You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recently I started to play such 2 after three passes. In this position I do not need Multi any more. From my (modest) experience, the natural 2 alternative does not bring anything extremely useful, while removing strong balanced hands from other openings is quite valuable IMHO. Positive factor is also that a strong balanced 2 keeps the opponents out of the bidding.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play it as a transfer to . In such situations, redouble starts a chain of transfers, ending at a simple raise of the partner's suit (the weakest option). The idea is following the Useful Space Principle methods.
This particular sequence is very effective for transfer approach, allowing to choose from a full menu of options.
Mine are as follows:
- redouble = transfer to (can be a real suit or lead directing with fit);
- 2 = transfer to = good raise;
- 2 = transfer to ;
- 2NT = mixed raise (or natural, but I prefer raise);
- 3 = transfer to partner's suit, Axx or Kxx (or mixed raise if you like natural 2nt);
- 3 = in competition.
Jan. 31
Janusz Lekki edited this comment Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll be probably a lone fool here, but here's the treatment advocated by a book “Modern relay systems” (D.Kowalski, in Polish):
Direct double after first GF relay (2 here) and intervention = shortness in the enemy's suit. May come handy if bidding gets turbulent;
Double from last position = reopen;
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This scheme is very similar to Foster Taylor's (?) one I've read about in the old journal from ‘70 (?). I was so much impressed by the crystal clarity of this structure that I started to play this way just on the next day. Unfortunately, being rather unexperienced beginner I learned very soon that in practice it’s not so easy as it looks like :)
And these damned strong hands were so rare…
Dec. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ML
Controversial opinion. A Precision 2 was introduced to Polish Club in the ‘80 and was always considered its weak point - the necessary evil facilitating bidding after 1. No improvements in subsequent bidding have been found in spite of many effors. Extension to 6 helps, but the frequency drops significantly and not many pairs (understatement) play this way.
In recent Jassem’s treatment, the Precision 2 was replaced by the improved variation of Ekren, showing weak majors - frequent and quite effective (vital asking bid 2).
Dec. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“…the direct 2♠ bid showing spades and clubs preeempted the hearts, right?”

Absolutely. That's why I don't play G. after 1, see above.

“Nor am I seeing how 6 card Gazzilli solves what to do on 1♥ - 1NT auctions when opener is 4=5=2=2 and responder is something like 3=1=5=4.”

Agree - I'm very compliant as you see ;)
Gazzilli has nothing to do here - semi-forcing 1nt does the job.
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, if 2 is a (nonforcing) way to escape to a low contract I cannot deny it's advantages over Gazzilli.

But the merit of Gazzilli is a comfortable way of bidding strong hands and I'd focus on this aspect, accepting occasional shadows.
Where the big gains are hidden ?

BTW, your 1453 hand is trivial in 6M-Gazzilli, as after opener's 2 the responder bids 2 and goes to sleep :) The 2 bidder, if weak, has 6M! This is a key idea in this variant: with weak hand you may almost always sail to 2M - no second rebid blues.
Also getting to a 3 contract with a 4-4 fit is trivial.

In general, I agree that after 1 the Gazzilli convention has problems, as the opening preempts hearts. Personally, I play a structure advocated in our bridge journal, with transfers and a catchall bid 2.
It's rather complex, I know :)

But after 1-1 and 1-1nt Yuan's (Lauria's ?) clockwork runs fine IMHO.
Dec. 7, 2019
Janusz Lekki edited this comment Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was already suggested in some other thread. Have a look at Yuan Shen's article about 6M-Gazzilli. Like every real neophyte, I really fell in love with this treatment. Hopefully one day I will stop to be blinded by it's brilliancy and start to see the shadows :) So far, not enough experience…
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In one of the recommended methods in Polish Club, 1M - 2nt is currently a game try with a 3+ fit (we don't like Jacoby, our
workhorse is GF 2c).
And now a 3c rebid means “do you have a decent invite?”.
This has an upside that the responder may answer “not really, but my fit is 4 cards”;
This extra step before game decision is charming. I'm serious.

PS1. There is of course more stuff, like 3d rebid as slam try etc.
PS2. In this context, SF 1nt works pretty well.
We pass with all 11-12(13) semi-balanced.
And often stretch 5332 14 HCP to 15-17 nt.
Dec. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you try to employ first principles approach you have to define conditions at least so well as in case of sims. Even more - I am convinced that it requires much deeper understanding of inner relations, while sims “see” them in a natural way. In effect, you have more occassions to err. Additionally, some factors are very difficult to be taken into account in first principles approach, e.g. distribution of high cards convoluted with distribution of suits. This seems to be rather a horror (but maybe I'm stupid).
Anyway, time factor is another issue.
Personally (call me not ambitious and lazy) I find pure calculations a nice, challenging mind game - good if you like it and you have plenty of time.
Maybe I'm a little professionally biased, but I consider solving such problems using sims the only reasonable way IMHO.
Nov. 22, 2019
Janusz Lekki edited this comment Nov. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With my pard we extend this M/m trick by showing a double fit using 4om (more exactly, 4c is always a double fit and 4d is a major fit and a good hand).
Considering the rest I fully agree and I play this way.
Below 3nt and without a M fit the primary goal is reaching a reasonable 3nt. However, I must admit that a 3d rebid brings sometimes problems below 3nt. Oh, life…
Nov. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
March 2019 (NewBM1903)
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All Polish authors here, for at least 15-20 years, have been advocating the treatment where direct acceptance of the transfer is exactly 2 cards. 3 cards fit is sold by 3nt and other bids show fit 4(+) and significant extras.
And yes - many simulations have been done in this area,
mostly in context of 21(20)-22 HCP. If I recall correctly, a hand with 6 small cards in a major and virually nothing more was the (stretched) limit.
So, if you feel unhappy with the perspective of 4M with your crappy hand, you must sit 2NT.
Surely, it requires some more agreements, but not very extensive (re-transfers etc).
So this may be considered as a local standard, at least among those who read (and sometimes trust) the books. Personally, I do :)
Nov. 18, 2019
Janusz Lekki edited this comment Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Subsequently, responses 3 and 3 were abandoned, mainly due to their low frequency. In recent Martens' works these distributions are shown by “transfer after Stayman”.
3 and 3 responses proved to be more useful, in spite of the fact that their frequency is also not spectacular.
Nov. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really fresh idea, much more appealing than pure multi after 1, as is e.g. in a system of Lauria.
My 2 cents - what do you think about replacing GF in by GF in ? If we have a strong clubs hand, our partner has a weak NT and bidding is (should be ?) easy.
Then 1 - 2 could be a transfer to what seems very nice.
Nov. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Following transfer ideas, 2 is a transfer to hearts (full range, 11-21) and 2 is a nonforcing switch to 5 4.
I have been playing this way for about half a year, but still do not have enough statistics. But in all 3-4 cases it worked well.
Nov. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a somehow close structure (however my 1 is a real suit):
1 - 2 is weak Multi (Lauria patent?);
1 - 2 is weak reverse Flannery;
1 - 2 is more or less like inverted minor (10+);
You have awakened my interest, please feed me…
Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting opinion, I've met this treatment already but I was always thinking it sacrifies too much bidding for the not so frequent hands. Maybe I was wrong with this impresssion.
To clarify: you mean 2 as weak 5 4 and 2 as a stronger option, right? What is your HCP range for stronger Flannery? 10-11?
Sept. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - 1, my favourite problem child :)
Definitely, I support bidding 2 with 5323.
And what about weak 2 as the direct response to 1?
This - among other benefits - clarifies many problem cases.
If 2 response is weak on 6+, you may use 2 after 2 and
2 rebids as constructive bid.
Sept. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After double, you may play the 3NT from any side :)
As extra bonus, such double may be converted into \$\$\$.
In your previous post you aimed at 3NT and didn't care about playing 2NT.
July 4, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top