[han]

Playing 2-way checkback you just give up one place to play: 2C. So there are no losses.

Are there gains? Many, look for example at mikeh's write up. he has different ways to invite in spades, different ways to force to game in spades, he can make a slam try with 5-5 and spades and clubs, and he can make a slam try showing 4-5 in clubs and 1-3, 2-2 and 3-1 in the other two suits. Most importantly, it is always absolutely clear whether responder is invitational or gameforcing.

The benefits seem so obvious to me that I suspect I misunderstand your question Winston. Would you like to see a succesful real life auction using XYZ? I'm pretty sure that good guesswork can get you to the same spot using 1-way checkback. 2-way just allows you to better describe your hands.

[Al_U_Card]

I still use Bergen's CBS 2C method (without the 2D add-on) and have added the CJS for the 4-5 major suit hands with less than 9 hcp. It works fine.

[Winstonm]

Hannie, on Oct 7 2005, 02:47 PM, said:

Playing 2-way checkback you just give up one place to play: 2C. So there are no losses.

Are there gains? Many, look for example at mikeh's write up. he has different ways to invite in spades, different ways to force to game in spades, he can make a slam try with 5-5 and spades and clubs, and he can make a slam try showing 4-5 in clubs and 1-3, 2-2 and 3-1 in the other two suits. Most importantly, it is always absolutely clear whether responder is invitational or gameforcing.

The benefits seem so obvious to me that I suspect I misunderstand your question Winston. Would you like to see a succesful real life auction using XYZ? I'm pretty sure that good guesswork can get you to the same spot using 1-way checkback. 2-way just allows you to better describe your hands.

Yes, and thank you. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the term 2-way checkback.

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Oct 7 2005, 03:19 PM, said:

That is hard to believe. What was their NT range Ben?

Well... I actually think it was check back followed by a 2♠ rebid all pass.. .but you get my point. I will try to look the original hand up again.

[mike777]

2C

I asked around and it seems the majority of players who use 2 way checkback play 3s as forcing but a significant minority play it as invite. Several books on the matter explain it in terms of detailed partnership understanding not general acceptance.

As a side note I hope Ben can respond to my 3d issue from above, thanks. Again it is far from clear that we are playing some version XYZ(think 2d puppet) compared to 2 way checkback:).

[P_Marlowe]

Jlall, on Oct 7 2005, 11:54 AM, said:

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

No, my vote goes to 4S, we are playing IMP's,
we are red.
There is certainly no way, that we will find out,
if 4S has play or not, ... on a long auction it gets
more likely that they will find the winning defence.

Marlowe

[inquiry]

mike777, on Oct 7 2005, 04:45 PM, said:

2C

I asked around and it seems the majority of players who use 2 way checkback play 3s as forcing but a significant minority play it as invite. Several books on the matter explain it in terms of detailed partnership understanding not general acceptance.

As a side note I hope Ben can respond to my 3d issue from above, thanks. Again it is far from clear that we are playing some version XYZ(think 2d puppet) compared to 2 way checkback:).

Here is what BBO Advances says about the issue of checkback on 1m-1M-1NT.....

On the SUMMARY PAGE (go to bbo, click explore bridge, click Bridge Base Online Standard, then click and read notes on Bridgebase online advanced... or read it here where I copied directly from that online document)...

"2-way new minor forcing over 1NT bid"

Then if you read further into the notes, you will find this sentence....

After 1 of a minor-1 of a major-1NT, 2♣ = Invitational checkback, 2♦ = Forcing checkback, 3 of minor = To play.

It does not use the term XYZ, and it does specifically state that 3 of a minor would be signoff (this is somewhat non-traditional approach especially if it was true xyz).

Ben

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Oct 7 2005, 11:04 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 7 2005, 04:45 PM, said:

2C

I asked around and it seems the majority of players who use 2 way checkback play 3s as forcing but a significant minority play it as invite. Several books on the matter explain it in terms of detailed partnership understanding not general acceptance.

As a side note I hope Ben can respond to my 3d issue from above, thanks. Again it is far from clear that we are playing some version XYZ(think 2d puppet) compared to 2 way checkback:).

Here is what BBO Advances says about the issue of checkback on 1m-1M-1NT.....

On the SUMMARY PAGE (go to bbo, click explore bridge, click Bridge Base Online Standard, then click and read notes on Bridgebase online advanced... or read it here where I copied directly from that online document)...

