xyz when z is a suit

[rr9000]

I'm interested to know how many people have tried xyz where z is a suit, and what their experiences have been.

 

Thanks!

 

RR9000

[cherdano]

It's good but does need some additional discussion - e.g. what do opener's transfer breaks mean?

[HardVector]

XYZ is specifically designed to be a suit. If it's XY(nt), then it's a different convention.

[TylerE]

I mean, if you're not then it's some sort of 2 way NMF. The z being (potentially) a suit is what makes xyz xyz.

[rr9000]

Some people consider xyNT a "form" of xyz. Some consider it a separate convention. If I'd just written xyz, some would be writing in that I should distinguish whether I'm including notrump or not. I thought I was opting for clarity.

 

RR9000

[spotlight7]

I'm interested to know how many people have tried xyz where z is a suit, and what their experiences have been.

 

Thanks!

 

RR9000

 

Bridge World suggested "any three bids at the one level including

 

"pass in competition after opening" counted to be able to start xyz.

[ArtK78]

It is threads like this one that lead me to believe that players have a basic lack of understanding of some conventions.

 

XYZ is a convention that applies after ANY three bids at the one level. Z could be 1♥, 1♠ or 1NT.

 

XY(NT) is a convention that applies after any first two bids at the one level followed by 1NT. This convention is usually referred to as a form of checkback. 2-way checkback is very similar to XYZ when Z is 1NT.

 

There are a number of articles on the internet on the XYZ convention. And there are minor variations in the way some players play the full XYZ convention. If anyone is interested in a word document setting forth the manner in which I play XYZ with two of my regular partners, please message me.

 

I have been aware of the existence of XYZ for about 20 years. I finally broke down and agreed to play it about 2 years ago. All I can say is that I was a fool for the preceding 18 years (some would say longer).

[rr9000]

So there seem to be several here who play xyz after opener's one level suit rebid. Whether or not you respond to a 1C opening with 1D or 1H on a 1=4=4=4 hand, what's your rebid with a minimum after opener's 1S rebid?

 

Thanks!

 

RR9000

[cherdano]

So there seem to be several here who play xyz after opener's one level suit rebid. Whether or not you respond to a 1C opening with 1D or 1H on a 1=4=4=4 hand, what's your rebid with a minimum after opener's 1S rebid?

 

Thanks!

 

RR9000

If 1S is unbalanced, definitely 2N (puppet to 3C for sign-off in 3C or some slam try hands with exactly four cards in responders suit). If 1S could be balanced but promises four clubs, I still bid 2N most of the time (maybe not with weak clubs). If 1S could be 4333 I bid 1N and make a note to change our agreements.

[pescetom]

So there seem to be several here who play xyz after opener's one level suit rebid.

As others have said, it's inherent in the convention - it's only real defect is to be poorly named, it covers both xyz and xyn. "111" would be better.

 

Whether or not you respond to a 1C opening with 1D or 1H on a 1=4=4=4 hand, what's your rebid with a minimum after opener's 1S rebid?

1NT of course.

[pescetom]

If 1S is unbalanced, definitely 2N (puppet to 3C for sign-off in 3C or some slam try hands with exactly four cards in responders suit). If 1S could be balanced but promises four clubs, I still bid 2N most of the time (maybe not with weak clubs). If 1S could be 4333 I bid 1N and make a note to change our agreements.

I find this a bit weird.

2N in XYZ is what you say, sign-off in 3C or some slam try (we play it as showing big 5-5 hands), so how could you bid it with a minimum 1=4=4=4 as asked?

[HardVector]

So there seem to be several here who play xyz after opener's one level suit rebid. Whether or not you respond to a 1C opening with 1D or 1H on a 1=4=4=4 hand, what's your rebid with a minimum after opener's 1S rebid?

 

Thanks!

