[MTSummit]

suppose you have:

♠ Ax
♥ KQTxx
♦ KJx
♣ AJ9

your partner opens 1♦

so it goes: 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT

what's your rebid? can you use 2♦ as forcing game xyz convention?

[pooltuna]

MTSummit, on Dec 20 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

suppose you have:

♠ Ax
♥ KQTxx
♦ KJx
♣ AJ9

your partner opens 1♦

so it goes: 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT

what's your rebid? can you use 2♦ as forcing game xyz convention?

wouldn't that then be the xyx convention

[MTSummit]

pooltuna, on Dec 20 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

MTSummit, on Dec 20 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

suppose you have:

♠ Ax
♥ KQTxx
♦ KJx
♣ AJ9

your partner opens 1♦

so it goes: 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT

what's your rebid? can you use 2♦ as forcing game xyz convention?

wouldn't that then be the xyx convention

i'm not sure about this

but one definition i read was: 1x - 1y - 1z - ??

[Trinidad]

Yes, there is actually a convention that is called x-y-NT. AFAIK, it was invented before x-y-z.

And yes, it works the same way as x-y-z.

Rik

[mikeh]

It has been called a number of names....the one I see most commonly is 'two way new minor'...and I agree that, if memory serves, it was developed before xyz, and indeed many who do not play xyz do play two-way new minor.

[gwnn]

I played 2♦ in a 5-1 split and 28 combined once because my partner assumed that when we agreed to two-way checkback it also included 1x-1y, 1z. Not saying to make fun of him but to show how some people think about it.

[MTSummit]

true, two-way checkback or two-way minor forcing or some other names for it...

my question is, in this situation (1D - 1M - 1NT), should 2D still be used as game forcing ?

[Winstonm]

MTSummit, on Dec 20 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

true, two-way checkback or two-way minor forcing or some other names for it...

my question is, in this situation (1D - 1M - 1NT), should 2D still be used as game forcing ?

The answer is yes, but it has nothing to do with the 2D bid but the 2C bid.
The 2C bid does not show invitational values - it is only a relay to 2D which can then be passed. It is subsequent bidding after the 2C-2D relay that announces invitational strength. Therefore, the is no reason not to use 2D as forcing.

(Note, this "relay" concept of 2C is slightly different from 2-way checkback or 2-way new minor forcing, as the ONLY bid possible in x,y,z after 2C is 2D.)

[mike777]

MTSummit, on Dec 20 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

suppose you have:

♠ Ax
♥ KQTxx
♦ KJx
♣ AJ9

your partner opens 1♦

so it goes: 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT

what's your rebid? can you use 2♦ as forcing game xyz convention?

A basic version of XYZ


After any 1x=1y=1z including 1nt then:

2c=forces 2d, after 2d you pass or now any rebid is natural and invite, NOTE you can never play in 2c after 1x1y1z.


2d=game force, artificial.

2h, 2s 2nt....depends.....on the rest of your system.....just discuss with your partner.

3c=weakish long clubs

3d,3h,3s=natural and game force.


Of course you can make this more complicated as you wish.

[Jlall]

2C then 4N, 5332 quant.

At imps I would just bid 2D though.

[MTSummit]

yeah, thx all for replies.

as far as i understand from your help,

1) this example is typical use of xyz, which uses 2D as artifical game forcing

2) xyz is not the same as 2-way minor forcing or 2-way checkback, the difference is the 2C bid in xyz is forcing opener to bid 2D and might pass, or start an invitational bid

am i right?

[Jlall]

MTSummit, on Dec 20 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

2) xyz is not the same as 2-way minor forcing or 2-way checkback, the difference is the 2C bid in xyz is forcing opener to bid 2D and might pass, or start an invitational bid

or bid 3N 5332 choice of games, that is a frequent one.

It is probably worthwhile to define the other bids, some people play 2C then 4M as 5332 quant rather than 4N, but I prefer that as light slam try requiring a perfect hand (controls, doubleton, third trump, source of tricks being the thing you look for).

