Regards and Happy Trails,
Boulder, Colorado, USA
What means Gazilli ?
If Gazilli is too difficult for you to remember easily in the heat of
battle, I can't think of many other quick solutions other than to
restrict the range of your openers.
How about doing without Gazilli and not worrying about it?
Will in New Haven
It is an Italian convention to add better definition primarily in
forcing NT auctions.
2C = either "a normal 2C rebid" or any 17+ (consistent with a 1M
2C = as above
After 2C, 2D is used as a relay and a complex scheme is used to show
all the strong hand types. Since the strong hands go through 2C, the
jump-rebids show good intermediate strength hands such as a 5-5 or 6-5
in the 14-16 HCP range.
You lose the ability to play in 2C and sometimes 2D. You gain the
ability to show strength and shape precisely with good intermediate
and strong hands.
(1) Play a simple 1C forcing system. This limits the 1H/1S openings,
so you don't need Gazzilli.
(2) Play a Fantone-Nunes structure. Then 1H and !S aren't weak.
(3) Recognize that 1S-1NT-2x covers a wide range, and have responder
strain to bid again with 8+ hcp. This isn't always practical, and
there's no good solution for The Bridge World Death Hand, but in
practice you'll get to most of the same contracts as with the other
I've played a home-brewed version of Reverse Gazzilli (1S-1NT-2S shows
5+ spades, 4+ clubs, 11-15 hcp; the 2C rebid promises extra strength
or extra spade length) but not enough to say whether it's worth it.
Bidding practice helped highlight some problem areas, and I think most
of the structure becomes logical when you start with the basics and
then run into problems.
If you have to ask this question, then the answer is clearly a
I don't play Gazilli mostly because I don't have partners who would like to
add it on. Nor have I experienced much need for it.
Really? "Clearly" and "resounding"--such an insightful and informative
response. With apologies for formatting quirks, was just wondering about
the following, which seems nontrivial, compared with a context including
perhaps Bart/Lisa, Meckstroth Adjunct/Eisenberg 3C and the effect of
Gazilli is an artificial 2C call by O after a 1M opening and a 1S or 1N
response. The call shows 5-3-3-2, 11-14, 15-17, 18-19; 5-4 in M and Cs,
11-16; and/or all other hands valued at 17+. After O's 2N rebid: 3C = GF
Relay: 3D = 4 Ds, 3H = 4 Hs, 3S = 4Cs ; 3D/H/S = to play;
1N = 11-14, bal
2C = Gazilli
2D = natch 11-16
(same) R rebids = natch, 2S = big raise
2H = 6+, 11-14
2S = 3-4 cards, 11-14 sp
reverse, Leb on
2N = spl w/4 Ss or 6 Hs and 3 Ss, 14-16 6+ H, 4-card
side suit, 17+ (3C = GF relay)
3m = 5+ H and 5 m, 14-16, pure, at most 5 losers (same)
3H = 6 Hs, not 3 Ss, 14-16 6 Hs,
14-16, very good suit, 7 tricks