 

RR9000

This is something you should think about before you open 1c. With 1-4-4-4, it's normal to open 1d planning to rebid 2c if your partner bids 1s. Usually, if you open 1c and bid 1n after your partner bids 1s with this kind of shape, you have really good clubs, really bad diamonds and a singleton A or K of spades. Otherwise, open 1d.

[johnu]

I find this a bit weird.

2N in XYZ is what you say, sign-off in 3C or some slam try (we play it as showing big 5-5 hands), so how could you bid it with a minimum 1=4=4=4 as asked?

2NT is a relay to 3♣ (pretty standard in my area) so you pass with a minimum hand. If you don't have a minimum signoff hand, you bid over partner's 3♣ bid.

[johnu]

This is something you should think about before you open 1c. With 1-4-4-4, it's normal to open 1d planning to rebid 2c if your partner bids 1s. Usually, if you open 1c and bid 1n after your partner bids 1s with this kind of shape, you have really good clubs, really bad diamonds and a singleton A or K of spades. Otherwise, open 1d.

 

You've misread the question. Responder is the 1=4=4=4 hand, not opener who has rebid 1♠ after opening 1♣

[cherdano]

I find this a bit weird.

2N in XYZ is what you say, sign-off in 3C or some slam try (we play it as showing big 5-5 hands), so how could you bid it with a minimum 1=4=4=4 as asked?

Because I like to play in my 9-card (or 8-card with both hands having a singleton) fit when both hands are unbalanced? One of us must be misreading the auction. I am talking about

1C - 1H; 1S - 2N.

[pescetom]

Because I like to play in my 9-card (or 8-card with both hands having a singleton) fit when both hands are unbalanced? One of us must be misreading the auction. I am talking about

1C - 1H; 1S - 2N.

 

We are certainly reading the auction differently, I imagine it has to do with opener's rebid of 1S. To me, it shows 4-card spades in a 12-14 balanced hand or an 11-17 unbalanced hand, denying 4-card hearts. At worst, he could have 3-card clubs in a minimum 4=3=3=3. Holding a minimal 1=4=4=4 as the OP stipulates, it would go 1C - 1H; 1S - 1N. No way would I risk going to 3♣ in a potential 7-card fit.

If you play that a rebid of 1NT by opener does not deny 4-card spades, or something similar, I can see that it would be quite different.

[cherdano]

We are certainly reading the auction differently, I imagine it has to do with opener's rebid of 1S. To me, it shows 4-card spades in a 12-14 balanced hand or an 11-17 unbalanced hand, denying 4-card hearts. At worst, he could have 3-card clubs in a minimum 4=3=3=3. Holding a minimal 1=4=4=4 as the OP stipulates, it would go 1C - 1H; 1S - 1N. No way would I risk going to 3♣ in a potential 7-card fit.

If you play that a rebid of 1NT by opener does not deny 4-card spades, or something similar, I can see that it would be quite different.

I understand not bothering to read my post, I write plenty of non-sense. What I don't understand is not reading but replying to it.

[cherdano]

We are certainly reading the auction differently, I imagine it has to do with opener's rebid of 1S. To me, it shows 4-card spades in a 12-14 balanced hand or an 11-17 unbalanced hand, denying 4-card hearts. At worst, he could have 3-card clubs in a minimum 4=3=3=3. Holding a minimal 1=4=4=4 as the OP stipulates, it would go 1C - 1H; 1S - 1N. No way would I risk going to 3♣ in a potential 7-card fit.

If you play that a rebid of 1NT by opener does not deny 4-card spades, or something similar, I can see that it would be quite different.

I understand not bothering to read my post, I write plenty of non-sense. What I don't understand is not reading but replying to it.

[pescetom]

I understand not bothering to read my post, I write plenty of non-sense. What I don't understand is not reading but replying to it.

 

My apologies, I read your post too quickly and missed the point about 4333.

 

If 1S could be 4333 I bid 1N and make a note to change our agreements.

[blackshoe]

It is threads like this one that lead me to believe that players have a basic lack of understanding of some conventions.

