[pescetom]

MP

---

You are lost in this shapely hand and wondering whether to open a flexible 1♦ or a pedestrian 2♣, or perhaps the more spectacular opening 4NT Specific Ace Ask... when you realise that you are in 4th seat and partner already opened 1♣ (NAT, could be 2 cards with majors 4-4, denies minors 4-4 or 15-17 balanced).
Now the odds are fair that she covers at least one of your losers, but you are forced to respond 1♦ and things are starting to look tricky unless she has spades. Sure enough, she rebids 1♥.

How do you plan to proceed, with or without XYZ?

[LBengtsson]

My thinking is on this bidding is that 4♦ here would set the trump suit and ask for controls. I guess you did not have a Soloway 2♦ bid available on the first round - Criss Cross Raise? - because that is what I would prefer than 1♦.

[DavidKok]

I know how I would bid in a standard system (and how I would bid in Dutch Doubleton, and they are not the same). There are many different styles here though, and it's difficult for me to anticipate what traps people have built into their systems.
I would bid 1♠, natural and forcing. In a standard Walsh system I expect partner to have denied a balanced hand, and clarify whether they have 4♥5♣, 4=4=1=4 or something else on the next round.

[pescetom]

LBengtsson, on 2022-December-30, 08:50, said:

My thinking is on this bidding is that 4♦ here would set the trump suit and ask for controls.

In absence of XYZ I would have that agreement with most partners, although it's not actually defined in the system.

With XYZ I have multiple choices, although this partner is occasional and I'm not certain how aware of all of them she is:
- a jump to 3♦ is certainly game forcing, although the follow-ups are undiscussed in any partnership: probably 3NT should be natural and 4♣/3♥ should be control-bids fixing trumps in diamonds, but maybe 3♠ should be a stop ask in first instance [EDIT: see later post for clarification].
- a jump to 2♠ is natural and game forcing 5+ 4+, although nominally denying slam interest.
- 2NT is artificial and puppets to 3♣ over which 3♠ indicates 5+ 4+ with slam interest.
- a jump to 4♦ is undefined, but I would expect it to be taken as above.

LBengtsson, on 2022-December-30, 08:50, said:

I guess you did not have a Soloway 2♦ bid available on the first round - Criss Cross Raise? - because that is what I would prefer than 1♦.

No, 2♦ is weak.
How does the Soloway auction proceed after the relay?

DavidKok, on 2022-December-30, 09:15, said:

I would bid 1♠, natural and forcing. In a standard Walsh system I expect partner to have denied a balanced hand, and clarify whether they have 4♥5♣, 4=4=1=4 or something else on the next round.

She would rebid clubs, happy to hear your "standard" continuation.

Unfortunately we aren't playing Walsh, partner could have a weak NT and still bid 1♥ here.
But she would still rebid clubs over a natural and forcing 1♠.
Although we were also playing XYZ where 1♠ is no longer forcing and thus not an option.

[smerriman]

I'm not sure I like the methods; I've seen many recommendations for 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ when playing XYZ, but NF has never been one of them. What sort of hands would you bid (and pass) it on? Seems odd to me that to show slam interest with spades you have to bid them at the 3 level, when those are the hands you need the most room to explore.

Really dislike 2♦ as weak too; comes up far less regularly than Soloway and is less useful when it does. Like LBengtsson I would bid it here; it does give up playing in spades if partner has 4 card support, but it lets me get in an unambiguous Voidwood in clubs, which I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do by starting with 1♦.

I would also be a bit hesitant in partner interpreting 4♦ as strong diamonds with heart support, analogous to the 1m - 1M - 4m sequence, whether that's a good idea or not.

[mikeh]

smerriman, on 2022-December-30, 14:49, said:

I'm not sure I like the methods; I've seen many recommendations for 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ when playing XYZ, but NF has never been one of them. What sort of hands would you bid (and pass) it on? Seems odd to me that to show slam interest with spades you have to bid them at the 3 level, when those are the hands you need the most room to explore.

Really dislike 2♦ as weak too; comes up far less regularly than Soloway and is less useful when it does. Like LBengtsson I would bid it here; it does give up playing in spades if partner has 4 card support, but it lets me get in an unambiguous Voidwood in clubs, which I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do by starting with 1♦.