In general with the slam try hands you might do better just bidding 2D at imps when you have KJx of partner's minor, but at MP information leakage is going to be really important.

[pretzalz]

Winstonm, on Dec 20 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

MTSummit, on Dec 20 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

true, two-way checkback or two-way minor forcing or some other names for it...

my question is, in this situation (1D - 1M - 1NT), should 2D still be used as game forcing ?

The answer is yes, but it has nothing to do with the 2D bid but the 2C bid.
The 2C bid does not show invitational values - it is only a relay to 2D which can then be passed. It is subsequent bidding after the 2C-2D relay that announces invitational strength. Therefore, the is no reason not to use 2D as forcing.

(Note, this "relay" concept of 2C is slightly different from 2-way checkback or 2-way new minor forcing, as the ONLY bid possible in x,y,z after 2C is 2D.)

The way I learned 2-way NMF, 2D is the only bid over 2C. You only need to catch relayer with x xxxx KJxxxx Qx once to learn breaking the relay is a bad idea.

[MTSummit]

Jlall, on Dec 20 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

MTSummit, on Dec 20 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

2) xyz is not the same as 2-way minor forcing or 2-way checkback, the difference is the 2C bid in xyz is forcing opener to bid 2D and might pass, or start an invitational bid

or bid 3N 5332 choice of games, that is a frequent one.

It is probably worthwhile to define the other bids, some people play 2C then 4M as 5332 quant rather than 4N, but I prefer that as light slam try requiring a perfect hand (controls, doubleton, third trump, source of tricks being the thing you look for).

In general with the slam try hands you might do better just bidding 2D at imps when you have KJx of partner's minor, but at MP information leakage is going to be really important.

i would not use 3NT as 5332. but i totally agree that difinition of other bids helps a lot.

[Winstonm]

pretzalz, on Dec 20 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 20 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

MTSummit, on Dec 20 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

true, two-way checkback or two-way minor forcing or some other names for it...

my question is, in this situation (1D - 1M - 1NT), should 2D still be used as game forcing ?

The answer is yes, but it has nothing to do with the 2D bid but the 2C bid.
The 2C bid does not show invitational values - it is only a relay to 2D which can then be passed. It is subsequent bidding after the 2C-2D relay that announces invitational strength. Therefore, the is no reason not to use 2D as forcing.

(Note, this "relay" concept of 2C is slightly different from 2-way checkback or 2-way new minor forcing, as the ONLY bid possible in x,y,z after 2C is 2D.)

The way I learned 2-way NMF, 2D is the only bid over 2C. You only need to catch relayer with x xxxx KJxxxx Qx once to learn breaking the relay is a bad idea.

I think it is only a semantic argument, but I believe what you learned was x,y, z. The basic responses to invitational new-minor used jumps to the 3-level by opener to create a force.

Again, only semantics but well worth having both partners on the same page regardless of what you call it.

[Mbodell]

Winstonm, on Dec 20 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

(Note, this "relay" concept of 2C is slightly different from 2-way checkback or 2-way new minor forcing, as the ONLY bid possible in x,y,z after 2C is 2D.)

It depends how you play those. I play 2-way new minor forcing in some partnerships where we don't play the more general xyz. But in all of those 2C is a puppet to 2D and you have no other choice. I strongly prefer that method and think it is far superior to other 2-way nmf structures.

[gnasher]

This disccusion of names has left me hopelessly confused. What's the difference between "two-way checkback" and "two-way NMF"?

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Dec 21 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

This disccusion of names has left me hopelessly confused. What's the difference between "two-way checkback" and "two-way NMF"?

None that I know of based on how people say them (seems random). Maybe there's actually some difference though...dunno.

[gwnn]

maybe two-way checkback means 2♣ doesn't force 2♦ (and therefore is always exactly invitational)? I played it for a few weeks but we did not name it in any special way.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Dec 21 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

Maybe there's actually some difference though...dunno.

A long time ago I can remember some people playing "2 way checkback" as inv / gf, except 2♣ didn't force 2♦. It just split the ranges for responder.