[jillybean]

Some play XYZ on over any 1-1-1 bid, others only play it over 1-1-1 ending in a suit and not 1-1-1nt

Is either approach 'expert standard', and why.

Thanks.

[smerriman]

 jillybean, on 2024-June-13, 19:26, said:

others only play it over 1-1-1 ending in a suit and not 1-1-1nt

*citation required

Not that I know many experts, but I don't recall ever reading someone playing XYZ but not after 1NT (do they really play the main alternative, NMF instead?!)

Usually the discussions are all about semantics - whether you call it XYNT, 2-way checkback, 2-way NMF, or simply a subset of XYZ, it seems to be very standard after a 1NT rebid to play 2♣ as puppet to 2♦ and 2♦ GF, with a few variations around things like 2N bids.

XYZ then refers to whether you also play that concept over 1-1-1suit.

[DavidKok]

'XYZ' specifically refers to any 1-1-1 auction. In fact, that's the name of the convention, it stands for "1X-1Y; 1Z-?". Many experienced partnerships choose to limit where the convention is 'on', but typically the 1NT rebids are the most favourable use cases, rather than the least favourable ones. If you only play it over "1X-1Y; 1NT-?" this is also called 'XYNT'.

I have some personal preferences on when (not) to play the XYZ module, especially in a T-Walsh or Dutch Doubleton context. That being said with pickup partners I usually just agree on XYZ always - it's not great, but it avoids confusion.
The 2NT auctions and direct jumps to the 3-level are another story entirely (quite some people people, playing XYZ, have no agreement about what 1♣-1♥; 1♠-3♣ means, or 3♦), and here too I have some preferences but it's beyond the scope of the question.

[pescetom]

It is my impression that there is an important distinction that precedes and influences 2NT and jumps to 3 level, namely the scope of the first two bids available. For some 2♦ seems to be the *only* game force available, and so a jump to 3 level is free as a different nuance of invitational, or whatever (I suspect this is/was the original treatment). Whereas for many of us 2♣ is the *only* invite and so 2♦ is a game force seeking direction, 2NT must be a Puppet of some kind and a jump to 3 level can be a game force with direction.

[jdiana]

 smerriman, on 2024-June-13, 20:07, said:

*citation required

https://www.larryco....ge-articles/xyz

(I don't play XYZ and am not an expert, but I also thought it referred to any 1-1-1 auction so was surprised to see this.)

[jillybean]

Thanks, I have always played it over 1-1-1 anything but recently came across a pair who were adamant that the "correct method" is only after 1-1-1suit. Perhaps they follow Cohen. It's a little alarming trying to swim in this big pool of bridge players. Many have inflated ego's, dominating personalities a lot of influence on local players.
I like to prefix anything I say with "there are so many ways to play this game, this is what I do...".

"Expert Standard" is I assume a North American thing, influenced by the top ACBL players?

I'm not playing much bridge at all at the moment but my partner whom I hope to play more with when I'm back playing, (T-Walsh, 10-12nt etc) had a 2 hour session on Expert Std with Daniel Korbel during a break in Penticton. I'm looking forward to discussing that with him when he's back.

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2024-June-14, 08:08, said:

Thanks, I have always played it over 1-1-1 anything but recently came across a pair who were adamant that the "correct method" is only after 1-1-1suit. Perhaps they follow Cohen. It's a little alarming trying to swim in this big pool of bridge players. Many have inflated ego's, dominating personalities a lot of influence on local players.
I like to prefix anything I say with "there are so many ways to play this game, this is what I do...".

"Expert Standard" is I assume a North American thing, influenced by the top ACBL players?

I'm not playing much bridge at all at the moment but my partner whom I hope to play more with when I'm back playing, (T-Walsh, 10-12nt etc) had a 2 hour session on Expert Std with Daniel Korbel during a break in Penticton. I'm looking forward to discussing that with him when he's back.

Technically, at least as I learned the method, two way new minor was, afaik, invented first…so 2C puppet to 2D and 2D artificial game force after 1x 1Y 1N came into vogue earlier than did xyz. Certainly, I learned ‘2 way new minor’ several years before starting to play xyz, so it’s possible that the players you discuss were just confused…thinking that 2 way new minor, despite working the same as xyz, is a separate convention.

[DavidKok]

Truthfully, "Expert Standard" does not exist. There are some who claim that the term means "if I sit down opposite a random expert, never having met them before, I would expect them to play this", but that also doesn't really exist. I've been told repeatedly that in the USA in particular the methods are so homogeneous and unchanged that maybe locally this makes sense? In an online context in particular my impression is that sometimes people praise "Expert Standard" simply because they have never pierced their local bridge bubble and are unaware of alternatives to their personal style. I don't think "Expert Standard" involves feedback from actual experts at any stage.

If you want a source on bridge treatments that is well document, not too far out of date, and somewhat close to standard I continue to recommend Larry Cohen's website. There are a number of ways in which his preferences deviate from majority opinion, but by and large I find his approach superior in cases where they differ.

I'm sorry to hear that you have to deal with stubborn types during your bridge. If you are interested in the relative merits of a convention, XYZ in particular, after certain starts of the auctions I think looking into this may help clarify where you would want to play the module and where other alternatives are superior.

