[fromageGB]

There was a thread recently that discussed a wide-ranging 1NT rebid (say 12-16) as opposed to a rebid that was restricted to 12-14 (say). Most people preferred the narrow-ranging. It occurred to me we have the same situation over the forcing next step where the sequence 1♠ 1NT is absolutely forcing.

The simple approach is to play a rebid such as 2♣ or 2♦ as natural with a range of say 12-16, with a 17 count jumping. A more sophisticated approach would be to reserve the 2♣ as two-way, natural or any strong hand, with a 2♦ inquiry.

Whatever, we now have the situation where responder is facing a wide-ranging opener, and it can be difficult to continue with any degree of safety.

Would it be playable to abandon the concept of opener showing a minor suit and simply use opener's rebids to show strength? I am think of a rebid structure like
1♠ 1NT (forcing)
2♣ = any 15+
2♦ = 12-14, denies 6 spades, denies 4 hearts
2♥ = 12-14 with 4 hearts
2♠ = 12-14 with 6 spades
(keep the 3 bids for particular hands such as a 15/16 5-5 for example)

Now responder can pass the diamond bid with long diamonds. He still has the normal 11/12 invitational bids, and he has 3♣/♦/♥ as a long suit invitation. (Previously you could play a weak take out at the 3 level, or an invitation, but now you have both - the weak hand actually playing at the 2 level minor.)

When opener is 15+ and bids 2♣, a 2♦ inquiry can be made with any 7+ hand and still be safe to play as high as 2NT.

Primarily, though, after 2♦/♥/♠ opener is known to have a weakish hand, and his majors are known. Life is much easier for responder. Is this a playable idea?

{Edit - revised. Original post had the 2♣♦ bids reversed.)

[mgoetze]

I don't see why Gazzilli is so horrible just because we will play a 5-2 major fit more often than a 4-3 minor fit...

Anyway, may I introduce you to the concept of the "semi-forcing" (i.e. nonforcing) 1NT?

[fromageGB]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-21, 15:01, said:

I don't see why Gazzilli is so horrible just because we will play a 5-2 major fit more often than a 4-3 minor fit...

Anyway, may I introduce you to the concept of the "semi-forcing" (i.e. nonforcing) 1NT?

Sticking to the forcing NT for a moment, I was thinking of NOT playing a 4-3 minor fit. You would not play in 2 of a minor unless responder had a long minor.

As to Gazzilli, the horrible part is that a weak responder as I play it is forced to bid 2 of the major even with no fit. Your 2♣ Gazzilli could be a 12 count, responder is 6, and with a combined 18, 2M on a 5-2 fit is playable, though not perfect, but I am not happy to play in a 5-1 fit. Yet there is no alternative, as 2NT on an 18 count is suicidal.

Playing the 15+ version, a weak responder with a 6 count can see a combined 21 count minimum. So not only is 2M a safer contract, but if responder has a shortage in the major, he can also bid 2NT to play.

There are other benefits when opener is restricted to 12-14, for example 1♠ 1NT 2♥ with 4 hearts. Responder with a 9/10 count does not have to push to the 3 level to see if game is there, and sometimes the 3 level fails when the 2 level will succeed.

[mgoetze]

fromageGB, on 2011-August-21, 15:27, said:

As to Gazzilli, the horrible part is that a weak responder as I play it is forced to bid 2 of the major even with no fit.

Well, fix it! Anything other than 2♦ should be weak, and 2M should show a doubleton, maybe a singleton honor at a stretch.

The big advantage of semiforcing NT on this auction is that the average number of clubs in the "weak" variant of the 2♣ rebid improves quite a bit.

[fromageGB]

There are some other more subtle advantages. Playing Kaplan inversion, when both sides have a 5 card major and it goes 1♥ 1NT(5+ spades) and both parties are weak, you get the option of negotiating which is the better fitting non-fit major, rather than responder making a unilateral decision.

For example 1♥ 1NT(5 spades) 2♣ (12-14 with only 5 hearts and denying 3 spades), responder can escape with
2♥ = to play, with a doubleton
2♦ = heart shortage, suggesting spades is a better contract. Opener can bid 2♠ as suggested, but 2♥ with a spade shortage.