I would also be a bit hesitant in partner interpreting 4♦ as strong diamonds with heart support, analogous to the 1m - 1M - 4m sequence, whether that's a good idea or not.

Playing transfer responses, in one partnership 1C 1D 1H 1S shows 4=4 majors, less than invitational (invites go through 2C) and in the other it is non-forcing but up to invitational, again 4=4 majors. This plays very well when it arises.

Not playing transfers, my preference is to play 1C 1D 1H 1S as game-forcing, ambiguous about spades (I don’t understand…literally, I don’t understand…why some people play 1S and 2S as forcing..one denies spades and the other shows spades).

But if playing xyz, it’s a non-problem since we have 2C and 2D available to invite/signoff or force to game. One could use 1C 1D 1H 2S for something, since it’s basically a free bid.

On the given hand, I think it trivial to bid 2D.

Partner will bid 2S with 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=1=4, which are the only times I’m remotely interested in spades. If it were imps, I’d ignore spades altogether…Axxx opposite KQxx has a loser 31.5% of the time, while AKQJxxxx has no losers opposite a stiff and very, very rarely opposite a void.

Whatever partner bids, I’ll bid some diamonds

Btw, to me 1C 1D 1H 3D is non-forcing, but one can play it as a ‘strong suit’ slam try…just have an agreement

As for 1C 1D 1H 4D….I don’t care what anyone thinks it should mean. It’s an action that should not exist. Wtf is partner going to bid over 4D? And what would it show? I suppose 4M would be a cuebid. But why would anyone want to jump to the 4 level here, devouring three entire levels of bidding space whilst simultaneously giving up on an easy way to find out more about partner’s hand at the two level? One can achieve the same descriptive force unambiguously by bidding 2D, find out something from partner, and then bid 4D should one wish.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-December-30, 14:49, said:

I'm not sure I like the methods...

Really dislike 2♦ as weak too; comes up far less regularly than Soloway and is less useful when it does.

Happy to hear about superior methods.
I really dislike the 2♦ as weak too, although I suspect there are better alternatives than Soloway.
Unfortunately all my potential companions are deeply steeped in weak jumps, so I would risk arguments and forgets with anything but a new regular partner.

smerriman, on 2022-December-30, 14:49, said:

I've seen many recommendations for 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ when playing XYZ, but NF has never been one of them. What sort of hands would you bid (and pass) it on? Seems odd to me that to show slam interest with spades you have to bid them at the 3 level, when those are the hands you need the most room to explore.

Could you please cite the recommendations, I haven't seen them?
To be honest this sequence is not even discussed in our XYZ definition, but NF seems logical when we have a way to identify invites and multiple ways to game force.
With slam interest and spades as well as longer diamonds you can bid 2NT then 3♠ (being at the 3 level with slam interest is far from a tragedy when playing Italian control-bids), or pretend to have only game interest and bid 2♠ (which might be even better, agreed), with something more complex you can bid 2♦ game force and then sort it out.

smerriman, on 2022-December-30, 14:49, said:

I would also be a bit hesitant in partner interpreting 4♦ as strong diamonds with heart support, analogous to the 1m - 1M - 4m sequence, whether that's a good idea or not.

That sequence would not be a good idea over here.

[mw64ahw]

Walsh style as I play with one partner works fine here although I'd switch the 1♠ and 1NT responses around so 1♠ is now a relay to 1NT and 1NT is GF With 4♠ and 5+♦
With my primary partner it will be 1♣-1♠ GI which then allows opener to show shape.
With either approach I'm looking for the slam; 10 playing tricks + 2 quick tricks.

[dokoko]

pescetom, on 2022-December-30, 12:18, said:

- a jump to 3♦ is certainly game forcing

unusual agreement IMO - I would take it as nonforcing invite

[smerriman]

dokoko, on 2022-December-30, 17:52, said:

unusual agreement IMO - I would take it as nonforcing invite

Nonforcing invite seems highly unusual to me - why wouldn't you bid 2♣ then diamonds with that hand? I thought jumps to the 3 level were always slam interest in XYZ.

pescetom, on 2022-December-30, 16:32, said:

Could you please cite the recommendations, I haven't seen them?