3S = 4 cards, 14-16, 4-5-2-2 6 Hs, 5 Ss
(8 tricks, solid Hs, no S stop)
4m = 6-4 spl for Ss 6
Hs, 5 m, 14-16 (8+ tricks, 7+ Hs, void)
3N = (8+ tricks, 7+ Hs, S stop)
R's rebids after Gazilli:
2D = 8+. O rebids: 2H = 5+ Hs, 3+ Cs, 11-16 (same) (11-16 bal or
2S = 5+ Hs, 3+ Ss, 17+ 5 Hs,
3+ Cs, 11-16 (5-4, 17+: 2N asks suit)
2N = 5-3-3-2, 15-17 (same)
3m = 5+ Hs, 4+ m, 17+ 5+ Hs,
5+ m, 17+
3H = 6+ Hs, not 3 Ss, 17+ 6+ Hs,
3S = 5+ Hs,4+ Cs 3 Ss,15-16 IDLE (GF,
3N = 5-3-3-2S, 18-19 (same)
2H = 2-3 Hs, to play
2S = 5+ Ss, short Hs, to play At
least 5-4 ms, equal or longer Ds, sign-off
2N = 5+ Ds, signoff
Both minors, signoff (6+ Ds, 8-10)
3C = 5+ Cs, signoff
3D = 5 Ss, 5 Ds, 8-10 6+
3H = 3-card LR w/4 Ss 3-card
3S = inv, 6+
5+ Cs, stiff S, 8+
3N = 5+ Cs, 9-10
After 1H-1S/2C-2D/2H: After
2S = GF relay. O rebids: 2N = 2-5-2-4 2S = 4+ Cs,
3C = 5 Hs, 5 Cs
3D = 5 Hs, 4 Cs, 3 Ds
3H = 6 Hs, 4 Cs
3S = 5 Hs, 4 Cs, 3 Ss
3N = 5-3-3-2, 15-17
2N = inv
2N = bal, 10-11
3C = to play
3C = 5+ Cs, 8-9
3D = 4th SGF
3D = 6+ Ds, 8-10
3H = agrees trumps, requests cue
3S = 6+ Ss
3N = signoff
After 1H-1S/2C-2D/2S-2N: After
3m = 3-5-4-1 or 3-5-1-4, 17+ 5 Hs, 4 m
3H = 6 Hs, 3 Ss, 17+ 6 Hs,
3S = 5 Hs, 4 Ss, 17+ 6 Hs,
3N = 5-3-3-2, 18-19
4m = 4-5 with stiff/void, 17+
After 1H-1S/2C-2D/2N: After
3m = 4 S, 5+ m 5+
3H = raise, Hx support, GF (same)
3S = 6+, GF
3N = signoff
2C = Gazilli
2D = natch 11-16
2H = natch 11-16
2S = 6+ cards, 11-14 (11-16?)
2N = 6+ S, 4-card side suit, (pure?) 17+ (14-16?) (3C = GF relay)
3X = 5+ S and 5 X, 14-16, pure, at most 5 losers
3S = 6 Ss, very good suit, 14-16 about 7 tricks
3N = solid Ss, 7-8 fast tricks
4X = 7+ Ss, 14-16, 8 tricks, void in X
R's rebids after Gazilli:
2D = 8+. O rebids: 2H = 5+ Ss, 4 Cs, 15-16 or 5 S, 4 X, 17+
2S = 5+ Ss, 3+ Cs, 11-14 (5-3-3-2 or 5
Ss & 4 Cs?)
2N = 5-3-3-2, 15-17
3X = 5+ Ss, 5 X, 17+
3S = 6+ Ss, not 3 Hs, 17+
3N = 5-3-3-2, 18-19
2H = 5+ Hs, short Ss, to play
2S = 2-3 Ss, to play
2N = 5+ Ds, 4+ Cs, 8-9
3C = 5+ Cs, 8-9 (with inv, bid 2D, then 3C over O's min rebid)
3D = 5+ Ds, 8-9 (with inv, bid 2D, then 3D over O's min rebid)
3H = inv, 6+
3S = 3-card LR
2S = relay. O rebids: 2N = 5 Ss, 4Cs, 15-16
3X = 5 Ss, 4 X, 17+
3S = 6+ Ss, 3 Hs, 17+
Now, 3N = stiff S, 3 suit = double stop, no fit, X raise
asks cues, 4 suit = X fit, control
2N = flat, make natch rebid
3C = 5+ Cs
3D = 5+ Ds
3S = agrees trumps, requests cue
3C = GF Relay
3D = 6+, stiff/void in Ss
3H = 6+ or very good 5, forcing
3S = weak, 2+ cards
3N = 10-11, stops
4m = cue, SI with fit
4H = to play, long topless suit
4S = to play
1M-P-1N-DBL: Gazilli off.. except 5-5 jumps and 6-4 2N. 2C =
natch; RDBL = 17+
They DBL 2C: R's P = 5+ Cs; 2D = 5+ Ds, NF; RDBL = 8+ HCP,
triggering structure, but now O's
2D = 5-3-3-2, 11-16.
