[han]

skaeran, on Sep 11 2007, 01:20 PM, said:

On the 2nd hand I also transfer to ♥s, planning to rebid 2♠ over a completion of the transfer.

Hmm, wouldn't that show a better hand?

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Sep 11 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

I challenge the claim that this is a good hand for Gazilli. If partner bids 2D (which most seem to play as a 8+, GF opposite the strong version), then you are fine, you can pattern out starting with 2H and rebidding 3D. But then he probably wouldn't have passed 2H, and you would have reached more or less the same point via 1S..2H..3D. However, if partner bids 2S over your 2C Gazilli, you are in a mess. Do you want to pass? Then you may miss games that standard bidders can get to. Do you bid 3H? Then you have lost extremely valuable space and have to give up on showing diamonds probably.

I disagree that pard will pass a direct 2♥ AND pass a delayed 2♥ via Gazilli. I think there are many 8-9 counts with 4 hearts where pard has to take a position and pass 2♥. This is a big pickup for Gazilli.

I agree its a problem when pard skips 2♦, but this is true with most Gazilli auctions. Perhaps 2♦ should simply be 'neutral' and a retreat to 2♠ should show a genuine dog - a semi-psyche with less than 6 but 3♠.

I "play" Gazilli, but many of these auctions are still developing for me.

[han]

pclayton, on Sep 11 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

I disagree that pard will pass a direct 2♥ AND pass a delayed 2♥ via Gazilli. I think there are many 8-9 counts with 4 hearts where pard has to take a position and pass 2♥.

He didn't say that, he said "probably".

[awm]

I'd bid 2♥ on both with no special agreements.

In Elianna and my methods, both are easy 2♣ bids, showing either of 4+♥ or 17+ hcp (modified Gazilli). The second hand I will just sell as a natural 2♥ rebid (pass partner's weakness showing 2♥ or 2♠, rebid 2♥ over 2♦ relay showing hearts and spades and a minimum). The first hand if partner bids 2♥ (weakness, would pass a natural 2♥ rebid) then I will try an invitational 3♥. If partner bids 2♠ (weakness, doubleton spade and less than four hearts) then I'll try a pass -- yes we could miss a diamond game on our 21-23 hcp but bidding on also risks getting too high if partner has some 2335 with minimum values. If partner bids 2♦ (relay, 8-10 hcp) then I'll continue with 2♠ (showing 5+♠, 4♥, now GF) planning to pattern out with 3♦ next.

While I understand that there are hands where partner is weak with good diamonds and we have a game, isn't it more likely that partner is weak with good clubs and we need to stay low?

[cherdano]

Btw, I am not making this problem up, Han and me played "riton" for a while (which is different but close enough to Gazilli) and gave it up exactly for problems with shapely hands like this one. Of course the decision was based more on a matter of taste than knowledge of superiority of standard bidding.

The gains on Gazilli don't come on a hand like this one, they come on hands where you have a 16-count 5422 that doesn't know whether to bid on over 1S 1N 2H 2S, or on hands where you bid 1S 1N 2H and partner can safely pass knowing you are limited, or on the auction 1S 1N 2H 3H (which is a real invite not a courtesy raise).

[awm]

There are, however, also advantages to Gazilli when opener holds a game-forcing hand. In standard bidding opener is often forced to show the values by jumping, leading to situations like:

(1) Opener has a strong 5440 and can never show the third suit, because he had to jump rebid 3♥ at second turn to avoid being passed and would have to bypass 3NT to show the minor now. In Gazilli, at least if partner finds the 2♦ relay you have plenty of space to show the pattern (if partner is too weak to relay, at least you haven't really lost anything to standard).

(2) Opener has a strong one-suiter, and is forced to either manufacture a 3m rebid or rebid something at the four-level. This tends to reduce space to explore (rebid at four-level), or create ambiguity (when responder in fact has a good fit for the manufactured 3m bid.)

(3) Opener has a distributional two-suiter with game values, but finds it difficult to distinguish this from a flatter strong hand because both hands make the same jump rebid. For example, in standard opener with a 5-5 majors strong hand opens 1♠ and rebids 3♥, but responder doesn't know if this 3♥ bid shows four or five cards, and opener will often be at a guess over 3NT by responder, whereas in Gazilli you are better placed.

(4) Opener has a strong balanced hand, planning to rebid 2NT. But now responder needs to be able to both show a shapely lousy hand that wants to sign off at the three-level and show a shapely hand with some interest in slam (or an alternative game) opposite opener's extras. Obviously playing transfers over 2NT rebid helps somewhat with this, but Gazilli allows you to get out in 3♣ (3♣ weak over 2♣ gazilli) or to get out in opener's better minor (2NT weakness over 2♣ gazilli), as well as to start an optional cuebidding auction at the three-level on the game-going hands (often you have to transfer and then bid 3NT playing transfers, which opener knows is a mild try but you've potentially lost most of a level to cuebid).

[kenrexford]

2♥ on both.

Partner can bid four of the highest unbid suit, or cue an overcall, as choice.

Partner can bid 3NT as a super-accept of hearts.

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Sep 11 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

skaeran, on Sep 11 2007, 01:20 PM, said:

On the 2nd hand I also transfer to ♥s, planning to rebid 2♠ over a completion of the transfer.

Hmm, wouldn't that show a better hand?

Well, I think this IS a better hand.

[han]

Well ok, I guess that depends on opening standards. For me this is a nice hand but I wouldn't sell it as "extras". Maybe that's not what your sequence shows either, I would enjoy it if you could elaborate on your methods.

[Walddk]

Call me a pedant, but the name of the Italian convention is Gazzilli.

http://www.padovabri...ie/gazzilli.htm

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Sep 11 2007, 11:29 PM, said:

Well ok, I guess that depends on opening standards. For me this is a nice hand but I wouldn't sell it as "extras". Maybe that's not what your sequence shows either, I would enjoy it if you could elaborate on your methods.

My sequence shows extras - some potential. And we DO open quite light. The ♠9 and ♥JT is what allows me to bid once more. I'd not do it if you take away the ♠9 or the ♥T - that's how borderline this is for me.

[jdonn]

2♥ on both. Easy decision on both. Don't get caught up in the fact that some other bid could possibly work better in either case, just make your normal bid.

[the hog]

2H on both hands. What Josh said above.

[ochinko]

Obviously I am missing something here as it seems like most experts are unanimous that with both hands the normal rebid is 2♥. I am a bit disappointed that very little reasoning was presented. Only Frances Hinden gave an explanation.

Since there is no known fit it would be incorrect to count losers. But if we count points the first one contains 6 more. More often than not this translates to two trick more.

Lets say we don't care about the points (shmoints). Still, I don't see why 2 Aces, 2 Kings and a void can be equated to 1 Ace, 1 King, and a singleton. By that method the first hand seems to be even 3 tricks better. That's more than the gap between a game and a slam.

Why do we cater for the remote possibility that partner could have answered with 5 points when it is at least four times more likely that 1NT was a proper bid, and partner will pass 2♥ with 2=3=4=4 when we would have not only a hearts game but a slam in diamonds?

Wouldn't we bid the same way if we had Kxxxx-AKxx-xx-xx? How is partner be able to make an educated decision if we rebid the same way with 7 losers as we do with 4?

I agree that we can't be certain we have a game with the first hand. I just think the probabilities are on our side to have one, and the danger of seeing 2♥ passed is too big.

[mikeh]

ochinko, on Sep 12 2007, 08:49 AM, said:

Obviously I am missing something here as it seems like most experts are unanimous that with both hands the normal rebid is 2♥. I am a bit disappointed that very little reasoning was presented. Only Frances Hinden gave an explanation.

One reason may be that this type of question has been posted before, so some of us have posted at length on similar issues. Another reason is that Frances' posts really did a good job... and how many times do you need to read the same arguments? Yes, you may miss a game on the big hand by rebidding 2♥. You may even miss a slam or grand slam. But standard-based bidding, including 2/1, is imperfect (as is every other method so far invented). If you think that you should reach every good contract and avoid every bad one, then you are not playing a game with which any of the rest of us are familiar. Bridge is imperfect: bidding methods involve compromise. The expert consensus is not to overbid big hands. Your choice may differ.... but consider why the most experienced, and most successful, posters vote 2♥.

[cherdano]

ochinko, on Sep 12 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

Why do we cater for the remote possibility that partner could have answered with 5 points when it is at least four times more likely that 1NT was a proper bid, and partner will pass 2♥ with 2=3=4=4 when we would have not only a hearts game but a slam in diamonds?

Partner shouldn't pass with 2=3=4=4 (and note that passing would be wrong opposite both hands in this thread). That's of course partly the point of bidding 2♥ with the strong hand, since you are very likely to get another bid you can afford to bid 2♥ with a wide range, just as you can afford to open 1♥ with a wide range in standard since you can clarify the range later.