Yeah, actually it's hard to find specific references, I just remember seeing an occasional forum post about it but no real definitive answers. And then some are in a Walsh context, some aren't, etc.

With Walsh it makes logical sense to me for 1♠ to be natural + game forcing, thus promising 5+ diamonds at the same time and showing 9 of your cards, in the same way that over 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N you can bid 2M to show the game forcing hand with longer diamonds. If you start with 2♦ you've only shown 4 of your cards and it takes a long time to show your actual hand. But not playing Walsh changes things a lot.

pescetom, on 2022-December-30, 16:32, said:

With slam interest and spades as well as longer diamonds you can bid 2NT then 3♠ (being at the 3 level with slam interest is far from a tragedy when playing Italian control-bids)

Except you don't have a fit yet.. how do you pack in agreeing spades / diamonds with / without slam interest and also control bidding into bids above 3♠?

[Douglas43]

LBengtsson, on 2022-December-30, 08:50, said:

My thinking is on this bidding is that 4♦ here would set the trump suit and ask for controls. I guess you did not have a Soloway 2♦ bid available on the first round - Criss Cross Raise? - because that is what I would prefer than 1♦.

Might be my Acol tendencies, but in the absence of a strong jump shift, count me in for 4♦. Even after a strong jump shift, I'd probably still follow with 4♦ to show the solid suit.

[DavidKok]

Please stop jumping on slam auctions. I think a quick 4♦ is unclear and/or torture. Even if it asked for key cards for diamonds (which I think is not good), how do we resolve the issue with our club void?

2♣ is good news, partner doesn't have a balanced hand. Of course this means partner likely has short diamonds, but at least it takes me back to my own system. Over 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 2♣-? I think in an experienced partnership 2♦ should be natural, forcing, 6(+) diamonds (since Walsh style diamonds followed by a natural major is GF). In an inexperienced partnership I might bid 3♦ instead to avoid disaster, although it's a waste of bidding space.

I personally don't play XYZ on 1♣-1♦; 1♥, whether or not I'm playing Dutch Doubleton.¹ In general there is no need to play XYZ when partner has shown an unbalanced hand at the 1-level, not to mention that 2♣ might be our best spot. We also have 4S(G)F available on all auctions with three natural suits bid at the 1-level, with this one being the only ambiguous one. The "1♠ = spades, 2♠ = artificial 4SGF without spades" is not a good agreement (what a waste of space if we just want to force to game!) but it is common.

¹In fact, with a balanced club, unbalanced diamond and Walsh responses to 1♣ the only auctions where 'XYZ' should apply are 1♣-1M; 1NT, so properly it is just XYNT (and not even that since it is off over 1♣-1♦; 1NT).

[Douglas43]

[quote name='DavidKok' timestamp='1672476653' post='1048061']
Please stop jumping on slam auctions. I think a quick 4♦ is unclear and/or torture. Even if it asked for key cards for diamonds (which I think is not good), how do we resolve the issue with our club void?


I'd see 4♦ as highly specific, a self-supporting suit, bypasses 3NT so 100% forcing, and initiates a cue bid sequence. We don't play minorwood, 4M by partner is a cue bid. Over 4♥ we bid 5♣ then follow with 5♠ = second round control, still interested in the grand. Over 4♠ we just bid 6♦. Appreciate though that this is may be Acol-specific and the void is a problem if you play minorwood.

[DavidKok]

So by implication first making a forcing bid in diamonds and then going past 3NT denies having a self-sufficient suit? How often does that come up, and why do you want the extra information about partner's hand when the suit is not self-sufficient but not when it is?

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-December-30, 19:52, said:

Nonforcing invite seems highly unusual to me - why wouldn't you bid 2♣ then diamonds with that hand? I thought jumps to the 3 level were always slam interest in XYZ.

Game forcing, at least.
BTW I asked the system author about his intentions for a 3m jump in XYZ and he confirmed that it works exactly like the (much more frequent) 3M jump: an immediate 3NT is natural, anything else (even 4th suit) is a control-bid accepting trumps.
Which confirms that we have no need at all to jump to 4♦, a jump to 3♦ is fine to initiate control-bidding.

smerriman, on 2022-December-30, 19:52, said:

Yeah, actually it's hard to find specific references, I just remember seeing an occasional forum post about it but no real definitive answers. And then some are in a Walsh context, some aren't, etc.

