[RunemPard]

Am working on implementing XYZ into a partnership. Have run into a few dilemmas that I couldn't find things online about a few of them..

1) 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2M Normally this would be GF for us after 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2M. Do you still play this as INV showing shape through 2C?

2) 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2NT & 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2NT - What is the difference in your partnerships? Bernard Marcoux recommends direct to show 4 card support or Hxx in partner's suit while slow denies.

3) 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♥ & 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♠ - Does the second one show INV 4/4 majors, while the first one shows 5+H and possibly 4S?

4) 1♥-1♠; 1NT-2NT & 1♥-1♠; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2NT - Larry Cohen recommends using a direct 2NT to deny 5M while slow shows 5M. This takes us over 2M with balanced hands though. Bernard Marcoux recommends direct showing Hx in partner's major and slow denying. Which do you feel has more merit or what do you use different?

If I have any other questions..I will edit them beyond this point.

Appreciate any feedback...

Don

[Flem72]

3) 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♥; 2♠ & 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♠ - Does the second one show INV 4/4 majors, while the first one shows 5+H and possibly 4S?


Fix the first sequence? The way it is written, opener should be showing four ♠ in a partnership in which opener bypasses ♠ to bid 1N.

[RunemPard]

I took away the 2♠ bid by opener in #3 as it was unneeded for the question asked.

[Zelandakh]

You can find some discussion of combining xyz with Walsh here. Basically you have more space than you have hand types so you either assign a meaning (such as (13)54) or switch to allowing a 1♦ response with a 4 card major when holding enough strength to invite. The latter is probably a little more efficient but better still is to switch to Transfer Walsh unless playing under a set of regulations that does not allow it.

[cherdano]

RunemPard, on 2016-October-17, 06:50, said:

1) 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2M Normally this would be GF for us after 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2M. Do you still play this as INV showing shape through 2C?

Yes - then a direct 2M is natural GF (just like a direct 3D bid after 1C-1H-1N is natural GF).

Quote

2) 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2NT & 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2NT - What is the difference in your partnerships? Bernard Marcoux recommends direct to show 4 card support or Hxx in partner's suit while slow denies.

It makes a lot of sense to play 2NT as artificial in any XYZ situation - often it is used as "sign-off in 3C (so direct 3C becomes natural GF) or slam interest with 5+support for opener's minor, exactly 4-card in responder's suit.

[Kungsgeten]

RunemPard, on 2016-October-17, 06:50, said:

Am working on implementing XYZ into a partnership. Have run into a few dilemmas that I couldn't find things online about a few of them..

1) 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2M Normally this would be GF for us after 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2M. Do you still play this as INV showing shape through 2C?

2) 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2NT & 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2NT - What is the difference in your partnerships? Bernard Marcoux recommends direct to show 4 card support or Hxx in partner's suit while slow denies.

3) 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♥ & 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♠ - Does the second one show INV 4/4 majors, while the first one shows 5+H and possibly 4S?

4) 1♥-1♠; 1NT-2NT & 1♥-1♠; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2NT - Larry Cohen recommends using a direct 2NT to deny 5M while slow shows 5M. This takes us over 2M with balanced hands though. Bernard Marcoux recommends direct showing Hx in partner's major and slow denying. Which do you feel has more merit or what do you use different?

If I have any other questions..I will edit them beyond this point.

Appreciate any feedback...

Don

1 and 2: I think there's a case for not playing XYZ after 1C-1D; 1NT. The main problem would be to establish a game force when responder doesn't have a 4 card major. One solution to this could be that 2H shows a GF hand with one (or two) four card major, while 2S can be used for GF hands without a four card major.

3: 1C-1H; 1NT-2S is often used as invitational with 4-4 majors. Going via 2C would show 5-4 majors. This is in a style where opener rebids 1NT instead of 1S when being balanced, ofcourse.

4: Used to play that direct 2NT is invitational without interest in 3 card support (so usually a four card suit). Going via 2C showed a sound invite with a five card major, while going via 2C and rebidding the major was a mild invite. Now we play that direct 2NT is a puppet to 3C; showing either a sign-off in clubs or a GF with 5-5. The 3C puppet has never come up, so I'm not sure what's best.

Actually I like being able to raise to 2NT directly to show an invite, instead of going via the puppet, since the puppet allows for lead directing doubles or light second round overcalls. I'd rather play that puppet, followed by 2NT, is another puppet. It is easier though to think of 2C as sign-off in diamonds or any invitational hand.