The BIFF response: reply to the logistics, not the bait
Brief, Informative, Friendly, Firm. Four sentences, zero material, topic closed. Plus the thirty-minute rule and one written channel.
When you need this
A message arrives. One sentence in it is aimed exactly where it hurts, and the reflex says: answer now. Explain. Defend. Set the record straight. You have done that before, in three careful paragraphs, and you know what came back.
You need this tool if your written exchanges with the other parent keep growing longer and angrier, and if you suspect that your own replies are doing part of the work. It belongs to a high-conflict divorce. If yours is not one, take the test first; ordinary warmth is the right tool for an ordinary disagreement.
First: one channel, everything in writing
The phone is for urgent matters concerning the child. Everything else goes through one written channel, whether that is email or a co-parenting app that timestamps every message.
Writing has three properties that speech does not. It cannot be retold differently. It gives you time. And it builds a record. Every message you send is written for two readers: the other parent, and the judge who will one day read it. Their messages do the same work for you.
BIFF: four words
BIFF is Bill Eddy’s standard for answering a hostile message. The book reproduces it like this:
- Brief. Four sentences, not four paragraphs. Length is fuel.
- Informative. Facts and logistics. Zero characterisations of the other person.
- Friendly. A neutral tone that looks correct on paper. Not warm, not cold.
- Firm. It closes the topic. It does not open a negotiation.
It works because it gives no fuel: no emotions, no advice, no defence, and no questions that invite a debate.
Reply to the logistics, not the bait
In almost every hostile message there is a thin slice of logistics and a large helping of bait. A time. A date. A request to confirm something. Around it: what kind of parent you are, what everyone knows about you, what will happen if.
The reply goes only to the logistics. The bait is not commented on. Not corrected, not acknowledged, not answered with wounded dignity. Never. The book calls this gray rock in written form: a gray stone, nothing to hook onto.
This will feel like letting a lie stand. It is not. Inaccuracies are corrected where that belongs: in your journal, through your lawyer, at a hearing. A reply to the other parent is not the place, because a reply is what the message was written to obtain.
The thirty-minute rule
A drafted reply waits half an hour before it is sent. Write it if you must. Then leave it. Nothing in a divorce is as urgent as it looks at the moment of reading.
A reply sent in anger is the only document in the file that you produced against yourself.
After thirty minutes, read the draft as the second reader would, the one in the courtroom. Delete every sentence that answers bait. What is left is usually BIFF already.
Before and after
“Once again you’ve shown how little you care. Everyone knows what kind of parent you are. If you don’t confirm by tomorrow, I’ll decide by myself.”
“How little I care? I have rearranged my work three times this month while you cancelled twice without a word. ‘Everyone’ means your sister. And you don’t get to decide by yourself, there is a plan, which you would know if you ever read it. I’m tired of being spoken to like this…” It goes on for three paragraphs of defence and counter-attack, and it ends up in the file as proof of conflict.
“I received your message. For Saturday, I confirm pick-up at 10:00, as set out in the plan. Changes to the schedule need to be agreed in advance, in writing. Have a good day.”
Four sentences. Zero material. Topic closed.
What this is not
- It is not the silent treatment. BIFF answers every real question about the child, promptly and completely. Withholding information about a child is not gray rock; it is obstruction.
- It is not a way to win, to provoke or to punish. If you catch yourself polishing a BIFF reply so that it stings, the thirty minutes are not over.
- It will not change the other parent. It changes what you add to the file, and what your evenings cost you.
- It is not an insult to anyone. The other parent is never characterised, in the reply or anywhere else. Respect the person, watch the pattern.
- It is not a safety plan. A person who is a victim of violence deserves protection, unconditionally. If you or your child are in danger, this page is not your first step: your local emergency number and domestic-violence services are.
- Nothing here is legal advice. Procedure, deadlines and the names of institutions differ from country to country; a lawyer who practises family law where you live is the person to ask.
Beneath the Divorce, ch. 16 (“Protocol”), section III
BIFF itself is not the book’s invention. It is the standard developed by Bill Eddy of the High Conflict Institute, and the book credits him for it. The thirty-minute rule is the author’s own, learned, as he writes, the harder way.
“Beneath the Divorce” is the working title of a book by Miroslav Ćurčić. It is still being written. The chapter this tool comes from is finished; the book is not.
About the book →Questions people ask
What does BIFF stand for?
Brief, Informative, Friendly, Firm. It is a format for replying to hostile messages developed by Bill Eddy of the High Conflict Institute. Brief means about four sentences; informative means facts and logistics only; friendly means a neutral, correct tone; firm means the reply closes the topic rather than opening a negotiation.
How do I respond to a hostile email from my ex?
Find the logistics inside the message, such as a time, a date or something to confirm, and reply only to that in about four neutral sentences. Do not comment on the accusations. Let the draft wait thirty minutes before sending, and keep all communication in one written channel.
What is the gray rock method in co-parenting?
Gray rock means giving a provocation nothing to hook onto. Between parents, who cannot cut contact because of the child, the book applies it in writing: the reply addresses logistics and never the bait. It is not silence; real questions about the child are always answered.
Should I correct false accusations in my reply?
Not in the reply. The book’s advice is to let the bait pass uncommented and to correct inaccuracies where that belongs: in your documentation, through your lawyer and at a hearing. A defence sent to the other parent mostly becomes new material.
Related tools
Do you recognise this?
The tools are the practical half of the book. The other half is recognition: moments that parents in a long dispute describe in almost the same sentences. Read them and see which are yours. A pattern you can see loses some of its power.
Do you recognise this? →