[ManUtdNZ]

Hi

---

South opened the bidding in 2/1 with 1D. As North, I bid 1S to both give S room to be descriptive and because I couldn't think of an alternative. South responded 1N and it is here we became unstuck. I wanted to make a GF bid and at the same time get specific information from my P. I used 4N and he passed thinking it was a quantative 4N.

Can someone suggestion corrections that would have got us to a slam - either a small slam or a GS?

Many thanks

Brian

[TylerE]

That hand is why I like Soloway-style strong jumps.

1♦-2♠
2NT-3♠

The partnership is now well on the way to a sane auction.

After the typical 1♠ rebid it's gonna be really hard to show the difference between this hand and AKxxxxx Ax x xxx

That said, these hands are very much a perfecto with no wasted values. I wouldn't be upset with missing slam on these hands. South could easily have Xxx QJxx AQJxx QJ and now even 6 is no sure thing.

[spotlight7]

 ManUtdNZ, on 2020-July-02, 16:47, said:

Hi

---

South opened the bidding in 2/1 with 1D. As North, I bid 1S to both give S room to be descriptive and because I couldn't think of an alternative. South responded 1N and it is here we became unstuck. I wanted to make a GF bid and at the same time get specific information from my P. I used 4N and he passed thinking it was a quantative 4N.

Can someone suggestion corrections that would have got us to a slam - either a small slam or a GS?

Many thanks

Brian

OMF(Other Minor Forcing) is a common method after a 1NT rebid.

1D-1S-1N-2C*-2H showing 4Hs and denying 3 spades.

Now a spade rebid is forcing and you can bid to slam.


You really do not want to bid 7S with nine trumps missing the Queen.

[nullve]

Fairly standard 2/1 auction:

1♦(1)-1♠(2)
1N(3)-2♦(4)
2♥(5)-2♠(6)
3♦(7)-3♠(8)
4♣(9)

(1) "11-21, (3)4+ D"
(2) "5+, 4+ S"
(3) "12-14 BAL", (1)2-3 S
(4) ART GF (part of XY-NT, which is now a lot more common than NMF among tournament players at least where I live)
(5) 4 H
(6) "5+ S"
(7) 5 D
(8) "6+ S"
(9) 2452, club control, could have had less slam interest

and then maybe

...-4N(10)
5♦(11)-5♥(12)
5♠(13)-6♠(14)
P

(10) RKC(♠)
(11) 1 key card
(12) trump queen ask
(13) no trump queen
(14) contract

[ManUtdNZ]

Thanks so much for the help. I will investigate the XY-NT and see how we go. Appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Regards
Brian

[Vampyr]

 ManUtdNZ, on 2020-July-02, 17:52, said:

Thanks so much for the help. I will investigate the XY-NT and see how we go. Appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Regards
Brian

You could also look into two-way checkback.

[smerriman]

 Vampyr, on 2020-July-02, 18:09, said:

You could also look into two-way checkback.

XY-NT and two-way checkback are different names for the same convention.

[Stephen Tu]

 smerriman, on 2020-July-02, 19:12, said:

XY-NT and two-way checkback are different names for the same convention.

I don't agree with that, there are a few variations that have been published, although there are many similarities. I know xynt, two-way puppet checkback, and two-way checkback.

two-way checkback:
- 2c is not GF, but does *not* puppet to 2D.


xyNT:
- typically 2nt over 1nt is used as a puppet to 3C for signoff (+ optionally some strong meanings with partnership agreement)


two-way puppet checkback: (Woolsey's version):
-signoff in clubs is accomplished through 1nt-2c-2d-3c; 1nt-2nt is just straight invite,1nt-2c-2d-2nt is invitational with clubs.


So make sure you & partner are on the same page, especially on whether 2nt is artificial, how to get out in clubs. + what jumps to 3 level mean.

[smerriman]

I guess there are variations on anything, but if someone said two-way checkback, I would definitely assume they meant 2C was a puppet to 2D. If you Google 'two-way checkback', it seems virtually everyone else agrees, though there is a rare article that doesn't mention the puppet.

[Stephen Tu]

The puppet variation has probably obtained enough dominance that people stop including it in the name, or have forgotten the non-puppet variation ever existed?

