Systemically bypassing spades in xy-NT auctions

[Chamaco]

Hi all,

I would like to hear from all of you about this system agreement with my pard and hear suggestions :(

 

We play Precision, with variable NT, 10-12/14-16 and 2C opener may have 5c+4M.

So 1D can be either balanced, 13-15/11-13, or max 15 with 4+D (can be 4D+5C).

 

HOW DO WE PLAY XYZ/XYNT ?

We play XYZ/XYNT 2-way checkback, that is, after both of the following sequences:

 

1D:1H:1S

1D:1M:1NT

 

-2C is puppet to 2D; if responder rebids, it shows a generic invitational hand

-2D is artificial "normal GF"

-suit rebid is weak, to play

-3C is weak, with 6+ clubs, to play

-all jumps are picture jumps in slam-going hands.

 

ONE MORE IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION

After 1D:1M, opener tends to raise responder's major with 3+ card support (unless hand is NT oriented, e.g. 4333 and/or lots of quacks)

 

THE QUESTION

 

Suppose opener has the following hand and you open a 13-15 bal 1D:

 

KJxx- Kx- Axx- QJxx

 

Bidding (uncontested) goes:

1D:1M:

?

 

With my pard we have agreed that with a balanced hand, we rebid 1NT even holding 4 spades, to describe better the hand, and to rightside the contract when there is no spades fit.

It does help to have a clearer picture of opener's hand: nebulous diamond can be VERY nebulous, and knowing that a spades rebid is unbalanced vs 1NT rebid is balanced does help responder.

 

On the other hand we can lose the spade suit.

There are no headaches when responder has a rebid (XYZ does the job).

But occasionally it fares poorly when responder is weak and does have spades and we play 1NT instead of 2S.

 

I am asking you the following questions:

 

1) in your opinion/experience, how bad is this agreement ?

2) how much does it improve incorporating Reverse Flannery responses to 1D ? Reverse Flannery help in 54 M hands, but not in weak 44M hands where opener will bypass spades after the 1H response.

 

Please note that it is very important the fact that the opening is not a "SAYC-ish" better minor opening but a nebulous opening, so I'd appreciate especially responses by "big-clubbers" (and yes, I know I would not have this problem if I opened 4 card Majors, but so goes life :( )

 

Thanks a lot ! :(

[luke warm]

1) in your opinion/experience, how bad is this agreement ?

i think that treatment is a winner, on balance.. often, when partner passes the 1nt, you'll get a spade lead... be sure to alert the 1nt as 'doesn't deny 4 spades'

 

btw, what do you open with 4414? if 1D, in that case i'd rebid 1s

 

2) how much does it improve incorporating Reverse Flannery responses to 1D ? Reverse Flannery help in 54 M hands, but not in weak 44M hands where opener will bypass spades after the 1H response

it depends on what 1d/2h is for you right now... weak hearts? if it doesn't take away something valuable, give it a shot

 

and i really never worried about bypassing spades... yeah sometimes you'll miss a 4/4 fit, but on the other hand sometimes you'll miss a 4/4 fit :(

[Chamaco]

btw, what do you open with 4414? if 1D, in that case i'd rebid 1s

 

2H

 

it depends on what 1d/2h is for you right now... weak hearts? if it doesn't take away something valuable, give it a shot

 

Right now we play 2M as strong Jumpshift (either distrutional, at most 5-5.5 losers, self sufficient trump suit, or 18+ hcp, suit at least with KQxxx/KJTxx): this does simplify A LOT slam auctions, often setting trumps in one go, rather than messing around by bidding 1M first, and then employing 2 more round ofs of bidding to convince pard your suit is good but you do not intend to signoff: using strong JS you can start cuebids lower, because trumps are agreed at lower level.

 

So, there is a price indeed for incorporating Reverse Flannery... :(

[cherdano]

it depends on what 1d/2h is for you right now... weak hearts? if it doesn't take away something valuable, give it a shot

 

Right now we play 2M as strong Jumpshift (either distrutional, at most 5-5.5 losers, self sufficient trump suit, or 18+ hcp, suit at least with KQxxx/KJTxx): this does simplify A LOT slam auctions, often setting trumps in one go, rather than messing around by bidding 1M first, and then employing 2 more round ofs of bidding to convince pard your suit is good but you do not intend to signoff: using strong JS you can start cuebids lower, because trumps are agreed at lower level.

