XYZ / Pseudo-Walsh Sequences

[wyman]

A few questions about playing XYZ and Walsh Diamond (to be clear, opener rebids 1M after 1C-1D only on unbalanced hands) in a 2/1 context:

 

1) Does it make sense to bid 1D over 1C when responder is inv+ with (diamonds and) a 4cM? In a traditional Walsh sequence, responder bypasses 1D without a GF hand. With XYZ, though, we can still have the sequence:

1C - 1D

1N - 2C!

2D! - 2M

 

 

2) What do you do with the sequence

1C - 1D

1M - 2M

 

You can invite with 2C-2D; 2M, presumably. And you can GF with 2D-<blah>-3M.

 

 

2a) If you play the above sequence (1C-1D; 1M-2M) as GF, what does 2D-<blah>-3M mean?

 

 

3) Some XYZ-ers I've polled turn XYZ off after 1C-1D. Thoughts?

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Gerardo
Fixed typo in topic title

[mike777]

1) auction one does not exist. 1d and then a major by responder is gf never invite. With less you start with 1M.

you can still use xyz to invite in nt, diamonds or clubs.

Keep in mind with 4d and 4M and gf you still start with 1M

 

2) again the auction is gf.

 

 

2a) undiscussed, in xyz you can have alot of auctions in theory that most just never discuss and they never come up. :)

in general you just bid:

1c=1d

1m=2m as gf responder has 5d and 4m..opener has 5c and 4m....look for slam now as you hve preserved space.

 

3) I just leave xyz on in all auctions....less memory strain.

[wyman]

1) auction one does not exist. 1d and then a major by responder is gf never invite. With less you start with 1M.

 

Still interested in comments on all points, and thanks, Mike, for your response, but you're postulating that my auction in 1 doesn't exist by some arbitrary rule-set, and my question is "since we have this XYZ gadget in play, is there a good reason to not respond 1D on inv+ hands?"

[mike777]

Still interested in comments on all points, and thanks, Mike, for your response, but you're postulating that my auction in 1 doesn't exist by some arbitrary rule-set, and my question is "since we have this XYZ gadget in play, is there a good reason to not respond 1D on inv+ hands?"

 

 

ok no problem.

 

I think what you are asking is why bother to play Walsh at all.

 

perhaps this may help.

 

"The main purpose of the convention is to avoid missing major suit fits when opener has something akin to a weak notrump, and would rebid 1NT over the normal 1♦ response. The major suit fit is likely to provide a safer resting place when the hands are weak, as well as potentially scoring better (a concern perhaps only at matchpoints"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walsh_convention

 

Many hate walsh and think it is a waste so the discussion goes...

 

-----------

 

 

edit

 

I would just add that if you play Walsh and you play it because you think it is a plus for you then I think you need some pretty good reasons to start turning it off and on depending on the auction. I would only ask is the gain worth it?

[wyman]

I don't mean to sound dense, but I don't understand what we lose by allowing responder to bid 1D with invitational values and a 4cM. Without XYZ, I totally get why you'd want the 1D bid with a 4cM to be GF.

[wank]

yes it's a good way to play.

 

you have the advantage that responder can invite at the 2 level instead of the 3 level and that opener can pass 2M on a 3 card suit or correct to 3D instead of rejecting through 2NT if he feels it's appropriate.

[mike777]

so the discussion is:

 

1c=1d(no 4card major less than gf)

1nt=2nt

 

or

1c=1d( no 4card major less than gf)

1nt=2c

2d=2nt

or

1c=1M(may have longer d)

1nt=2nt

or

1c-1M(mayhave longer d)

1nt=2c

2d=2nt

 

 

vs

 

1c=1d

1nt=2c

2d=2M invite

 

 

 

both may play in 2nt if opener has 2 of major and minimum.

 

you play in 2M with 4-3 fit and minimum.

I play in 2nt or I find 4-4 fit early and responder gets to make all sorts of game tries.

[ArtK78]

Pardon my comment, but why is this topic included in the "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion" Forum?

[wyman]

Pardon my comment, but why is this topic included in the "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion" Forum?