[DavidKok]

 smerriman, on 2020-July-02, 19:44, said:

I guess there are variations on anything, but if someone said two-way checkback, I would definitely assume they meant 2C was a puppet to 2D. If you Google 'two-way checkback', it seems virtually everyone else agrees, though there is a rare article that doesn't mention the puppet.

Even with 2♣ forcing a 2♦ reply it is still important to distinguish between 2♣*-2♦*-3♣, immediate 3♣, 2♣*-2♦*-2NT and immediate 2NT. These can all be played as some amount of clubs and points, or even as two-suited or balanced hands.

 Stephen Tu, on 2020-July-02, 20:03, said:

The puppet variation has probably obtained enough dominance that people stop including it in the name, or have forgotten the non-puppet variation ever existed?

I admit this is the first time I heard the word 'puppet' in the name, I thought it was just called Checkback Stayman (or 2-Way Checkback Stayman, where 2♣* 100% forces 2♦*).

Also to jump the gun a bit on a frequent point of confusion: after 1m-1M-1NT-2♦* opener is requested to bid their major (if any), and you need an agreement on what to do if holding both a 3-card in responder's major and a 4-card oM. I prefer bidding the 4-card suit first, but others prefer to show support first or bid 'up the line'. This is a bigger issue if opener can hold spades after 1♣-1♥-1NT.

[nige1]

ManUTdNZ's bidding problem
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Hands rotated to make West dealer. If you're unsure of your methods, you might just boot 6♠ over partner's 1N rebid.
Obviously it's better to have some agreement e.g. after 1X - 1Y - 1N - ?
- 2-way check-back is the most popular. I like the version that Stephen Tu attributes to Kit Woolsey. 2♣ = PUP to 2♦. 2♦ = ART G/F.
- NMF = New minor forcing. Here 2♣ = ART F/1.
- Crowhurst: 2♣ = ART F/1. Other bids N/F (simple and consistent).

---

[smerriman]

 DavidKok, on 2020-July-03, 01:11, said:

Even with 2♣ forcing a 2♦ reply it is still important to distinguish between 2♣*-2♦*-3♣, immediate 3♣, 2♣*-2♦*-2NT and immediate 2NT. These can all be played as some amount of clubs and points, or even as two-suited or balanced hands.

Agreed. While I'd assume 2♣ was puppet regardless of the name you give the convention, I also would want to clarify those situations, regardless of the name you give the convention, rather than being related to the name.

[johnworf]

 ManUtdNZ said:

Hi

---

South opened the bidding in 2/1 with 1D. As North, I bid 1S to both give S room to be descriptive and because I couldn't think of an alternative. South responded 1N and it is here we became unstuck. I wanted to make a GF bid and at the same time get specific information from my P. I used 4N and he passed thinking it was a quantative 4N.

Can someone suggestion corrections that would have got us to a slam - either a small slam or a GS?

Many thanks

Brian

Yes I play 2 way checkback convention.

With this hand you would now just bid 3S showing 6+ spades and slam interest.


Also video info of the 2 way checkback.

[Cyberyeti]

The main questions are not 2/1 vs any other system, it's as others have said, what is your jump shift style and what are your arrangements over 1x-1y-1N.

We would bid this:

1♦-2♠ (single suited rock crusher or GF fit jump)
3♥(nat ish, at least ♠xx/Q)-3♠ (single suited)
3N (not huge extras, prob only 2 spades)-

at which point there will be some cues, keycard, the ♠Q will be found to be missing and we'll finish in 6♠.

1x-1y-1N-4N is quantitative for almost everybody, but I wouldn't pass 4N with the S hand if the 1N rebid was 12-14, you have some decent shape and cards so I'd accept.

[Zelandakh]

As you can probably tell rom the responses, there is a wide variety of possible rebid structures in 1X-1Y; 1NT auctions. By far the most popular of these at club level, and the one I would tend to assume in a pick-up partnership, is New Minor Forcing. In this system, a rebid of 2 of the lowest unbid minor is an artificial call asking Opener to describe their hand further. In the further auction, the next call after 2m from Responder is then one level higher than a direct call would have been. So in the auction 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT, 2♣ followed by 3♠ is game forcing and shows a hand something like this one.

