| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Checkback Stayman, New Minor Forcing and Crowhurst
|
|
| |
I was asked to clarify the differences between these three conventions. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
I have stated in the new-sheets that 3♣ here is Checkback Stayman (CBS), and so it is. As I have often said, the 2NT rebid does not deny a 4 card major and opener may have 4 ♥ 's and/or 4 ♠ 's for this sequence and the best way for responder to find the major suit fit (if there is one) is to use 3♣ as Checkback Stayman. Regardless of whether the opening bid was 1♣ or 1♦. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
But this sequence is different. Unless you play Walsh (and as far as I know only Clive and Lewis in our club have even heard of it) then opener's 1NT rebid denies a 4 card major and so the 2♣ bid is to play. |
|
| |
But there is a (small) twist. There is a convention called Crowhurst that uses an artificial bid of 2♣ after a 1NT rebid. But Crowhurst 2♣ is not used primarily to find out about major suit fits (although the responses do often say something about opener's majors). Anyway, the Crowhurst 2♣ convention was invented because Eric Crowhurst does not like to open 1NT with a weak doubleton. So if he has a hand within his 1NT range with a weak doubleton he will open 1 of a suit and then rebid 1NT if his partner bids his doubleton. Thus his 1NT rebid has a very wide range (12-17 if you play a strong NT system). Obviously responder sometimes needs to know how many points opener actually has and so 2♣ asks. In my opinion it's all nonsense and I have no problem simply opening 1NT with a weak doubleton. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
And here we see just one problem with the Crowhurst 2♣ convention. 2♣ here is traditionally Checkback Stayman (or NMF), asking opener if he has 4 ♥ 's and/or 3 ♠ 's. If you play Crowhurst then opener also has to give his point count and responder is not promising either 5 ♠ 's or 4 ♥ 's. The responses are simply too complicated for a simple soul like me. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| d) |
1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♣ |
| e) |
1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♦ |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Finally, let's look at Checkback Stayman vs. New Minor Forcing (NMF). You are responder and have a decent (let's say game invitational) hand with 5 ♠ 's after partner opens 1♣ . So you bid 1♠ and opener rebids 1NT. 2♠ by you now would be a weak bid and so you need a conventional bid to find out if partner has 3 ♠ 's. If your partnership plays Checkback Stayman then this bid is 2♣ , regardless of whether partner opened 1♣ or not, so (d). If you play NMF then the asking bid is two of the other minor, so (e). |
|
| |
Which is best? I prefer Checkback Stayman as there is then more room in the responses to be specific about the majors and give strength information. Using 2♦ to ask as in sequence (e) does not give opener enough room to be specific. |
|
| |
But, for some strange reason, NMF seems to be the more popular of the two these days. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
Pattaya Bridge Club - |
www.pattayabridge.com |
|
|
| |
|
|