Something I should mention is that if you are not playing the Kaplan inversion, you have the problem of responder having 5 spades and a weak hand. Should he rebid spades or not - or conversely does a weak opener have to support with 3? The 12-14 reponses solve it neatly, remembering that opener does not attempt to show a minor.
1♥ 1♠(4+) then
1NT = 12-14, denies 3 spades, denies 6 hearts
2♣ = any 15+
2♦ = 12-14 with 3 spades
2♥ = 12-14 with 6 hearts
2♠ = 12-14 with 4 spades
and of course again a 9/10 count can pass 1NT and does not have to push to 2NT.

[fromageGB]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-21, 15:33, said:

Well, fix it! Anything other than 2♦ should be weak, and 2M should show a doubleton, maybe a singleton honor at a stretch.

The big advantage of semiforcing NT on this auction is that the average number of clubs in the "weak" variant of the 2♣ rebid improves quite a bit.

Yes, this is the problem I meant - what if responder does not have a doubleton or an honour.
I concede a "semi-forcing" NT helps considerably, but I didn't want to get into a forcing or semi-forcing discussion.

[mgoetze]

fromageGB, on 2011-August-21, 15:48, said:

Yes, this is the problem I meant - what if responder does not have a doubleton or an honour.

1♠-1NT;
2♣-...

...-2♦ 8+
...-2♥ weak, short spades, 4+ hearts
...-2♠ weak, 2 spades
...-2NT weak, 0-3 hearts, 0-1 spades, 3+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
...-3♣ weak, 0-3 hearts, 0-1 spades, 5+ clubs
...-3♦ weak, 7+ diamonds

[MrAce]

fromageGB, on 2011-August-21, 13:48, said:

So we have 2 problems now. Responder is facing a wide-ranging bid, and he cannot escape to 2 of a minor.

Would it be playable to abandon the concept of opener showing a minor suit - after all, opener already cannot show clubs to play with a basic 12-14 hand - and simply use opener's rebids to show strength? I am think of a rebid structure like
1♠ 1NT (forcing)
2♣ = 12-14, denies 6 spades, denies 4 hearts
2♦ = any 15+
2♥ = 12-14 with 4 hearts
2♠ = 12-14 with 6 spades
(keep the 3 bids for particular hands such as a 15/16 5-5 for example)

.......... Is this a playable idea?

You are complaining about responder being not able to escape to 2 of a minor, yet the solution you came up with doesn't seem to come anywhere close to solving this problem

1♠-1NT
2♣ Now responder can not pass with 4-5 ♣ since pd maybe short. In standart methods he can, in gazilli he can not. And i dont see how u can avoid 5-2 major fits after this and expect to not get too high.

1♠-1NT
2♦ the problem is worse now, he cant pass because u can be way too strong since u spared 3 bids for 15-16 5-5 hands, and 2♦ is an expensive relay to be willing to start your strong hands with and force pd to respond, especially your strong hands can be as weak as 15 hcp. Again, i can't see how you will have enough space to investigate after 2♦ (even if you use artificial relays) and expect to not get too high when pd is very weak. Also you can not avoid playing 5-2 or even 5-1 major fits with this, which you were complaining about...well u can avoid but then your problems will even get worse in different ways IMO.

[Free]

Well, if you rape a convention like Gazzilli, obviously it's no longer a good solution. What on earth do you gain by letting responder rebid 2M without fit?!?

One of the advantages of Gazzilli is that you'll play responder's hand if he's weak without support. If you take that advantage away, what's left? Playing Gazzilli the right way, the only thing you have to sacrifice is the ability to play 2m, but when was the last time this has come up at your table?

Btw, in the solution you suggest, you get similar problems after 1♠-1NT-2♦, but now you really are forced to bid 2♠ without fit.

I also agree that semi-forcing 1NT is an improvement, but that's another discussion.

[fromageGB]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-21, 16:15, said:

1♠-1NT;
2♣-...

