[benlessard]

http://www.rpbridge.net/5m81.htm

This is also my favorite style but im practically forced to play xyz in my casual partnership.

Anyway I thought it was a pretty good explanation of the style and I dont remeber having seen this page before.

[awm]

It may depend on the auction.

For example, 1H-1S-2D-3C basically has to be game force as you have passed many of your safe resting spots and opener's descriptive rebid may well take you to game on a min!

1D-1H-2C-2S you probably want GF also, since the many times opener is not bidding 2nt may leave you cramped (i.e. partner bids 3C and I have a club invite... is partner max or min?)

In the cheaper auctions he gives as examples, 4th suit INV is certainly better on the INV hands. But GF allows you opener's third pattern bid, which can be huge on some slam hands. You also can try something like XYZ to get the best of both (at the cost of a 2C s/o in some cases).

My style is to use a repeat of the 4th suit as a punt, which eliminates the supposed "ambiguity" in auctions like 1H-1S-2C-2D-3C-3H; this is a real heart fit as a hand without clear direction bids 3D. I think that particular argument is not very convincing.

It does seem like the majority expert treatment is GF these days...

[mgoetze]

 benlessard, on 2013-August-19, 22:34, said:

http://www.rpbridge.net/5m81.htm

This is also my favorite style but im practically forced to play xyz in my casual partnership.

Anyway I thought it was a pretty good explanation of the style and I dont remeber having seen this page before.

Unfortunately Pavlicek doesn't compare with XYZ at all as far as I can see. XYZ seems clearly superior to me on all the auctions where it applies, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think otherwise.

The only auction where I can see the point is 1♥-1♠; 2♣. But if I were designing a structure specifically for this auction I think I could do even better. Off the top of my head, how about 2♦ puppet to 2♥, either to sign off somewhere at the 2-level or GF with club support; 2♥/2♠/2NT/3♣ all NAT INV; 3♦ asks for a (half)stopper; 3♥/♠ NAT GF.

[Siegmund]

This same style is what is advocated in Commonsense Bidding and Modern Bridge Conventions.

"The point" of playing FSF-INV is to make other sequences like 1C-1H-1S-3C, 1C-1H-1S-3H, and in some partnerships 1C-1H-1S-3S, gameforcing, which beats the pants off having everything except FSF be invitational.

XYZ wasn't around at the time Pavlicek started advocating that method; FSF-Game and FSF-Round were the two competing toys.

XYZ has wisely restored some badly needed forcing sequences. It shares that benefit, with Pavlicek's method, that most of those second-round jumps become forcing again.

Is XYZ or Pavlicek 'better'? Pavlicek's way allows 1C-1H-1S-2C, for instance, to be natural and weak (either to be passed, or corrected back to hearts if opener has 3 hearts.) XYZ abandons weak minor-oriented hands, in exchange for providing more invitational and GF sequences than you can shake a stick at. Do you need 1C-1H-1S-2D-any-3H and 1C-1H-1S-3H to BOTH be game forces with long hearts? Maybe you have a useful distinction between these auctions. Some people don't.

Personally, I think XYZ is a bit misguided, in that it is set up to favor invitational sequences at the expense of weak pass-or-correct sequences. a natural 1D-1S-1NT-2D can be corrected back to spades while a forced 1D-1S-1NT-2C-2D signoff cannot. Others find the tradeoff is worth it.

[lycier]

who want to play 2♣?actually opps are easier to make some decisions for the balance in the some cases,it pay very little since XYZ abandons weak minor-oriented hands, it is worth of auction in the probability.

[rhm]

 Siegmund, on 2013-August-22, 01:24, said:

Personally, I think XYZ is a bit misguided, in that it is set up to favor invitational sequences at the expense of weak pass-or-correct sequences. a natural 1D-1S-1NT-2D can be corrected back to spades while a forced 1D-1S-1NT-2C-2D signoff cannot. Others find the tradeoff is worth it.

If your opponents holding half the deck allow you to play in 2♣ when you have a good club fit I would agree.
Isn't that the whole point of XYZ?

However I never fully understood why standard XYZ forces you to accept the puppet of 2♣ when holding three cards in partner's bid major.
I always played that accepting the puppet and bid (2♦) denies three cards in partner's major.
As far as I know Hamman-Zia did likewise.
This addresses your second point.

Rainer Herrmann

[RGranville]

I'm not at all convinced by the system of rebids described in the article.

It works OK if the GF hand has a clear direction, but supposing that responder is exploring for the best strain? Now you need to use 4SF and continue with an informative, forcing bid.

Consider the hand

♠A5
♥KJ964
♦Q82
♣AJ5

after the bidding 1♦-1♥-2♣. There's clearly no alternative to bidding 2♠ 4SF. If partner rebids 3♣ you surely want to continue with a forcing 3♦.

The simplest approach is just to play 4SF as GF. You may sometimes get stuck when you have an invitational hand, but if this is the case I tend to make a weak rebid with 10 points and use 4SF with a reasonable 12 points. It's only with 11 points that you occasionally have to rebid 2NT without a full stop in the unbid suit.

