[Cthulhu D]

Three part question:

A) What are the primary advantages of XYZ? It seems that you lose the ability to play 2C in return for gaining seperate sequences for weak, mild invites, heavy invites and GFs. With no science here you can just about manage invites and game GF but the weak options are all bad, so the cost of seperate invitational sequences and the ability to stop in the lowest parital is probably worth the loss of a natural 2C.

It's also probably a bit more efficent than just playing 'NT systems on' over a 1C!-1D!-1NT Transfer Walsh auction but this is a small gain imho.

B) Is it worth playing transfers here instead? Does someone have a workable scheme? Seems people play transfers after XYNT, but I'd prefer to have one system for all 10 XYZ auctions.

C) Because I'm a lunatic (more accurately, I prefer playing something a close to 'cutting edge' as the partnership feels comfortable with, a view I recongise Fred wouldn't endorse but I have brought with my from other card games), I'm wondering what a 'modern' 2/1 GF system looks like at the moment. We're a novice partnersihp and Australian methods are broad ranging but you mostly encounter ACOL or SA at the club (along with Moscito, 2/1 GF, precision and some symemtric relay stuff not covered by Moscito), so it's hard to gauge any sort of 'standard'

I'm using Fredin-Fallenius system card as a source of inspiration (omitting stuff that seems like a lot of work for minimum gain, e.g. transfers over 1D).

[glen]

You would like an answer for beginners and intermediates?

[mgoetze]

BBF Systems Index
A relevant thread found there

[the hog]

Far more efficient and useful than XYZ are transfer checkbacks. However that is a topic for advanced players, not Intermediates.
I see no reason why XYZ and Magister, for example, cannot be part of an Intermediate player's arsenal.

[Cthulhu D]

glen, on 2012-February-20, 21:14, said:

You would like an answer for beginners and intermediates?

Well, really I'd like an answer for me Not everyone is the same and I suspect I find systems much easier than someone with equivelent bridge experince, but defence much more difficult because I forget that my team has 26 cards, not 13.

Quote

BBF Systems Index
A relevant thread found there

Yeah, I was reading that.

I really like the 1S weak relay (it's conceptually similar to Kaplan Inversion too), and it seems to find the fits most effectively, but how does your and JLall's structure work(ed) out in practice? I get the thrust of awm's argument as well, but I'm trying to get at: Has there been any more development of continuations for transfer walsh in the last two years, or is this the cutting edge of theory in this space.

From reading that threadand thinking a bit, I think it makes most sense to play XYZ AND the Mgotze/JLall 1S puppet thing because then you have all the options all the time.

the hog, on 2012-February-20, 22:12, said:

Far more efficient and useful than XYZ are transfer checkbacks. However that is a topic for advanced players, not Intermediates.
I see no reason why XYZ and Magister, for example, cannot be part of an Intermediate player's arsenal.

What's Magister? A quick google only reveals a document that is mostly in polish. Oh it's WJ2000

So Magister is conceptually similar to two way checkback stayman?

[the hog]

Yes.

[fromageGB]

In a transfer walsh context, giving up a "natural" 2♣ responder rebid is a very worthwhile. However, while I have never played complex continuations (my partners and I prefer something simple that our ageing brain cells can cope with) it seems to me that after opener's 1NT rebid an XYZ structure is inferior to transfers. Transfers offer you more possible equences.

It is easy to cater for invitational or better hands, whatever methods you use, but weak hands are the problem, and playing transfers gives you more ability to do this, and to distinguish different hand types. Frances Hinden's comments in the Hog's post a few years back are worth reading.

An important issue here is that if you decide to play transfer responder bids after an opener's 1NT rebid, do you do the same after opener just completes the major transfer? You could make it exactly the same, but if you had a sequence after 1NT to show a weak 44xx, then if that hand can be shown by rebidding 1NT after the 1♥ completion, then you have a spare sequence that can be put to better use.

Probably the reason that concepts such as transfer responder rebids are not publicised as the latest cutting edge developments in transfer walsh is because these sequences are inevitably complicated and detailed and reflect the partnership's feelings on many issues, such as the simple one of how important is it to show a minor in less than GF hands, as opposed to describing the majors better, and whether they are happy with having to get to the 3 level with some invitational-but-declined major fit hands. Consequently the methods are just suitable for that one partnership.

I think it boils down to "get a like-minded partner and roll your own". And yes, I agree this is suitable for intermediates - unless your definition of advanced is "has non-simple agreements". But I think any growing partnership benefits from agreements, even if they don't recognise a lesser spotted squeeze when one flies past.