...-2♦ 8+
...-2♥ weak, short spades, 4+ hearts
...-2♠ weak, 2 spades
...-2[NT] weak, 0-3 hearts, 0-1 spades, 3+ clubs, 5+ diamonds
...-3♣ weak, 0-3 hearts, 0-1 spades, 5+ clubs
...-3♦ weak, 7+ diamonds

Thanks, this is a gazzilli get out structure that I like and hadn't thought through properly.

My main point in the topic, though, was the dislike of the normal wide-ranging opener rebids (1♠ 1NT 2♣/♦/♥) which force responder to go potentially too high to look for game that is not there when opener is weak. A 12-14 rebid solves this.

[fromageGB]

MrAce, on 2011-August-21, 16:44, said:

1♠-1NT
2♣ Now responder can not pass with 4-5 ♣ since pd maybe short. In standart methods he can, in gazilli he can not. And i dont see how u can avoid 5-2 major fits after this and expect to not get too high.

Well, not 4 clubs, but 5 you can. Opener is 12-14 and has denied hearts or extra spades.

MrAce, on 2011-August-21, 16:44, said:

1♠-1NT
2♦ the problem is worse now ...

I agree, and am switching the 2♣/2♦ responses to 1♠.
If 2♣ is the 15+ it enables a very weak responder to bid 2♥ naturally, and over a 2♦ (7+) inquiry opener can bid 2♥ with 15/16 and 4+ hearts.
This loses the ability of responder to play in 2♣ when opener makes the 12-14 2♦ response. Do note, though, that the 15 point minimum for this 2♣ makes the contracts safer than a standard gazzilli 2♣ that can be 12 points.

[fromageGB]

Free, on 2011-August-22, 02:48, said:

...Playing Gazzilli the right way, the only thing you have to sacrifice is the ability to play 2m, but when was the last time this has come up at your table?

Yes, I don't think playing 2m comes up that much. What does come up is the problem of responder having to bid on over a wide-ranging rebid of 2♣/2♦/2♥ in case game is on, when it is not. A 12-14 rebid solves this, as well as making the "gazzilli 2♣" safer as opener will have a minimum of a 15 count.

Free, on 2011-August-22, 02:48, said:

Btw, in the solution you suggest, you get similar problems after 1♠-1NT-2♦, but now you really are forced to bid 2♠ without fit.

Yes, I agree, this was an oversight in the original idea that means the 2♣/♦ responses need switching, so that after 1♠ 1NT
2♣ = any 15+
2♦ = 12-14 denies 4 hearts, denies 6 spades.

Note that over a 1♥ 1♠ KI it is still
1NT = 12-14 denies 6 hearts, denies 4 spades
2♣ = any 15+
2♦ = 12-14 with 4 spades
2♥ = 12-14 with 6 hearts

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2011-August-22, 03:33

[Free]

I play the strong version in Gazzilli as 16+, 17 is too much and 15 not enough. Opener's minimum range is (11)12-15, tight enough imo.

[Zelandakh]

Have you looked into transfer schemes here? An example

1S - 1NT
========
2C = diamonds or balanced
2D = 4+ hearts
2H = 6+ spades
2S = weak, spades and clubs
2N = INV+, spades and clubs
3suit = 5-5 of whichever range is most awkward, probably INV

Responder assumes the weak hand and bids appropriately. Opener can show extras on the next round without fear of the bidding being dropped. In one way this is the opposite approach to the one you describe. Here the rebids are even more wide-ranging and we give up on showing immediate strength in order to make all of our bids forcing and be able to show it later. This seems to be the main alternative to Gazilli around at the moment.

[mgoetze]

fromageGB, on 2011-August-22, 02:56, said:

My main point in the topic, though, was the dislike of the normal wide-ranging opener rebids (1♠ 1NT 2♣/♦/♥) which force responder to go potentially too high to look for game that is not there when opener is weak. A 12-14 rebid solves this.

BTW, you are aware of false preference bids, I hope? That is, in standard (non-Gazzilli) 2/1, bidding 1M-1NT-2m-2M on hands with substantially less M than m but willing to accept an invitation from a 15-point opener.

[fromageGB]

Thanks all for your thoughts and comments. You've given me some useful input on how things can be handled better.

[mgoetze]

Of course you could also play Riton 2♣: http://www.bridgebas...dpost__p__63372