing and Checkback Stayman. I was wondering what your preference is and why, and also if you would detail the calls for me so I can implement it.


Thanks

[Jinksy]

The difference between NMF and Checkback seems tiny. I marginally prefer the latter since it gives you more space.

You might want to explore 2-way Checkback (which I believe is synonymous with 2-way NMF). In 2WCB, both your 2C and 2D bids are artificial:

2C forces 2D, which responder might be planning to pass (with such as Qxxx xxx KJxxx x. Though this only makes sense if you'd bypass diamonds with weak hands, which you probably should). You can then bid a non-forcing 2M to show an invitational hand with length in that major. Partner typically then places the contract immediately (or might rebid 2S over your 2H to show undisclosed length there), and you respect his call

2D is a GF bid, and forces P to immediately disclose any potentially relevant major holdings. This gives more room to explore the right contract when responder is very strong.

[Siegmund]

The one reason for 'new minor' rather than always asking with 2C is to allow you to take a preference to partner's minor with a weak hand.

I played checkback (Polish style 'magister') for a long time, but have just recently switched to something simpler when partner's opening is 1C.

Over 1D-1H-1NT-2C:
2D=minimum, 2 hearts
2H=min, 3 hearts
2S=max, 3 hearts
2NT=max, 2 hearts

When responder has bid spades, he might also care about hearts, and I found it worked best to still bid 2D with a minimum and have 2H be a maximum:
1D-1S-1NT-2C...
2D=min, 2 spades
2H=max, 4 hearts
2S=min, 3 spades
2NT=max, 2 spades 2-3 hearts
3C=max, 3 spades 2-3 hearts

But the change I made recently, to get back the ability to play in 2C after a 1C opening, was to rebid 2M with ALL minimums whether I had 2 or 3, and accept playing the 5-2 fit rather than getting to a 22 HCP 2NT all the time.
1C-1H-1NT-2D:
2H=minimum
2S=max, 3 hearts
2N=max, 2 hearts

I am in a minority for still playing only 1-way new minor among the expert community these days, it seems. A lot of people are using XYZ or some other 2-way variation. But I haven't felt a pressing need for it.

[rmnka447]

I've heard both terms used somewhat interchangeably.

New minor forcing is bidding the minor that opener hasn't opened over 1 NT to learn more about opener's major holdings. Checkback Stayman is more the use of a specific bid, usually 2 ♣, after 1 NT to inquire about the same information. Two way Checkback is similar, but with 2 ♣ showing an invitational hand and 2 ♦ showing a game force hand.

Among the people who play Checkback, I'm not aware of any who play the 2 ♣ bid as requiring a puppet bid of 2 ♦. It might be something geographical -- Europe vs. US -- or some new wrinkle some people like to play.

There are a couple issues surrounding the use of either convention of which you should be aware:

-- one is whether opener can rebid 1 NT holding 4 ♠ to show a balanced hand, and,

-- the other is what the preference is for showing opener's major holdings - support first, then bid the other major, or, bid the other major first, then support.

Here in the US, most Standard American/SAYC bidders will prefer to rebid 1 ♠ after 1 m - 1 ♥ holding any hand with 4 ♠. So, rebidding 1 NT essentially denies 4 ♠ and NMF/Checkback is primarily to find a 5-3 ♥ fit. Note that after 1 m - 1 ♠ - 1 NT, any NMF/Checkback bid is about opener's holding in both majors.

OTOH, those playing weak NTs here will usually rebid 1 NT to show the 15-17 balanced hand rather than rebid ♠. So any NMF/Checkback bid is
about opener's holding in both majors.

The preference for responding to the NMF/Checkback is more a matter of choice, but whichever you choose will change the meaning of some similar bidding sequences.

My preference is for playing 2 ♣ as the Checkback bid with Standard American/SAYC based partners and using two way Checkback when playing weak NTs. In both cases, I prefer to support first then show the other major. Although with one partner, he prefers to play show other major first then support. No one plays 2 ♣ as requiring a puppet to 2 ♦.