[Fluffy]

I read the article and I was surprised he didn't take into account GF hands with no clear direction, how is that even possible?

[benlessard]

In my style 2NT is GF with no clear direction.

Switching direct and delayed 2NT is probably also possible. Direct 2nt is inv and new minor 2Y ... 2NT GF.

[gnasher]

 RGranville, on 2013-August-22, 07:31, said:

I'm not at all convinced by the system of rebids described in the article.

It works OK if the GF hand has a clear direction, but supposing that responder is exploring for the best strain? Now you need to use 4SF and continue with an informative, forcing bid.

Consider the hand

♠A5
♥KJ964
♦Q82
♣AJ5

after the bidding 1♦-1♥-2♣. There's clearly no alternative to bidding 2♠ 4SF. If partner rebids 3♣ you surely want to continue with a forcing 3♦.

Wouldn't this hand bid 3♦ on the second round?

[awm]

Seems to me he gives three kinds of examples:

1-4 stopping lower on invites. However, all of these examples are one-level auctions where XYZ could apply. In fact two of them end in 1NT where two-way checkback can apply. Further, some people play invitational jump shifts to the two-level which handle some of these hands.

5-7 ambiguity in slam auction. But the problem goes away if you play the rebid of the fourth suit as a punt at least when opener fails to rebid notrump. In fact 4th suit GF bidders are somewhat ahead in these cases now due to more shape information. For example:

---

Mr. Pavlicek bids 3♥ forcing, which works fine. Playing 4th suit GF we bid 2♦ and opener rebids 3♣. If we still don't know where we're headed opposite the 5/5 hand, we can bid 3♦ (fourth suit forcing again). Therefore the 3♥ bid carries just the same information as in Mr. Pavlicek's auction. In fact we are somewhat ahead because responder knows more about opener's shape at the same level of bidding.

8-10 directionless invitation. These are indeed a problem, but there are also directionless game forces. For example:

---

If opener has a hand like ♠xx ♥AKQxxx ♦x ♣KQxx then slam is excellent. Of course, opener could also have two or even three small diamonds, or weaker hearts. How do we set hearts and look for slam? Perhaps 4♦ serves this purpose but we still have no room to cuebid below game. How much easier if 2♦ was GF, opener had bid 2♥, and we could bid 3♥ to set the suit?

If opener bid 3♠ instead of 3♥ we have a similar problem -- he could have ♠QJx ♥AKQxx ♦x ♣Kxxx where slam is cold. Or he could have ♠QJx ♥QJTxx ♦A ♣KQxx where we are off two cashers. Keycard won't help here. Again, easier if 2♦ was GF, opener had bid 2♠, and we could bid 3♠ to set the suit and look for slam.

Surely the "directionless game force" is more common than the "directionless invite" considering that invites belong to a pretty narrow point range.

Finally, there is something nice to be said for consistency. In competition the jump rebids are invitational (11-12); by passed hand the jump rebids are invitational (13); even in some awkward auctions the jump rebids should be invitational (1♥-2♠-2♦-3♥, since bidding 3♣ to invite is impractical). Certainly easier for jump rebid to always be invitational!

[mikestar13]

I prefer XYZ in the sequences where it is available, and to prefer the FSF to be GF, but I have played it both ways. RP is right to credit Goren with teaching all second round jumps by responder are GF (forcing style), But Goren didn't invent the style, Culberetson taught forcing style in his Gold Book (1936), though he taught limit style in his Blue Book (1930). In the 30's fourth suit was usually natural.

[rhm]

 awm, on 2013-August-22, 18:22, said:

---

Mr. Pavlicek bids 3♥ forcing, which works fine. Playing 4th suit GF we bid 2♦ and opener rebids 3♣. If we still don't know where we're headed opposite the 5/5 hand, we can bid 3♦ (fourth suit forcing again). Therefore the 3♥ bid carries just the same information as in Mr. Pavlicek's auction. In fact we are somewhat ahead because responder knows more about opener's shape at the same level of bidding.

I beg to differ, at least assuming standard FSF style. If you compare different styles one has to be fair to both sides.
The FSF sequence does not guarantee such good hearts and assurance is crucial in slam auctions. I would bid 3♥ over 3♣ with the East hand if the ♥T were a small minor suit card.
Sometimes your best game is a major 5-2 fit.
I would want something useful in diamonds before bidding 3♦. Sometimes you may have no option, but this is what I would expect. This helps in finding the right game and choice of games bidding precedes over slam bidding.
If the repeated FSF bid (3♦) must cover too many hands your game selection will suffer.
FSF sequences are often murky, because they have to cover too many hands. It does not differ well between strong directional hands and hands with no clear direction.
The latter type are probably more common, but slam is much more frequently an issue on the hands with a clear direction.
If you can establish a good game forcing fit early, you tend to have an advantage
It is a win for the forcing jump preference style, which makes the trump support clear, which is essentially one of RP arguments.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

fwiw
1h=1s
2c=3h

so rare everyone is going to try for slam whatever 3h should mean.
OTOH going through messy 2d 4sf no one is going to stop...