 

So, there is a price indeed for incorporating Reverse Flannery... :(

I think most xyz-bidders solve this problem by playing 1x-1M-1z-3M as self-sufficient suit hand type (and in fact, all direct 3-level bids as strong and distributional). Other GF hands with 6 hearts (where the hearts are bad enough to make other strains plausible) can go via 2♦. Personally, I am satisfied with starting cuebidding at 3M.

If you also play 2NT as artificial in your xyz-structure, you may want to describe a different hand-type for the 2NT-3♣-3M auction.

 

Arend

[pclayton]

RF is useful even playing a strong club. Playing XYZ/NT you don't need SJS as much since the follow-ups are very straightforward.

 

To the eternal question: 1D - 1H - ? Should you bypass 4 spades to show the 'true' character of the hand - a minimum NT? Some say yes, some say no. You'll hear real good arguments for both.

 

We currently BYPASS S's in my 12-14 NT / 2/1 partnership, unless the opener has 9 cards in D's + S's or a stiff somewhere.

 

Playing MP's, I think you are at a big disadvantage however, assuming you think you are better than the field. The natural bidders rarely bypass 4 spades. They will reach the 4-4 spade fit and you will languish in 1N. 1N might be better, but it probably won't be.

 

Playing a strong club, its imperative to stay with the field on these 'boring' hands. This is one of the reasons I like to respond 2D to a Precision 2C opener even holding a weak hand and one four card major. The other tables will bid 1C - 1 Major - ?, so you are immediately at a disadvantage.

[Chamaco]

I think most xyz-bidders solve this problem by playing 1x-1M-1z-3M as self-sufficient suit hand type (and in fact, all direct 3-level bids as strong and distributional).

Yes, when opener rebids NT or 1S, all is fine with XYZ/XYNT.

 

But the problem with the strong Jumpshift type of hand is when oper rebids at the 2 level, e.g. bidding goes:

 

1D:1M

2C/2D

 

Then responder if forced to make all kind of weird rthings to convince pard that the final contract will be in his major (usually opener will be short in that suit).

 

So most of the time, opener will understand that responder has a strong slammish 1 suiter only at the 3 or 4 level, losing much bidding room.

 

 

Even worse is when opener rebids at the 3 level.

Now it gets really ugly for responder to set his suit as trumps.

[Chamaco]

Playing XYZ/NT you don't need SJS as much since the follow-ups are very straightforward.

 

As I said in other reply, the problems for the responder with SJS-hand is when opener rebids at the 2+ level, not when he rebids at the 1 level (then XYZ does his job).

[MickyB]

Weak NTers will always bypass a suit to rebid 1NT, because it is important to get the strength of the hand across. For strong NTers the decision is closer; My preference is to still rebid 1NT. IIRC I've seen the Reverse Flannery hands resolved by transfer checkback - 2♦ shows ♥, 2♥ shows 5♥4♠.

 

Slightly away from the point that you have asked, but I prefer WJS at the 2 level, 5-8 or so - then auctions like 1♦:1♥, 2♣:2♥ are invitational, and a 3♥ rebid would be game forcing. This makes it easier to show slam interest through 4SF, as well as bringing benefits on weaker hands.

[MickyB]

Weak NTers will always bypass a suit to rebid 1NT, because it is important to get the strength of the hand across. For strong NTers the decision is closer; My preference is to still rebid 1NT. IIRC I've seen the Reverse Flannery hands resolved by transfer checkback - 2♦ shows ♥, 2♥ shows 5♥4♠.

It has just been pointed out to me that RRF deals with 5♠4♥ hands, so I'm not actually sure what it has to do with this topic.

[Chamaco]

It has just been pointed out to me that RRF deals with 5♠4♥ hands, so I'm not actually sure what it has to do with this topic.

Weak responder has a problem rebid with 5♥+4♠.

 

Holding its symmetric shape (5♠+4♥), the problem is not really awkward.

There are usually 2 cases:

 

a) 1D:1S:1NT:?

