[Free]

Maybe a stupid question, but is there any difference between xyz, 2-way checkback and 2-way new minor forcing? Basically they all use 2♣ as a puppet and 2♦ as GF...

[BillHiggin]

I have tried to examine as many references to two-way checkback or xyz (or xyNt) as I can find (futile search for consensus). Those names seem to be used somewhat interchangably (I have not noticed too many references to two-way NMF - but then, I was not really looking for that).

Variations that I have seen tend to involve 1m 1M; 1N 3something, 1m 1M; 1N 2C; 2D 3something, and various treatments for the lebensohlish 2N. There are variations with regard to "which major first" over 2D. Some use it after 1 level rebids other than 1N. The specific auction 1H 1S; 1N is sometimes mentioned but seldom elaborated on.

About the only consistent naming that I have seen is that xyNt excludes the opener rebids other than 1N. Many times the names xyz and two-way checkback refer to exactly the same sequences as xyNt (but seldom do two references agree on all the continuations).

[david_c]

I think XYZ means unambiguously that 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦. Whereas, "two-way checkback" is ambiguous - the 2♣ bid might be played as a puppet, or it might be some sort of Stayman-like bid. If I was talking about the version where 2♣ forces 2♦, I'd call it "two-way puppet checkback".

[blackshoe]

The name "Checkback" is a shortening of the full name: "Checkback Stayman", which is a convention invented, iirc, by Eric Crowhurst. In the original, 2 :c: asked about major suit holdings - it was not a puppet. One could argue that if 2 :c: is a puppet, you're no longer playing "Checkback Stayman".

The divergences explain why alerting regulations usually say that explaining a convention by naming it is not adequate disclosure.

[Double !]

Thirty-five (plus or minus) years ago 2-way checkback was being played. It was called "Double-Barrelled Checkback Stayman".

another piece of totally useless information.

DHL

[cherdano]

xyz applies after all auctions 1x-1y-1z. The other apply only after 1x-1y-1N.

[BillHiggin]

cherdano, on Jun 3 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

xyz applies after all auctions 1x-1y-1z. The other apply only after 1x-1y-1N.

Except in the context of the BBO-advanced FD file. There the system overview claims xyz, but the usage is strictly 1m 1M; 1N

[rbforster]

In case anyone has a good set of agreements on when NMF/XYZ is still on in competition, perhaps you could share those? For example, I've heard some people play it if "Z" was a support double of a 1 level bid, for example 1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)-X*(support, showing 3♥). I'm sure there are lots of other situations and I'd like a simple set of rules for when XYZ is "on" before I agree to play it in competition.

[cherdano]

Rob F, on Jun 3 2007, 06:43 PM, said:

In case anyone has a good set of agreements on when NMF/XYZ is still on in competition, perhaps you could share those? For example, I've heard some people play it if "Z" was a support double of a 1 level bid, for example 1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)-X*(support, showing 3♥). I'm sure there are lots of other situations and I'd like a simple set of rules for when XYZ is "on" before I agree to play it in competition.

Simple rule A: XYZ is on when we have made 3 bids at the one-level (without anyone of us passing) unless they have bid a suit (which we can cuebid).

Simple rule B: XYZ is on ...(same as above)...unless they have bid 2 suits.

Each of them is good enough.

[cherdano]

BillHiggin, on Jun 3 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 3 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

xyz applies after all auctions 1x-1y-1z. The other apply only after 1x-1y-1N.

Except in the context of the BBO-advanced FD file. There the system overview claims xyz, but the usage is strictly 1m 1M; 1N

This is (almost) corrected in version 1.3. The system summary no longer mentions XYZ, a few sequences unfortunately still do, which I will correct. XYZ should never have been mentioned anywhere in the file I think.

[firmit]

In Norway, and in Denmark - playing xyz means that you also play xy-nt. Otherwise it just says xy-nt.

As a side note, using full xy-nt means that 2NT is a transfer to 3♣. Not many people use this - they tend to pass 1NT.

[foo]

firmit, on Jun 4 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

In Norway, and in Denmark - playing xyz means that you also play xy-nt. Otherwise it just says xy-nt.

As a side note, using full xy-nt means that 2NT is a transfer to 3♣. Not many people use this - they tend to pass 1NT.

I've also heard this same method:
1m-1M;1N-2C! is a puppet to 2D,
1m-1M;1N-2D! is GF Stayman, and
1m-1M;1N-2N! is a puppet to 3C
called "3 way Checkback"

It's not very commonly played in NA.

I've also heard of xyz referred as "3rd Suit forcing".

[kenrexford]

I have no idea what acronymical code is used to describe this, but a lot of people I know do:

2♣ asks for first-major length and strength.
Thus, 1minor-1major-1NT-2♣:
2♦ = 2M with min
2NT = 2M with max (sometimes collapsed into 2♦
2♥ = 3M with min
2♠ = 3M with max

2♦ is GF; raise M first, OM second

2NT is weak relay to a canape minor or Quantitative balanced slam invite

3minor is invitational canape; sometimes variant is 5-5 GF.

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2007, 11:32 PM, said:

I have no idea what acronymical code is used to describe this, but a lot of people I know do:

2♣ asks for first-major length and strength.
Thus, 1minor-1major-1NT-2♣:
2♦ = 2M with min
2NT = 2M with max (sometimes collapsed into 2♦
2♥ = 3M with min
2♠ = 3M with max

2♦ is GF; raise M first, OM second

2NT is weak relay to a canape minor or Quantitative balanced slam invite

3minor is invitational canape; sometimes variant is 5-5 GF.

Hmmm. So,
a= Responder can find out if Opener has 2 or 3 card support for Responder's 1st bid Major and how strong Opener is.
But
b= Responder can't find out about 4 cards in OM and
c= Opener Can't rebid 1N with a stiff in Responder's Major

IIUC, this does not look playable?

What do you do with a 14(35) or =1345 hand not strong enough to Reverse after 1m-1S;?? ...not to mention the ugly =1444 that already causes bidding problems.
H's can be a problem also with minimum =3145's: 1C-1H;??

Is this supposed to be another example of your sense of humor in action?

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 8 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

Hmmm. So,
a= Responder can find out if Opener has 2 or 3 card support for Responder's 1st bid Major and how strong Opener is.
But
b= Responder can't find out about 4 cards in OM and
c= Opener Can't rebid 1N with a stiff in Responder's Major

IIUC, this does not look playable?

What do you do with a 14(35) or =1345 hand not strong enough to Reverse after 1m-1S;?? ...not to mention the ugly =1444 that already causes bidding problems.
H's can be a problem also with minimum =3145's: 1C-1H;??

Is this supposed to be another example of your sense of humor in action?

Strangely, perhaps, but no -- this is actually how it is played by many folks in the Columbus, Ohio, area.

I'll try to asnwer the playability questions.

If Responder is interested in the other major, and has invitational values (with weak, he bids 2♥), he bids 2♣. If he has 5♠/4♥, and no fit for spades is found, the answer is 2♦, or 2NT if maximum in one variation. After 2♦, he can bid 2♥, pass-or-correct (Opener can raise or bid something intelligent above 2NT if maximum and if 2♦ handles all ranges). If 2NT is bid, showing a maximum in that variation, Responder can then comfortably bid 3♥. If Responder has 5♥/4♠, Opener never bidding 1NT with four spades makes that issue immaterial.

As to bidding 1NT with a stiff in Opener's major. You do not. If you do anyway, then you show that as a doubleton, I suppose.

The 1345 problem is solved by opening 1♦.

The 1435 problem is solved by rebidding the clubs (although I have on one or two occasions opened 1♦ -- not at all endorsed by anyone except me LOL).

The 1444 hands are opened 1♦, with a 2♣ rebid. Or, you lie and show the doubleton.

A few of us have 1♦ always promise a stiff or void, or 6+ diamonds. In that case, things change radically, as 1NT actually promises a stiff in Responder's suit. So, things are much different there, of course. This also resolves the 4441's and the 1345's quite nicely. (It is in this context where I fudged the three-card diamond suit with 1435's.)

I also wondered, years ago, how this was playable, but I gave in and tried it. I found no problems cropping up.