Riton revisited

[mgoetze]

Say you currently have the following structure:

 

2♦ Multi, Weak 2 in major or strong balanced

2♥ 11-15, 5 hearts and 4+ clubs

2♠ 11-15, 5 spades and 4+ clubs

 

The point being not that these are great openings in themselves, but that you free up the 2♣ rebid after a 1M opening to show 16+ hands.

 

Well, I was just thinking, how about changing it to:

 

2♦ 11-15, 5 spades and 4+ clubs or strong balanced

2♥ 11-15, 5 hearts and 4+ clubs

2♠ Weak 2 in spades

 

You lose the weak 2 in hearts, but you gain the ability to bid hearts invitationally (looking for a 5-3 fit) when opener has spades and clubs, without going past 3♣, or even 2♠. Furthermore, you make your weak 2 in spades much more effective by taking a couple of rounds of bidding away from the opponents.

 

Thoughts?

[inquiry]

Advantage, it would be legal in ACBL events I think (multi-2D runs aground in most ACBL things). That is an advantage that makes me think I will at least adopt this when multi is not legal.

[awm]

I'm not convinced that this 2♦ opening is legal in ACBL events (outside of super-chart). You could probably get it approved for mid-chart with a reasonable defense. Of course, if you removed the "strong balanced" option that would be a different story.

 

I'm also not sure what the follow-ups to this 2♦ bid are. Suppose you have a hand that wants to play in 3♣ opposite the ♠/♣ two-suiter. Do you bid 3♣? And if so, how does partner know what to do with the strong balanced option? If not, how do you avoid playing in some silly contract? There are also other problem hands, like say you have four hearts and decent values... you want to show an invite of some sort opposite the 11-15 option, but partner shows up with strong balanced. Can you find your 4-4 heart fit now, when it could easily be the only making slam on your 30 or so combined hcp?

 

In general there are some questions about the 5M-4♣ patterns; are you able to play in 2NT opposite these hand types? Or do you have to play in one of opener's suits? It seems fairly common to have a sort of misfitty 11-count where your 2/1 auction would've been 1M-1N-2♣-2N.

 

My view is that 2M bids showing intermediate hands with a 6M (like the same point range of 11-15 but one-suited) are extremely effective, whereas I'm much less sure about these two-suited openings. It seems like for example one could play the 2M opening as I describe, and then 1M-1N-2M as showing the hand with clubs, such that 1M-1N-2♣ remains artificial. This helps you on the intermediate 6M hands (opening 2M is really good there) and potentially also helps you on the 5M-4♣ hands (you can have a natural 2/1 auction in some cases, and can play in 2N on the misfitty invite).

[mgoetze]

Hi Adam,

 

as I said, the main advantage of these openings is to plug a hole in the rest of your system - the 2♣ rebid showing 16+ without the complications of Gazilli. If you feel you don't need that gadget, then obviously neither of these structures is for you.

 

I'm also not sure what the follow-ups to this 2♦ bid are. Suppose you have a hand that wants to play in 3♣ opposite the ♠/♣ two-suiter. Do you bid 3♣? And if so, how does partner know what to do with the strong balanced option?

 

This at least is easy. Yes, you bid 3♣. And then with the strong balanced hand, well, partner likely doesn't have have 5 hearts nor even 3 spades. So just bid 3NT, and you're likely to be where you were going in the first place. Alternatively, bid 3♥ if you have 4 of them. There is no sensible reason to do this with the 11-15 hand when your partner has placed the contract already. 3♠ transfers to 3NT.

 

Note that my idea of "strong balanced" here is about 22-23. If you're doing this with 19-20 you will obviously get into trouble more often.

 

There are also other problem hands, like say you have four hearts and decent values... you want to show an invite of some sort opposite the 11-15 option, but partner shows up with strong balanced. Can you find your 4-4 heart fit now, when it could easily be the only making slam on your 30 or so combined hcp?

 

2♦ 11-15 or 22-23

2NT Forcing inquiry

 

Now: 3♣ shows a minimum, else you bid out your shape (e.g. 3♦, 3♥ shortness; 3♠ no shortness). Unless you have 22-23, in which case you bid 3NT. Then 4♣ is Stayman.

 

In general there are some questions about the 5M-4♣ patterns; are you able to play in 2NT opposite these hand types? Or do you have to play in one of opener's suits? It seems fairly common to have a sort of misfitty 11-count where your 2/1 auction would've been 1M-1N-2♣-2N.