 

I went back and forth over this, but both A/E, which seems to contain mostly play and bidding problems rather than system discussion, and non-natural system, which seems to be devoted to pet systems seemed wrong. XYZ & Walsh style are sufficiently "normal" additions to an otherwise standard 2/1 that I guessed this might be the right home for the question.

 

I'd be happy if a mod wanted to move it somewhere more appropriate.

[Free]

1. For me, 1C-1D-1N-2C!-2D!-2M shows an INV with 3M, 5+♦ and 4♣. We can still have a good game in 4M playing a 4-3 fit.

 

2. The auction 1C-1D-1M-2M is GF with 4 card fit. If I go through 2♣ it shows again an INV with 3M, 5+♦ and 4♣.

2a. doesn't exist for me

 

3. I prefer XYZ on, because it allows us to find 4-3 M fits. Also we can show the difference between GF 4M-4♦ and GF 4M-5+♦. For example: 1♣-1♦-1NT-2♦-2M-3M shows 4-4, while 1♣-1♦-1NT-2M shows 5+♦ and 4M.

[gordontd]

Pardon my comment, but why is this topic included in the "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion" Forum?

It seems like the right place for it. After all, Walsh was created in conjunction with early 2/1, and is usually played as part of the system.

[Fluffy]

I don't mean to sound dense, but I don't understand what we lose by allowing responder to bid 1D with invitational values and a 4cM. Without XYZ, I totally get why you'd want the 1D bid with a 4cM to be GF.

Its very playable, but you should do it only with 5+♦ 4M, because with 4-4 you get preempted and lose your major fit and the gain is very little, with 5♦-4M at least you get to show an important alternative strain.

 

 

so 1♣-1♦-1x-2♣-2♦-2M shows 5+ diamonds and opener can correct to 3♦ if appropiate.

[mike777]

again you lose the abiiity of

 

1c=1M

2M= game try because you started with 1d.

 

you gain the ability to play in 4-3 fit when responder has an inv. hand and opener has a minimum rather than play in 2nt.......

 

not something I would call a net plus.

 

on top of that if you only gain when with 5d and 4m and invite.... and when pard has a minimum and 3 card major support that does not accept game, that is really a tiny universe of hands.

[bd71]

again you lose the abiiity of

 

1c=1M

2M= game try because you started with 1d.

 

How do you lose this? In a sense, responder has already iniated a game-try by showing an invitational hand.

 

Even if you mean that you lose the ability to have help-suit/long-suit/short-suit type game tries, I'm still not sure that's true...

 

1. If your method of invitating w/ 5+D/4H is as in OP (1C-1D-1H-2C-2D-2H), then opener still has game-try options after that sequence if he needs more information on whether to accept the invite.

 

2. If your method is (close to) what Free suggested (1C-1D-1H-2H), but modified to reflect that the initial bid of 1D and heart rebid is only invitational as per OP, then opener also has game-try options after that sequence.

 

I think all that has changed is who initiates the game-try. Not sure whether that is a negative or a positive, but I'm open to hearing why it may cause problems.

 

you gain the ability to play in 4-3 fit when responder has an inv. hand and opener has a minimum rather than play in 2nt.......

 

not something I would call a net plus.

 

If the 4th suit (spades in these sequences) is unstopped, wouldn't you rather be in 2M than 2N?

 

And per Free's note, you also can gain when 4M with a 4-3 fit is a better game than 5m.

 

on top of that if you only gain when with 5d and 4m and invite.... and when pard has a minimum and 3 card major support that does not accept game, that is really a tiny universe of hands.

 

Agree that the frequency may be low, but I'm not sure anybody has really identified a cost of doing this. Small gain + zero cost = better method, no?

[Finch]

I used to play exactly this style - that a 1D response could have a 4-card major if strong enough to invite opposite a 1NT rebid. I think it has quite a lot of merit. (I stopped when we changed to playing transfer-walsh.)

 

You have more sequences than you can possibly need after 1C- 1D - 1NT, just invent meanings for all of them... (We played 1C -1D-1NT -2C forced 2D (which could be passed) then 2M as invitational NF with a 4-card major and longer diamonds, 1C-1D-1NT-2D as game forcing with 4 hearts and longer diamonds, 2H as FG with spades, and 2S as a relay to 2NT either to sign off in 3C or various other game forcing hands.)

 

I can't answer your other XYZ questions, I've never played it.

 

The obvious advantage of playing this way is that you get to show your long diamond suit on an invitational hand. If opener is 18-19 balanced it can be very hard to find a diamond slam if you respond 1M. Obviously being specifically invitational with a 4-card major and 5 (or 6) diamonds is quite rare, but if you aren't really losing anything by including this hand (and I don't think you are) then why not?

[Zelandakh]

I think a nice agreement is that if a raise to 2M is GF and sets trumps starting a cue auction then a raise to 3M is RKCB. Obviously this does not come up often in most systems!

[Finch]

I think a nice agreement is that if a raise to 2M is GF and sets trumps starting a cue auction then a raise to 3M is RKCB. Obviously this does not come up often in most systems!

 

In the days when I played 'game forcing' walsh we played 1C - 1D - 1H - 2H as a constructive 3-card raise

[Zelandakh]

In the days when I played 'game forcing' walsh we played 1C - 1D - 1H - 2H as a constructive 3-card raise

This strikes me as a better treatment than it showing 4 cards even when the latter is the most popular going by the responses so far.

[wyman]

In the days when I played 'game forcing' walsh we played 1C - 1D - 1H - 2H as a constructive 3-card raise

 

 

This strikes me as a better treatment than it showing 4 cards even when the latter is the most popular going by the responses so far.

 

Keeping in mind that 1C-1D; 1H shows an unbalanced hand, is the implication that in your

1C - 1D; 1H - 2H (3 card const)

auction, responder has spade length? It seems with spade shortness, he has club support or a 6+ card diamond suit. So he must have club shortness. Is shortness in opener's suit necessarily the best thing here? A trump lead will cut down on club ruffs when trumps split, and a spade lead will tap declarer when the outstanding trumps don't split.

 

I'm just thinking out loud; you guys have likely thought a lot harder about this than I have.

[Finch]

It rarely came up... the idea is that with a hand such as, say,

 

xx

Axx

Q10xxx

Kxx

 

that 2H is more descriptive than 1NT, that the hand is a bit light for 3C but heavy for 2C (and partner might have the dreaded 4=4=1=4 which makes clubs less good a contract). And at matchpoints you might want to play in 2H anyway.

 

Obviously with

 

KJx

xxx

K10xxx

Qx

 

you'd bid 1NT rather than raise hearts, and with

 

x

Axx

J10xxx

Kxxx

 

you'd have an easy 3C bid (partner might well have a good hand as no-one has bid spades)

[Gerardo]

I used to play exactly this style - that a 1D response could have a 4-card major if strong enough to invite opposite a 1NT rebid. I think it has quite a lot of merit. (I stopped when we changed to playing transfer-walsh.)

 

You have more sequences than you can possibly need after 1C- 1D - 1NT, just invent meanings for all of them... (We played 1C -1D-1NT -2C forced 2D (which could be passed) then 2M as invitational NF with a 4-card major and longer diamonds, 1C-1D-1NT-2D as game forcing with 4 hearts and longer diamonds, 2H as FG with spades, and 2S as a relay to 2NT either to sign off in 3C or various other game forcing hands.)

 

I can't answer your other XYZ questions, I've never played it.

 

Frances, you just described xyNT (after 1x : 1y : 1NT, 2♣ forces 2♦ to play or invite, 2♦ is GF. XYZ uses 2m the same way after any 1x : 1y : 1z)

[Finch]

Frances, you just described xyNT (after 1x : 1y : 1NT, 2♣ forces 2♦ to play or invite, 2♦ is GF. XYZ uses 2m the same way after any 1x : 1y : 1z)

 

Thanks, but I doubt what I described is xyNT. We played 1C-1D-1NT-2D = game forcing with specifically 4 hearts, 2H = game forcing with 4 spades and the higher bids as artificial too.

[Gerardo]

Thanks, but I doubt what I described is xyNT. We played 1C-1D-1NT-2D = game forcing with specifically 4 hearts, 2H = game forcing with 4 spades and the higher bids as artificial too.

 

I see, thanks.