[ochinko]

cherdano, on Sep 12 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

ochinko, on Sep 12 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

Why do we cater for the remote possibility that partner could have answered with 5 points when it is at least  four times more likely that 1NT was a proper bid, and partner will pass 2♥ with 2=3=4=4 when we would have not only a hearts game but a slam in diamonds?

Partner shouldn't pass with 2=3=4=4 (and note that passing would be wrong opposite both hands in this thread). That's of course partly the point of bidding 2♥ with the strong hand, since you are very likely to get another bid you can afford to bid 2♥ with a wide range, just as you can afford to open 1♥ with a wide range in standard since you can clarify the range later.

But then again you don't want another bid from partner who is 2=3=4=4 when your hand is Kxxxx-AKxx-xx-xx, do you?

[cherdano]

ochinko, on Sep 12 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 12 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

ochinko, on Sep 12 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

Why do we cater for the remote possibility that partner could have answered with 5 points when it is at least  four times more likely that 1NT was a proper bid, and partner will pass 2♥ with 2=3=4=4 when we would have not only a hearts game but a slam in diamonds?

Partner shouldn't pass with 2=3=4=4 (and note that passing would be wrong opposite both hands in this thread). That's of course partly the point of bidding 2♥ with the strong hand, since you are very likely to get another bid you can afford to bid 2♥ with a wide range, just as you can afford to open 1♥ with a wide range in standard since you can clarify the range later.

But then again you don't want another bid from partner who is 2=3=4=4 when your hand is Kxxxx-AKxx-xx-xx, do you?

Yes I do, the 5-2 fit is usually preferable to the 4-3 fit when we are not very strong.

[han]

ochinko, on Sep 12 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

But then again you don't want another bid from partner who is 2=3=4=4 when your hand is Kxxxx-AKxx-xx-xx, do you?

The 5-2 fit often plays better than the 4-3 fit so I don't see why not. Also, some of us might not open that hand.

[mikeh]

ochinko, on Sep 12 2007, 08:49 AM, said:

Why do we cater for the remote possibility that partner could have answered with 5 points when it is at least  four times more likely that 1NT was a proper bid, and partner will pass 2♥ with 2=3=4=4 when we would have not only a hearts game but a slam in diamonds?

Wouldn't we bid the same way if we had Kxxxx-AKxx-xx-xx? How is partner be able to make an educated decision if we rebid the same way with 7 losers as we do with 4?

I agree that we can't be certain we have a game with the first hand. I just think the probabilities are on our side to have one, and the danger of seeing 2♥ passed is too big.

I would not consider the possibility of a 5 or 6 hcp 1N to be remote.. and this may be where your ideas depart from the current expert consensus approach.

Most good players today, playing 2/1 or any other wide-range natural 1-level opening method will strain to respond. So it would be a rare 5 count on which I passed partner's 1♠ opening.

Further adding to the problem is the use of point count arithmetic on hands like these. Simply stating that responder has 'x' number of points tells you almost nothing about the combined trick potential of the 2 hands. Degree of fit and number of 'working' points is far, far more relevant.

A jumpshift by opener is a statement that 'no matter what you hold, I want to be in game'. As such it is a clear overbid... opener's hand really wants to say: 'opposite a fitting minimum I want to be in game'.

This is a critical distinction, and impacts responder's approach.

Responder should upgrade his hand with a fitting minimum. Yes, there will be missed games when even an upgrade won't convince responder to bid, but that will be 'remote' in terms of frequency. Playing this style, responder knows that opener could have a very good hand.. .a hand just short of a jumpshift so with a fitting hand, responder will often scrape up a raise.

You are quite right in suggesting that this approach will sometimes get you to, say, 3♥ when opener has a minimum (which for me would be better than your posted example) and the contract fails. But, as I said earlier, wide-range natural systems have this inherent flaw built in and no matter how you parse your jumpshift/no jumpshift or 1 level opening-2♣ opening and similar divisions, some hands will inevitably be either overbid or underbid. If you spend your time trying to avoid underbidding, you will lose a lot by overbidding, and vice versa.

The experts who advocate 2♥ on the big hand know this, usually from personal experience as well as from debates with others and from reading. So far, the expert consensus seems to be that, where partner is still involved and where we may want to introduce a 3rd suit, we go low.