Now reponder can safely bid 2H, showing a weak hand (otherwise he'd bid 3C = inv hand, or 3D = GF)

 

:D 1D:1S:2C/D

In such a case it rarely hurts to pass or simply preference to diamonds (in case of 2C) with a weak hand.

[whereagles]

I used to have prejudice against 1NT rebids bypassing spades, but I've been playing like that for 1 year now, and it is my experience that it works rather well. Much better than I thought.

 

While it is possible to lose some 44 spade fits playing like this, it has never happened (especially after I cooked up my home-made version of "keri over 1NT rebids"). The big advantage of bypassing spades is that you're able to show a 5-4 by opening 1m and rebiding 1M. This GREATLY facilitates your auctions.

[luke warm]

The big advantage of bypassing spades is that you're able to show a 5-4 by opening 1m and rebiding 1M. This GREATLY facilitates your auctions.

yes, bidding 1S now shows a minimum of 9 black cards (unless 4441)... but another sometimes overlooked advantage is getting a spade lead, often into a tenace

[han]

Question 2 first: I like reverse flannery, but it has nothing to do with auctions starting with 1D-1H.

 

Question 1: I follow Bergen's advice and rebid 1S when I have 4+ cards in the minor I opened. This would be especially true when opening a nebulous diamond (I mean, I would certainly rebid 1NT with short diamonds). Playing XYZ I do not think that auctions starting with 1D-1H-1S are very cumbersome. Also, partner can conclude after 1D-1H-1NT-2D-2S that I don't have 4 diamonds.

 

Unrelated Remark: I don't think your XYZ structure is close to optimal (I apologize if this remark was not wanted in this thread :))

[Chamaco]

Unrelated Remark: I don't think your XYZ structure is close to optimal (I apologize if this remark was not wanted in this thread :))

Oh, no problem about that, I am sure there are lots of improvements for it :-)

 

For now, I can only say that the one I am playing (borrowed by Hamilton's article included in Hardy's Advanced bdding for the 21st century) is simple enough to remember for us, and did not cause problems so far.

 

Let's say that there are so many other holes to fill in the system that this one is just low priority :-)

[han]

By the way, I was kibitzing the poster with the most posts (I won't say who it is :) ) last night. He picked up AQJx xx Jxx K10xx and opened 1C (Free reminded me that you add one point for spades, so this is indeed a ZAR-opener). Partner responded 1H and he bid 1NT (not 1S). Partner now bid 2D (XYZ), and he bid 2S. Partner didn't believe that he could have four spades, and bid 3NT. The opponents took the first five diamond trick, 4S (in a 4-3 fit) was excellent.

 

After the hand the poster said he learned to rebid 1NT from Fred. Apperently this was not a regular partnerships, and this hand proves how important it is to discuss this auction with partner.

[Guest Jlall]

even if you bypass spades with such a suit oriented and concentrated hand might one not choose to rebid 1S? the diamonds arent too great either :)

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skt9hkqj93d63caj5&w=s62ha7dkt875cq732&e=s8743h8654daq4c96&s=saqj5ht2dj92ckt84]399|300|Scoring: IMP

The fullhand by the person with the most post was as follows...[/hv]

 

There are several ways to avoid the disaster, it turns out that not a single person who opened south and rebid 1♠ was able to avoid 3NT. The two four of a major contracts came about via... 1) West passing and responding 1♠ and his partner raising the 1♠ bid, and 2) East insisting on playing in hearts.

 

Ok, so what when wrong here? Well 1♠ followed by 4th suit forcing would probably elicit a 2NT rebid (it did several times). Maybe 2NT isn't such a good rebid on 1C-1H-1S-2D, but the alternatives are not great either, do you want to support hearts on Tx? Do you want to rebid 2♠ (maybe best), do you want to rebid 3♣ on that four card suit, and now with partner expecting an unbalanced hand. If your partner will allow you to be balanced, weak, but holding a four card spade suit, all can work out ok.

