[akhare]

In the context of a limited (< 16) 1M opening with a 14-16 NT range, does it make sense to try and partition opener's rebid after a semi-forcing NT?

Note that all 2/1 responses are GF. The idea here try and tackle the awkward responder hands in the 11-13ish range.

Basically after 1M (10-15) - 1N (semi-forcing):

P: Usually min-balanced
2♣: Any worse hand (unbalanced min)
..........P: Responder has long ♣
..........2♦: P/C
..........2♥: TP
..........2M: Preference
2♦ / 2♥: Better hand with 4m / 4M
2M: Better hand


BTW, this is just a strawman -- suggestions and alternatives are welcome..

[mtvesuvius]

I certainly could see the merit of it, like a reverse Gazzilli.

2♣ is an unbalanced hand with a side suit, I think you should use 2♥ as P/C as well though, so after 1♠-1N-2♣:

Pass - Long Clubs <INV
2♦ - P/C, may want to play in 2♠ if partner has hearts
---- 2♠ then ♠ (maybe or ♠ + ♣?)
2♥ - P/C, no diamond tolerance
---- 2♠ then ♠ or ♠ and diamonds
2♠ - Signoff, or no red suit tolerance

Without club tolerance you still have a problem though...

After 1♥-1N-2♣:

Pass - Long Clubs <INV
2♦ - P/C
---- 2♥ then ♥ (maybe or ♥ + ♣?)
2♥ - Signoff

[Mbodell]

Why not just use Gazzilli to partition? I do that in a limited opener system with variable 10-12 or 12-14 nt.

after 1M ([8+]10-15) the 1NT is semi-forcing and shows a good 8 to a bad 13.

pass - balanced 10-11 or subminimum opener
2♣ - unbalanced with clubs and M or many shapes that are 13+
2♦ - 5+M4♦ <13 points
2♥/1♠ - 5+♠4♥ < 13
2M/1M - 6+M 10-11
2nt - 15 5332
3♣ - 55 < 13
3♦ - 55 < 13
3♥/1♠ - 55 < 13
3M/1M - 6+M 12-13

Over the 2♣ response responder bids 2♦ with 11+ points, and something else (often 2M) with 10 or less. Over 1M-1nt-2♣-2♦-2M shows a weak hand with clubs and the major and other bids are allocated to show the good hand patterns.

[Free]

I really don't like the Gazzilli suggestion. What do you want responder to do? bid 2♦ with 11-12 and something else otherwise? Gazzilli solves a problem when opener has 16-17HCP, here there's no real problem if opener has 13-15 and responder is invitational.

I think foobar's suggestion is better in this situation, where 2♣ basically shows a minimum unbalanced hand. The problem is continuations imo.

1 question though: what do you do with maximum unbalanced hands with 5M-4♣?

[straube]

I think Gazzilli or reverse Gazzilli is more needed for standard; Playing limited openings of 10-15, it's true that our range is still very wide but nothing like the 12-20 of standard openings.

I'd like to be able to show clubs naturally. When I have a good 6M/4C, I'd like to be able to show clubs and then raise spades if partner can correct. I'd like to be able to rebid 2C and then let partner raise clubs or bid 2D as a sign off instead of as a pass/correct bid. I'd like partner to be able to pass 2C.

With a structure like this, I don't think we can show a weak 5M/4C. Let's see...1S-1N, 2C-2D, ? I'm assuming 2S would show a weak 6S and 2N would show a weak 5S/4C? Too high on a potential misfit. I think we could pass 1N on these hands. To show a good 5M/4C we probably have to bid to 2N. 1S-1N, 2N showing a good 5S/4C. Not too bad, but we use constructive raises so frequently responder will just want to be playing 2M and now has to bid 3M.

I'd like a little guidance. Do the experts really rebid 2C with AQxxx Qxx x Kxxx after a semiforcing NT or do they give up? After all, rebidding 2C here may attract an unwanted invitation. Seems like a rebid of a minor should show either a 5/5 or a good 6/4 or at least a medium strength (12?) hand, but my impression is that most are rebidding 2C with this.

I also think an opening 2S bid should show 7-11. 1S-1N, 2S is now 12-15 and opener doesn't have to jump rebid or stretch to open 1C. Sure, if one has something like KQT9xx x xxxx xx go ahead and open 2S. Those hands where all of the 5-6 points are located within the major suit and the suit also has texture and the vulnerability is such that preemptor thinks this is a winning action are at least a little rare. So we have a little license. But lets think in terms of 7-11 and give up on KTxxxx x Kxx xxx. This makes 1S-1N, 2S much better defined.

[mtvesuvius]

My suggestion was attempting to make sense of the possible followups, and now I cannot even read it myself. Oy.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it can/should work.

[Mbodell]

Free, on 2011-March-08, 02:44, said:

I really don't like the Gazzilli suggestion. What do you want responder to do? bid 2♦ with 11-12 and something else otherwise? Gazzilli solves a problem when opener has 16-17HCP, here there's no real problem if opener has 13-15 and responder is invitational.

Yes, responder bids 2♦ with 11-13 (maybe a really bad 14) which creates a GF if opener doesn't repeat the major showing a weak hands with major and clubs. Having experience playing it, it does seem to solve an issue where you want to play 2/1 as GF (or GF with rebid exceptions) but with your extra light openers 9 and 10 point openers you can't do that without a quite good hand, and now when you could have a middling fit with less strength then the opponents (9 opposite 9 say) or you could have a game force and maybe even a slam if you fit well in secondary suit (15 opposite 13) you do want to straighten that out.

[awm]

There are some major downsides to this kind of approach, mostly involving opener's club hands.

I suspect it depends on exactly how light you open -- with a range like 10+ to 15, you don't really need this partition and I think you'd do better with a natural 2♣ rebid. If your range is more like 8+ to 15 then it has a lot of merit.

[whereagles]

I used to play such methods a long time ago and was never totally satisfied with them. Then I stopped playing precision and never got to work out decent changes. But the fact remains that it may require some good thinking to make it work well.