[jillybean]

Hi,

1♣:1♠
1N:3♠

We are thinking of playing this as slammish with self sufficient spades, asking partner to cue.
What do you think?

[Mbodell]

I like. That's exactly what I play it as.

[aguahombre]

Totally preferrence. You add the invite with 6 spades to your NMF in place of the slammish hand with long spades. Sorry for not using the stylish name xyz.

Disadvantage: the slammish one might have gained from information provided by opener before you established spades as the absolute trump and expressed slam interest. Extra distributional information is probably important as opposed to mere control bidding when slam is afoot.

The invitational one with six spades might gain information from the NMF response which is useful only to the defense when you really just wanted to know min or max.

[gwnn]

Be careful not to forget it. I personally wouldn't like to play this for this reason (even though I don't really forget my system that often).

[paulg]

What are 1♣ - 2♠ and 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ ?

[Mbodell]

paulg, on 2011-November-26, 05:31, said:

What are 1♣ - 2♠ and 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ ?

For me the first is a WJS (lead to a +470 today in the LM pairs when the auction continued P - P - X - All pass) and the second is to play with spades (a good 5 card suit, or more often 6, but not right for a WJS). I agree that if the first auction above is a SJS then you have less reason for the 1♣ - 1♠ - 1nt - 3♠ to be forcing and slaming as that hand would very likely have made the SJS (I mean maybe the knowledge that partner has 2+ spades instead of 0+ is the difference, but that is a pretty thin line).

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2011-November-26, 05:31, said:

What are 1♣ - 2♠ and 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ ?

I like to play 1♣ - 2♠ as sjs and do in my main partnership but it seems to be more commonly played as wjs.
This partner likes the wjs so 1♣ 1♠ 1N 3♠ becomes the sjs.

1♣ 1♠ 1N 2♠ is to play.

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-26, 03:53, said:

You add the invite with 6 spades to your NMF in place of the slammish hand with long spades. Sorry for not using the stylish name xyz.

We don't play NMF I expect most readers to understand NMF as 1♣ 1♠ 1n 2♦, forcing 1 round.
Rather than stylish, isn't 'xyz' simply more accurate?

[mike777]

paulg, on 2011-November-26, 05:31, said:

What are 1♣ - 2♠ and 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ ?

Playing xyz for me the first is an art invite in clubs, unbalanced very often....the second is weak with long spades, less than invite.

in xyz OP 3s is a clear slam try in spades. 1nt is pretty limited (11-13) so cuebidding makes sense.

With less and spades but gf you start with 2d(art/gf) over 1nt.

[aguahombre]

2-way checkback (clubs or diamonds) asking for further description of opener's hand would be more accurate to me than the back-end of the alphabet. Anyway, I revise my earlier post to "add..to the 2C checkback rebid...the invitational hands with 6 spades". The rest of it still stands.

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-26, 11:02, said:

2-way checkback (clubs or diamonds) asking for further description of opener's hand would be more accurate to me than the back-end of the alphabet. Anyway, I revise my earlier post to "add..to the 2C checkback rebid...the invitational hands with 6 spades". The rest of it still stands.

OK I thought there was a difference between 2-way checkback and xyz. I guess I'm just too sexy for my CC.
The rest of your post was very helpful, thanks.

[Mbodell]

jillybean, on 2011-November-26, 13:11, said:

OK I thought there was a difference between 2-way checkback and xyz. I guess I'm just too sexy for my CC.
The rest of your post was very helpful, thanks.

The main difference between two-way check back and xyz is if it is on when the Z isn't nt. XYZ applies after all of the following auctions:

1♣-1♦-1♥
1♣-1♦-1♠
1♣-1♥-1♠
1♦-1♥-1♠

as well as the ones that go 1X - 1Y - 1nt.

Two-way check back, at least how I've seen it describe, only applies to the 1X - 1Y - 1nt. So 2-way checkback can also be called XYNT.

[mike777]

Mbodell, on 2011-November-26, 21:22, said:

The main difference between two-way check back and xyz is if it is on when the Z isn't nt. XYZ applies after all of the following auctions:

1♣-1♦-1♥
1♣-1♦-1♠
1♣-1♥-1♠
1♦-1♥-1♠

as well as the ones that go 1X - 1Y - 1nt.

Two-way check back, at least how I've seen it describe, only applies to the 1X - 1Y - 1nt. So 2-way checkback can also be called XYNT.

good point another big difference is that in xyz 2c forces 2d it does not in 2 way checkback. also in xyz 3d 3h and 3s are slam trys.

[aguahombre]

It just so happens the thread is about the 1NT rebid, so that was what I was talking about.

[phil_20686]

Rather than "self sufficient" you can also play it a "decent suit, 6+ cards" and play that partner will cue directly if he holds one of the AKQ spades, and will bid 3N else. This can be very helpful when you are responder with a suit like AQxxxx, as often trumps is the hardest thing to find out about.

[Fluffy]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-27, 11:01, said:

Rather than "self sufficient" you can also play it a "decent suit, 6+ cards" and play that partner will cue directly if he holds one of the AKQ spades, and will bid 3N else. This can be very helpful when you are responder with a suit like AQxxxx, as often trumps is the hardest thing to find out about.

This hand bids 2♦ then 3♠.

Playing 3♠ as solid trumps I´d call it standard even when there is clearly no standard on this matter.

[phil_20686]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-27, 13:20, said:

This hand bids 2♦ then 3♠.

Playing 3♠ as solid trumps I´d call it standard even when there is clearly no standard on this matter.

Its a bit more complicated than that fluffy:

I mean I would often like to show "solid trumps" with something like AQJTxxxx - but I would still like to know where the spade K is. Are you telling me that with KQJ to 9 spades you would bid 2d then 3s?

[Flem72]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-28, 07:44, said:

Its a bit more complicated than that fluffy:

I mean I would often like to show "solid trumps" with something like AQJTxxxx

When I was working through this stuff it seemed pretty obvious that "solid suit" is too restrictive a criterion. If you wait for this hand, the sequence, and whatever benefits it offers in the way of providing useful info and recovering the strong jump shift, is so rare it virtually disappears. So I adopted a lesser standard, requiring the liklihood on normal splits of at least 5 winners and no more than one loser in the suit opposite a small stiff. In practice, this usually cooks down to solid with 5, 4 of 5 honors with 6, 3 of 4 with 7, etc. Partner knows the value of the stiff honor and even of xx or xxx, and you have RKCB.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[Free]

jillybean, on 2011-November-25, 22:18, said:

Hi,

1♣:1♠
1N:3♠

We are thinking of playing this as slammish with self sufficient spades, asking partner to cue.
What do you think?

Good idea, I do the same.

[MrAce]

Wrong forum.

Sorry Kathryn.