 

How about here? After checkback, over 2♠, 3♣ is forcing, 3♥ is forcing, and 3♠ is strongly invitational or forcing depending upon how your style, and there is some question as to what 3♦ rebid should mean. If I held north, I would have rebid 3♣ focusing the potential problem on the diamond suit. But the only way to end up in 3NT is to jump to it over 3♠. Of course, if you are not prepared for your partner to have four goodsih spades on this auction, there is still reason to tread lightly... Partner could easily be Axx Ax JT9 KQxxx or QJx Ax JT9 KQxxx. The idea of playing nmf is more than just checking for 3 card support for your major, it also allows gentle exploration of the best contract. I think it is actually easier to get out of NT by bidding 1NT on the second round, than to stay out of NT after fourth suit forcing by responder. But then, I went with the rest of hte sheep to a hopeless slaughter in 3NT with this hand.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

1) in your opinion/experience, how bad is this agreement ?

2) how much does it improve incorporating Reverse Flannery responses to 1D ? Reverse Flannery help in 54 M hands, but not in weak 44M hands where opener will bypass spades after the 1H response.

1) Despite the hand above where I missed 4♥/4♠ to play in a hopeless 3NT, I also have nice success with this bypass with balanced hands. It makes the future round of bidding simplified. The only downside is you play in 1NT when 2♠ might be superior.

 

2) I do play reverse flannery by responder...but this doesn't help on this single issue of rather to bypass with 4♠ or not.

 

Ben

[han]

Ok, so what when wrong here? Well 1♠ followed by 4th suit forcing would probably elicit a 2NT rebid (it did several times). Maybe 2NT isn't such a good rebid on 1C-1H-1S-2D, but the alternatives are not great either, do you want to support hearts on Tx? Do you want to rebid 2♠ (maybe best), do you want to rebid 3♣ on that four card suit, and now with partner expecting an unbalanced hand. If your partner will allow you to be balanced, weak, but holding a four card spade suit, all can work out ok. 

This is a bit besides the topic of this thread, but I do have a comment about your possible rebid after 1C-1H-1S-2D, I would bid 2H. If you have the agreement that you often raise on 3-card support and a 1S rebid shows 4+ clubs, then you can jump to 3H on a hand where you were planning to show great 3-card heart support (e.g. 1C-1H-1S-1NT-2H would show that right?). Therefore, it seems sensible to play that the 2H rebid is most often only a doubleton as this (1) saves space, and (2) saves opener from having to make one of the other terrible choices you pointed out. On this hand you might find out that the diamonds are wide open.

 

I'm afraid that New Suit Invitational would make life hard for both players on this hand. Perhaps Flame is right and 4th suit forcing is best given that you treat it right.

[pclayton]

If the auction starts 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦, the hand mirrors a problem from MSC last month. South's hand had the pattern as the problem hand, but about another Q in strength.

 

The 'avant-garde' panelists like John Swanson claim that a 2♠ rebid is the proper call. Its a catch-all bid that denies holding everything else: a 3rd heart, a 5th club, a NT stopper. The rare 5-6 hand is rebid 3♠.

 

Yeah, well 2♠ was my choice and I got a nice fat 50 (out of 100) for the call. So much for 'forward - thinking'.

 

In 10 years, this will standard practice (that is, if xyz isn't common practice by then).

[inquiry]

I think I like 2♥ here to be doubleton, no ♦. With three, a jump to 3♥ does seem in order, with a dobuleton and a diamond stopper, 2NT seems right. With three fair diamonds, a raise to 3♦ is ok. Unfortunately, the entire free world plays this 2♥ rebid as showing 3 card support (of course they are wrong... you should raise with three card support... :-) ).

 

Phil was 2♥ the winner in the poll with this distribution? How about 3♣ rebid? Did anyone trott out 2NT (did poll include the diamond JACK which turned out to be not helpful)?

 

Ben

[han]

I haven't seen the poll, but I would rate the bids from low to high, i.e. 2H best (given that you have discussed this), then 2S, then 2NT (yuck!), then 3C (ouch, that hurts!).

[Terry_Gao]

By the way, I was kibitzing the poster with the most posts (I won't say who it is  ) last night. He picked up AQJx xx Jxx K10xx and opened 1C (Free reminded me that you add one point for spades, so this is indeed a ZAR-opener)

 

In Zar Points, ♠AQJx ♥xx ♦Jxx ♣K10xx is worth 25 Zar Points (10 Distribution Zar Points + 11 High Card Points + 3 Controls + 1 Spade Suit Bonus Point). So he is more than a Zar-opener! :)