Spades and hearts rebid

[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]

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.padovabridge.it/varie/gazzilli.htm

[skjaeran]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

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.

[keylime]

1. 2H, even with my forcing club mentality screaming at me to bid 3H (I open a forcing club and hope the opps don't bury me - 3 suiters are not fun for us). The reasoning is very simple - if pard is on the lower range of his NT, 5-7, they likely have club honors which doesn't amount to a hill of beans with your super hand. If pard takes preference back to 2S, then you have the chance to bid 3D to pattern out and still show extras. Also, pard may have a 10-11 hand with 4 hearts too and thusly you need to give pard a chance. It's a good hand, yes, but don't hang pard for making their forcing NT response on xx xxx xxx KQxxx.

 

2. Also 2H; pard will give preference in spades. May also be your best fit versus an awkward 6-1. Berkowitz-themed hand here.

[ycos]

Maybe the 2♣(not 1♠) openning rezolve the problem of first deal.

[jdonn]

Why are you using the possibility of a slam in diamonds as a reason to jump shift, it is a reason NOT to jump shift as that makes it impossible to get to diamonds if partner rebids 3NT. Unless you are bidding 4♦ over 3NT in which case you have overbid on a 17 count, wasted a level of bidding space, and made it impossible to ever play 3NT any more.

 

Yes 2♥ is very wide ranging. That is MUCH better than having 3♥ be wide ranging, as you have an extra level to sort it out, and can play a partscore when partner is weak.

 

And Kxxxx AKxx xx xx is not an opening hand by any normal standards. I would not open Kxxxx AKxx Jx xx, and consider the pass normal (but would open that hand with improved spade spots, which frankly is still a light opening bid.) So 2♥ is not quite as wide as you are making it out to be.

[Walddk]

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.

The hand is powerful, but only if we have a fit. None is guaranteed after 1NT, and that's why it's no game force at this point. If you are afraid of missing a diamond slam, the only certain way to miss it is to rebid 3♥. 4♦ by responder would not be natural as most people play it.

 

If you rebid 2♥, however, there is still a chance that the diamond fit is located. Am I worried about missing a major suit game if I rebid 2♥? No, responder will always support hearts with four, and if he has an invitational hand with three spades, his next bid will be 3♠.

 

Many tend to add distributional points too early in the auction. In my view it's a good idea to wait until a fit has been established (if ever). This is a 17 count, a medium opening hand, and it remains a 17 count if we don't have a fit.

 

If we end up in notrumps or in spades/hearts on 5-2/4-3, you can throw distributional points out of the window.

 

As an example, the actual hand needs ♥Q instead of one of the small ones to make it a jump shift (game force) in my book. Even then game is by no means certain, but you will go for it regardless.

 

Roland

[han]

Yes 2♥ is very wide ranging. That is MUCH better than having 3♥ be wide ranging, as you have an extra level to sort it out, and can play a partscore when partner is weak.

Good point imo.