With weak NTs, you give up very little using two way Checkback versus the majority playing strong NTs here. You also gain some important ability to describe various hand holdings for both invitational and game forcing hands. Using two way Checkback, 3 m and 3 om are signoff bids. But those playing strong NTs can't signoff in either minor below the 3 level anyhow, so those signoffs are a wash at worst.

With Standard American/SAYC based partners, 2 ♣ as Checkback means you can't signoff in 2 ♣, so have to use 3 ♣ as a signoff. also, you need agreement as to what responder's jump rebids are over 1 NT -- invitational or GF. Using New Minor Forcing (2 ♦) over 1 ♣ opening uses more bidding space by making opener rebid 2 NT without a major fit.

Some basic bidding sequences for 2 ♣ as only check back bid:

1 m - 1 ♥
1 NT - ?

2 ♣ - Checkback
2 ♦ 5-5 signoff opener pass/correct (or could use it simply signoff in ♦)
2 ♥- to play
2 ♠- game force 5+ ♥, 4+ ♠
2 NT- Invitational
3 ♣ - signoff if opening bid 1 ♣ else forcing
3 ♦ - forcing
3 ♥ - 6+ ♥ GF or invitational per agreement

1 m - 1 ♥
1 NT - 2 ♣
?

-- 2 ♦ by opener denies 3 ♥, 4 ♠
------- 2 NT invitational - no major fit
------- 3 ♣ club suit forcing
------- 3 ♦ ♦ invitational
------- 3 ♥ 6+ ♥ GF or invitational depending on jump rebid definition
------- 3 NT - to play

-- 2 ♥ shows 3 ♥, does not deny 4 ♠
------- 2 ♠ - 5 ♥, 4 ♠ invitational
------- 2 NT - 4-4 in major invitational
------- 3 ♣ 4 ♥, club suit forcing
------- 3 ♦ ♦ < 5 ♥ invitational
------- 3 ♥ 5+ invitational
------- 3 NT - 4-4 in majors game force
------- 4 ♥ to play

-- 2 ♠ shows 4 ♠ denies 3 ♥
------- 2 NT 5 ♥ not 4 ♠ invitational
------- 3 ♣ < 6 ♥, < 4 ♠, club sui forcing
------- 3 ♦ invitational
------- 3 ♥ 6+ ♥ invitational, < 4 ♠
------- 3 ♠ 4 ♠ invitational
------- 3 NT to play
------- 4 ♥ to play
------- 4 ♠ to play

1 m - 1 ♠
1 NT - ?

2 ♣ - Checkback
2 ♦ 5-5 sign off opener pass/correct (or just a signoff in ♦)
2 ♥ - 5-5 sign off opener pass/correct
2 ♠ - to play
2 NT - invitational
3 ♣ - signoff if opened 1 ♣ else forcing
3 ♦ - forcing
3 ♠ - GF or invitational per agreement

1 m - 1 ♠
1 NT - 2 ♣

-- 2 ♦ denies 4 ♥ and 3 ♠
------- 2 ♥ 5-5 invitational
------- 2 ♠ 6+ ♠ invitational if 3 ♠ over 1 NT GF
------- 2 NT no major fit - invitational
------- 3 ♣ clubs game forcing
------- 3 ♦ diamonds invitational
------- 3 ♥ 5-5 game force
------- 3 ♠ 6+ GF if 3 ♠ over 1 NT invitational
------- 3 NT to play

-- 2 ♥ shows 4 ♥ denies 3 ♠
------- 2 ♠ 6+ ♠ invitational if 3 ♠ over 1 NT GF
------- 2 NT < 6 ♠, < 4 [hearts invitational
------- 3 ♣ clubs forcing
------- 3 ♦ invitational
------- 3 [hearts] 4+ ♥ invitational
------- 3 ♠ 6+ ♠ GF if 3 ♠ over 1 NT GF
------- 3 NT to play
------- 4 ♥ to play


-- 2 ♠ shows 3 ♠ does not deny 4 ♥
------- 3 ♣ clubs forcing
------- 3 ♦ diamonds invitational
------- 3 ♥ 5-5 invitational
------- 3 ♠ 5+ ♠ invitational does not deny 4 ♥
-------------- 4 ♥ 3 ♠ 4 ♥ choice of games
------- 4 ♥ 5-5 choice of games
------- 4 ♠ to play

[mgoetze]

Yeah I'm not sure recommending two-way checkback to someone who has never played simple checkback/NMF before is actually a good idea but you guys go ahead...