With Walsh it makes logical sense to me for 1♠ to be natural + game forcing, thus promising 5+ diamonds at the same time and showing 9 of your cards, in the same way that over 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N you can bid 2M to show the game forcing hand with longer diamonds. If you start with 2♦ you've only shown 4 of your cards and it takes a long time to show your actual hand. But not playing Walsh changes things a lot.

But without Walsh you still have the possibility to make a natural jump to 2♠, which is clearly game forcing and is unaffected by XYZ.

smerriman, on 2022-December-30, 19:52, said:

Except you don't have a fit yet.. how do you pack in agreeing spades / diamonds with / without slam interest and also control bidding into bids above 3♠?

When the two suiter is minor+spades things are a bit more cramped than usual, agreed. But 3N is natural, 4♠ agrees spades and 4♣/4♥ are control-bids agreeing diamonds.
In this case we could show the same distribution with the 2♠ game force which keeps things lower, although there is a risk that opener opts for fast arrival.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2022-December-30, 15:16, said:

On the given hand, I think it trivial to bid 2D.

Partner will bid 2S with 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=1=4, which are the only times I’m remotely interested in spades. If it were imps, I’d ignore spades altogether…Axxx opposite KQxx has a loser 31.5% of the time, while AKQJxxxx has no losers opposite a stiff and very, very rarely opposite a void.

Whatever partner bids, I’ll bid some diamonds

Btw, to me 1C 1D 1H 3D is non-forcing, but one can play it as a ‘strong suit’ slam try…just have an agreement

As for 1C 1D 1H 4D….I don’t care what anyone thinks it should mean. It’s an action that should not exist. Wtf is partner going to bid over 4D? And what would it show? I suppose 4M would be a cuebid. But why would anyone want to jump to the 4 level here, devouring three entire levels of bidding space whilst simultaneously giving up on an easy way to find out more about partner’s hand at the two level? One can achieve the same descriptive force unambiguously by bidding 2D, find out something from partner, and then bid 4D should one wish.

Yes, 2D will elict the spades if present. But my concern here would be that our agreement is that 2D is "without direction" and it might well take 3♦ and then 4♦ before opener is convinced that we are willing to play our own suit opposite a singleton after all.

We don't need to use 1C 1D 1H 4D or even define a meaning for it, agreed (see my clarification to smerriman).

[Douglas43]

DavidKok, on 2022-December-31, 05:27, said:

So by implication first making a forcing bid in diamonds and then going past 3NT denies having a self-sufficient suit? How often does that come up, and why do you want the extra information about partner's hand when the suit is not self-sufficient but not when it is?

Hi David, No, "promises" not "denies" a self-sufficient suit. I normally play strong jump shifts, so would respond 2D (big hand, good diamonds, then an unnecessary jump to 4D absolutely solid diamonds. Hardly ever comes up, which is why it's OK to use. I want the extra exchange of information with a non-solid suit where support like xxx or Hx is valuable. Here it is fine for partner to have x or a void. That is important information imo. But I am very old-school.

[Frank_lol_]

With XYZ, I have a few options:
1. 1♠, nat GF and then:
show my long diamond, cuebid all the way to whatever it brings me (no rkc); or bid my long diamond and jump to 5♣ for exclusion rkc if he doesnt rebid clubs(no way I can have club support with atleast 6-4);
2. 2♣ relays to 2♦ and 4♣, splinter with diamonds as trump
3. 2♣ relays to 2♦ and 5♣ for exclusion (we have a rule that anything higher than a splinter is erkc unless unlogical or defined otherwise)
4. 4♦ for rkc
5. 3♦ slam intrest, hide the club void
6. 6♦ idc if i get bad score just wanna have fun hahaha
7. 6NT surely my partner has club control and we can make exactly 12 tricks to claim a top right surely surely surely

I would personally choose 3, erkc. I don't see a reason to show my spade that my partner is unlikely to support anyway. The downside is that I don't get to know his spade control if I push the auction to 5 level directly, but a bit of guessing isn't that bad.

Edit: oopsies, thought they have Axxx in ♠ instead of KQxx
In this case, I would definitely bid exclusion rkc