[smerriman]

 jdiana, on 2024-June-14, 06:08, said:

https://www.larryco....ge-articles/xyz

(I don't play XYZ and am not an expert, but I also thought it referred to any 1-1-1 auction so was surprised to see this.)

Wow, thanks - that is surprising.

Looking in more detail, I think I see why - his page on New Minor Forcing is different to what is normally taught - neither the traditional NMF nor the traditional 2-way.

He teaches it as two way - with 2♣ invitational and 2♦ GF, but 2♣ not being a puppet to 2♦, instead treating it as checkback (and giving up the ability to sign off in 2♦).

I guess since he prefers that, he distinguishes it from XYZ in other sequences.

[pescetom]

 smerriman, on 2024-June-14, 13:55, said:

Wow, thanks - that is surprising.

Looking in more detail, I think I see why - his page on New Minor Forcing is different to what is normally taught - neither the traditional NMF nor the traditional 2-way.

He teaches it as two way - with 2♣ invitational and 2♦ GF, but 2♣ not being a puppet to 2♦, instead treating it as checkback (and giving up the ability to sign off in 2♦).

I guess since he prefers that, he distinguishes it from XYZ in other sequences.

His page on XYZ was also written 14 years ago, when the way things had evolved and would go was less clear than it is now.
I find this chicken and egg debate interesting but also somewhat accademic, I think the real question is whether his preferences at that time (including multiple nuances of invite in XYZ) stand the test of time: I would argue that they deserve the dustbin.

[jillybean]

1x-1y-1z

2C - forces 2D weak or invitational hand
2D - GF
2H/2S to play
2NT - relay tro 3C

Do you use 3x to show a slammish hand, or do you go via 2D?

[DavidKok]

I use:

2NT: Relay to 3♣, to play or GF 5-5
3<new-suit-below-y>: GF, 4M, length in <new-suit>. Exact length depends on the auction.
3Y: Sets trumps, SI.

GF hands with 5(+)M begin with 2♦, since now we can find out about 3-card support at a low level. I have been told it is somewhat popular to invert direct 2NT and 2♣-then-2NT compared to the above.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2024-June-16, 08:20, said:

I use:

2NT: Relay to 3♣, to play or GF 5-5
3<new-suit-below-y>: GF, 4M, length in <new-suit>. Exact length depends on the auction.
3Y: Sets trumps, SI.

GF hands with 5(+)M begin with 2♦, since now we can find out about 3-card support at a low level. I have been told it is somewhat popular to invert direct 2NT and 2♣-then-2NT compared to the above.

I play the same scheme: obviously, 3Y requests a control-bid (or non-serious).

I hadn't heard of the 2NT inversion which apparently gains nothing: maybe because they also play 2♣ as a Marionette rather than a Puppet when Z is a suit, which I understand is quite common (although that would still fit better without the inversion, it would seem).

[DavidKok]

 pescetom, on 2024-June-16, 09:00, said:

I hadn't heard of the 2NT inversion which apparently gains nothing: maybe because they also play 2♣ as a Marionette rather than a Puppet when Z is a suit, which I understand is quite common (although that would still fit better without the inversion, it would seem).

I think it neither gains nor loses anything (there's some discussion on lead-directing doubles, and I think the natural invitational hand type might be more vulnerable to this, but also be able to take better advantage of a lead-directing double by siding the contract differently after it). I like the simplicity of "2♣ is weak diamonds or invitational", while I've been told others prefer the symmetry of "2NT is invitational NF" across a wider range of sequences.

Come to think of it, I've forgotten to mention some part of my XYZ structure. 2♣-then-3NT shows exactly 5M332 no SI, and allows opener to pass despite having 3-card support. This breaks the aforementioned simplicity. There are also idle sequences here (2♣-then-3oM, and 2♣-then-3♦ on certain sequences), and for me those are currently idle.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2024-June-16, 09:27, said:

I think it neither gains nor loses anything (there's some discussion on lead-directing doubles, and I think the natural invitational hand type might be more vulnerable to this, but also be able to take better advantage of a lead-directing double by siding the contract differently after it). I like the simplicity of "2♣ is weak diamonds or invitational", while I've been told others prefer the symmetry of "2NT is invitational NF" across a wider range of sequences.

Come to think of it, I've forgotten to mention some part of my XYZ structure. 2♣-then-3NT shows exactly 5M332 no SI, and allows opener to pass despite having 3-card support. This breaks the aforementioned simplicity. There are also idle sequences here (2♣-then-3oM, and 2♣-then-3♦ on certain sequences), and for me those are currently idle.

I'm perfectly aligned with you, in particular in liking the simplicity of 2♣ being weak diamonds or (the only) invitational sequence.
This and the 2NT Puppet open up a wide range of "illogical" sequences that more serious partnerships could exploit. Like you, I only play that 2♣ then 3NT is a game going 5332, but there are many idle sequences undiscussed.

[kgr]

I play xyz (or double 2) after any 1-1-1 and also if any of this 1 is a DBL or a RDBL.
But xyz is off when RHO is doing anything else then Pass right before the xyz.