2/1. Gazzilli 16+. 1M - f1NT; 2M = 6 carder.

[kiwinacol]

Hello all. I'm testing a version of Lorenzo Lauria's Gazzilli on my Jack computer program and that's OK. My main adaptation is to remove the 11-15 5M4C hands and use Ritong 2H/2S with multi-2D. The released weak 5M4C sequences allow me to retain my familiar 1M- 1S/1N; f1NT code. Would you have saved any database or hands with bidding that you used to practice Gazzilli? Especially hands that work (both with and without Gazzilli) and those that illustrate problems that one has to appreciate and look ahead for. I would be happy to share any of my resources. Thank you. Ash.

[Phil]

I don't think it's worth having to play 2M as 5M4C.

[kiwinacol]

I don't think it's worth having to play 2M as 5M4C.

Yes, I don't think a 5M4+C limitation is its strong point. The frequency would be low for these Roman like bids. But some other modern systems seem to use intermediate twos successfully.

 

To me the weak 2H/2S are a small loss as I recover part of their functionality in multi-2D. And having balanced 22-23 in 2D means the opening 2NT is just 20-21. That seems to be an added advantage. Over the years I've tried weak two-suiter 2H and 2S variations. IMO they seem more trouble than they are worth.

 

Inclusion of 11-15 5M4C in 1M openings makes for a more complex and inconsistent Gazzilli code. So its not so much the benefit of the Ritong 2H/2S openings themselves, but the load they take of other 2C sequences. Instead of G 2C being 11+ (if the hand is 5M4C), all G 2c are now 16+. This means with 1H 1S; 2C we are more like precision, having shown 16+, an opening 5+M and spade response. Resulting in a little more space compared to strong 1C - 1S, 2H sequence.

 

Phil, thanks for the comment.

[fromageGB]

I do play a 15+ Gazzilli with forcing NT and like it. However, a different question is whether losing all your other 2-bids for the sake of a bid for 5M4+♣ is a good idea. If you bid 1M 1fNT 2♦ does this guarantee 4+ diamonds? Not for me, I am happy to lose them. I prefer to lose the clubs when 12-14 as well. 15-16 with a 5 card minor jumps to 3m rather than bids 2♣.

 

Sorry I cannot help with hands.

[nige1]

John Matheson published a couple of articles, with lots of illustrative deals, in Scottish Bridge News about a much simpler version of Gazzilli, converting many, including me, to the convention. Seems to solve many problems.

[mgoetze]

To me the weak 2H/2S are a small loss as I recover part of their functionality in multi-2D.

A too small part.

 

Inclusion of 11-15 5M4C in 1M openings makes for a more complex and inconsistent Gazzilli code. So its not so much the benefit of the Ritong 2H/2S openings themselves, but the load they take of other 2C sequences. Instead of G 2C being 11+ (if the hand is 5M4C), all G 2c are now 16+.

It's rather strange that you claimed to be testing "a version of Lorenzo Lauria's Gazzilli". I mean, it's not "Lorenzo Lauria's Gazzilli", it's "Gazzilli's Gazzilli", and I would suggest you look into Lorenzo Lauria's version of it, which is not as you described in the above quote. :P

[kiwinacol]

A too small part.

 

 

It's rather strange that you claimed to be testing "a version of Lorenzo Lauria's Gazzilli". I mean, it's not "Lorenzo Lauria's Gazzilli", it's "Gazzilli's Gazzilli", and I would suggest you look into Lorenzo Lauria's version of it, which is not as you described in the above quote. :P

 

Thank you Mgoetze. My early searches for Gazzilli didn't reveal much and certainly no texts or ebooks that developed the bidding.

 

What I did find and purchase on the net (from NewInBridge: ["The Topics Collection is an ongoing series on modern bridge theory with monthly publications, authored by Eric Rodwell et al. and edited by Paul Maris."]) was their topic 07. It is 14 pages of text, explanations, code and examples.

Topic 07 is titled, Gazzilli a la Lauria by Lorenzo Lauria. And I also purchased LL's system off Dan Neill's site. In addition I've done a lot of reading (e.g. articles by Yuan Shen) on the bridge winners.com and other sites.

 

I am aware that LL uses 15+ and includes 5M4+C in his 2C, I didn't claim otherwise. Also I didn't say I was trying Gazzillis Gazzilli but a version of Laurias. Have you a better source for LL's version of Gazzilli that I can research?

