XYZ woes over 1C

[rbforster]

I've played XYZ for some time and generally been happy with it. However, I usually play it in a strong club context with auctions starting 1♦ (mostly natural). I didn't have that much experience using it over a natural 1♣ opening until recently. In some bidding practice online last night however I ran into some hands that gave me a new dislike for this at least over 1♣. In particular, the auction:

 

1♣-1♥

1♠*-?

 

* shows clubs and spades unbalanced, typically 4+/5+ (Walsh style)

 

can leave some pretty poor alternatives. Consider your rebid as responder on the following hands:

 

[hv=s=sxxhatxxxdxcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

[hv=s=sxxhatxxxdxcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

[hv=s=sxxhatxxxdxcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

[hv=s=sxxhatxxxdxcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

If, as I suspect, these hands are all stuck rebidding 1NT, it seems that 1N promises neither length nor a stopper in the 4th suit, nor does it promise any sort of moderate values aside from those necessary for the initial response. In contrast, over 1♦ (which tends to show more length than 1♣) at least the option of signing off in 2♦ is an reasonable alternative with a weaker hand or one where 1NT would be otherwise inappropriate (thus making the 1NT rebid more sound in terms of both values and length/stoppers in the 4th suit).

 

In light of some of these hands, does it make sense for opener to consider bidding 2♣ over 1N on this sequence with just 5 clubs? More generally, I guess this is another drawback of inverted minors where a direct 2♣ constructive raise isn't available.

[han]

On the first I'd drop in 3C.

[pclayton]

Matt and I have specifically dropped XYZ in a Walsh sequence (starting with essentially 1♣ - 1♦) where 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand for the reasons you state.

 

Most don't play 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ as unbalanced, but some do.

[kfay]

If I were playing these methods then I'd probably drop XYZ over hands that promise clubs. Otherwise I'm still quite happy to play it.

[inquiry]

i would signoff with 3♣ on all but the second one, where i would bid 1NT.

[awm]

This pretty much explains why I don't like XYZ, even though I love 2-way NMF. There are also issues when opener has "serious" extras and must reject the 2♣ puppet (another thing that doesn't come up in a strong club system).

[Echognome]

See also mikeh's discussion on 2-way nmf. Some of it is very useful for xyz. Thus, when we do have XYZ on, we play 2NT-->3♣ either to play or slammish. So on several of these hands, that would be my call. I agree with the others that on the second one I would bid 1NT.

[Guest Jlall]

You play the 1S rebid shows an unbalanced hand, one of the biggest advantages of this to me seems to be that you can play 2C rather than 1N when it's right, and then you play XYZ over that sequence. It seems to me like these conventions do not work well together.

[benlessard]

You play the 1S rebid shows an unbalanced hand, one of the biggest advantages of this to me seems to be that you can play 2C rather than 1N when it's right, and then you play XYZ over that sequence. It seems to me like these conventions do not work well together.

 

Agree 100%, I not conviced that Walsh will bring good result after 1C---1H---1S (as unbalalanced). You are going to reach some 2C or 2S that are better then 1Nt but when you will be balanced you will play poor 1Nt instead of 2S. Plus partner is going to need to reverse with 4-4 in the M with a balanced hand or use a checkback

 

1 thing is sure is that if you cannot stop in 2C then Walsh style lose most of it purpose.

 

My strong preference is to play 4th suit as only inv, with 2 level to play, 2Nt GF with honnor to protect and 3 level GF.

[Ant590]

See also mikeh's discussion on 2-way nmf.

Where might I find this Matt?

[the hog]

i would signoff with 3♣ on all but the second one, where i would bid 1NT.

Yes, wtp?

Mind you, as I have said before, transfer checkback is FAR superior but carries a bigger memory load.

[gnasher]

i would signoff with 3♣ on all but the second one, where i would bid 1NT.

Yes, wtp?

Although I've never played this convention, as I understand it you'd have to bid 3C on either xx Kxxx xxx Qxxx or xx AQxx xxx Kxxx. That sounds like a problem to me. A five-point range might be OK at the two level where there is room to invite, but it's pretty awful at the three level.

[Echognome]

See also mikeh's discussion on 2-way nmf.

Where might I find this Matt?

I did a quick look on the search toolbar. I think you'll either have to do a more extensive search than I did, ask Mike himself, or hope that someone else has the forum topic referenced (I instead just saved the text).

[Yogeshdg]

On the 1st hand i would drop in 3clubs. 2nd hand i will bid 2h . rest all hands i have no option but 1nt.