"2-way new minor forcing over 1NT bid"

Then if you read further into the notes, you will find this sentence....

After 1 of a minor-1 of a major-1NT, 2♣ = Invitational checkback, 2♦ = Forcing checkback, 3 of minor = To play.

It does not use the term XYZ, and it does specifically state that 3 of a minor would be signoff (this is somewhat non-traditional approach especially if it was true xyz).

Ben

It seems as if it's taken directly from the Danish version of "XY-NT". Forget the "z". It applies after 1x - 1y ; 1NT (rebid).

And I repeat that "2-way new minor forcing over 1NT rebid" needs to be rephrased, since neither 2♣ nor 2♦ are new minors in all instances. They are same minors in some cases.

Roland

[luke warm]

006E - 2S but this is why everyone was asking about 2 way earlier... 2c then 2s looks better, wish i'd thought of it

edit: after this hand and discussion, i think the phrase '2 way nmf' should be taken out and either 2 way checkback or xyz substituted... agree with roland and others that "2 way nmf" makes no sense... 1d/1h/1nt/2d is not a new minor

xzy is fine, but i'm prejudiced.. i don't see where 2 way ckback loses a thing to xyz... as for the post earlier about bergen's 2c as only force (losing only one natural bid), i must be missing something... playing 2 way you only lose one bid also, eh? if i want to play in diamonds after

1d : 1h
1nt

i just bid 2c and pass partner's forced 2d

This post has been edited by luke warm: 2005-October-07, 17:24

[Double !]

lol
way back when, we referred to this 2C/2D convention as "Double-Barreled Checkback Stayman".

I selected an initial rebid of 2C. I feel that the hand is worth a game invitation. Rebid spades next. I am not adverse to playing this hand in 3NT opposite xx in P's hand. Spade A-J-T combo allows a reasonable play to bring the suit in.

DHL

[joker_gib]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 7 2005, 10:55 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 7 2005, 11:54 AM, said:

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

No, my vote goes to 4S, we are playing IMP's,
we are red.
There is certainly no way, that we will find out,
if 4S has play or not, ... on a long auction it gets
more likely that they will find the winning defence.

Marlowe

Same for me !

Alain

[Gerben42]

I bid 4♠. This will make opposite some minimum hands and go down opposite some maximum hands. Worth a try, anyway.

If partner bid 1NT on a singleton ♠ even though he knows he shouldn't with me as partner, let's hope it's a singleton honor which he devalued when choosing his opening bid.

[pigpenz]

it will take us awhile to get into the nuances of BBO advances as probably not very many of us actually play it all the way.

[sceptic]

Quote

2S signoff? wow.

why wow, the times I have jumped to 4 spades or used nmf to get to 4 and gone down, , I did not think 2 spades was that unrealistic mind you, some of you may play ur cards a bit better than me lol

[inquiry]

As I noted earlier in this thread, this question had to do with evaluation and method. Is this a force to game hand (7 or 13 panelist thought so), or is this an invite hand (6 or 13 thought so). And if it is an invitational hand, how do you go about inviting using the “two way new minor forcing” method advocated by BBO Advanced (and if this means XYZ or not).

I don’t’ think we got a clear cut answer to any of these questions. : - ( For one thing, unlike the earlier questions, the pane did not speak with a unified voice. For another, those choosing to invite either went with 3♠ invitational (some saying if it was invitational), some used a 2♣ puppet planning on jump rebidding to 3♠, and one (henri) voted for 3♠ but raised the question if 2NT was a puppet to 3♣ he would use that bid followed by 3♠ to invite.

I guess I am surprised by the 3♠ bidders simply because I would have thought 3♠ was forcing and slam invitational. For one reason, because in xyz as I understand it, that bid is forcing and slam try. So this leads me to think something else must have been proposed instead of xzy.

Let’s start off with the invitational group.

Fred 3S. 2S is not enough, 4S is too much, 3S is just right.

mikeh 3♠ if this is invitational. If it is forcing (I could not see any definition in the system summary), then 2♣ followed by 3♠. 4♠ is very tempting, but partner should raise to game with anything but a soft minimum.

reisig 3S Invitational

ritong 3♠. invite. surprised ? :-) OK, if i have 2nt puppet to 3♣ available, i use it and follow with 3♠, because it amuses me and i find it is a nice tool for inviting, with one or two suits. means that both direct 3♠ & checkback followed with 3♠ are forcing, one with solid slam ambitions, the other asking for good hand.