 

XYZ is a convention that applies after ANY three bids at the one level. Z could be 1♥, 1♠ or 1NT.

My basic understanding of XYZ is that it applies when Z is a suit. AFAIK that is the original definition. I do understand that more recently some players have conflated XYZ and the convention I have seen called "modified 2-way Stayman" (MTWS), but that doesn't change my understanding that the two are different. They are similar in that in both methods 2!C asks partner to bid 2!D, after which the 2!C bidder will either pass or make an invitational bid. They are (significantly, IMO) different in that in XYZ, 2!C is a marionette, which means that opener can bid something other than 2!D with a suitable hand, but in MTWS 2!C is a puppet; opener must bid 2!D.

[blackshoe]

Bridge World suggested "any three bids at the one level including

 

"pass in competition after opening" counted to be able to start xyz.

XYZ

In a partnership auction, after three suit bids at the one-level: (a) a rebid of two clubs by responder as a marionette to two diamonds (opener temporarily acts as though responder would pass two diamonds), after which responder may pass or make a game-invitational bid in any strain; (b) a rebid of two diamonds by responder as an artificial game-force; © a rebid of three clubs by responder as weak

-- The Bridge World Dictionary.

[ArtK78]

My basic understanding of XYZ is that it applies when Z is a suit. AFAIK that is the original definition. I do understand that more recently some players have conflated XYZ and the convention I have seen called "modified 2-way Stayman" (MTWS), but that doesn't change my understanding that the two are different. They are similar in that in both methods 2!C asks partner to bid 2!D, after which the 2!C bidder will either pass or make an invitational bid. They are (significantly, IMO) different in that in XYZ, 2!C is a marionette, which means that opener can bid something other than 2!D with a suitable hand, but in MTWS 2!C is a puppet; opener must bid 2!D.

 

 

It may very well be true that the "original" definition of XYZ is that it applied to three suit bids at the one level. That is very restrictive, as there are very few auctions that begin with three one-level suit bids.

 

Adding 1NT as a possible "Z" bid increases the number of auctions where XYZ applies. And this is quite useful, as the XYZ structure is very good.

 

As for the 2♣ bid being a marionette rather than a puppet, that should only be true if opener CANNOT STAND a pass of 2♦. For example:

 

1♣ - 1♥

 

1♠ - 2♣

 

Opener holds:

 

AKxx Qxx -- KJxxxx

 

Opener should bid 2♥ just in case responder was planning on passing the "forced" 2♦ rebid.

 

Opener holds:

 

QJxxx Ax -- KQJxxx

 

Opener should bid 2♠ for similar reasons (besides just to describe his hand accurately).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[blackshoe]

Yeah, it's restrictive. So what? Does saying that XYZ only covers auctions where Z is a suit prevent you from playing "modified two-way stayman" which has almost exactly the same form but applies only when Z is 1NT?

 

I suppose it doesn't matter in the long run what you call it, since you can't just reply "XYZ" to a request for information when you alert one of the initiating bids.

[pescetom]

Yeah, it's restrictive. So what? Does saying that XYZ only covers auctions where Z is a suit prevent you from playing "modified two-way stayman" which has almost exactly the same form but applies only when Z is 1NT?

 

It seems confusing to me to give two different names to what is now essentially a single convention applicable to two different situations. And if we really had to then I think XYN would be a heck of a lot more immediate and intuitive than "modified two-way stayman".

[mycroft]

I would phrase it the other way - XYZ was people realizing that their 2-way checkback system works well even when opener's rebid isn't 1NT.

 

But that's all semantics. YAreason why "convention name is not full disclosure" and "when you agree to play a convention, you have to go to the trouble of checking some things out".

(another good one is "what's XYZ-2NT vs XYZ-2♣-2♦-2NT? (potentially vs XYZ-2♣-2♦-3♣?)"

 

And I agree with Art (except I was only a fool for 10 years or so). Never going back.