2C/2D to show a balanced 17-20
Barry Rigal
playing the 2C/2D opening bid for a strong balanced hand a la Bocchi-Duboin
or Lauria/Versace.
(In theory 2C looks better for having both major transfers, to get out in
2M, but maybe you lose too much to have 2D as the GF hand?)
Has anyone any experience of bolting this on to a standard 2/1 GF 2C system?
If so would they like to let us (me) know how that works?
Barry Rigal
Poky
> If so would they like to let us (me) know how that works?
I play this way 2 years and works very fine.
I developed a pretty good structure after the 2C 18-19 opening, based on
technique of double transfer (2D/2H/2S/2NT/3C all transfers) with 3D as
Stayman.
2D is the worst systemic opening. It is GF. My style of bidding is to
open most unbalanced GF hands (except these with 23+ hcp) with 1Any
'cause partner has to respond with most 4+ hands (or even less when
having a fit). Playing this way, 2D opening is used practically for 23+
balanced hands - and the development of these hands is pretty easy. I
like very much this style of bidding.
The main gain are the 1C and 1D openings and the competitive auctions
after these openings. Why?
Cause 1D opening shows an unbalanced hand with 5D (or some 4441 hand)
and 1C shows a natural club-opening or 12-14 balanced hand.
The specific transfer techniques and negative-double techniques allows
uor side to find even the most sensible contracts.
I reccomend this style of bidding to everyone.
Poky
P.S. 2C opening has to be strictly 18-19 cause there are no invites (it
makes the structure much simplier). I play 1NT 15-17 and 2NT 20-21(22).
David Burn
"Barry Rigal" <barry...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:cXLld.10822$_J2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
The "Mexican 2D" to show this kind of hand was part of Romex (and for aught
I know still is). You could bolt it on to just about any system, provided
you were prepared to give up some kind of pre-empt (such as the weak 2D or
the Multi). Since the Italians are "classical" or "conservative"
pre-empters, I do not imagine that they feel the loss of 2D as a pre-empt
causes them much pain.
David Burn
London, England
Daniel Auby
I used 2D=18-19 BAL a lot some 15 years ago, but not in my ordinary
partnership. I might have played some 500 hands or so using this
convention (including the qualification in the WC Pairs in Geneva
1990) and I specifically remember that I counted the number of times
it gave us a bad board. The sum was zero. Only once did we end up too
high, 2NT -1 instead of 1 od a suit or 1NT making. But then our
opponents could and often did play 2S making and thus we had succeeded
in preempting our opponents! (Not often you preempt your opponents
when having almost half the deck :-)
Since it works pretty fine and the reason for the construction is too
get rid of the strong bal hands from the 1 of a suit openings I would
be satisfied with the choice of 2D as showing this hand. I would not
like to get some more efficiency by using 2C instead since then the FG
hands must be opened 2D. That would be truly awful - you got to be
able to sort out your major suit lengths after the FG opening bid and
that you cannot do using 2D instead of 2C.
Barry Rigal
Barry
"Daniel Auby" <au...@rixtele.com> wrote in message
news:57a50c29.04111...@posting.google.com...
Adam Beneschan
> I used 2D=18-19 BAL a lot some 15 years ago, but not in my ordinary
> partnership. I might have played some 500 hands or so using this
> convention (including the qualification in the WC Pairs in Geneva
> 1990) and I specifically remember that I counted the number of times
> it gave us a bad board. The sum was zero.
Yep, but the question you *didn't* answer is: how many times did this
convention gain over what a "standard" auction would have given you
(open a minor, then jump to 2NT)? If this answer is zero also, then
the fact that the convention didn't give you a bad board doesn't mean
a whole lot. I realized that you mentioned "getting rid of this hand
from the 1 of the suit openers" as one of the advantages, but you
didn't give us any reason to believe this was actually an advantage.
-- Adam
Ron Lel
"Adam Beneschan" <ad...@irvine.com> wrote in message
news:b4682ab7.04111...@posting.google.com...
One obvious advantage is that 1x 1y 2NT can now be used for a variety of
hand types - eg the Bridge world hand of death and other strong supporting
hands. It is fairly easy to construct a checkback mechanism to show these
hands.
Ron Lel
Daniel Auby
As Ron says. And there are more hands. Just compare
1S-1NT
2C
and
1S-1NT
3C
and you realise what a lot of information the 2C rebid carries and how
nice it would be if we had three instead of two bids describing the
S+C holdings. Or S+D etc holdings for that matter.
And no, I never kept any score of how many good boards we got by being
able to free the 2NT rebid for other use. However I used a
conventional 2NT rebid in a natural framework between 1975 and 1997
and we were very happy about it, we had numerous good boards and it
made it possible to eliminate a large problem area in the natural
framwork (at that time we played the 1NT opening bid as 16-19 which is
another way to get rid of the ugly 18-19 NT).
In fact, I find it a little surprising that you made this objection.
It is very theoretical and if you had thought a little about it you
would have realised that if the user is not plain stupid he would be
able to come with some useful alternative definition of the 2NT rebid.
-----------
On a related topic:
Around 1990 Cole popped up which was an alternative way to handle some
of the problems I described. In younger groups in Sweden today it is
standard to play
1M-1NT
2C
as "witch"-2C as it was baptised by its inventors, not long after
Cole, but long before Gazilli saw the light AFAIK. This convention
actually lessens the need for the 2D opening to show 18-19 BAL but
IMHO any bidding system should take care of the 18-19 BAL in some
other way than opening 1 of a suit and rebidding 2NT. There are a lot
of ways to accomplish it. My own is to play a strong C which I have
found to be clearly superior to the natural method.
Giovanni Bobbio
> On a related topic:
>
> Around 1990 Cole popped up which was an alternative way to handle some
> of the problems I described. In younger groups in Sweden today it is
> standard to play
> 1M-1NT
> 2C
>
> as "witch"-2C as it was baptised by its inventors, not long after
> Cole, but long before Gazilli saw the light AFAIK.
Daniel, I was playing Gazzilli (note two z's) in the late eighties and I
have no reason to believe I was an early adopter, especially since I was
little more than a beginner then (don't ask about now, thank you).
By the way, acknowledging all the interest on this convention from American
players, The Bridge World has just accepted an article of mine on Gazzilli.
No idea on when it will be published.
--
Giovanni
Italy
Daniel Auby
Giovanni,
Lucky for me I added "AFAIK" :-) Did you invent it or do you know who
got the original idea?
This convention, to let opener's 2C rebid on the 2nd round contain
more than just S+C-hands, is IMO one of the greatest bridge bidding
inventions during the last ... years (we will fill in the number of
years when we know when it was invented :-))
Thanks for the info!
Daniel
Giovanni Bobbio
> Did you invent it [Gazzilli] or do you know who got the original idea?
As far as I can tell it was invented in Milan.
Leo Gazzilli was a player from Milan who used to play with a lady called
Jolanda Baj. In the early years of the convention we used to call it Baj
rather than Gazzilli. I would venture that this pairs was the first to play
the convention.
That's all I know. Surely older players from Milan will remember more
details.
--
Giovanni
Italy