Fluffy 2♣ then 3♠, looks like a book's example for a 7 card invitational.


Roland 2C. Puppet to 2D, and then I follow up with 3S, invitational with 6+ spades. 2S could be high enough though. 7 spades yes, but 2-2-2 in the side suits. It's too much of a gamble to leap to game directly. Partner is there to help you, so ask him for help when you're not certain.

The 4♠ bidders considered at this vul, invite was not enough. At least Gabor discussed that using 2♣ as invite or 2♦ as game force (xyz-ish) as other possibilities).

Beto 4♠. Let them find the right lead. I dont invite on hands like this. There are a lot of minimum hands that 4♠ is cold and there are also a lot of maximum hands that 4♠ is always down, so why put partner under pressure?

Frances & Jeffrey 4S and see if it makes. We clearly haven't discussed the continuations after a 1NT rebid in detail, so there's no point trying to find a delicate sequence to offer choice of games, or show this type of invitational hand.

Luis 4s. Vulnerable this should be universal. Won't make a prediction because predictions about a universal vote never work but is there any option? I strongly hate any invitational bid with this hand specially being vulnerable.

Sergey 4S. See no problem

Ng [i]4S. We are in Vul, so I try it. Invitational checkback (2C) or game forcing checkback (2D) does not help too much here, I would bid game anyway, so I don’t give information to opponents for the opening lead.

Jlall [i]4S. The only problem this set that didn't torture me. This hand is easily worth a game bid with 7 trumps and very good honors. Sure it's not a guarantee that we will make, but no invitational bid does justice to this hand. Slam is pretty remote, so I won't give up information trying for it.


Gerben42 [i]4♠. Game will make opposite many minima and go down opposite some maxima, so inviting won't help much.

So all in all, this question left me as much in the dark about the method over 1x-1y-1z as before I asked it. But there was a winner here, the majority thought this hand too good to invite. Wouldn’t it be great if you had a way to Invite where partner HAD TO bid game on all but the very worse misfit hands? And another way to invite where he bid games on only the best fit close to maximum hands? With xyz such should be possible. I like 3♠ as GF, 2♣ followed by 3♠ to show this hand – bid game on all but exceptionally horrible hands, 2NT (puppet) followed by 3♠ as closer to normalish invite, and 2♣ followed by 2♠ as the mildest of game tries. Perhaps we should agree to play Mikeh detailed xyz methods posted here within the forums.

Since there 3♠ and 2♣ bidders both meant to invite, I have group those together for scoring purposes, and give them the same score.
4♠  7  100
3♠  4   80
2♣  2   80

[Blofeld]

Ben, you seem to have got Justin's comments from the wrong hand.

[inquiry]

Blofeld, on Oct 9 2005, 10:54 AM, said:

Ben, you seem to have got Justin's comments from the wrong hand.

Thanks I fixed it.

[han]

I'm disappointed that only one panel member discusses the merits of having different ways to invite. I do think that this is a good problem, the invite/bid game question is still interesting, and as the panel proves very close.

I propose XYZ is included in BBO-advanced, at least for future poll problems. Since there are many different versions available, we should pick one. I like the one that mikeh showed on the forum. It may be a bit too advanced for some BBO-advanced players.

[luke warm]

the system we're playing gives 2C as the only invitational sequence after the bidding shown.. given that as true (if it is true), 3S can't be invitational, eh?

if 2 regular posters on the forum were playing bbo 2/1 advanced, the question is how would they view a 3S bid, knowing 2C is the invitational bid and 2D is the game force bid? in that context, i can see either 4S or 2C (with 2D a distant 3rd), but not 3S unless looking for a slam

given the constraints of the system, how is 3S invitational? what would *you* think is going on if partner bid 3S here?

[Gerben42]

edit: after this hand and discussion, i think the phrase '2 way nmf' should be taken out and either 2 way checkback or xyz substituted

I don't agree: Not everyone will be familiar with "XYZ", however many know Checkback Stayman, i.e. 2♣ always the asking bid, or NMF.

I'm for 1-way CBS myself, never needed more ways.