[AL78]

---

Playing strong NT, 5CM, short club.

[helene_t]

Normally this would be a slam try (or maybe choice-of-game) with six hearts. I am not sure how to respond to it: if it is always a slam try, and you play 2nd round control first, you bid 3♠ now. But maybe 3♠ could be interpreted as "I have stuff in spades, what about 3NT then?".

By the way, I am not sure if 2NT is the right response to 2♣. Maybe it is better to bid 2♦ if you have nothing special to add. Do you play 2♦ as showing 5?

If you play strong jump shifts you may wonder why South didn't use that. A likely reason is that they are 4-6 in the majors which is a shape that can't be shown after a strong jump shift.

[DavidKok]

There are a few different ways to play this. Normally when using checkback over 1m-1M; 1NT:

• Direct 2M is weak, shows 5(+) in the major, and forces opener to pass.
  
• 2♣ asks for 3-card support (2M), 4 cards in the other major (2oM) or neither (2♦), over which 2M is exactly invitational and NF with 6(+) in the major.

This frees up both the direct and the delayed jump to 3M. As far as I know both are supposed to be slam tries, but the CBS bid shows a more flexible hand - though notice the problem on exactly 1m-1♥; 1NT-2♣; 2♠ with 6 hearts invitational. When playing XYZ this is a topic partnerships should discuss at some point. My experience is that many people do not have firm agreements on the difference between 1m-1M; 1NT-3M or 1m-1M; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-3M.

On the example auction it is very unclear to me. I would not have bid 2NT, and this has denied responder the ability to show 6(+)M invitational. Maybe they have an unbalanced hand that will play well only in hearts, and wanted you to evaluate your hand in that context. If you have a firm agreement on 1m-1M; 1NT-3M then this hand is '6(+) hearts, not that one'.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't know 100% how to bid this using standard checkback, we play a different convention, but 2♦ as none of the above and 2N as 3343 is not silly, this is what we do in the context of playing Crowhurst so 2N is 3343 maximum for us.

[apollo1201]

Not sure if it is a slam try or a game invite with 6 as I just play 2C implying 2D answer, and 2D GF relay. So not a big expert of check back that btw gives a lot of info on declarer’s hand. Not even sure what 2NT means (max with 2 hearts?).

In all cases, it is on how to judge this hand in the context. I put some criteria, not necessarily in the right order, that I like to analyse.

HCP - 13, right in the middle of the 12-14

Shape - 4432 but the doubleton is in trumps (more about that later)

5-cd suit - no

Honor structure - rather good, grouped honors in long suits, not too quacky but KJ / KJ is not as great as A / A, especially when tabling dummy

Trump support - almost the worst you could have (a bigger honor would be better but you could have xx), did you deny a 3rd heart already?

Intermediates - the C9 doesn’t look promising yet, but makes the C suit rather attractive, on the contrary, my « presumed » D suit is not appealing at all (not that I recommend opening 1C, though)

Overall, the hand is really in the middle, with good and bad news. Maybe a bit more bad than good depending on what 2NT meant.

If partner’s style is conservative and if it is IMPs you could have a go at game. Otherwise probably better to pass.

If partner was looking for slam, 3S would be a cue bid and a bit too encouraging. 4H would be really a horrible hand and you don’t have that. So 3NT, yes but no, the middle road, would be my choice. Sth like I’m not overly thrilled but I have a few things you might like, I’ll let you juste if they are enough if you continue investigating, but I won’t be taking charge and making decisions. Make my Jack the Queen of trumps and I’ll cue.

[the hog]

GF+ with 6H. I would not play this style as it is sub optimal and very old fashioned now, but would play 2 way checkback.

[Gilithin]

The traditional rule for Checkback is that your indirect bids are one level stronger than the same bid made directly. A direct 3♥ would be invitational so going via 2♣ is GF+. Now for the fine details - there is some discussion above about spades. The simple truth is that if partner held that hand and GF+ strength, they would normally start that with a 2♠ reverse, so there is a strong implication that this is a one-suited hand with slam interest and not simply choice of game with 4 spades. Obviously other structures are possible but this is the default without any further discussion.

[AL78]

Gilithin, on 2023-April-14, 20:27, said:

The traditional rule for Checkback is that your indirect bids are one level stronger than the same bid made directly. A direct 3♥ would be invitational so going via 2♣ is GF+.