 

No, except possibly with 2♥-2♠-2NT. You don't necessarily have to play one of opener's suits... you can bid non-forcing at the 3 level. The idea of my proposed alteration is to also make it possible to play 2♥ once in a while.

 

Last time I played this in a tournament I had the auction 2♠-p-4♥-p-p-p. Not very scientific, I admit, but it worked well.

[awm]

It seems like your strong balanced hand auctions here are a lot worse than they would be in standard methods after 2♣-2♦-2NT. You're basically forced to game opposite partner's weak preference to clubs for example, and having a good slam auction after 2♦-2N-3N is tougher than after 2♣-2♦-2N since you've lost a whole level.

 

There are a lot of patterns opposite 5♠/4♣ like 2353, 2443, 1453, 2452 where you don't have five hearts and you don't have an obvious fit anywhere. Some of these patterns are pretty common. If you have a bad hand with one of these patterns you're fine playing 2♠, but if you have a decent hand (like 11-12 hcp) you do seem very stuck. You'll often end up in a seven-card fit a the three-level while the field plays 2NT.

 

My point is that none of these issues exist over one-suiters. If opener has 6♠ and 11-15, you are virtually always okay to play in a spade partial if no game presents itself. Even a 6-1 spade fit often outscores 2NT, and the chances that your best fit is in spades when partner has 6♠ and no four card side suit are pretty overwhelming. You even have the potential advantage that 2♦ showing a weak hand with spades or a big balanced hand is on the ACBL mid-chart if you care about that.

 

I agree that these openings are mostly to "fix a hole" rather than expecting good results... but if rearranging things gets you better results on average, it might be worth a look.

[kenrexford]

I thought of the exact structure quite a while ago, for the exact same reasons, and I think it would work. You might consider using this in some seats and some vulnerabilities but not in others, as well.

 

FWIW, I also thought about scrubbing the 2♠ weak two altogether, or in some seats/vulnerability, and having this structure:

 

2♦ = ♦+♠

2♥ = ♥+♣

2♠ = ♠+♣

 

This three-way structure erases all "high reverse" problems. The "diamond splus spades" situation is one of the worst in bridge, as 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♦ sucks royally. It also would allow a neat tricks:

 

1♠-P-1NT-P-

2♦ = 5-4 majors weak OR 5♠/4-5♦ and stronger than 2♦ opening.

 

1♠-P-1NT-P-

2♥ = sound+ (better than the 2♦ rebid)

[inquiry]

I'm not convinced that this 2♦ opening is legal in ACBL events (outside of super-chart). You could probably get it approved for mid-chart with a reasonable defense. Of course, if you removed the "strong balanced" option that would be a different story.

I think the 2♦ bid would be 100% legal in general convention chart. At least, as I read what is permitted under opening bids (item 6)...

 

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two

known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the

suits.

 

Here 2♦ shows 5+spades and 4+ clubs and an opening hand up to 15 or 16 or 17 (whatever you agree for hcp).

[Mbodell]

I'm not convinced that this 2♦ opening is legal in ACBL events (outside of super-chart). You could probably get it approved for mid-chart with a reasonable defense. Of course, if you removed the "strong balanced" option that would be a different story.

I think the 2♦ bid would be 100% legal in general convention chart. At least, as I read what is permitted under opening bids (item 6)...

 

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two

known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the

suits.

 

Here 2♦ shows 5+spades and 4+ clubs and an opening hand up to 15 or 16 or 17 (whatever you agree for hcp).

I think awm's point is this isn't legal because of the "or strong balanced". If it never were the strong balanced then it is GCC as you point out. But since the strong balanced doesn't need to have at least 5-4 in the two known suits, then this bid isn't covered by GCC 6.

[inquiry]

I'm not convinced that this 2♦ opening is legal in ACBL events (outside of super-chart). You could probably get it approved for mid-chart with a reasonable defense. Of course, if you removed the "strong balanced" option that would be a different story.

I think the 2♦ bid would be 100% legal in general convention chart. At least, as I read what is permitted under opening bids (item 6)...

 

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two

known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the

suits.

 

Here 2♦ shows 5+spades and 4+ clubs and an opening hand up to 15 or 16 or 17 (whatever you agree for hcp).