The most popular alternative, and the one that dominates at international level, is a little more complicated to describe but actually ends up being simpler in reality. In this scheme (usually called 2-way checkback) a 2♣ rebid is an artificial puppet to 2♦ (weak with long diamonds or any invitational hand) and 2♦ is also artificial with any game forcing hand. This method gives very clear hand definitions at the cost of having to remember that an auction like 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT - 2♦ is forcing and not showing diamonds. Indeed, the biggest issue now becomes that you need agreements about what all of the extra sequences might show. Since an invitational hand with long spades starts 2♣, 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT - 3♠ is not needed for that purpose. One logical meaning would therefore be for it to set spades as trumps with slam interest. So whether to rebid 2♦ or 3♠ still becomes something of a question. Nonetheless, this is an excellent method for an established partnership.

A less common variation on 2-way checkback is to play transfers. In this method 2♣ still shows any invitational hand (or weak with diamonds) but now 2♦ shows hearts, either weak or GF and 2♥ shows either a weak hand with long spades or a GF hand with 5+ spades. This is another excellent method as long as you remember all the artificiality. And you have a very comfortable auction in 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT - 2♥; 2♠ - 3♠. As with 2-way checkback though, it would be wise to discuss what an immediate 3♠ rebid shows.

Finally, you can play completely natural rebids, which is fine providing a new suit is forcing. In this case you now invent a "natural" 2♣ rebid and go from there. It might seem that this is the simplest solution but in reality the requirement to fudge calls and bid nebulously in the end will make your auctions murkier than playing a more codified structure. Nonetheless, there are many club players that avoid artificiality wherever possible and for those players, this is typically the solution. Other methods here are also possible but I daresay that these are the most popular ones.

One last point. Looking at Opener's hand, it is quite surprising to me that they would pass a quantitative 4NT here. How this hand gets evaluated as a minimum for slam purposes I really do not know. The only real negative feature is the ♠xx. It seems to me fairly clear that the right call with this hand in that case would be 5♥, showing a maximum and 4 hearts. That might confuse you if you thought 4NT was some form of Blackwood but I daresay it would most certainly have encouraged you enough to bid a slam.

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-08, 04:53, said:

The most popular alternative, and the one that dominates at international level, is a little more complicated to describe but actually ends up being simpler in reality. In this scheme (usually called 2-way checkback) a 2♣ rebid is an artificial puppet to 2♦ (weak with long diamonds or any invitational hand) and 2♦ is also artificial with any game forcing hand.

I agree, but note that it is increasingly just considered a sub-case of XYZ, rather than a separate and differently named convention.

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-08, 04:53, said:

This method gives very clear hand definitions at the cost of having to remember that an auction like 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT - 2♦ is forcing and not showing diamonds. Indeed, the biggest issue now becomes that you need agreements about what all of the extra sequences might show. Since an invitational hand with long spades starts 2♣, 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT - 3♠ is not needed for that purpose. One logical meaning would therefore be for it to set spades as trumps with slam interest. So whether to rebid 2♦ or 3♠ still becomes something of a question.

Nice for once to have a question easy to resolve in a win-win way. Our solution is that 3♠ imposes trumps (invites opener to make a control-bid) whereas 2♦ is a generic game force without direction and orders partner to clarify his hand without taking initiatives (no fast arrival). From what I gather that seems fairly standard.

[akwoo]

The way I play XYNT (aka two-way-new-minor-forcing), 3♠ sets trumps, suggests interest in slam, and asks (but does not demand) partner to make a control bid.

So my auction is 1♦-1♠-1N-3♠-4♣-4♦-4♥-4N-5♣-5♦-5♠-6♠

[blackshoe]

The way I learned "two way new minor forcing" many years ago 2!C was an artificial invite; it was not a puppet to 2!D. "Two way checkback" is to me a system very similar to "Two way Stayman", wherein 2!C and 2!D both ask about opener's major suit holding, 2!C is invitational and 2!D is game forcing. Sounds a lot like "two way new minor forcing", but I'm not sure if the follow-on bidding is the same in the two cases. Either way "two way new minor forcing" is a bit oxymoronic, isn't it?

[pescetom]

 akwoo, on 2021-January-08, 18:07, said:

The way I play XYNT (aka two-way-new-minor-forcing), 3♠ sets trumps, suggests interest in slam, and asks (but does not demand) partner to make a control bid.

I agree, but just call it XYZ, with no distinction for the XYN case.
We play that 2♣ is invitational, 2♦ is game force and 3♥ sets trumps in exactly the same way after both:
1♦-1♥-1♠
1♦-1♥-1NT
Do you not?