I don't find any of these hands an issue playing walsh and xyz but ok.

This seems like yet another tiny tiny issue only a few will care about out of 2 million.

[benlessard]

In MP XYZ is better but in IMPS I slightly prefer 4thsInv

IMO after 1x-1y-1NT in IMPS its pretty tough to go wrong with any modern method. You should get to the best game/slam fairly easily. Sometimes there is some 5-2 games that are better than 3nt even if you got a stopper but ive rarely lost imps on that auction even if they are frequent. If you play XYZ here and have no problem don't change its good enough. IMO you wont get rich by stopping in 2C here.



1C-1H-1S
Walsh or no walsh here I like to stop in 2C the 2C signoff is just worth a lot more than the 2D sign off. This mean that some directionless GF are in 2NT and some could still be in 2D.

1C-1D-1S (unbal)
I slightly prefer to play 1S non-forcing here and play both 2m NF. This mean that 2H can be a good 2S raise or a 2nt/3m bid. XYZ is just slighty inferior here so I dont really care one way or another.

1D-1H-1S

here 4th suit F has the advantage to INV and stop at 2D but the cost is that GF is in 2NT not 2D. So XYZ is better here.

----------------------------------------------------
1red-1S-2C

here its obvious for me that 2 other red as INV is a lot better than forcing.

Quote

5-7 ambiguity in slam auction. But the problem goes away if you play the rebid of the fourth suit as a punt at least when opener fails to rebid notrump. In fact 4th suit GF bidders are somewhat ahead in these cases now due to more shape information. For example:

I disagree there is a point where the punt need to show half a stopper.

[mgoetze]

 benlessard, on 2013-August-24, 09:19, said:

1C-1H-1S
Walsh or no walsh here I like to stop in 2C the 2C signoff is just worth a lot more than the 2D sign off. This mean that some directionless GF are in 2NT and some could still be in 2D.

I'm taking a closer look at this one because it is the only one which is relevant to my Transfer Walsh system (therein the equivalent auction 1♣-1♦; 1♠). To my chagrin, I can't quite figure out what Mr. Pavlicek intends the continuation structure to be.

Under 2. he tells us that the only real advantage of his method is when opener has heart support and responder a spade invitation, the bidding then going 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2♠.

Under 8. he then implies that opener is to jump with a maximum, by proposing the auction 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♦; 2NT-p as an example of opener showing a minimum and deciding on NT.

But then, if the auction goes 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♦; 3NT, who actually has the stopper? And if it's not necessarily opener, how does he show a nonminimum 4225 without a stopper?

The whole thing would make more sense to me if I ignored Mr. Pavlicek and assumed the following structure:

1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♦; ...

...2♥ would decline a heart invite
...2♠ would accept a heart invite but decline a spade invite
...2NT would accept a heart/spade invite but decline otherwise
...3♣ 4315/4306 non-minimum

though I guess that would be awkward if responder was planning to invite in hearts and opener actually has a singleton/void.

[benlessard]

Your right Paradox responses are better. It allow you to have 2 way invitation.

AKx
Jxxxxx
Kxx
x

1C-1H-1S-2D

over 2H (refuse a H inv) Ill be happy to bid 2NT avoiding a 6-0,6/1 H fit.

[antonylee]

http://www.hegerm.ch...tes/4ecoul.html
Interesting reading, but in French: Alain Lévy suggests to play 4SF as promising a rebid; this rebid is then GF if at the 3-level but NF if at the 2-level.

[Douglas43]

 antonylee, on 2013-August-26, 01:53, said:

http://www.hegerm.ch...tes/4ecoul.html
Interesting reading, but in French: Alain Lévy suggests to play 4SF as promising a rebid; this rebid is then GF if at the 3-level but NF if at the 2-level.

Thanks to mgoetze for posting links

Looking back at this old post, my French is not good enough for M Levy's article.

The (slightly different) style below is reasonably common in the UK. FSF is used a lot in Acol.

As a general principle a new suit at the 3 level in an uncontested constructive auction is forcing to game (with specified exception for transfers out of 1NT). Consistent with that principle, FSF at the 3 level is GF.


FSF at a lower level is forcing for one round only, so a minimum bid by the other partner can be passed, but the situation becomes GF if

• the person replying to FSF makes a non-minimum rebid or
• the person who used FSF bids again.

[pescetom]

 Douglas43, on 2021-May-17, 09:13, said:

FSF at a lower level is forcing for one round only, so a minimum bid by the other partner can be passed, but the situation becomes GF if

• the person replying to FSF makes a non-minimum rebid or
• the person who used FSF bids again.

To each his own poison, but that sounds perverse to me. Even if you do not want to play FSF as an unconditional game force, surely it makes sense to promise a rebid: that way the person replying can bid in economy, giving you the shape information you need to decide what to do next.