I think awm's point is this isn't legal because of the "or strong balanced". If it never were the strong balanced then it is GCC as you point out. But since the strong balanced doesn't need to have at least 5-4 in the two known suits, then this bid isn't covered by GCC 6.

ah, i completely skipped over the strongly balanced part without noticing it.

[zenko]

 

as I said, the main advantage of these openings is to plug a hole in the rest of your system - the 2♣ rebid showing 16+ without the complications of Gazilli.

Whats wrong with Gazilli? I have yet to play a hand that would make me regret playing it.

[Free]

 

as I said, the main advantage of these openings is to plug a hole in the rest of your system - the 2♣ rebid showing 16+ without the complications of Gazilli.

Whats wrong with Gazilli? I have yet to play a hand that would make me regret playing it.

I've played a couple of hands that didn't work well because of the convention, but it wasn't enough to make me regret playing Gazzilli. :lol:

[wclass___]

Having a bid that shows exact 5M4m is just a waste of call.

 

It helps opponents too much. They can evaluate their hand better whether to overcall or not. If they win auction it is easier to declare. And if they defend they again have extra information.

 

For partner knowledge of exact side minor suit is not so important. Most of the time partner will just raise you or you will be happy with playing 3NT. 3m 4-4 fit isn't big improvement over 2M 5-2 fit. And in competitive auctions if you want to support partner's minor suit you will typically need to bid one level higher, because his side suit is minor.

 

2♥ (♥+♣) - [3♦] - even if you have found your ♣ fit, you will probably need to bid at 4th level, which won't give you game bonus.

 

I would rather suggest F******* and weak 2s.

[bluecalm]

Do you really prefer to accept those weak 2 level openers just to save some memory work which Gazilli requires ?

 

I would just go with what Italians play:

2♦ = 18-19 balanced

2♥/2♠ = weak two

 

and learn Gazilli :lol:

 

If you really can't accept Gazilli in full form then I would at least change multi to 18-19 balanced and give up weak twos altogether.

This way your strong bal hands bidding won't be completely screwed.

[zenko]

Q: If you had to choose a convention, which one would you pick?

 

Fulvio Fantoni: Gazzilli... is a convention that I think should be used by all who play natural bridge.

 

 

Which is kind of ironic since Fantunes do play 2M opening showing 5M-4m (or 6M), and still use it and think it is very important

[bluecalm]

Which is kind of ironic since Fantunes do play 2M opening showing 5M-4m (or 6M), and still use it and think it is very important

 

It's not ironic because their 2 level openers are weakier than 1 level openers so still:

 

1♥ - 1♠

2♣* gazilli contains minimum hand with 5♥ - 4♣ (here minimum is 14hcp) because 2♥ opening bid is below opening strength (10-13).

[kenrexford]

Having played 2M as an intermediate call, showing the indicated major and clubs, for about 10 years, I can attest to the fact that it does not make life easier on the opponents but rather makes life easier on us. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs of the loss of weak twos is another debate, but the merits of the call itself are huge.

 

As a simple example, consider your call after a 2♥ opening showing hearts and clubs. You have spades. Great! But, had the opening been 1♥, you would have two calls for spade hands -- 1♠ and 2♠. You just have been crunched to one call for both hands. Plus, after 1♠, partner would have space to unwind how good that 1♠ call was, below 2♠. Not with a 2♠ overcall.

 

Suppose, instead, that you are Responder. Had the auction gone 1♥-2♠-?, you would have a difficult time introducing a club suit with weak values. With 2♥-2♠-?, 3♣ is an easy call.

 

Suppose, instead, that as Responder you have long spades in this sequence. In the normal 1♥-1♠-? sequence, you might pass for a one-level reopening double, hoping to beat 1♠ but knowing that the opponents might have escaqpes. After 2♥-2♠, however, you can double as penalty, knowing that they need to take one more trick and that any escape will be one level higher.

 

Suppose that the opponents stay out of the auction, and as Responder you have a hand like ♠xxxx ♥Kxx ♦Kx ♣xxxx or ♠xxxx ♥Kxx ♦xxxx♣Kx. If partner opens 1♥, you raise, and partner invites game with a stiff diamond and clubs secondary, you may be too high already on the first; if he does not invite game, you may miss a great game on the second. If partner opens 2♥, you stop on the first but bid game on the second. Add in interference, and the problem is greater with 1♥ but no problem with 2♥.

 

How about as Opener? You start 1♥ and hear a 2♦ overcall, passed to you. With hearts and clubs, this is a problem. With a 2♥ opening, your story is told before the 2♦ opening.