[blackshoe]

Jinksy, on 2015-September-20, 06:06, said:

The difference between NMF and Checkback seems tiny. I marginally prefer the latter since it gives you more space.

You might want to explore 2-way Checkback (which I believe is synonymous with 2-way NMF). In 2WCB, both your 2C and 2D bids are artificial:

2C forces 2D, which responder might be planning to pass (with such as Qxxx xxx KJxxx x. Though this only makes sense if you'd bypass diamonds with weak hands, which you probably should). You can then bid a non-forcing 2M to show an invitational hand with length in that major. Partner typically then places the contract immediately (or might rebid 2S over your 2H to show undisclosed length there), and you respect his call

2D is a GF bid, and forces P to immediately disclose any potentially relevant major holdings. This gives more room to explore the right contract when responder is very strong.

That convention Max Hardy called "Modified Two-way Stayman" (MTWS). There is a true Two Way Checkback Stayman, advocated by George Rosenkranz, in which 2♣ is invitational and 2♦ is GF, but 2♣ is not a puppet to 2♦, it's a Staymanic Inquiry. "Just like Two-Way Stayman over a 1NT opening" as he says in one of his books. He devotes two chapters to the convention in a 2/1 GF context in Our Man Godfrey. Worth the read, IMO. I suppose it may be out of print, like most books that weren't published last week.

[rmnka447]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-20, 15:22, said:

Yeah I'm not sure recommending two-way checkback to someone who has never played simple checkback/NMF before is actually a good idea but you guys go ahead...

I totally AGREE with your thought.

My preference for 2 way Checkback in a weak NT system setting is a bit of a special case. It's a preference with partners who I've played with for a long time and who have had lots of experience with Checkback/NMF bidding.

If I were trying to implement Checkback/NMF in a weak NT system with a player who had never played Checkback/NMF them before, I'd start with just a 2 ♣ Checkback system. After getting that player comfortable and well experienced playing 2 ♣ Checkback, then maybe we could work through whether to transition to 2 way Checkback.

I do have a preference for 2 ♣ Checkback versus NMF. After a 1 ♦ minor opening, there are essentially no differences because the NMF bid to check about opener's major holdings is 2 ♣. Where I believe the advantage for 2 ♣ Checkback comes is over a 1 ♣ minor opening. The NMF bid is 2 ♦ versus 2 ♣ for 2 ♣ Checkback.

After a 1 ♣ opener and 2 ♣ Checkback, opener can bid 2 ♦ to deny a possible major fit. Responder can then still bid 2 of his major to show 6+ cards and an invitational hand or bid 2 NT to show an invitational hand.

After a 1 ♣ opener and 2 ♦ NMF bid, opener must bid 2 NT to deny a possible major fit. Now responder must guess whether to pass or bid 3 NT with an invitational hand suitable for NT. Responder can bid 3 of his major to show 6+ in the major and invitational values, but that's a level higher than with using 2 ♣ Checkback.

There are also a couple invitational auctions related to whether responder responded 1 ♥ or 1 ♠ that are better also after 2 ♣ Checkback than 2 ♦ NMF.

I might add that we played NMF in the weak NT system context for many, many years. One of the consistent problems was getting 1 level too high in some part scores after the 2 ♦ NMF bid. The same should apply to strong NT based systems albeit the opening hand and responding hand ranges change slightly because of the range for the 1 NT rebid. These problem were why we moved to 2 ♣ Checkback and more recently have ultimately moved to 2 way Checkback.