They overcall 2C: DBL = takeout, 8+ or more if overcall passes 2M.
O's rebids at 3-level = 17+, cue
= 17+, jumps = GF.
They DBL R's 2D relay: O's P = min, 3 Ds; RDBL = 16+ bal, 3 Ds,
They overcall 2D relay: At 2 level: O makes normal rebid if possible, DBL =
16+, bal and co-op,
P = min or penalty DBL.
At 3-level: O's DBL =
strong, co-op, presumed stop in Their suit.
They DBL O's relay response: P = neutral
They DBL R's 2S relay: O's P = neutral, NT = good stops in suit
doubled, RDBL = stop but doubt.
I was under the impression that this was one of the more useful spots to
play Gazilli - since, with forcing and unlimited openings, both opener
and responder can be very wide-ranging.
Ok , thx
this is a good convention
as the extra info is worth more then the rare opportunity to play 2C
it is not good for 99% of the bridgeplayers to play conventions like this
as however easy you think it is to remember these conventions
they tend to add up and drain a small percentage of your energy
And for most people
and surely for me also
it is clear that making 10% more or less silly mistakes makes much more
difference in our score then these kind of conventions
Scott, if you play seriously, the above is trivial. Anyway, if you
read your post carefully, you will note that there are many meta
agreements that make learning this a doddle. Our system notes extended
to well over 200 pages.
Doesn't look like Gazzilli as I play it.
The 2C rebid is either the strong group of hands (17+ or whatever)
or the weak single suiter (6+).
This requires the 2M rebid to be the major plus clubs.
After 1M-1N-2C, responder rebids 2M with no game interest
and 2D with GF values opposite the strong hand.
Rest is built easily from here with jump rebids being better than
minimum but less than what a 2C rebid would promise.
Logic is simple, no need for huge amounts of memory work.
If you play 1M-1N as semiforcing then the continuations are easy
If 1M-1N has to be forcing then a bid promising a minor needs
to promise only 3 and it gets a little untidy.
I play a simple form of Gazilli with my partner. I think the
convention is very useful for several reasons. One is that we respond
rather light. The only two tricky situation to remember is I think:
* 1M - 1N - 2C - 2D; now 2 of the other major shows a 5 - 4 hand and
responder has to ask for the 2nd suit. The rest seems rather
straightforward and natural.
* 1M - 1N - 2N showing 6M 4m.
Otherwise the structure seems simple:
1M - 1N -> bid 2C with weak or strong hands unsuitable for anything
1M - 1N - 2C -> bid 2D with 8+ hands, describe your hand as good as
possible with 5 - 7 hands.
1M - 1N - 2C - 2D -> bid 2M with the weak variation, describe with
the strong variation.
Of course if you write it all down it seems complex, but if you
UNDERSTAND it rather than just learn it by heart, it's not so tough.
Congratulations (and I'm surprised anyone could make any sense of
Providing that one can hook up with a partner who is as serious as
oneself, and play regularly for a number of years -- a matter of both
intention AND luck -- one can always develop detailed
agreements--and I've noticed that the details become easier to
incorporate as context thickens. However, no matter who I'm playing
with, our p'ship is NOT a practiced one, but, if I'm lucky, nearly
always a competent one in which We can agree to play more complicated
system modules with minimal rehearsal. So, my goal is to maximize the
balance between articulation and fewer brain farts (of the kind that
regularly give Us top boards against the practiced, high-level
competitors [yes, even in Colorado] whose notes run that long and
But, no matter: I am interested in your meaning when you wrote "if
you read your post carefully, you will note that there are many meta
agreements that make learning this a doddle." Which post and which
meta agreements and what's a "doddle"?
A lot would depend on what is your usual opposition. If your usual
tournament field is not particularly strong why do you need it? Also,
why create more possibilities that your side might either forget or
misjudge using the convention?
Which is kindof my point: After looking at this version (the one I tried to
post), it seemed that it broke out the hand types in awkward ways not
particularly related to the hand types one wants to emphasize. So I guess
the message, in some way referenced by several posters, is to devise my own
version to accomplish the goals I believe to be important....
I am amazed at how many people think Gazzilli is such a great
convention without knowing the both the downside and the upside of the
convention. I'd start with a simple downside that: You can't stop in
2D if responder is weak
2/1's downside is the difficulty in getting to the right partial. To
add an artifical convention that makes it even harder to find the
right partial makes little sense to me.
If I weren't playing a strong club system, I would want to use
something like Gazilli in an IMPs match where the right game is so
important. In MPs, the ability to manoever less adeptly would be an
extra cost that I might not be willing to pay.
But I can't see Gazilli being a benefit versus a strong club system,
so my first preference would be to eliminate the need for Gazilli by
playing Precision or something similar.
Straight forward English; perhaps our colonial cousins need English
1). Read through your notes on Gazilli which you posted. You will find
many recurring situations, which in Bridge parlance are called Meta
agreements. This means there is not so much to learn as you think
2). A "doddle" means something very easy, not requiring much effort.
In American academic English, and I think in most philosophical
systems, a "meta agreement" is an agreement about the nature of our
agreements. I find none such in that recitation. Hence, my inquiry.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, the problem with that version of G
seems to be that definitiions are placed willy-nilly in the rebid stucture,
without much attention to "tree" structure, which I find desirable as a
memory aid. I think I can do better.
Regards and Happy Trails,
Boulder, Colorado, USA
In Gazzilli, the opening bidder gets to name his or her longest (or
equal) suit to begin with. This is an advantage over a Strong Club
system, which is at its worst when the opening bidder has to bid an
artifical Club and at its best when able to open a limited bid in a
real suit. So Gazzilli has some advantages over a Strong Club system,
although the Strong Club system has advantages also.
That's true, so far as it goes.
However, in my opinion, an oft-overlooked advantage in a Precision
context is when responder is able to give a minor suit positive that
might otherwise not be biddable in natural methods. When responder
has constructive values and a 5+m, he often gets to show his minor
when it becomes awkward to do so in 2/1. Give opener a 1=5=4=3 hand
and responder a 3=2=2=6 hand with 8-10 hcps, perhaps
My guess is that virtually all of an MSC panel would give preference
to 2h after the auction 1h 1nt 2d ?, whereas a precision auction is
going to start 1c 2c ?, and responder gets to show length and strength
whereas in 2/1 methods he probably can't.
2/1 methods also suffer, by comparison, when responder has an
extremely long minor. On the auction 1M 1nt 2x 3m (where 2x is a
rebid, other than a reverse, that preempts responder's natural rebid
at the 2 level), the 3m bidder can't hold both
lest opener be forced to guess what to do (i.e., is 3c rebid a
signoff or a constructive rebid?) In precision, the latter hand bids
2c right away, while the former goes through 1d first, and in both
cases, responder's hand is pretty rigidly limited.
I played Gazilli a couple of years ago with a partner and it seemed
very complex and not worth the effort.
Now I play it in a different way with another partner and it seems
helpful and not too complex.
What we play is:
2C Weak with clubs, or game try +
2C 2D Not 3Ss, not 5Hs
2H Natural game try
2S Weak with clubs
2N Game try, 5+Ss, 4C/Ds
3C/D/H Natural game try [5/5+]
3S Natural game try
Game To play
2D/H/S Natural weak
2N Natural game try
3C/D/H/S Natural game force
Basically, 2C asks for major holdings or weak with clubs, and only 2M
[weak with clubs] and 2NT rebids are artificial.
Similar after 1H 1N, though there are only two responses to 2C [2D/H].
We do not play it after 1m 1N.
Especially now that we do not play openings to show 8 playing tricks
to play 1M 1N 3M as forcing is good.
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Fax: +44 870 055 7697
<webj...@googlemail.com> Tel: +44 151 677 7412
EBL TD Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm