[NickRW]

I've been playing xfer walsh after 1♣ for a little while. We've played xfer completion as semi forcing - responder is allowed to pass with 4 cards in the major and up to about 7 points, otherwise responder must bid again - which is typically 2 or more of the major with 5 cards and something else, often 1NT, with 4 cards.

What do people do, however, when responder wants to investigate slam? Clearly with shortage one can splinter - but what if there is no shortage - and what if the shortage is clubs (splintering in clubs is going to sound like double fit)?

Nick

[kgr]

We play:
1♣-1♦
1♥-??
 
1♥=3c♥ and forcing
We play that 2♦ is 5c♥ and asking strength/shortage
(We don't have a good bid with a 4c♥ and slam interest)

[Free]

You can still play 2-way checkback without much problems.

[paulg]

We play transfers at the two-level, 2♠ is range asking and three-level bids are shortage (with other suits balanced) and four-level bids splinter.

We do splinter into clubs, as we can transfer into clubs so show the double fit.

[655321]

I have always played 2 way checkback here.

[spotlight7]

Hi:

XYZ convention.

Regards,
Robert

[blackshoe]

"2 way checkback" is shorthand for "2 way Checkback Stayman", which is a convention used after a 1NT (or, for some, 2NT) rebid. So I don't think it's right to call whatever you're doing here "checkback". I don't think "XYZ" fits either, with 1♦ being a transfer. Perhaps whatever it is needs a new name?

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on Oct 12 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

"2 way checkback" is shorthand for "2 way Checkback Stayman", which is a convention used after a 1NT (or, for some, 2NT) rebid. So I don't think it's right to call whatever you're doing here "checkback". I don't think "XYZ" fits either, with 1♦ being a transfer. Perhaps whatever it is needs a new name?

many transfer walsh players play that completion shows a weak nt rather than support. Then the auction is identical to 1c-1h-1n in std system so it seems natural to call it checkback.

I have also seen it called "Generalised Checkback" when you play it after 1c-h-1s in a natural system, or 1c-1d-1s in xfer walsh.

[Phil]

I play xyz but transfers make a lot of sense.

[nigel_k]

You can also play that 2♦ is artifical and game forcing after both 1♣-1♦-1♥ and 1♣-1♥-1♠. Obviously this creates some awkward problems on hands with diamonds, but it is a simple way to deal with all the GF hands and still be able to play 2♣.

[NickRW]

Yes. On reading the replies I wondered how do you play 2♣. But I am not sure that really worries me that much - I have, at present anyway, already got inverted minors in the mix - so we don't play 2♣ normally anyway.

[MickyB]

Nick - I don't think you actually say what hands you are "completing the transfer" on. I assume it is most hands with three-card support, am I right?

[NickRW]

MickyB, on Oct 12 2010, 09:51 PM, said:

Nick - I don't think you actually say what hands you are "completing the transfer" on. I assume it is most hands with three-card support, am I right?

Yes, I didn't say that - though I suppose I kinda implied it. Opener normally completes the xfer at the 2 level or higher with 4 card support; with 2 card support is not that interested in responders suit and rebids normally as if we hadn't been using xfers; with 3 card support the xfer is normally completed at the 1 level (but won't do this with a hand that really wants to be in game opposite a random 7 count as responder can pass with 4 cards and 7 or worse).

Not sure whether that is best - the merit as far as I was concerned was that it was and is simple - some months back we threw out a whole raft of stuff and dragged in a bunch of (to us) new ideas - xfer walsh amongst them - and then spent a long time working on the sequences after 1NT - so had to keep the rest simple. However a strong responding hand the other day made me think we need to give some attention to other things - hence this thread.

[jdonn]

Jlall and I played the following, which is unlike what most people play (and I hope I'm remembering it accurately). Over the 1♥ bid showing 3 with anything less than a game force,
1♠: Artificial force, including many hands that are either strong or weak
1NT: 4-4 majors, 6-10, not forcing.

After 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ opener's rebids were mostly natural.

1NT, 2♣, 2NT, 3♣: All the same as normal rebids after 1♣ p 1♥ p except including 3 hearts, you can play any type of checkback over the notrump bids and artificial cheap diamond calls over the club bids.
2♦: 12-18 1345, you can then play an artificial 2♠ bid by responder
2♥: 12-15 4315, you can then play an artificial 3♦ bid by responder
2♠: 16-18 4315, you can then play an artificial 3♦ bid by responder

[Zelandakh]

How about 4=3=0=6? None of the bids seem to be available from your description. I am guessing you can relax the 5431s?

[helene_t]

With Shogi I play the same as Josh and Justin. With Manudude03 I also play the transfer accept as 3-card support and semiforcing but we play two-way checkback.

[Gerben42]

I have just agreed 2-way Checkback after the accepted transfer with my partner.

We accept the transfer with any 3-card support hand except 11-13 NT (which just bypasses the 3-card support) and 17-18 NT (we play 14-16 NT).

[fromageGB]

Both my main partnerships play a less-common variant of t-walsh, where a 1♠ response is a transfer to 1NT. This can then be left/raised, but equally over the 1NT we play Stayman and red transfers. Thus transfer to 1NT and rebid at the 2 level is an invitational hand with 4 or 5 card major(s). So a 1♦ response completed to 1♥ followed by a raise to 2♥ is therefore an invitational hand guaranteeing a 6 card major. This sort of device allows accurate description of responder's hand and solves many problems - you can show the length as 4, 5 or 6, and the strength as weaker, invitational, or GF - all of these can be shown yet still stop in 2M or 2NT having made an invitation, declined.

On opener's side, we show strength with the first rebid. Completing the transfer shows 2 or 3 and 12-14 (our 1♣ open guarantees no major shortage unless it has 6 clubs and rebids them, a 1♦ opening having a shortage unless it has 6 diamonds and rebids them), with a jump to 2M showing 12-14 and 4 card support. A jump to 3 shows 4 card support and 17/18. (Our 1NT open is 15/16). Opener with 2 or 3 of the major will break the transfer and rebid 1NT with 17/18. After that 1NT we of course have Stayman and transfers again. Similarly if opener breaks the 1♠ transfer to 1NT by bidding 2NT it is 17/18, and Stayman and transfers again apply.

After this start, which describes both fit and strength pretty accurately, we have had no problem with simple ordinary bidding. 3♠/3NT after major agreement is non-serious, and a cue bid bypassing this is serious.

We have been playing this for some time now.

[jdonn]

Zelandakh, on Oct 13 2010, 06:42 AM, said:

How about 4=3=0=6? None of the bids seem to be available from your description. I am guessing you can relax the 5431s?

Yes exactly, treat as 4315 and upgrade just a little, the point count and shape requirements are all to be treated loosely (in fact there were no strict point count requirements, this is just approximately what they amounted to).

[Free]

blackshoe, on Oct 12 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

"2 way checkback" is shorthand for "2 way Checkback Stayman", which is a convention used after a 1NT (or, for some, 2NT) rebid. So I don't think it's right to call whatever you're doing here "checkback". I don't think "XYZ" fits either, with 1♦ being a transfer. Perhaps whatever it is needs a new name?

Both methods use the same principle:
- 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦ and is used for signoff ♦ or some invites
- 2♦ is a GF relay
- 2NT is a puppet to 3♣ and is used for signoff ♣ or some GF hands

Imo it doesn't matter what you call the method, if you know the principles and can apply them to another auction it's just fine.

I don't see you complain about another thread where someone wrote "Rubinsohl" instead of "Rubensohl" either...