That is something new I've learnt. I thought it was the other way around, going through Checkback is invitational and a direct jump is GF+, hence I passed.

The full deal:

---

I know now I should have bid 2♦ instead of 2NT but this was a missed game and a bad score.

[Gilithin]

AL78, on 2023-April-16, 04:19, said:

The full deal:

An interesting ides for Responder here would have been a 3♠ rebid. If you are going to make a slam try, this is far better than Checkback; and if not then you have to ask if you are likely to achieve anything useful by not just rebidding 4♥.

[Stephen Tu]

AL78, on 2023-April-16, 04:19, said:

That is something new I've learnt. I thought it was the other way around, going through Checkback is invitational and a direct jump is GF+, hence I passed.

It's arbitrary, you can logically play either way, so requires partnership agreement. The delayed = GF is perhaps more common.

But it's one of the reasons 2-way checkback/xyNT methods have mostly taken over, removes ambiguity about these type of sequences, and restores jumps as GF+ (as invs go through 2c), less prone to these type of accidents in newer partnerships. (Only discussion really needed is how to handle signing off in 3c, of which there are at least 4 ways that I know of).

[DavidKok]

AL78, on 2023-April-16, 04:19, said:

I know now I should have bid 2♦ instead of 2NT but this was a missed game and a bad score.

Don't take too much of the blame. Partner was aware of a heart fit, and slam chances are remote opposite 12-14 balanced. Not bidding 4♥ over 1NT is torturing partner. You even granted a second chance on the next round.

[Gilithin]

Stephen Tu, on 2023-April-16, 08:17, said:

But it's one of the reasons 2-way checkback/xyNT methods have mostly taken over, removes ambiguity about these type of sequences, and restores jumps as GF+ (as invs go through 2c), less prone to these type of accidents in newer partnerships. (Only discussion really needed is how to handle signing off in 3c, of which there are at least 4 ways that I know of).

There are also the 2♣ puppet + transfer methods, which are arguably even better if you put as much effort into them as for 2WC.

[AL78]

Thanks for the additional information, I've not heard of two way Checkback, I'll go and look it up.

I discussed this hand earlier today with partner and she said she did intend 3♥ as invitational in which case we were at least on the same wavelength. The discussion extended to alternatives to show the South hand without going through Checkback. I thought bidding 3♥ on the second round offering a choice of games if she didn't fancy committing to a heart game with an iffy suit in case I had a small doubleton, and I can bid 4♥ with Hx or better. What do you think?

I'm a little reluctant to suggest systemic additions as she doesn't like taking on new conventions and prefers natural bidding.

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2023-April-16, 14:53, said:

I'm a little reluctant to suggest systemic additions as she doesn't like taking on new conventions and prefers natural bidding.

She might take well to XYZ which is new to her but arguably more effective than any flavour of Checkback and also basically natural after responder's indication, with no relay sequences to memorize.

[DavidKok]

AL78, on 2023-April-16, 14:53, said:

I thought bidding 3♥ on the second round offering a choice of games if she didn't fancy committing to a heart game with an iffy suit in case I had a small doubleton, and I can bid 4♥ with Hx or better. What do you think?

I'm a little reluctant to suggest systemic additions as she doesn't like taking on new conventions and prefers natural bidding.

I'd ask her to bid game when you have a known 8-card major suit fit, sufficient combined values and no slam prospects. You could add choice-of-game sequences but this increases complexity with little to no upside.
One important point with choice of game sequences, invites, or asking bids in general is that for them to be better than just blasting and taking your chances not only do you need to not know which contract is best, partner does need to know - at least better than you do. On the example auction it is not at all clear that North has a better picture of South's hand than the converse. It is painfully easy to have your system devolve into blame transfers. Sometimes the percentage action is simply to make the decision yourself.

[Stephen Tu]

AL78, on 2023-April-16, 14:53, said:

Thanks for the additional information, I've not heard of two way Checkback, I'll go and look it up.

I discussed this hand earlier today with partner and she said she did intend 3♥ as invitational in which case we were at least on the same wavelength.

If she thinks 13 HCP and a 6 cd suit opposite an opener is only worth an invite, you need a different partner more than different methods . Or at least focus more on her hand evaluation than what gadgets to choose.