[jillybean]

---

If you opt for checkback (2♣) you will hear 2♥

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-November-09, 09:12, said:

---

If you opt for checkback (2♣) you will hear 2♥

Does the 2H answer says anything about spade, and strength?
I usually play, that 2H denies 3 spades, showes 4 hearts and min.
If you know about the 4th heart, you know, you dont have a club fit,
4441 is possible, but lets ignore this, and maybe your rebid is 2C,
and not 1NT.
If in addition you also dont have a spade fit, and face a min, I would
bid 3NT and be done with the hand.

[apollo1201]

Checking back is normal. At least the lead in S contracts goes to all our K.

Not sure what 2H says about S, but we realize that the hands might not mesh too well, and this is a good but not great 19.

It could be time to chicken out and bid 3NT.

At MP it is probably wiser, at IMP we can try 3C if forcing (maybe partner bids S with Kx but it is not clear where we are heading to.

[mike777]

4NT

[pescetom]

You didn't explain 1♦ which is relevant.
In any case I consider XYZ the modern standard in this situation.
I would bid 2♦ (game force without direction), obviously hoping to hear 2♠ (3 card support), which I raise.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-November-09, 09:54, said:

Does the 2H answer says anything about spade, and strength?
I usually play, that 2H denies 3 spades, showes 4 hearts and min.
If you know about the 4th heart, you know, you dont have a club fit,
4441 is possible, but lets ignore this, and maybe your rebid is 2C,
and not 1NT.
If in addition you also dont have a spade fit, and face a min, I would
bid 3NT and be done with the hand.

The method I am familiar with is that 2H shows 4 but does not deny 3S.
Another discussion we never have.

pescetom, 2D xyz is not available but 2C checkback is ok

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-November-09, 13:49, said:

4NT

pass
4nt/2H 5H 2 no Q

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-November-09, 17:14, said:

The method I am familiar with is that 2H shows 4 but does not deny 3S.
Another discussion we never have.
<snip>

Both versions exists, although if responder has 4 hearts, he will have a
5 card spade suit.
And he will be more often interested in 3 spades, than in a 4 card heart
suit.

What about the min / max. information?

The name I know / use is also not checkback, it is NMF.

Anyway, if 3 spades are still possible, 3NT is premature.
You bid 3C over 2H.
This is forcing and natural, asks for add. information,
enabling opener to bid 3S, if he has 3 spades

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-November-10, 00:09, said:

Both versions exists, although if responder has 4 hearts, he will have a
5 card spade suit.
And he will be more often interested in 3 spades, than in a 4 card heart
suit.

What about the min / max. information?

The name I know / use is also not checkback, it is NMF.

Anyway, if 3 spades are still possible, 3NT is premature.
You bid 3C over 2H.
This is forcing and natural, asks for add. information,
enabling opener to bid 3S, if he has 3 spades

Yes, for it to be useful for opener to show 4H over 3S responder must be 54 but can you otherwise discover the 88 fit?
Next step will discover min max.

And yes, it’s marked on the CC (if one exists)as NMF. When discussing it I tend to refer to both NMF and XYZ as check back as it is more descriptive of the function. Was NMF originally known as check back?

Over 3C, 3nt. 4H <3S

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2025-November-10, 04:13, said:

Yes, for it to be useful for opener to show 4H over 3S responder must be 54 but can you otherwise discover the 88 fit?
Next step will discover min max.

I was taught that over 2-way checkback, we will show 4♥ ahead of 3♠ on the GF bid but not on the invitational sequence. The argument is that we don't want to leak unnecessary information on a game auction, but at the slam level finding the 4-4 fit ahead of the 5-3 fit is profitable. Either way, it is very niche.

jillybean, on 2025-November-10, 04:13, said:

And yes, it’s marked on the CC (if one exists)as NMF. When discussing it I tend to refer to both NMF and XYZ as check back as it is more descriptive of the function. Was NMF originally known as check back?

NMF, XYZ, XYNT, Checkback and 2-way Checkback are (ever so slightly) different conventions. These are not synonyms. This is my understanding of these conventions:

• Checkback Stayman: on 1m-1M; 1NT use 2♣ to ask for a further description. It contains inv(+) hands that do not yet know the final contract. Opener should show 4oM, 3M and min/max, and different styles assign different relative priorities to these pieces of information.
  
• NMF: The same as Checkback Stayman but on 1♣-1M; 1NT-? the artificial asking rebid is 2♦ rather than 2♣.
  
• 2-Way Checkback: on 1m-1M; 1NT use both 2♣ and 2♦ as asking bids. 2♣ is invitational, 2♦ is forcing to game. They ask for the same shape information, but on the 2♣ start we will stop in a partscore if opener has a minimum (and, in return, since responder is limited opener is free to jump to place the contract).
  
• XYNT: A particular approach to 2-Way Checkback where 2♣ is not an asking bid but rather a puppet to 2♦. This lets responder describe the hand with invitational values, rather than opener.
  
• XYZ: XYNT but it is also in effect on the four auctions 1♣-1♦; 1♥-?, 1♣-1♦; 1♠-?, 1♣-1♥; 1♠-? and 1♦-1♥; 1♠-?.

On this deal having a two-way version would be helpful as we can establish a game force quickly and then proceed to search for a fit. With 'just' Checkback slam investigation is more difficult.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-November-10, 04:13, said:

Yes, for it to be useful for opener to show 4H over 3S responder must be 54 but can you otherwise discover the 88 fit?
<snip>

Most likely not.

But it keeps the agreement set to a minimum.
Take your pick.

I prefer to sacrifice precision for simplicity, if the frequency is not high
to justify using the more complex method.
It also cuts down the length of the auction, ..., avoiding stupid actions
on both sides of the table.

PS: And it is possible to discover the 44 in hearts later, ..., although
given that I cut down the auction length, it wont happen very often.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-November-10, 05:07, said:

Most likely not.

But it keeps the agreement set to a minimum.
Take your pick.

I prefer to sacrifice precision for simplicity, if the frequency is not high
to justify using the more complex method.
It also cuts down the length of the auction, ..., avoiding stupid actions
on both sides of the table.

PS: And it is possible to discover the 44 in hearts later, ..., although
given that I cut down the auction length, it wont happen very often.

I don't disagree I have only played it 'my way', and most often without discussion.

[Huibertus]

The key question on this hand is finding out which top honors partner holds, not him being Min or Max.

If partner holds ♠King, ♦Ace, ♣Ace, 6NT is odds on, you are protecting ♥ and either a ♥ lead or partner holding ♦Q will provide the 12th trick. If they don't lead ♥ AND partner does not hold ♦ Q you will have a ♦ finesse or some play in ♥ for the 12th trick.

If partner does NOT hold ♠ King there is virtually no hand that makes 6NT odds on. The 3 Aces in ♣,♦ and ♥ give you a combined 9 tricks, some extra's in ♦ or ♥ may bring you to 11, but you do need the spade finesse and probable spades splitting 3-3 for 12 tricks.

So, a quantitative 4NT will not solve the problem, partner will not guess he needs to bid 6 with ♠ and needs to pass without. Also RKCB in ♠ will not help, when partner answers 3, you still don't know if he has ♠ King or not.

I feel the best way to decide on this slam is to agree on ♦, and start a cueing sequence if you have a partnership in which you can be sure partner will not bypass a ♠ cue with the King. If that's not the partnership you have, then I feel the best thing to do is to checkback implying a 5 card ♠ BEFORE 4NT quanti. In that case partner should be able to deduce you are looking for ♠ support for slam (otherwise you'd have bid 4NT earlier).