BBO Discussion Forums: Gazzilli - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


#21 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2005-July-01, 16:17

I would be interested to know how you handle your 1H-1S-2C sequences.

I did not intend my third remark to mean that this convention is a bad idea. I really don't know. I also agree that by playing multi (which unfortunately is not allowed in most of the events I play in) your losses are less. I can also easily imagine that the 2H and 2S bids can work very well as preempts. However, by playing Riton instead of weak 2's or Muiderberg, you will open less hands and put less pressure on the opponents.

You obviously gain in some constructive auctions. Perhaps this convention can be compared with Flannery, where you also open at the 2-level with some minimal openings so that you can better deal with a constructive convention, 1NT forcing for Flannery, Gazilli for Riton. Is this a fair comparison?
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar

#22 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2005-July-03, 10:42

Just to add a bit of variety into the debate, I play yet another method after 1M-1NT (Semi-forcing), the basics of which I think were originally developed by English expert & system theorist Phil King. It's a bit like "backwards Gazilli" where 2C shows the weak hands... the full method is below:

We don't usually open 1NT (15-17) with a 5-card major unless it is very suitable for NT play (maybe 1 in 20 5332s in range).

A 1NT response to 1S denies a game force, may be a very weak 3-card spade raise or an invitational 3-card raise, denies 4-card spade support or an invitational hand with 6+ hearts.

A 1NT response to 1H is the same as above, but also denies 4S unless it is invitational with 3 hearts.

Opener passes the 1NT response on a min balanced hand (11- or 12- count). One advantage of the SF 1NT response is that we can open many balanced 5332 11-counts and pass 1NT happily, particularly NV.


1S - 1NT
2C = clubs, or (12)13-17 balanced, or 2.5 spade rebid
2D/2H/2S = natural, NF
2NT = (17)18-19 balanced
3C = FG with diamonds
3D = FG with hearts
3H = 5-5 in the majors, strongly INV but NF
3S = FG, slam interest
3NT = running 6-card spade suit, contract suggestion
4C/D/H = splinter for spades

1S - 1NT
2C -

2D = club support, or min
2H = constructive, 5/6 hearts (about 8-11)
2S = about (7)8-10, usually doubleton spade
2NT = about 11-12, invitational
3C/3D = constructive (INV) with decent 6-card suit
3H = long hearts, fairly weak (didn't respond 3H to 1S)
3S = 3-card invite
3NT = absolute max for 1NT, happy as soon as partner didn't pass 1NT

After any of these other than 2D, opener will make a natural rebid as responder has described their hand fairly well.

1S - 1NT-
2C - 2D-

2H - balanced or 2.5 spade rebid, not forcing but only passed if weak with long hearts
2S or higher spades and clubs, natural in context. Anything above 2S shows a very good hand, as responder is likely to be very weak. Anything above 3C is FG.

1S - 1NT
2C - 2D
2H -

2S to play, usually a doubleton but could be a singleton or very weak with 3.
2NT invitational with 4/5 clubs
3C/3D weak with a long suit
3H very weak with long hearts
3S 3-card spade support with 4 clubs
3NT to play, including club support

1H - 1NT is pretty similar, except that 1H - 1NT - 2C can also have 4 spades.

It is possible to play significantly more system than this - I've played a scheme where the 2C rebid includes all balanced hands and 2NT plus are various artificial bids with good hands.

I don't play this system after 1H - 1S as I find the natural 2C rebid more useful; I do play 1H - 1S - 1NT as very wide range, however. Townsend/Allerton (world junior champions) used to play transfers after 1H - 1S, which allowed a great deal of definition of opener's hand including the BW "death hand" and showing a 2.5 heart rebid, but they eventually gave them up because they didn't like the loss of being able to play in 1NT.

#23 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,516
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2005-July-06, 10:09

Two days ago I had the pleasure to play a couple of hands with Henri, and he explained a little more about 2 riton. The main difference to Gazzilli as I see it (and I don't think this got 100% clear from the thread here) is that responder usually does NOT jump over the 2 rebid -- 2 is just waiting, not promising any extras (and retreat to 2M instead of 2 shows exactly three trumps with a minimum). This means that opener usually gets a chance to make his planned 3rd bid, unless responder has good reasons to prevent him from doing so. Responder can wait until he knows more about openers hand before he decides to treat his hand as a minimum.

Generally, openers rebids are natural, and 3-level is (I think) game force. However, it denies the clear direction that an immediate jump shift would have had. E.g. 1-1NT-2-2-3 would say "in standard I would have rebid 3, but I wouldn't like the bid, maybe because I am only 54 in the majors, or my suits are bad, etc." (or simply "a 3 rebid with a flaw" in Henri's words). In contrast, a direct 1-1NT-3 would be taking control of the auction, most likely 5-5 with good suits.

So unlike most Gazzilli continuations, which seem most concerned about describing the shape and hcp most accurately, Henri seems to like better the ability to differentiate between different hand types.

Now I hope I haven't misrepresented Henri's ideas..(and please correct me if I did!)

The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke

#24 User is offline   ritong 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 2003-May-11

Posted 2005-July-07, 15:32

looks plain OK to me, arend :-)

my plan is not to inflict a dozen of boards written in small letters , but rather to expose a "new" concept , which is adaptable to already existing systems, like ben did, for example .
to be digestible, the " new " thing has to be easily definable , and you did that quite accurately , i think . direct bids are " pure " , transit by 2 indicates some " flaw ", to be defined with the third bid . ah, and according to this i do not think three level bids after having used the gadget are forcing , but as said before , the tool is adaptable.

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users