[Phil]

mikeh, on 2012-May-31, 11:48, said:

I'm not sure I'd risk bidding 3♠ with slam interest, lest it end the auction....akin to your desire not to bid a 12-15 2N with your 13 count.

IMO defense, he brought up playing xyz and a few mods to the card I gave him. So I felt pretty good we'd be on good footing here. We were. Sort of.

[gszes]

i am unsure what e was doing with 3s bid--why not a simple 3d??
the only way your side has a viable contract other than 3n is if
has extra values and short hearts (and at least 5 dia). Bidding
3d gives p a lot of room to start to limit their still unlimited hand
and still suggest 3n as a possible contract (either by bidding it
or bidding 3h to show a partial stop). Here p would bid 3n and that
would be the end of the bidding (one woudl hope).

[MrAce]

Phil i have so many things that i disagree about what you said, but mainly ;

1- Just because

1♦-1♥
1♠-3♠

is slam try (as you said) doesnt mean 2♦ followed by 3♠ is not a real ♠ fit or is not a slam try. Different people play this different but they all play it as real ♠ fit and either slam force (not slam try), or they use it to show hands where responder promises a shortness but too strong to direct splinter. Some play it as giving info about their first suit and different info when they go thru 2♦. Some play it giving info about opener's first suit. Regardless, they all play both of this as 4 card ♠ and a big hand.

You can play direct 3♠ as slam try if you want to, and other one as slam force, which is pretty convenient compared to ambigious style you tried to make in this original post. Because it becomes extremely handy when opener knows you are not inviting to slam, he will not waste time and effort and he will not worry about trying to accept it or not. He will start giving you everything you wanna hear directly. When you have a hand that you already decided to go to slam and grand is still in picture, this information saves you a lot of space since opener knows what you are upto. In some hands you may know you are going to slam but you maybe willing to investigate the safest slam if you have this luxury.

Or you may decide to bid the way you did and everything turns into a big soup with way too many vegetables in it but nobody knows what will it taste like.

2-I totally disagree with starting 2♦ because the strength and shape of your hand will never be able to learn enough. Especially when opener can still be 11 and 14 or worse if he has more because then even if you stop in game, he wont. You have a perfect way to describe your hand by 3 NT bid imo.

You have an awful 13 hcp and you should feel lucky if your side makes game. Last thing you want to do is to draw more road map for defense.

Personally i might choose to bid 3 NT over 1♦

3-I am not saying this because you guys ended up playing grandslam with the cards you both held. I think you have enough experience and you are capable of forseeing the disaster that 2♦ followed by 3♠ may cause. It doesnt have to be a disaster where you end up in grand, it could be as simple as playing 4♠ and going down when 3NT was makeable. We all play 4-3 fits now and then but

a- in this hand opponents are silent
b- there is no suit that scares you (except than your own suit hearts and that is why it maybe a good idea to start with 1♥)
c- your hand is screaming for NT. I know a lot of people who would play this 3NT EVEN IF they had 4-4 ♠ fit.

Sorry m8

[Phil]

Hi Timo: I disagree with a lot of what you say. Not all of it.

a) I suppose you can play a jump to 3♠ as a slam force and a delayed 3♠ as 'slam try'. You could also play a direct 3♠ as preemptive I suppose. The fact of the matter is that you need to have a bid that you would make with an ordinary 13 count that wants to play slam across from a 17 (1♠ by opener is very wide ranging) and not get into opener's way. If you want to define 13 as a 'slam try' then be my guest, but it isn't my idea of a hand that is interested in slam.

3♠ was a misbid. I'll say it until I am blue in the face. But it doesn't change the fact that you need a bid from responder that is a useful minimum that doesn't hog space. If you define all 3♠ calls as slam tries or slam forces, you don't achieve that.

b) We had a 12-15 2N bid on the card. I agree ignoring hearts is a good idea.

Once I did bid 1♥ however, and partner bids 1♠, I'm going to investigate his pattern and not go flying into 3N.

[kfay]

Personally I see plenty of reasons to bid 3NT at a few different stages of the auction.

I suppose there's one small reason to bid otherwise b/c we might find a moysian in spades where I'm going to be ruffing in the long trump hand and somehow this is good for me.

