Using 1S as Gazzilli in a Transfer Club structure

[Kungsgeten]

I posted this in the expert forum, but will post it here too. Its a transfer structure over a 1C opening showing clubs or 15--19 NT. The thing which I haven't seen before is my use of 1S as Gazzilli. http://snortingmaradonas.se/erik/transferclub_weak_nt.pdf

 

With some tweaks I think it could be played even if playing a strong NT opening.

[phoenix214]

Over the 1♣ opening, im pretty happy with using 2♦ as a any strong bid hand - It keeps it mostly natural - and you do not lose that much out of it?

Maybe also I like having 1C-1D, 1S as spades, because you can end up playing 1S sometimes..

[straube]

Not sure I totally understand what you're doing here. It's like you're encouraging partner to respond with a very weak hand and then throwing that away. Cross-purposed.

 

1C-1D, 1N when 15-17 bal?

 

If 1C were a weak NT or 18-19 then

 

1C-1D, 1H is essentially your weak NT, maybe a few other hands. I thought part of the idea of transfers was that you could sometimes play partner's major at the 1-level.

 

And 1C-1D, 2D is 10-15 and 4D/5C?

 

I don't play transfer methods like this so sorry if I'm off-base.

[mgoetze]

I mean it's fine and well to say "Oh, clubs and diamonds 11-15? I'll just make that 1♣-1R-2♦", but that could be a completely terrible contract with no way to get to a good one.

[nullve]

I play 1♣-[1M-1]; 1N as a kind of NF, limited Gazzilli, although "NF lebensohl" might be just as descriptive. Specifically,

 

1♣-[1M-1]; 1N = Rules of 19-21, 3-S4-H2-M6+C / Rules of 25-27, 3-S4-H2-M5+C, unbal. / 17-19 bal., 2-3 M

 

Not intended as a stand-alone gadget, though.

[Kungsgeten]

Yes I do not like reversing into diamonds with 11-15 either. You could ofcourse treat these as 6 card clubs (common in these structures to rebid 2C with 5+ clubs unbal) and bid Gazzilli. I'll however add that Ken Rexford likes a 2D opening to show 5-4 minors, and in that case you do not know if clubs or diamonds are longer. I think Glen Ashton also reverses into diamonds with 11-15 in one of his systems (and one of the italian pairs too, if I remember correctly). Bergendahl-Warne (see other thread) uses a 1NT opening to show both minors 10-15 and can not play 2C after that (but can stop in 1NT). So bidding 2D without reverse strength is perhaps a bad idea, but could be ok. Another option is to always open 1D if both minors and less than reverse, or play canapé when holding both minors (then at least the 2D rebid promises five diamonds).

[fromageGB]

Some of this criticism is a little unfair. This was a response to someone asking for ideas about a twalsh based structure for use with a weak NT, and this document does give lots of good ideas. Having considered them, you will want to alter some or all things, such as taking the "weak both minors" open out of this and into the 1♦ open, perhaps, but it does present ideas and can act as a springboard for a partnership to look at things in a way that they may never have done before.

 

Certainly I feel that some of the things twalsh gives you when playing a strong 1NT is the ability to play 1M sometimes, or the ability to find 4-4 major fits, but this is of less concern if you are welded to a weak 1NT open. By choosing to open a weak NT you are stating that you do NOT wish to play in 1M on a 5-2 or 5-3 fit, and you do NOT wish to play in 2M on a 4-4 fit when hands are less than game invitational; you prefer to pre-empt partner. (And maybe opponents too.)

 

In that context, using the 1♠ rebid as Gazzilli does enable better definition of strong hands, and 1♣ 1♦ 1NT on 15-17 balanced puts you in no worse a position than opening 1NT on the hand. It is actually better, of course, as 1NT denies 4 hearts, whereas after a 1NT open there may be an undiscoverable 4-4 heart fit.

[glen]

I think Glen Ashton also reverses into diamonds with 11-15 in one of his systems

This is not correct in a transfer sequence. In Gold, after a Montreal Relay style 1♣-1♦, which denies a five card major, then 1♣-1♦;-2♦ is the reverse since the worst responder can have is exactly 4-4-3-2.

 

However when we can use transfers (not the ACBL), then the Gold scheme is:

 

1♣-1red-?

 

1NT: long clubs or strong hand

2♣: 5+♣s, 3-4♦s

 

(see page 160+ in Gold)

[straube]

After 1C-1D

 

1H-bal, 2-3 H, 15-19

1S-4S

1N-5C/4D, forcing

2C-6C

2D-minimum raise, unbal, 4 hearts or 1-3-4-5

2H-4H, 15-17, usually bal

[rbforster]

Right now the system proposed is pretty symmetric and simple over both major transfers, for example:

 

1C-[1M-1] :

 

1N 15-17 bal, no fit

2C natural min with OM

2D both minors, min

2M 15-17 bal 4 card raise

3M 18-19 bal 4 card raise

 

With unbalanced fitting or strong hand types as well as weaker and strong NTs going through 1 level forcing 1M rebids by opener. While this gets more precision for the various balanced hand types of different strength ranges, I worry about the weak 2m responses above reaching poor contracts. Instead, suppose you give up on the choice of clubs vs the 4-3M fit when minimum (just raise M) and instead have direct bids of

 

2C both minors, min, no M fit

2D 3 card M raise, min

 

I feel like you can get some more mileage out of looking for spade fits too if 1C-1D-1H could have either fitting hearts or spades (or strong NT), and you have responder bid 1S by most of the time but 1N to show spades instead (or maybe higher if stronger). That way you get most of the same space for relaying out hand types, but get your spade fit information across cheaply enough that 1N is still passable on misfits.