[mike777]

fwiw I love xyz....1x....1y 1zlevel
2c=forces 2d or invite
2d-gf
2nt=nat, invite
3c=weak long clubs
3d or higher =slam
endless rest you can complicate and debate

pls note you caN NEVER PLAY IN 2C.

endless complicated sequences to discuss.... or not....rest pretty easy

[Zelandakh]

In addition to all of the many methods already mentioned you can also play transfers. So 2♣ is the puppet to 2♦ as in normal 2-way but now 2♦ is either the weak hand with both majors or a GF hand with 4+ hearts and 2♥ is either a sign-off in 2♠ or GF with 5+ spades. I seem to remember that Frances posted about playing a scheme of this type at one point.

As for the reasons to prefer one method over another, that leads back to the base system. If you are playing 4 card majors then, assuming a 1♣ opening, it is more useful to have a way of playing 2♣ than a short club system. Similarly, Walsh makes having a way of playing 2♦ more useful and supports the 2-way structure. Once you have decided on whether you are playing 2♣ as natural, checkback or a puppet, how you build the rest of the structure is easier and the options tend to be more a matter of what the partnership feels is more logical than one being better than the next.

[fromageGB]

As Zel says. it depends on other things. You say 2/1 so I am assuming 5 card majors and a 1♣ that could be a doubleton. If I was playing a natural 1♠ 4 card response, after 1NT I would prefer transfers, as they generate two benefits : right -siding some contracts, and the ability to show other things with a third bid. Giving the details, as you requested :

Opener assumes a weak hand opposite with spades and the suit implied by the transfer, so having already described his hand he pretty well has to complete the transfer. I call it a transfer, but technically the 2♣ bid is not a transfer, but a puppet, as it does not always show diamonds.

2♣ normally gets a diamond reply. Responder then bids : pass = weak 5 diamonds, 2♥ = invitational 4 or 5 card, 2♠ = invitational 5 card without hearts, 3♦ = GF, 2NT = what? If you play a natural 2NT invitation after 1NT, going via the 2♣ "transfer" could be an invitational hand that wants partner to prefer a 3♦ contract to a declined "pass" if he has some diamonds. Similarly over the 2♦ reply, 3♣ could be an invitation to 3NT that prefers to play in 3♣ rather than 2NT.

2♦ is a transfer to 2♥, passable with a weak 5 hearts, but any followed by other bid is GF with hearts. You can say 2♠ is 64xx, 2NT is 54xx (assuming a 44xx starts with a 1♥ response), 3♥ is 55xx.

2♥ is a transfer to 2♠, passable with a weak hand, or any other responder bid would be GF. You could say 2NT shows 5 spades and a 4 card minor (slam seeking?), 3m shows 5 spades and a 5 card minor, while 3♠ shows 6, and 3NT shows 5 spades and no 4 card suit.

2♠ is a GF transfer to clubs, say 4xx5 shape or better, which you have to be careful to remember, as it is not a natural rebid.

While this may seem more complicated than a simple checkback, the concept of transfers is simple to grasp, and once you have the idea, it is adaptable to many bidding situations. These include response to a major or 1NT after opposition overcall, "response" to partner's overcall, and others.

The downside of the suggested method is that it does not distinguish between responder's 54xx and 55xx when he is invitational, which a simple checkback can handle, though the 2-way cannot. None of these can show a weak 54xx hand, but to do that you probably need to play transfers earlier, in response to the 1♣ open.

As with any transfer method, continuations are the subject of partnership discussion. The ones suggested here are all natural and simple.

[The Casual]

Sorry if I'm slow on the reply but I haven't been on Bridge lately. I think rmnka447's makes a simple 2♣ checkback sound simplest, followed by transfers, so I'll see what I can do with those. The two way systems you mention are a bit over my head


Anyway, thanks for the responses all.

[helene_t]

If you play Walsh you should make sure you have a way to sign off in 2♦ after
1♣-1M
1NT-?

It is nice to be able to stop in 2M on the invitational sequences and here NMF is terrible because
1♣-1M
1NT-2♦
2NT
takes you too high on the misfitting hands where you are most likely to need to stay low.

On the other hand, if you systematically rebid 1NT with 1435 and similar it is not so good if responder invites with a 2M bid (or a transfer to 2M) if opener doesn't know if it is a 5-card suit or a 6-card suit (you don't want to play in a 5-1 fit). So with that style, CBS is better than XYZ or transfers.