[sceptic]

what is galdiator

[sceptic]

gladiator )

[hrothgar]

Gladiator is an artifical 2♣ response over a 1NT opening
2♣ serves as a puppet to 2♦

What's old is new again...

[dogsbreath]

hi ..
isnt 'gladiater' what Hanibal Lecter says after polishing off a female victim?
Rgds Dog

[cf_John0]

sceptic, on Dec 18 2004, 09:38 AM, said:

what is galdiator

If you mean "gladiator", you could make a reference to Gladiator:

http://home.nikocity...onvent/Glad.htm

[Double !]

GLADIATOR is a structure of response to 1NT opening bids (probably could be used in response to 1NT overcalls) where a response of 2 clubs asks opener to bid 2 diamonds at which point responder passes, bids another suit to play, or makes some other 3+ level bid, the meaning of which to be determined by the partnership. A response of 2 diamonds asks for a 4-card major and is supposed to promise at least game invitational values. Opener denies a 4-card major by bidding 2NT with a minimum, by jumping to 3NT with a hand that accepts the game invitation, or by making some 3-level response, agains the nature of which is a matter of partnership agreement. It is important to establish what follow-up sequences are and are not forcing.

What has not been mentioned so far is that this approach means that responses of 2 of a major are also game invitational (otherwise puppet with 2C and correct over 2D). LIke many conventions, this approach has its strengths and its limitations such as showing 2-suited hands. I played it many, many moons ago- we did OK with it.

[Double !]

OOPS- some might say that Gladiator can be used in response to 2NT openers. Matter of opinion---what else is new?

[NickToll]

Double !, on Dec 30 2004, 05:34 PM, said:

OOPS-  some might say that Gladiator can be used in response to 2NT openers.  Matter of opinion---what else is new?

Your description of Gladiator is great! This treatment was included in the first edition of the Roman Club (50's!), with the only small difference in 1NT-2♥♠ being forcing for one round. In the explanation of why using Gladiator instead of Stayman, Giorgio Belladonna wrote that, facing a strong NT (17-20 in early Roman Club) it seemed better using one negative and three positives at level 2, instead of three negatives and only one positive.

Using it over 2NT, I've never heard about. IMHO there is major argument against it: if 3♦ has to be the positive inquiry, primarily searching for a major fit for game, the step we lose against 3♣ is gold. After 3♦ there isn't enough space to distinguish a 5card major from a 4card one in the opening hand, and also responder's 5-4 in the majors can't be properly explored within 3NT. A responding structure based on 5-card Stayman (or Romex Stayman), Jacoby transfers and minor-oriented 3♠ seems to be much more efficient...

By the way: this is my first post on this great forum. Cheers everybody!