Then again I haven't played any "real" bridge in about a year and a half so maybe I'm out of practice and am reduced to a caeveman-style of bashing. Like Timo said, if it walks like a duck... or what have you.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2012-May-31, 17:21, said:

Hi Timo: I disagree with a lot of what you say. Not all of it.

a) I suppose you can play a jump to 3♠ as a slam force and a delayed 3♠ as 'slam try'. You could also play a direct 3♠ as preemptive I suppose. The fact of the matter is that you need to have a bid that you would make with an ordinary 13 count that wants to play slam across from a 17 (1♠ by opener is very wide ranging) and not get into opener's way. If you want to define 13 as a 'slam try' then be my guest, but it isn't my idea of a hand that is interested in slam.

3♠ as preemptive ? Preempt what and preempt who ?

This is not an ordinary 13 hcp, Phil. This is a pile of crap you hold in your hand. With some of people i know who open light, i would be tempted to invite with this.

Getting out of opener's way ? Then get out of his way and show your hand, your hand can not investigate anything. 3 NT means that you have 12-14 hcp. Which slam are you dreaming when pd can not take an action vs your 3 NT ? You dont have fit, you dont have spots, you dont have shape. All you have is a heaven of queens and jacks. It is interesting for you to say that you want to get out of opener's way and then start asking questions to him instead of showing your hand. That doesnt really look like you are getting out of his way bro. Sorry


EDIT: I know you are trying to investigate, if pd has something like

Qxxx
void
AKxxx
Kxxx

Where we may make 6♦ and 3 NT goes down. I admit the way you bid you can investigate this, but i think your only efficient way to investigate this will be by bidding 3♦ over 3♣. Not 3♠. Diamonds is your only possible fit if there is any fit.

But i still would bid 3NT over 1♠

[Phil]

In spite of the disagreements here, using Timo's idea, why wouldn't this be playable in an xyz format:

After 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠:

2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ = invitational
2♣ - 2♦ - 3♠ = min GF (I need a LOT from you for slam)
2♦ - 2/3x - 3♠ = slam invite (I need an average hand from you for slam)
3♠ = slam force (Unless your hand sucks, we are going to slam)
4♠ = sub-minimum, but I think I can make 4♠.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2012-May-31, 10:38, said:

3. 3♣. After the match, a top player who was kibbing came up to me and said, "can I offer a suggestion?" He said that with a 4144 in a 4th suit or GF xyz auction that contains a singleton honor, that you don't pattern out with the 4th suit (here, 3♣) but opt for 2N yourself. The hand with the short honor needs to play the NT, and partner won't be playing you for useful cards.

Note that, Phil, if you play as what he says then the example i gave above wouldnt help. Patterning is good because then 1♥ bidder suddenly can see the light since pd can be void in his Jxxx suit.

[Fluffy]

I must admit that the nuances of indirect 3♠ didn't cross my mind. That's embarrasing as xyz is the only part of the agreements I insisted upon. My xyz agreements jut say that indirect 3♠ makes spades not the only possible strain. I though for a while and contemplated 3NT but after thinking aobt it I realiced 3♠ must be 4 card support slam try so I had to cuebid. Upon reflection I see that I am wrong, 3♠ must be slam try in spades, but I gotta bid 3NT to show singleton heart instead of void.

About direct 2NT response from Phil, no need to make guesses, I tell you that would be the final contract. Unles maybe I wake up and try to sclamble into 3♣ instead.

The reason why I bid 3♣ was that I was hopefully raising 3♥ into 4♥ next for a perfect description, perhaps too optimistic. But hearts being the problem didn't cross my mind either.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2012-May-31, 10:51, said:

Since I once played 6♠in a Rosenblum match with a trump suit of KQ9xx opposite void after a relay auction in which both partners bid in perfect accord with their system notes, it is nice to see others get results as silly (in our case, partner had emailed me a change to this one relay structure after I had left for Europe and I didn't get the email....so he showed me his 0=3=3=7 and I saw his 3=3=1=6)

I loved this story. A good rule, which I am surprised to hear is not used by professionals, is for system changes only to be included when both players have confirmed the change.

On the subject of xyz here, I wonder if you could not improve the efficiency with a small rearrangement of the responses over 2♦. eg

1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ - 2♦
================
2♥ = 0-1 hearts, 4 spades, 0-3 clubs (4063 4072 4162 4171 4153)
2♠ = 2 hearts, 4 spades (4261 4270 4252)
2NT = 3 hearts (4351 4360)
3♣ = 5+ spades (5062 5161 5260)
3♦ = 4144
3♥ = 4054

But perhaps that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Regardless, with the amount of space available and the restricted nature of Opener's shape, it seems completely impossible that we should arrive at 3NT still wondering what partner holds.

[twoshy]

1♦: prefer 1♣, though it's mostly irrelevant.

1♥: prefer 2NT, not too worried about partner not being able to completely pattern out. I really like the fact that partner immediately knows he has a fit if he's 55 or 64 and we've got our range narrowed. However, chances of forgetting are such that 1♥ is definitely understandable.

1♠ and 2♦: not much to add, except just out of curiosity, how do you rebid over 2♦ with a 4252, no club stopper?

For the next bids, I prefer 2NT (responder raising to 3) or, failing that, responder bidding 3♦ over 3♣. I'm assuming 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♦ would have been a slam try for diamonds, yeah? If so, the delayed 3♦ shows light slam interest or a choice of games. This is relevant inasmuch that opener is 4144 or 4054, and if he's 4144, he definitely wants to suggest NT. If his range is 11+, he can bid 3NT or 4NT. A range of 11-16ish for 3NT feels gross. Just cut the bottom off the range and throw them into the 2NT rebids, in my opinion.

(Maybe opener's 3♥ or 3♠ over 3♦ have some nuances that I am missing but I would normally treat them as, respectively, a good 4144 with a big heart honour and 4054 cuebid for diamonds.) Edit: yeah I'm definitely missing something, since we should be able to get to spades somehow. Maybe 3♠ is natural with a 4054? This is tricky.

Not going to go into bids above 3♠ since it seems like it was off the rails then and the earlier bids appear more relevant. However, 3♠ is interesting. I think it's fair to assume that partner won't think you have 4♠ given he insisted on XYZ. My pard and I haven't discussed it but I'm sure we'd both take it as "I'm raising clubs but don't get too excited" which allows 3NT to remain in the picture. Not sure whether that's better than 3♠ to show three. One slight advantage of your method is that it makes bidding the 52♦ game or slam easier when responder has a suitable 3523 (nothing in hearts, sharpies outside) opposite 4054. I'd have to choose between rebidding 3♦ or 3♠ (showing 4♣). (Edit: the bigger advantage of getting to spades on a cash-top-minors-and-cross-ruff high layout may be close to a wash, assuming I know how to bid over 3♣ - 3♦, which I can't say with confidence!)

[MrAce]

I have to confess i asked this hand to some good players. And by good i mean very good players...

I know Phil doesnt like asking hands to good players and posting their replies in forums but i think he will let it go this time since each and every of them agreed with his auction upto 3♠

I don't know if it was because i asked them the hand and they were alerted instinctually or if they would do the same at the game too, but i assume they would do it at the game since Phil did it. They automatically started to construct hands where opener has stiff or even a void ♥ and 6 ♦ or 7 ♦ was cold while 3 NT had no play.

Here is their auction

1♦--1♥
1♠--2♦
3♣--3♦....

FWIW, a very good player (Ira Chorush) suggested that he has a principle and never bids 3♣ with the WEST hand. And he added that 3♣ by west should promise one of these 3 things at least

1-♥void ( can be minimum)
2-If made by 4144 or 4153 it should not be minimum hand.
3-It should not contain a stiff A-K-Q of hearts

I am still not convinced if investigating this is a good idea. But admittedly i see why Phil did it much better now .

[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-01, 01:48, said:

I must admit that the nuances of indirect 3♠ didn't cross my mind. That's embarrasing as xyz is the only part of the agreements I insisted upon. My xyz agreements jut say that indirect 3♠ makes spades not the only possible strain. I though for a while and contemplated 3NT but after thinking aobt it I realiced 3♠ must be 4 card support slam try so I had to cuebid. Upon reflection I see that I am wrong, 3♠ must be slam try in spades, but I gotta bid 3NT to show singleton heart instead of void.

About direct 2NT response from Phil, no need to make guesses, I tell you that would be the final contract. Unles maybe I wake up and try to sclamble into 3♣ instead.

The reason why I bid 3♣ was that I was hopefully raising 3♥ into 4♥ next for a perfect description, perhaps too optimistic. But hearts being the problem didn't cross my mind either.

Yes Gonzalo, i am also an xyz player and i spend some time to study further auctions of XYZ. By talking to respected players, by thinking about them, by looking at system notes of top worldclass pairs etc etc.

Here are the mains approaches (i will try to keep it simple)

1- As i said some simply play one of them as slam try and other one slam force. This way pd knows what to focus on when judging his hand. To accept or not to accept and what to do in each case. If it was a force to slam then he doesnt focus on accepting the slam or not, he starts telling tales etc etc.

2- When we invite pd to slam, in another suit except than our first suit, pd usually looks at his holding in our first suit. We all do that by instinct. For example xxx is a very big TURN OFF when pd asks us if we like our hand or not. Also singleton can be a turn off in pd's suit UNLESS you know that he has started with something like Jxxxx suit !! In this example lets say AKxx JTxxx KQ Qx. Then opener's stiff is very valuable, if only you could tell your pd he should be happy if he has shortness in your suit etc etc

3- Responder can make a splinter bid over 1♠

1♦--1♥
1♠--4m

But since 1♠ is wide range, this splinter can be made as weak as an 11 hcp. Basically nothing different than 1♠--4♣. With stronger hands, playing xyz, you can jump to 3♠ promising a stiff + 4 card ♠ + stronger than direct splinter hands.

4-Phil's structure or similar ones. I agree with Phil that in XYZ original, 2♣ with the function of either diamond bust or invitation hands seems like underutilizing 2♣

You can add some of the forcing hands in 2♣ and create a lot of picture hands or choice of your taste. I have, just like most people, a very complicated ideas about this, but i dont find it appropriate to bore people with it in forums.

[CSGibson]

The way I play xyz, a jump to 3♠ over 1♠ would have shown good suits (both ♥ & ♠, and a 3♠ bid after the GF relay would indicate scattered values, ostensibly as choice of game, but also maybe as a slam try. I agree that there were a lot of chances for both sides to bid 3N, and no one willing to step to the plate & do it.

[rmnka447]

My preferred auction is 1 ♣/1 ♦ - 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ - 3 NT. If opener has a big distributional hand, then he can pull 3 NT to 4 ♦/4 ♠ suggesting a suited game (and implying at least mild slam interest). Or, with the 18-19 NT hand, opener can raise NT.

The responding hand certainly looks like NT is the right strain to play in.

After 3 ♣, opener can't have a 5 card ♠ suit, so 3 ♠ just can't be right. The choice seems to be between 3 ♦ and 3 NT. 3 ♦ is probably preferable because opener might well be 4-0-5-4 where a ♥ lead could be fatal. It allows opener the most options to describe his hand or set the contract. With a minimum 4-4-4-1 hand including the stiff ♥ A, I think opener has an easy 3 NT call.

I would have also seriously considered making a 2 NT call over the 2 ♦ game force bid. Slam is unlikely opposite this minimum hand unless responder has a monster. If partner raises ♠s we'll get to 4 ♠. If a 3 of a minor is bid, 3 NT seems like a natural next rebid.

[Free]

East was smoking some really good stuff. And so was the guy with ♦A.

[han]

I agree with Free, the most spectacular about this hand is that 7D was not doubled.

MrAce, on 2012-May-31, 16:45, said:

slam force

Does this mean what I think it is, namely that 3S is forcing through 6S? In that case, I don't want to have anything to do with that. Here is my simple rule: no bid below game is slam forcing.

[han]

For what it is worth, I do like bidding 3C as opener with a minimum, but I would not have done it with the stiff ace of hearts. I am generally reluctant to short shortness when I have a stiff ace, and especially when 3NT is still in the picture.

Looking at the auction again, I feel west is more or less blameless although 3C was perhaps not the best bid. East made several very
sophisticated bids which could be right in a setting with strong partnership understanding. In this setting that was not the case and I think that (a) he should bid 3NT over 1S, and (b) he should be reluctant to bid an undiscussed 3S without 4 spades, and © he should not jump to 6D. I think Phil should realize that partner might have a different understanding of his sophisticated auction and might have less than the powerhouse he suggests. By bidding 4S he gives partner a chance to stop without giving up on slam if partner does have such a good hand.