[RunemPard]

A few weeks ago I played xyz for the first time with a player. We had discussed a lot, but I forgot to ask what this would show...

1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠?

If we bid the minor 1st only when having 10+ pts and 5/4, does this simply show shape and natural with 10+?

If we bid the minor 1st either way, is this then an invite asking for spade control with 2♣ showing a spade control?

[mike777]

if you play walsh and xyz then 1s natural 5d-4s and gf, why you play it 10+ I don't know.

With less you start with 1s.

[rhm]

mike777, on 2013-November-30, 15:08, said:

if you play walsh and xyz then 1s natural 5d-4s and gf, why you play it 10+ I don't know.

With less you start with 1s.

This is a valid question
Whether you play Walsh or not, if you play xyz, I think game forcing hands should be bid via 2♦. Opener can now easily show a four card spade suit via 2♠.
Likewise invitational hands are bid via 2♣.
It follows that 1♠ should be something different, for example if playing Walsh that spades are dubious and 1NT should be declared by opener.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

if you play walsh and xyz playing 1nt by responder is very dubious after a 1d reply rather than 1nt over 1c.

Keep in mind opener promises 5c and 4h....one diamond shows long d and denies 4s if less than gf. Now add to that responder denies an inv type hand and the opp are silent. Now you want to add the responder has weak spades. At this point we are discussing a very narrow range of hands.

[blackshoe]

In Romex, 1♣-1♦-1♥/1♠ shows an unbalanced hand with opener. Responder, if he has a four card major, has at least invitational, not at least GF, values, which latter seems to be the way most here want to play Walsh. Of course the 1♣ opening is also limited to some 18 HCP.

1♣-1♦-1NT shows a balanced 12-16 HCP. Now responder with invitational values bids 2♣ Checkback Stayman. With game values responder bids 2♦, also Checkback Stayman, but game forcing. With less than invitational values, responder probably passes.

I'm not sure how well XYZ fits into this structure. I'll have to think about it.

[lycier]

A few days ago I ask Steve Robinson,a famous USA star player,about this question online at BBO,he told me that he think that 1♠ should be 4th suit,2♠ is a reverse bid with 4♠,GF.

[mike777]

lycier, on 2013-November-30, 23:36, said:

A few days ago I ask Steve Robinson,a famous USA star player,about this question online at BBO,he told me that he think that 1♠ should be 4th suit,2♠ is a reverse bid with 4♠,GF.

I bet you did not say walsh and xyz.......words are important and yet confusing

that is why we have philosophy to overcome

[mike777]

lycier, on 2013-November-30, 23:36, said:

A few days ago I ask Steve Robinson,a famous USA star player,about this question online at BBO,he told me that he think that 1♠ should be 4th suit,2♠ is a reverse bid with 4♠,GF.

I bet you did not say walsh and xyz.......words are important and yet confusing.

[lycier]

mike777, on 2013-December-01, 00:00, said:

I bet you did not say walsh and xyz.......words are important and yet confusing.

You are totally wrong,I told him that the preconditions are I play XYZ and Walsh !!!
And you can ask him online.

[lycier]

mike777, on 2013-November-30, 23:56, said:

I bet you did not say walsh and xyz.......words are important and yet confusing

that is why we have philosophy to overcome

I ask Steve Robinson :
I play XYZ and Walsh

---

1- what's the meanings of 1♠?

---

2- what's the meanings of 2♠?

lycier, on 2013-November-30, 23:36, said:

A few days ago I ask Steve Robinson,a famous USA star player,about this question online at BBO,he told me that he think that 1♠ should be 4th suit,2♠ is a reverse bid with 4♠,GF.

[lycier]

so I think that the goal of 1♠ to to explore the best spot and leave room,maybe responder have no stopper in ♠ and let opener to be a declarer,of course,it is of imprtance. And then responder maybe pass,maybe bid others.

[lycier]

lycier, on 2013-November-14, 02:25, said:

这是一副我刚刚和机器人打出的牌面：

---

这副牌是值得参考的。
我觉得如果我再叫2nt，那机器人很可能pass。那么为什么机器人再叫2D逼局而不自己直接3nt？而北家的牌还需要什么进一步描述的？原因恐怕还是探查落脚点。

1- This hand is worthy of reference,why Robot bid 1♠ first? why not bid 3nt directly?
2- Larry Cohn had ever said that If using XYZ, it does not matter what the first 3 bids were, as long as they are all on the 1-level. The auction could even begin 1♣-1♦-1♥. (In that case, 1♠would be natural and 2♦ would be the artificial GF.
3-

lycier, on 2013-November-05, 05:01, said:

Supose 2S is 4th :

---

Now you get the best spot.

---

how to do next?

If you can't agree to these sequences,you can have a try to use XYZ.

---

I think all pass after 3♦ was reasonable.

the problems are:
1- protected card
2- who is best delarer?
3- how to look for the best contrct with adequate room?

For me, I would like to define 1♠ as 4th so as to look for best contract with adequate room,but 2♠ as 4 card with game force.

[Zelandakh]

We had this thread just a month ago.

[fromageGB]

But the OP never mentioned Walsh.
If Walsh does not apply, and we can ignore many of the above replies, then with the agreed XYZ to cover invitational and game forcing hands, I do not see the need for 4th suit forcing. I would play 1♠ here as natural and weak, up to 10hcp, for partner to pass or bid - possibly 1NT. This is perhaps the answer to the 2nd question : "no". Certainly 2♣ does not show spades, although you can show spades on the next bid.

If the "minor first" shows 10+ points, and 2♣ shows 11/12, then it seems to restrict the 1♠ to exactly 10. I would say a very odd combination of agreements.

[lycier]

---

Here Robot's hand,just for your reference.