 

The changes I quoted were some that I had made to LL's version. You say strange but that seems pretty clear to me. i.e. I had removed the weak 5M4+C from his code and used the spaces differently so that all 1M - 1S/1fNT; 2C code is 16+. Mgoetze, thanks for your comments.

[kiwinacol]

I do play a 15+ Gazzilli with forcing NT and like it. However, a different question is whether losing all your other 2-bids for the sake of a bid for 5M4+♣ is a good idea. If you bid 1M 1fNT 2♦ does this guarantee 4+ diamonds? Not for me, I am happy to lose them. I prefer to lose the clubs when 12-14 as well. 15-16 with a 5 card minor jumps to 3m rather than bids 2♣.

 

Sorry I cannot help with hands.

Hello fromageGB. No guarantee for 4+D. I imagine having to bid a horrible 2D on 3523, 1H 1N; 2D, 12-14, as the version I play demands 2M to have 6 cards. I've never used Gazzilli at the table and have only tested it against generated hands. I'm not sure how bad this 2+m rebid is going to be. Few of the articles I've read dwell on the difficulties of using Gazzilli or its nuances. Thanks for your response.

[nullve]

I imagine having to bid a horrible 2D on 3523, 1H 1N; 2D, 12-14, as the version I play demands 2M to have 6 cards.

You're apparently living in New Zealand, so why do you play F1N? There's a very good reason why F1N should be more common in the ACBL than elsewhere: the GCC doesn't allow pairs to play 1M-2♣ as "nat. or Drury" or "nat., bal. or Drury", so apparently the 3c limit raise in has to be included in 1N, potentially burying a 5-3 M fit unless 1N is F1, or in 2N, 3x(x<M) or 3M, committing the partnership to at least 3M.

Edited June 5, 2016 by nullve

[fromageGB]

You're apparently living in New Zealand, so why do you play F1N? There's a very good reason why F1N should be more common in the ACBL than elsewhere: the GCC doesn't allow pairs to play 1M-2♣ as "nat. or Drury" or "nat., bal. or Drury", so apparently the 3c limit raise in has to be included in 1N, potentially burying a 5-3 M fit unless 1N is F1, or in 2N, 3x(x<M) or 3M, committing the partnership to at least 3M.

There are reasons for playing forcing NT outside USA, such as including 13-15 hcp balanced hands (which makes the 16+ hands very easy to identify and bid), and weak support (which gives a significant benefit in that a simple 1M 2M can have a high lower floor), but I do not think this thread should get into the forcing/non-forcing argument.

[fromageGB]

I'm not sure how bad this 2+m rebid is going to be.

Let us know how your simulations fare. In practice I have rarely felt this a problem, as the default contract of 2M when partner is not looking for game works fine. There is nothing to stop partner bidding a 6 card minor to play, or 5 if short in your major (he knows you do not have 6, and if spades, that you do not have 4 hearts, so it is highly likely you will have support for him). You do not lose all the minor contracts.

 

Remember 2♦ is passable.

 

As you can't show diamonds, what I would suggest you consider is whether you think you really need to be able to show clubs. As your Ritong forces you to the 3 level if partner does not like your major, is this much different from letting him rebid 3♣ over a non-Ritong 2♦ rebid? Better, certainly, but I think the benefits given by other uses of the 2♦, 2♥, and 2♠ bids more than compensate.

[kiwinacol]

Let us know how your simulations fare. In practice I have rarely felt this a problem, as the default contract of 2M when partner is not looking for game works fine. There is nothing to stop partner bidding a 6 card minor to play, or 5 if short in your major (he knows you do not have 6, and if spades, that you do not have 4 hearts, so it is highly likely you will have support for him). You do not lose all the minor contracts.

 

Remember 2♦ is passable.

 

As you can't show diamonds, what I would suggest you consider is whether you think you really need to be able to show clubs. As your Ritong forces you to the 3 level if partner does not like your major, is this much different from letting him rebid 3♣ over a non-Ritong 2♦ rebid? Better, certainly, but I think the benefits given by other uses of the 2♦, 2♥, and 2♠ bids more than compensate.

 

Thank you fromageGB. Soon I'm going to ask Ritong's advice on how well he thinks his 2 bids work and problems that have raised at the table.

 

A couple of questions please. With Gazzilli, 16+, what do you do with hands like S QJT6 H AKJ73 D 5 C Q93? 1H f1N; ? Bid 2D and hope you don't get a flat tyre as well?

 

There is no good reason to bid 2S as the reverse isn't needed to show extra points nor is responders preference at the three level holding a weak opener that nice. Even a weak opening hand with 46(31) might be unpleasant with a shape 2S bid. And how often would a weak 56+(m) come up to use the reserve for that? With that shape and moderate hand one might bid a non-forcing 1H 1N; 3S?

 

If thats the case, would it be better to use the sequence 1H 1N; 2S to cover other hand types and to take more pressure off the G sequence bids? BTW I don't use Flannery so thats not an option.

e.g. to begin showing 18+ single suiter or 18+ two suiters a minor or any unbalanced 18+ or higher range hand?

 

thank you Ash

[fromageGB]

A couple of questions please. With Gazzilli, 16+, what do you do with hands like S QJT6 H AKJ73 D 5 C Q93? 1H f1N; ? Bid 2D and hope you don't get a flat tyre as well?

My choice is to play Kaplan inversion, so on this hand the bidding goes 1♥ 1♠, and 2♦ from me showing a 4 card spade suit in case responder also has 4 (he bids 1NT with 5). Playing without Kaplan inversion, I would bid 1♥ 1NT, 2♦ denying 6 hearts and denying a 16 count. Partner will only pass if his diamonds are about 4 cards longer than hearts, and 2♥ is the default bid if he is weak.

 

If you are worried about coming unstuck with a singleton diamond you may choose to agree that a 2♥ opener rebid is either 6 card, or 5 with a diamond shortage. This is not necessarily a bad idea; if a strong partner does bid 4♥ on a doubleton, and has nothing useful in diamonds, you control diamonds and can probably draw sufficient rounds of trumps before you get one of your side suits working.

[Zelandakh]

Thank you fromageGB. Soon I'm going to ask Ritong's advice on how well he thinks his 2 bids work and problems that have raised at the table.

I would suggest asking Ben (inquiry) too as he also has a great deal of experience in using these methods.

[fromageGB]

There is no good reason to bid 2S as the reverse isn't needed to show extra points nor is responders preference at the three level holding a weak opener that nice. Even a weak opening hand with 46(31) might be unpleasant with a shape 2S bid. And how often would a weak 56+(m) come up to use the reserve for that? With that shape and moderate hand one might bid a non-forcing 1H 1N; 3S?

This is murky water. Weak bids of 2♠ and 3♠ after a start of 1♥ 1fNT have no meaning for me, and are risky. With a weak opener of both majors 55 or longer I would open 1♠ to rebid 2♥, but hearts then spades might put the only safe contract beyond reach. I think it should be reserved for some strong hand, where taking it out of your Gazzilli 2♣ gives additional definition. That depends on your Gazzilli follow-ups. I use 1♠ 1fNT 3♥ as specifically 55xx and strong but limited - the bottom 2 hcp of your Gazzilli strength. 1♥ 1fNT 2♠ could for example be 16/17 and 56xx.

[Zelandakh]

A couple of questions please. With Gazzilli, 16+, what do you do with hands like S QJT6 H AKJ73 D 5 C Q93? 1H f1N; ? Bid 2D and hope you don't get a flat tyre as well?

it is probably not the sort of thing you are looking for but one solution over a 1♥ opening is to move from a F1NT response to a F1♠. The 1NT response then becomes GF with spades, with 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT the corresponding Gazilli sequence. There are some further tweaks you can do to make the 1♥ sequences match even better to the 1♠ ones too. The end result is essentially playing an identical system for both majors and thus avoiding special cases such as with the Flannery hand.

[pholly]

John Matheson published a couple of articles, with lots of illustrative deals, in Scottish Bridge News about a much simpler version of Gazzilli, converting many, including me, to the convention. Seems to solve many problems.

 

 

Hi - I noticed your comment on John Matheson's article on Gazzilli and wondered whether I could get access to it. I am in the (pre-)early stages of learning the convention and a simplified version sounds appealing!

 

Cheers, Philip

[nige1]

Hi - I noticed your comment on John Matheson's article on Gazzilli and wondered whether I could get access to it. I am in the (pre-)early stages of learning the convention and a simplified version sounds appealing!

email me :)

 

 

[nige1]

Now experimenting with a variant, after our 1-openers, where

1X - 1Y - 2♣ is always Gazzilli and shows 16+ HCP or 6+ X.