[wclass___]

Suppose that the opponents stay out of the auction, and as Responder you have a hand like ♠xxxx ♥Kxx ♦Kx ♣xxxx or ♠xxxx ♥Kxx ♦xxxx♣Kx. If partner opens 1♥, you raise, and partner invites game with a stiff diamond and clubs secondary, you may be too high already on the first; if he does not invite game, you may miss a great game on the second. If partner opens 2♥, you stop on the first but bid game on the second. Add in interference, and the problem is greater with 1♥ but no problem with 2♥.

Wow. You bid 2♥ (♥♣) - 4♥ with ♠xxxx ♥Kxx ♦xxxx ♣Kx? You are the man! Partner surely has ♠Ax ♥AQJxx ♦x ♣QJTxx! Hmm... but what if he has ♠AJ ♥AQJxx ♦Qx ♣QJTx where there is no way to make because they surely won't lead clubs as opener have showed it as side suit? Hmm, Yes, now you can say that it is 17 count and it should be opened 1♥, you are right, sorry.

 

Suppose, instead, that you are Responder. Had the auction gone 1♥-2♠-?, you would have a difficult time introducing a club suit with weak values. With 2♥-2♠-?, 3♣ is an easy call.

Why would you want to introduce your weak hand with some clubs? Opponents will just bid more ♠, and while 3 ♣ is an easy call, auction will help opponents more to play their 3/4♠ then for you to defend.

Btw, I fail to see why in one example opponent preempts, but in other overcalls. It seems to me like you have chosen very restricted hand type for opponents.

 

 

Suppose, instead, that as Responder you have long spades in this sequence. In the normal 1♥-1♠-? sequence, you might pass for a one-level reopening double, hoping to beat 1♠ but knowing that the opponents might have escaqpes. After 2♥-2♠, however, you can double as penalty, knowing that they need to take one more trick and that any escape will be one level higher.

It seems like a general advantage for opening 2♥, true. But i fail to see what this advantage has do with playing such a rare 2♥ opening like 5♥4♣+ 11/15.

 

How about as Opener? You start 1♥ and hear a 2♦ overcall, passed to you. With hearts and clubs, this is a problem. With a 2♥ opening, your story is told before the 2♦ opening.

Yes, ♣ fits nowadays tend to come up more than ♥ fit in this auction. Yes, it is a problem. Opponents are likely to win auction because their fit suit is higher than yours (♦>♣). Yet i again fail to see what this has to do with other example and what story you are referring to. Auction will normally go 2♥-[3♦]- and you will again face the same problem that (♦>♣). You cannot bid 4♣ and play 3♣. Again declarer will just have easy time getting his tricks with info he has.

 

As a simple example, consider your call after a 2♥ opening showing hearts and clubs. You have spades. Great! But, had the opening been 1♥, you would have two calls for spade hands -- 1♠ and 2♠. You just have been crunched to one call for both hands. Plus, after 1♠, partner would have space to unwind how good that 1♠ call was, below 2♠. Not with a 2♠ overcall.

Again It seems like a general advantage for opening 2♥, true. But i fail to see what this advantage has do with playing such a rare 2♥ opening like 5♥4♣+ 11/15.

 

  Having played 2M as an intermediate call, showing the indicated major and clubs, for about 10 years, I can attest to the fact that it does not make life easier on the opponents but rather makes life easier on us. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs of the loss of weak twos is another debate, but the merits of the call itself are huge.

You were joking, right?

[kenrexford]

As to your first observation -- obviously, I did not mean to BLAST 4♥, although in a pinch the contract is odds-on. You would obviously make game tries on route.

 

As to your second comment, I don't even know what you are talking about. First, in one example one auction occurs and in another a different auction occurs because they are meant to be different instances. Second, ability to bid intelligently obviously also means ability to pass intelligently, either of which is better than stumble-bunny guessing.

 

As to your third comment, the 2M opening is not THAT rare. Any bid in bridge is "rare" in the sense that you might pass, you might open any of four suits at the one-level, you might open any number of suits at a higher level, and you might open any level of notrump. So, each one is "rare." But, a major-club two-suiter is not that rare.

 

As to your fourth example, WHAT?!?!? You don't need to bid 4♣ because partner has a really good idea of your hand, and 3♦ occurs less than 2♦ anyway. I don't even understand that comment, at all.

