affe82, on 2012-May-03, 08:15, said:
Admittedly in a precision based structure but this is how we solve it:
~snip~
Why on earth would you ever play Gazzilli in a precision type system? You don't need to show the difference between 10-12 and 13-15 so fast.
affe82, on 2012-May-03, 08:15, said:
I also strongly prefer to play 2♣as strong or 6+M, and 2M as M+♣. It makes it a whole lot easier to end up in correct part score exept in a spade sequence where you have a 5/6-3 ♥ fit.
Really dislike this approach after 1
♠ openings. But also after 1
♥ openings in a regular 2/1 GF framework this is pretty awful imo. The point of Gazzilli is the possibility to play in responder's suit. When playing 6+M or strong, responder will usually bid 2M so the other bids are pretty much wasted. When playing 2M as M+
♣ responder needs some bids for invitational hands, so he can hardly run to a decent spot. Moreover when you're playing a forcing or semiforcing 1NT response, opener would have to bid 2M on a 5M-3
♣ hand.
I rather play Gazzilli as 2+
♣ or strong, and keep opener's 2
♦ rebid as 4+
♦. I've been playing Gazzilli this way for several years now, and I've had very few problems, even with the problem hands.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe