[han]

Mikeh recently wrote down his agreements for XYZ here on the forum and I really liked it. It only uses 2 of these four auctions for invitational hands (those starting with 2C).

[cherdano]

Of course there are different invites, but the difference between these sequences is what you have agreed them to be with your partner. I would be highly surprised if any expert would be confident of assuming any difference in meaning when playing with another pickup expert.
(Btw, 2NT definitely doesn't force 3♣ just because you play "2way nmf" -- this is not xyz.)

Arend

[inquiry]

Winstonm, on Oct 7 2005, 12:52 PM, said:

As usual, without discussion continuations are undefined.

I wonder if this is true. IF you agree to "Jacoby 2NT", does that mean all rebids are undefined? Of course not. Three level rebids are short. But the fuzzy area (without discussion) is waht are four level rebids... voids or second suits. Here, without discussion, you have to "guess" what your expert partner will take as "standard" (draw from you simple agreement to play jacoby).

While I prefer 4 level as second suit, if I agreed "jacoby" with no further discussion, I would interpret a four level response as a void. Same thing applies I would think with xyz. Without any other agreement, I would assume the convention the way it was written up most places where I have seen it. With jumps to three level forcing (even jump rebids). The fuzzy area seems to be jump 3♣ rebid. Some play 1x-1y-1Z-2NT as way to begin signoff in clubs. The logic of this is you can bid 2♣ and over partners forced 2♦ rebid 2NT with invite hand (at the risk of inviting some lead directing doubles). So that would be an area I would also like defined.

I am more than happy to dictate what the standard should be, because of course, I know how it REALLY should be play (I am always right, I am sure you have noticed).... :-) But somehow, trying to probe the area of expert agreement and draw a consensus seems better approach to me.

BTW Winston, in early 1980's I lived in Oklahoma City and played weekly iwht Fred Chen, didn't you live and play there then?

Ben

[mike777]

Jlall, on Oct 7 2005, 11:54 AM, said:

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

too many balanced 11-12 hcp hands will not make game.
Some 13 hcp balanced will not either.

[Walddk]

4♠ is a wild gamble with that shape in my opinion. There must be a way to involve partner in the decision. Isn't that what he is there for?

Roland

[Blofeld]

4♠ was my first thought with this hand, but then I started constructing a few hands for partner, and decided that 4♠ was a bit much.

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Oct 7 2005, 07:06 PM, said:

A wild gamble? Even opposite a minimum with 2 small trumps such as xx Axxx Axx QJxx, not even an opening bid imo, game is fine red at imps. I don't care how much you involve partner, he will not bid a game with that hand and many others unless you force the issue.

I didn't say that 4♠ doesn't make if you bid it directly, I described it as a wild gamble because it will go down much more often than not, even opposite a maximum 1NT rebid.

Roland

[Winstonm]

[QUOTE](I am always right, I am sure you have noticed).... :-)

I've noticed that, Ben, and it's really starting to piss me off....means I'm always wrong.

Winston

[Winstonm]

BTW Winston, in early 1980's I lived in Oklahoma City and played weekly iwht Fred Chen, didn't you live and play there then?

Yes, I did.

[pigpenz]

3♠ invitational for me, dont like the 7222 part
close to NMF but prefere to invite

[Al_U_Card]

Since we get a lot of 1NT rebids with a stiff S (at least on other threads anyway) Could the 3S bid be a request for 3NT with a stiff and pass with a mini and 4S with a doubleton S and a max? Seems like you can have your cake and eat it too....and the 2D then 3S bid might well be the slam try in S in 2-way NMF.

[HeartA]

I voted for 3♠. If xyz is included in the system, 3♣ would be my choice.

[han]

I'd like to be in 4S for sure opposite:

♠xxx ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣AQxx.

and maybe even opposite as little as

♠xxx ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣AJxx.

This is a 4333 9-count, so obviously nobody can feel completely comfortable with an invite. Not considering a direct 4S is blindfold-bridge imo.


Of course, there are many 14-counts which give you 4 losers of the top. If I didn't think that partner could make a good decision over 3S then I would just blast to game. However, I do think that partner will know which cards are good and which are bad. So I invite. Like mikeh I expect partner to use any excuse to accept the invite.

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Oct 7 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

So I invite. Like mikeh I expect partner to use any excuse to accept the invite.

With multiple ways to invite, there SHOULD be a way to say, "BID 4♠ now unless you ahve a REALLY GREAT excuse not too...... " as well as a way to say, "IF you have just the right cards, bid 4♠"

You might be able to seperate between these two options with just 2C followed by 2 or 3♠. Or you might need one additional tweak, like 2NT forcing 3♣ then 3♠. But at the table, I think the 4♠ blaster was more right than the 2♠ signoff'er.

[han]

That is hard to believe. What was their NT range Ben?

[42]

I voted also for 3♠. First impulse was to bid 4♠ but the shape was not thrilling.
With the partner with whom I play 2-way-check-back, 3♠ shows this hand. Slaminv. would go over 2♦.

[Winstonm]

A simple question - Marty Bergen wrote that when he and Cohen were a partnership he used 2C as the only forcing bid in 1 over 1 over 1 auctions. This sacrifices only 1 bid, the ability to play 2C with a weak club hand. I have yet to find a hand using this method where 2-way checkback improves the performance enough to sacrifice yet another natural bid. Can someone espouse on the benefits of 2-way over the Bergen method?

Winston