[Kungsgeten]

Right now the system proposed is pretty symmetric and simple over both major transfers, for example:

 

1C-[1M-1] :

 

1N 15-17 bal, no fit

2C natural min with OM

2D both minors, min

2M 15-17 bal 4 card raise

3M 18-19 bal 4 card raise

 

With unbalanced fitting or strong hand types as well as weaker and strong NTs going through 1 level forcing 1M rebids by opener. While this gets more precision for the various balanced hand types of different strength ranges, I worry about the weak 2m responses above reaching poor contracts. Instead, suppose you give up on the choice of clubs vs the 4-3M fit when minimum (just raise M) and instead have direct bids of

 

2C both minors, min, no M fit

2D 3 card M raise, min

 

I feel like you can get some more mileage out of looking for spade fits too if 1C-1D-1H could have either fitting hearts or spades (or strong NT), and you have responder bid 1S by most of the time but 1N to show spades instead (or maybe higher if stronger). That way you get most of the same space for relaying out hand types, but get your spade fit information across cheaply enough that 1N is still passable on misfits.

 

I think the 2C rebid is okay (showing clubs and other major), but ofcourse you will want to be in 1NT sometimes on these hands. Compared to the natural approach though I think it is better, especially if responder answers 1S:

 

1C--1S;

1NT = 15-17

2C = Unbalanced minimum, 5+ clubs

2red = Reverse

2S = Raise, either unbal minimum or 15-17 NT

2NT = 18-19

3C+ = Standard?

 

So in a natural system opener will have to bypass 1NT when holding an unbalanced hand, unless he values his hand strength wise as a 15-17 NT I guess. The 2D rebid is a problem though, which may be solved in other ways. I think it is a good idea to use the 2D rebid as some kind of raise or strong hand. There's more space after a transfer to hearts than after a transfer to spades, and something like you or straube suggest might be better. I actually thought of having 1C--1D; 1H--1NT showing 4 spades, but should it be forcing or not? It seems a bit awkward to bid 1NT hoping to find a 4-4 spade fit while risking that the weak hand will be declarer in a NT contract vs a 18--19 NT opener.

[nullve]

If you

 

* treat 2245 as balanced

* rebid 2♣ with 11-15, 4OM4D5C

* rebid 1♠ with 4+D6+C

 

then the only shape where you would rebid 2♦ to show 11-15, 4+D5+C is (31)45. Then it might be better to play

 

1♣-[1M-1]; 2♣ = 11-15, either 4OM5+C or 3OM4D5C

1♣-[1M-1]; 2♦ = 11-15, 3M4D5C

Edited January 25, 2016 by nullve

[straube]

There's more space after a transfer to hearts than after a transfer to spades, and something like you or straube suggest might be better. I actually thought of having 1C--1D; 1H--1NT showing 4 spades, but should it be forcing or not? It seems a bit awkward to bid 1NT hoping to find a 4-4 spade fit while risking that the weak hand will be declarer in a NT contract vs a 18--19 NT opener.

 

You have so much more room after 1C-1D showing hearts. I think you have to ask yourself why can't you at least be able to play 1S when most pairs can after 1C-1H natural. Or why are you effectively using puppets for both 1C-1D, 1H and 1C-1D, 1S meaning that you lose a tremendous number of branching sequences. Plus you have XYZ available after 1C-1D, 1S which you don't after 1C-1D, 2C showing 4S/5C; how does responder invite hearts after that? If 1C-1D, 1H is 15-19 balanced with 2-3 hearts you have a lot of space to sort out the range. Something like what you suggested....

 

1S-size ask, club sign off or to make an invitation

.....1N-15-17

..........2C-club sign off

..........2D-4S/5H no longer inv

..........2H-no longer inv

.....2C-18-19

..........2D-GF transfer

..........2H-GF 4S/4H

..........2S-GF transfer

1N-4S, nf, 17-18 may raise, 19 may force game

2C-transfer, weak or GF

2D-transfer, weak or GF

2H-transfer with 4S, denies 5H, GF

2S-transfer, GF

 

Sure there's better depending how much you want to invest in it.

[phoenix214]

How about -

1C - 1D:

1H - Strong hand no H support

2D - Strong hand w H support - Odrwotka style maybe even:

Other bids are natural whatever they make sense to be:

Now you are left with the 4D-5C hand - I think you can try to squeeze that into the 1H bid, although a rebid is not that bad(t.i. you could play 1H as 5C-4D weak or strong, so you get your gazilli :P)

Over 1C-1H, 1S:(Same idea, although here you have less space and more hands to show :P)

[rbforster]

Having worked on these 1C-1D-1H sequences a lot in a strong club, non-GF context, I would note that the tricky part of making a good system is to have most of the flavor of relays (lots of cheap bids have multiple meanings, which are separated later), but also to group those various hand types thoughtfully so that responder is able to sometimes bid something descriptive other than the next step in a way that doesn't cause you to get too high opposite the weaker options by opener.

[straube]

Having worked on these 1C-1D-1H sequences a lot in a strong club, non-GF context, I would note that the tricky part of making a good system is to have most of the flavor of relays (lots of cheap bids have multiple meanings, which are separated later), but also to group those various hand types thoughtfully so that responder is able to sometimes bid something descriptive other than the next step in a way that doesn't cause you to get too high opposite the weaker options by opener.

 

...Or why are you effectively using puppets for both 1C-1D, 1H and 1C-1D, 1S meaning that you lose a tremendous number of branching sequences. Plus you have XYZ available after 1C-1D, 1S which you don't after 1C-1D, 2C showing 4S/5C; how does responder invite hearts after that?...

[nullve]

So

 

1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N; 2♦ = 18-19 bal. / very strong hand

1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N; 2N = D reverse

 

I've often wondered if/when the 2♦/2N "switch" where

 

2♦ = 18-19 bal. (possibly including 2245 and even 3M4D5C)

2N = D reverse (possibly excluding 2245 and even 3M4D5C),

 

something that many T-Walsh pairs already play over 1♣-1♠ or 1♣-1N, will become standard over

 

1♣-1M(=4+ M),

 

among pairs unwilling to play T-Walsh, or over

 

1♣-[1M-1](=4+ M)

 

among pairs unwilling to play the kind of T-Walsh where

 

1♣-[1M-1]; 1N = 18-19 bal.

 

or similar.

[straube]

1C-1H is more difficult. I've been thinking something like...

 

1S-unbal, 5+ clubs, 11-15

1N-15-17 bal

2C-clubs, strong

2D-18-19, 2-3 S

2H-15-17, 4S

2S-minimum, unbal raise

[nullve]

1C-1H is more difficult. I've been thinking something like...

 

1S-unbal, 5+ clubs, 11-15

1N-15-17 bal

2C-clubs, strong

2D-18-19, 2-3 S

2H-15-17, 4S

2S-minimum, unbal raise

15 years ago I played the following transfer rebid structure in a "nat. or 11-13/17-18 bal." 1♣ context:

 

1♣-1[M-1]; ?:

 

1♥ = "4+ S"

1♠ = "5+ C" (catchall)

1N = 11-13 bal., 2-3 M

2♣ = D reverse

2♦(M=♠) = H reverse

2M-1 = min, unbal. 3c raise / 11-13, 4M333 / "16-18", 3 M, 1-suited / 17-18 bal., 3+ M

2M = min, 4c raise, not 4M333

2♠(M=♥)/3♣+ inv+ unbal. raise structure

2N = 17-18 bal., 2 M

 

which in a "nat. or 15-19 bal." 1♣ context it makes sense to change to

 

1♣-1[M-1]; ?:

 

1♥ = "4+ S"

1♠ = "5+ C" (catchall)

1N = 15-17 bal., 2-3 M

2♣ = D reverse

2♦(M=♠) = H reverse

2M-1 = min, unbal. raise / "16-18", 3 M, 1-suited / 18-19 bal., 4 M

2M = 15-17 bal., 4 M [right-siding 2M as often as possible]

2♠(M=♥)/3♣+ = inv+ unbal. raise structure

2N = 18-19 bal., 2 M

 

 

After a [2M-2]/2N "switch" much like the obvious 2♦/2N switch I mentioned earlier:

 

1♣-1[M-1]; ?:

 

1♥ = "4+ S"

1♠ = "5+ C" (catchall)

1N = 15-17 bal., 2-3 M

2♣(M=♠) = D reverse

2M-2 = "18-19 bal.", 2-3 M (but possibly including 4[M-1]5C22 or 3M4[M-1]5C)

2M-1 = min, unbal. raise / "16-18", 3 M, 1-suited / 18-19 bal., 4 M

2M = 15-17 bal., 4 M

2♠(M=♥)/3♣+ = inv+ unbal. raise structure

2N = M-1 reverse, 2- M (but possibly excluding 4 or 3M4[M-1]5C)

 

Finally, by deciding that it's more economical overall to rebid 2♣ over 1♣-1♥ also with a H reverse, we get:

 

1♣-1♥; ?:

 

1♠ = "5+ C" (catchall)

1N = 15-17 bal., 2-3 M

2♣ = D or H reverse

2♦ = "18-19 bal.", 2-3 M

2♥ = min, unbal. raise / "16-18, 3 S, 1-suited (/ 18-19 bal., 4 S?)

2♠ = 15-17 bal., 4 S

2N = ? (18-19 bal., 4 S?)

(...),

 

which seems very close to what straube suggested, although it has (even) less to do with Gazzilli.