[arnoldson]

I'm aware of the gazilli variant whereby 1s-1nt-2c is either hearts or strong.

Presumably this entails 1s-1nt-2h being spades and clubs limited. What continuations should one play over that? 3 clubs is to play and 2nt natural invite so you lose an invitational raise of clubs?

[nullve]

I play

1S-1N; ?:
(...)
2D = 5S4+m (Muiderberg-like)
2H = 6+ S, extras
2S = 6+ S, min ("10-12")
(...)

I actually pass 1N(5-12, NF) with 10-12, 5S4m, so the 2D rebid is easier to handle than one might think.

[Kungsgeten]

arnoldson, on 2015-October-12, 10:46, said:

3 clubs is to play and 2nt natural invite so you lose an invitational raise of clubs?

I haven't heard about this structure before, but yes I'd guess that 2NT as INV and 3C as preference makes sense. That's what I've played when 1M-1N; 2M shows 5M and 4 clubs. I guess you could make 2NT invitational and forcing, but then you give up playing in 2NT. Another option is to support 1S directly with 2+ spades if less than INV (seems like a strange treatment though) and then 1S-1N; 2H-2S; could be artificial.

[nullve]

If the 1N response allows you to pass bare minimum hands with 5S4C, you can play something like

1S-1N; 2H*-?:
(...)
2N = inv+ relay (GF opposite 5S4C)
...3C = 5+S5+C, NF
...3D = 5134 (GF)
...3H = 5314 (GF)
...3S = 5+S5+C, FG
...3N = 5224
3C = pref., < inv
(...)

* 6S4C not included

[B Psyches]

I have heard from a former partner of the following structure:

1♠-1N:

2♣ = ♥ or strong
2♦ = Natural
2♥ = 6+♠ F1
2♠ = 5+♠ & 4+♣ NF

There are obvious pros in that you can now use this 2♥ transfer to show extra defined hands.

I am not saying though that I advocate it (I never took it up due to lack of symmetry with other G auctions and no ability to play in 2♥ with weak ♠+♣ hands).

[Kungsgeten]

B Psyches, on 2015-October-13, 04:17, said:

1♠-1N:

2♣ = ♥ or strong
2♦ = Natural
2♥ = 6+♠ F1
2♠ = 5+♠ & 4+♣ NF

Now the convention makes more sense

[wank]

B Psyches, on 2015-October-13, 04:17, said:

I have heard from a former partner of the following structure:

1♠-1N:

2♣ = ♥ or strong
2♦ = Natural
2♥ = 6+♠ F1
2♠ = 5+♠ & 4+♣ NF

There are obvious pros in that you can now use this 2♥ transfer to show extra defined hands.

I am not saying though that I advocate it (I never took it up due to lack of symmetry with other G auctions and no ability to play in 2♥ with weak ♠+♣ hands).

ah yes that would be a big improvement on what i said

[nullve]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-October-13, 05:17, said:

Now the convention makes more sense

The ♣/♥ swap makes sense even without the strong option in 2♣, because it allows

1♠-1N; 2♣(4+ H)-2♦ = range ask

instead of e.g.

1♠-1N; 2♥(4+ H)-2N = nat. inv.

[lexlogan]

Another variant is 1S-1NT-2C showing either 6+ spades or strong; 1S-1NT-2S is 5+ spades 4+ clubs, not strong. This makes the sequence 1S-1NT; 2C-2S equivalent to "I would have passed 2S", not promising any spades at all. Any thoughts on this versus normal gazilli or the hearts variant? Note that the same scheme applies with a heart opening: 1H-1NT-2C is either 6+ hearts or strong, and it would seem normal to extend it to 1H-1S-2C as well.

[awm]

Having to bid 1s-1nt-2s to show spades and clubs is quite bad:

1. Cannot distinguish weak vs invite 3c
2. Cannot find heart fits when responder has the suit.

These are potentially expensive!

A good gazilli auction is 1s-1nt-2c!-2s where opener can pass with 17-18 hands that would bid on in standard, since partner showed weakness. If the "weak option" in 2c was 6+S though, the 2s correction will often be on singleton, which leads to some bad contracts if opener passes with 5341 and 17 (for example). This seems like another issue for the "strong or 6M" style in addition to the losses on S+C above.

The "hearts or strong" version does help find some games when opener has 17-18 both majors and responder has 5-7 but a good heart fit. However I doubt it compensates for the S+C issue.

I would rate:

1. "Normal" gazilli is best in a 2/1 systen
2. "S+H" gazilli is better in a standard base with NF 1nt, since the "club invite" hand is not really a factor.
3. "6+M" gazilli just seems bad

I should also plug my Zirconia+Gazilli where:

1H-1S-1NT = diamonds or strong
1H-1S-2D = 3-card spade raise

[nige1]

B Psyches, on 2015-October-13, 04:17, said:

1♠-1N:

• 2♣ = ♥ or strong
• 2♦ = Natural
• 2♥ = 6+♠ F1
• 2♠ = 5+♠ & 4+♣ NF

That's a good idea!

[jfnrl]

I don't know if the following is playable (no table experience) :
Supposing 1NT max rank is 11 HCP and is semi-forcing :
Pass : (12-13 HCP 5233 or 52(42)) or 12 HCP 53(23)
2T : 4 H or (strong with only 5S)
2K : 6S any (2H relay)
2C : 3H 53(41) any ; 53(23) 13-15 HCP ; 2H 14-15 HCP
2S : 51(43) 12-15 HCP

If the max. rank of 1NT is 10 HCP, I suppose that the best is to pass any 12 HCP count without 6S nor 4H and add 1HCP to the former minimum

[nullve]

jfnrl, on 2015-October-25, 09:01, said:

I don't know if the following is playable (no table experience) :

What do you do with 5S5m hands that are too weak for the 2♣ rebid?

[jfnrl]

nullve, on 2015-October-25, 17:14, said:

What do you do with 5S5m hands that are too weak for the 2♣ rebid?

3m with a decent m-suit
pass, 2H, 2S are also options with :

Kxxxx
A
AQ
xxxxx

Axxxx
AK
x
Jxxxx

Axxxx
-
AKx
xxxxx

[nullve]

jfnrl, in my experience, passing 1N on minimum hands with 5S5m is quite bad, although it's something I've done in the past because it makes things easier/prettier/better when Opener doesn't have that hand type. Also, I wouldn't want to forego the chance to play 2M with, say, 12-14, 5S5m opposite 5-9, 2S2m after, say, 1♠-1N; 2♥-2♠; P or 1♠-1N; 2♠-P. So I suggest squeezing all these 5S5m hands into your 2♥/♠ rebids. Then by moving everything to a 14-16 NT/rule of 19 context we get:

1♠-1N(5-12, NF); ?:

P = 10-12, 5S4m / 11-13, 5S(332)
2♣ = 4+ H / strong (= rule of 25+)
2♦ = 6+ S
2♥ = Muiderberg-like w/ H tolerance: 9-14, 5S2+H5m / 13-15, 52(42) or 53(41)
2♠ = Muiderberg-like w/o H tolerance: 9-14, 5S1-H5m / 13-15, 51(43) or 5044
(...)

On partscore deals this is pretty much equivalent to what I play now, which (as you can see above) is close to

P = 10-12, 5S4m / 11-13, 5S(332)
2♣ = 4+ H / strong (= rule of 25+)
2♦ = Muiderberg-like: 9-14, 5S5m / 13-15, 5S3-H4m
2♥ = "13+" (rule of 22+), 6+ S
2♠ = "10-12" (rule of 19-21), 6+ S
(...),

but the former scheme leaves more precious bidding room on game (or slam!) deals when Opener has 5S4+m, when maybe the best I can do is

1♠-1N; 2♦-?:

P = 6+ D or gamble, < GF opposite 5S4m
2♥ = 5+ H, < GF opposite 5S4m
2♠ = 2(3) S, < GF opposite 5S4m
2N = relay, GF opposite 5S4m
3♣ = P/C, < GF opposite 5S4m

1♠-1N; 2♦-2N; ?:

3♣ = 9-11, 5S5C
3♦ = 9-11, 5S5D
3♥ = 12-14, 5S5C / 13-15, 5S4C
...3♠ = 5+ H
......3N = 2- H
......4♣+ = 5314 or 5305
3♠ = 12-14, 5S5D / 13-15, 5S2-H4D
3N = 12-14, 5350 / 13-15, 5341

Both schemes work well enough on hands with 6+ S, so overcall I think the former (i.e. yours with modifcations) is potentially a tad better, and my only reason for not playing it is one of aesthetics: I like to play something similar after 1♠-1N as after 1♥-1N, and currently I play something close to

1♥-1N(5-12, NF); ?:

P = 10-12, 5H4O / 11-13 5H(332)
2♣ = 9-14, 5H5m / 13-15, 5H4O / strong (= rule of 25+)
2♦ = "13+" (rule of 22+), 6+ H
2♥ = "10-12" (rule of 19-21), 6+ H
(...)

[nullve]

Improvement(?):

1♠-1N(5-12, NF); ?:

P = 10-12, 5S4m / 11-13, 5S(332)
2♣ = Gazzilli-like: 4+ H / strong (= rule of 25+)
2♦ = Muiderberg-like: 9-11, 5S5D / 12-14, 5H5m / 13-15, 5S3-H4m
...(...)
...2N = relay, GF unless Opener has 9-11, 5S5D
...(...)
2♥ = 9-11, 5S5C / "10-12 or 16+" (rule of 19-21 or 25+), 6+ S
2♠ = "13-15" (rule of 22-24), 6+ S
(...),


1♠-1N; 2♦-2N; ?:

3♣ = 12-14, 5S5D / 13-15, 5S4D
...3♦ = relay
......3♥ = 5242 or 5S5D
.........3♠ = relay
............3N = 5242
............4♣+ = 5S5D
......3♠ = 5143 (5044)
......3N = 5341
3♦ = 9-11, 5S5D, NF
3♥ = 12-14, 5S5C / 13-15, 5224
...3♠ = relay
......3N = 5224
......4♣+ = 5S5C
3♠ = 13-15, 5134 (0544)
3N = 13-15, 5314


Similarly:

1♥-1N(5-12, NF); ?:

P = 10-12, 5H4O / 11-13 5H(332)
2♣ = Gazzilli-like: 12-14, 5H5m / 13-15, 5H4O / strong (= rule of 25+)
...2♦ = positive relay
......2♥ = Lucas-like: 12-14, 5H5C / 13-15, 5H4O
.........(...)
.........2N = GF relay
.........(...)
......(...)
...(...)
2♦ = 9-11, 5H5m / 10-12 or 16+" (rule of 19-21 or 25+), 6+ H
2♥ = "13-15" (rule of 22-24), 6+ H
(...)


1♥-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2N; ?:

3♣ = 12-14, 5H5D / 13-15, 5H4D
...3♦ = relay
......3♥ = 2542 or 5H5D
.........3♠ = relay
............3N = 2542
............4♣+ = 5H5D
......3♠ = 1543 (0544)
......3N = 3541 (4540)
3♦ = 13-15, 4522 or 45(31)
...3♥ = anti-SPL C / relay
......3♠ = 4513
......3N = 4522
......4♣+ = 4531
...3♠ = anti-SPL D
......3N = 4522 or 4531
......4♣+ = 4513
3♥ = 12-14, 5H5C / 13-15, 2524
...3♠ = relay
......3N = 2524
......4♣+ = 5H5C
3♠ = 13-15, 1534 (0544)
3N = 13-15, 3514 (4504)