[pclayton]

Sat down with a player yesterday and we re-confirmed that we played xyz. Great. A few weeks ago we had discussed some of the places where xyz can be confusing, like the 2N rebid (it transfers back to clubs), and whether or not it's on in comp (it is if there is only one intervening call) and if its on BPH (it is).

We have this unobstructed sequence:

1♣ - 1♥ - 1N - 2♥....(alert..huh? )

"2♥ shows invitational values". We get overboard to 4♥ which actually has a chance since I had a near max 2♥ call.

He says, 2♣ forces a 2♦, and then 2♥ is weak. A direct 2♥ is invitational. Sounds more like Wolff than xyz to me.

Apparently there's a website advocating this concept. I've never heard of it.

Have any of you?

[gwnn]

I haven't.

[han]

I think it is slightly worse than regular 2-way checkback because with a weak hand you don't want to allow them to compete with a double. For the rest there is little difference but I have never heard of it.

[jdonn]

Without even considering the merit, I have certainly never heard of it.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2008, 08:28 AM, said:

Without even considering the merit, I have certainly never heard of it.

I considered the merit.

You lose the 5-5 invites and a 6 card spade invite (like regular xyz, 3x is a slam try).

Other than that, there doesn't seem to be much difference, but there's zero advantage to playing this afaics.

[awm]

pclayton, on Mar 11 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

I considered the merit.

You lose the 5-5 invites and a 6 card spade invite (like regular xyz, 3x is a slam try).

Other than that, there doesn't seem to be much difference, but there's zero advantage to playing this afaics.

Not sure about this. You still have the auction 2♣...3♦ and 2♣...3M. These can't be "to play" since you could've signed off by bidding 2♣...Pass or 2♣...2M respectively.

I think you have all the same sequences before, you're just inverting the signoffs over 1NT and the corresponding invites.

But I'm not sure I see the merit, no reason to let opponents double an artificial 2♣ bid on hands where they might actually want to compete. And it is nice for memory reasons to play "2♣ followed by anything is invitational."

[pclayton]

awm, on Mar 11 2008, 08:39 AM, said:

pclayton, on Mar 11 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

I considered the merit.

You lose the 5-5 invites and a 6 card spade invite (like regular xyz, 3x is a slam try).

Other than that, there doesn't seem to be much difference, but there's zero advantage to playing this afaics.

Not sure about this. You still have the auction 2♣...3♦ and 2♣...3M. These can't be "to play" since you could've signed off by bidding 2♣...Pass or 2♣...2M respectively.

I think you have all the same sequences before, you're just inverting the signoffs over 1NT and the corresponding invites.

But I'm not sure I see the merit, no reason to let opponents double an artificial 2♣ bid on hands where they might actually want to compete. And it is nice for memory reasons to play "2♣ followed by anything is invitational."

I suppose this is true. It seems wrong to split a 2♣ call into two classes of hands however.

[skjaeran]

I know of several versions of xyz. This isn't among them....

Strongly prefer 2♥ to show less than a serious invite here. I play wjs, so 2♥ would be constructive-light invite.

[han]

You don't lose anything, you just switch around the bids in a way that to most of us is unnatural.

[Yogeshdg]

Is this XYZ? XYZ is a bid of 2♣ rebid by responder after opener rebids one of suit not 1NT. This 2♥ has to be to play.

You can play the two way checkback over 1nt rebid by opener but i dont think that is part of XYZ(but i could be wrong).

[Trinidad]

Yogeshdg, on Mar 12 2008, 03:26 AM, said:

Is this XYZ? XYZ is a bid of 2♣ rebid by responder after opener rebids one of suit not 1NT. This 2♥ has to be to play.

You can play the two way checkback over 1nt rebid by opener but i dont think that is part of XYZ(but i could be wrong).

There are two conventions that are twins.

One convention is a variation of checkback Stayman. The important feature is that the convention doesn't ask but describes responder's hand.

It applies in the auction 1x-1y; 1NT where 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦ and 2♦ is a GF inquiry. The 2♣ bid is made either to sign off in diamonds or to make another bid. The 2♣-2♦ relay is used to give different meanings to the direct bid and the bid through the relay, similar to the Lebensohl 2NT-3♣ relay. Since the auction that it applies to is 1x-1y; 1NT, the convention is named 'xy NT'.

Its twin sister is a replacement for the fourth suit forcing convention through a mechanism that is similar to that used in the xy NT convention. It applies after 1x-1y; 1z. The 2♦ bid takes the role of a GF fourth suit inquiry, while the 2♣ bid, again is a relay to 2♦, either to play 2♦ or to take another bid distinguishing between the direct bid and the bid through the 2♣-2♦ relay. Obviously, since this convention applied after 1x-1y; 1z, it is called 'xyz' (not capitalized).

In the cases where the convention is used to distinguish between hands of different strength, I have only seen these conventions used in such a way that the direct bid is a sign off while the relay bid shows the invitational range.

Rik