[Vilgan]

So... when I played precision, I loved XYZ. Playing 2/1 without a forcing club now, and I've been thinking about tossing XYZ back into the arsenal fairly soon. However, there are obviously cases now in 2/1 (not so much in precision) where it is now impossible to play in 2♣ which could be our best spot.

For example, holding xx KJxx xxx Qxxx as responder, auction could go:
1♣ p 1♥ p
1NT p 2♣ all check,

For those that play XYZ in a normal 2/1 type system, what would you say the payout ratio is from hands where bidding did better in XYZ as opposed to those where playing in clubs might have been better (admittedly 3♣ is still an option, but it is a bummer to HAVE to go that high)? I would assume on most hands it doesn't matter.. but I have had a few auctions stopping in 2♣ recently that made me wonder.

It seems likely to still be useful, especially since higher level competition isn't likely to pass 2♣. Just thought I'd do a quick check and confirm it really is friggin useful, or maybe its sort of a give take and I could focus on teaching partner other things first instead.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,
Going by frequency of expert use, there is no contest, XYZ is better than a natural NF 2C. If memory is an issue with a beginner or non-learner, NMF is way better than nothing.

Thanks,
Dan

[awm]

I like XY-NT but not XYZ. Some of the issues:

(1) When opener starts with 1♣ and rebids 1NT in standard methods, clubs is pretty often a three card suit. This makes going back to clubs fairly infrequent and low payoff, so you're not missing much here. In contrast, in an auction like 1♣-1♥-1♠ opener could easily have a five-card club suit (and in fact if you play walsh or italian style rebids here then club length is guaranteed).

(2) These "puppet" type methods work a lot better when partner is fairly flat and when partner's range is fairly tightly limited (so partner never wants game opposite "less than an invite" or wants slam opposite an invite). Over a 1M rebid these things don't hold any more -- there will be hands (i.e. opener has 17 hcp for 1M rebid, or opener has a diamond void and long clubs) where you need to break the 2♣ puppet.

[pclayton]

2 way NMF (XYNT) is effective for the reasons Adam states.

XYZ is useful after 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠. There's no reason Opener has club length (although he hasn't denied it either) so the ability to make an invitational 2♥ or 2♠ via 2♣ is very valuable. You frequently aren't buying it for 2♣ anyway.

I agree with Adam about the Walsh sequence of 1♣ - 1♦ - 1 major. Here, not only have both opponents passed up the opportunity to bid over 1♣ and 1♦, but Opener is a lock to be unbalanced. XYZ is less useful, since 1) if responder has a spade fit, its four pieces and a GF hand and can do something else, 2) you would like the ability to play 2♣ or 2♦.

[ArtK78]

Agree with Phil. Unless I am mistaken, playing Walsh opener must bid 1♠ over 1♣-1♥ even with only 3 clubs (4333).

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Apr 28 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Agree with Phil.  Unless I am mistaken, playing Walsh opener must bid 1♠ over 1♣-1♥ even with only 3 clubs (4333).

You are mistaken, Art.

In fairness, I think that this is an area for agreement, but in all my partnerships in which we use a walsh style response to 1♣ (ignoring the T-Walsh partnership) we promise at least 5 clubs for the 1♠ rebid.

[han]

Arend and I play XYZ unless opener has promised an unbalanced hand.

[mike777]

mikeh, on Apr 28 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 28 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Agree with Phil.  Unless I am mistaken, playing Walsh opener must bid 1♠ over 1♣-1♥ even with only 3 clubs (4333).

You are mistaken, Art.

In fairness, I think that this is an area for agreement, but in all my partnerships in which we use a walsh style response to 1♣ (ignoring the T-Walsh partnership) we promise at least 5 clubs for the 1♠ rebid.

I was taught you do rebid 1s over 1c=1h even with 4333 hands. Reading the literature it is tough to tell what is Standard in Walsh, so little is written about walsh in books or bridge magazines despite so many playing it. I will ask Swanson and see if I get a response.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on Apr 28 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 28 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Agree with Phil.  Unless I am mistaken, playing Walsh opener must bid 1♠ over 1♣-1♥ even with only 3 clubs (4333).

You are mistaken, Art.

In fairness, I think that this is an area for agreement, but in all my partnerships in which we use a walsh style response to 1♣ (ignoring the T-Walsh partnership) we promise at least 5 clubs for the 1♠ rebid.

I thought so at one time, until a partner of mine was upset that we missed a 4-4 spade fit when I did not bid 1♠ over 1♥. He told me it was "Standard Walsh," and I looked into it and determined that he was right about that.

Still, I suspect there are many who would have the agreement that you have, Mike.

[skjaeran]

Playing T-walsh in a short ♣, unbalanced 1♦, I play xyz all the time.

With some partner's I play Walsh, xy, but not xyz.