 

As to the final question -- no. I was not joking. My partners and I had tons of unexpected pluses for lucrative doubles, tons of slams bid or avoided for great results, tons of -50 or -100 against their games, tons of marginal games bid but +110 tops for passing correctly, and the like. So, yes. The merits of the call were established quite well.

[dake50]

Whaa-at??! Roman 2M reviewed 50+ years later!

 

Wasn't these bids advantages/disadvantages resolved three generations ago??

[kenrexford]

Whaa-at??! Roman 2M reviewed 50+ years later!

 

Wasn't these bids advantages/disadvantages resolved three generations ago??

Well, not exactly. As modern bidding changes, old techniques have different pros and cons in the new world.

[wclass___]

As to your first observation -- obviously, I did not mean to BLAST 4♥, although in a pinch the contract is odds-on. You would obviously make game tries on route.

Wow. Now you make game try with that hand? You are the man! But 4♥ sounds more fun, especially after your assessment that in a punch contract is odds-on. I bet it would be one of these ton of marginally bid games you are talking about. :P

 

As to your second comment, I don't even know what you are talking about. First, in one example one auction occurs and in another a different auction occurs because they are meant to be different instances. Second, ability to bid intelligently obviously also means ability to pass intelligently, either of which is better than stumble-bunny guessing.

All i understand from this is that you haven't understood what i wanted to say. I tried to explain you that major suits in bridge auctions(especially competitive) are way more important than minor suits. It is really nice that you have found an easy call of 3♣ (after 1♥-[1♠] it would surely be slightly harder), but opponents have enough information to judge which way to go. They are likely to win auction just by bidding more ♠, and all your efforts are pretty useless. If not, then you would end up in 3♣ also after 1♥-[1♠] start. I am not arguing that you would score bad when this bid comes up (1%?!), it is actually quite impossible with so restricted bid. But rather that in nowadays there are many way more logical and lucrative methods.

 

As to your third comment, the 2M opening is not THAT rare. Any bid in bridge is "rare" in the sense that you might pass, you might open any of four suits at the one-level, you might open any number of suits at a higher level, and you might open any level of notrump. So, each one is "rare." But, a major-club two-suiter is not that rare.

What? If i compared your 2♥ with any other sane natural 2♥ opening i could use same argument, and my argument would be stronger because of frequency reasons.

 

 

As to your fourth example, WHAT?!?!? You don't need to bid 4♣ because partner has a really good idea of your hand, and 3♦ occurs less than 2♦ anyway. I don't even understand that comment, at all. 

I don't see where i said that someone has4 to bid ♣. But i don't get what you are saying in first sentence anyway. It sounds to me like you mean 4♣ as opener, because "partner with info" is obviously responder. I don't get.

 

Yes 3♦ will occur slightly less than 2♦, but it is again general advantage for opening 2♥ rather than 1♥. But not advantage for playing 2♥ opening bid as 5♥4♣, e.g. i choose weak 2 in ♥ and use same argument. My argument is stronger in frequency reasons and also that my 2 ♥ bid is weaker, so more points around the table and more chance that opponents own hand and need to bid.

 

As to the final question -- no. I was not joking. My partners and I had tons of unexpected pluses for lucrative doubles, tons of slams bid or avoided for great results, tons of -50 or -100 against their games, tons of marginal games bid but +110 tops for passing correctly, and the like. So, yes. The merits of the call were established quite well.

Would be interesting for me to go through these ton of boards and also your w2's boards or whatever which boards you sacrificed to play these outstanding openings. :P

[dake50]

To kenrexford,

 

Then are all pros and cons relative?

Or could there be absolute advantage?

I happen to have seen advantage in those 2M bids 40 years ago and never been disabused of that advantage.

 

 

[edit]

Although ROMAN forbidden by ACBL. [for over a decade]

[kenrexford]

To kenrexford,

 

Then are all pros and cons relative?

Or could there be absolute advantage?

I happen to have seen advantage in those 2M bids 40 years ago and never been disabused of that advantage. Although forbidden by ACBL.

2M showing the major and clubs is perfectly GCC legal.

 

As to the contextual advantages or lack thereof, this is a general principle that seems to play itself out. For example, the more aggressive the competition, the more of a benefit to quick description.

 

A simpler example might be that of Flannery. Modern bidding styles tend to make Reverse Flannery more useful than Flannery, because the problem has changed.