[raspeball]

Hello,
My partner and me are currently starting to play a simpliefied Gazilli. I am not convinced that the gains are that big, especially since I will most likely forget it occasionally.

I have read about using transfers in this position, but cannot find the link again to this.


I think it was something like this.
Transfers are used in the sequence:
1♥-1♠

1♥-1nt

1♠-1nt

The rebids are after 1 ♥ opening:
2♣ 4+ ♦
2♦=6+♥
2♥=5+♥, 4+♣

After 1♠-1nt

2♣ 4+ ♦
2♦=4+ ♥
2♥=6+♠
2♠=5+[♠], 4+♣


All bids shows about 11-16hp if 5-5 or 6-4. Can be stronger with 5-4.

Bids above 2M shows gameforcing strength.


Initially I think transfers are simpler than Gazzilly, but I have never tried this. You seems to gain a lot on the hands with 6 card majors.

Have anybody tried something similar, and have experience with both Gazilly and transfer rebids?

[DavidKok]

I only have experience with Gazzilli, but I hope this is relevant nonetheless.

As far as I can tell there are at least four major downsides to transfers over Gazzilli. In no particular order, playing transfers:

• You list 'bids above 2M shows game forcing strength', but 17 HCP opposite a 1-level response is not game forcing. Gazzilli can split hands in approximately 15- and 16+ because responder's cheapest response shows extras (establishing a game force opposite the 16+ type), while all others deny this. In particular the 2M rebid looks very iffy - I can imagine many 17-point hands that cannot force to game over a simple response, which leaves responder in no man's land. I think standard beats transfers here, giving responder more accurate rebids. Come to think of it, what do transfers win over standard? In standard opener can already force to game with a jump, or invite a partscore with a lower bid. To gain you have to include GF hands in the transfers, planning to bid again over a signoff. Did you mean that bids above 2M are weak but shape-showing, while transfers are unlimited?
  
• With a big (semi)balanced hand opener has no convenient way to keep the bidding low, while responder has no convenient way of showing a long weak suit. Gazzilli gains here by identifying the weakness and long suit, playing in the longest suit of the weak hand.
  
• You haven't specified a response scheme for responder over a transfer, but I imagine it is something along the lines of 'returning to a suit bid shows a minimum, while any other bid shows extras'? You need to be very clear which auctions are forcing to game and which are not. The wide range of your transfers seems very troublesome to me. A bit of a repeat of the above, but transfers here will only gain if they may contain very strong hands, otherwise you are just playing standard with the transfer acceptance substituting for a pass.
  
• Weak transfers allow for convenient interference by the opponents, giving them a free double, take out bid by completing your transfer, or pass-then-double to distinguish different competitive hand types. On the auctions 1♥-1NT and 1♠-1NT responder has already limited their hand as well, making it even more likely that the opponents may profitably compete for the partscore.

In conclusion, I think you could perhaps make the transfers work by including strong hands and reserving the jumps for more shape-oriented bids, but I think it will still be a long term loser. Also I don't see the upside of your proposed version over standard bidding.

[raspeball]

DavidKok, on 2022-December-14, 13:28, said:

I only have experience with Gazzilli, but I hope this is relevant nonetheless.

As far as I can tell there are at least four major downsides to transfers over Gazzilli. In no particular order, playing transfers:

• You list 'bids above 2M shows game forcing strength', but 17 HCP opposite a 1-level response is not game forcing. Gazzilli can split hands in approximately 15- and 16+ because responder's cheapest response shows extras (establishing a game force opposite the 16+ type), while all others deny this. In particular the 2M rebid looks very iffy - I can imagine many 17-point hands that cannot force to game over a simple response, which leaves responder in no man's land. I think standard beats transfers here, giving responder more accurate rebids. Come to think of it, what do transfers win over standard? In standard opener can already force to game with a jump, or invite a partscore with a lower bid. To gain you have to include GF hands in the transfers, planning to bid again over a signoff. Did you mean that bids above 2M are weak but shape-showing, while transfers are unlimited?
  
• With a big (semi)balanced hand opener has no convenient way to keep the bidding low, while responder has no convenient way of showing a long weak suit. Gazzilli gains here by identifying the weakness and long suit, playing in the longest suit of the weak hand.
  
• You haven't specified a response scheme for responder over a transfer, but I imagine it is something along the lines of 'returning to a suit bid shows a minimum, while any other bid shows extras'? You need to be very clear which auctions are forcing to game and which are not. The wide range of your transfers seems very troublesome to me. A bit of a repeat of the above, but transfers here will only gain if they may contain very strong hands, otherwise you are just playing standard with the transfer acceptance substituting for a pass.
  
• Weak transfers allow for convenient interference by the opponents, giving them a free double, take out bid by completing your transfer, or pass-then-double to distinguish different competitive hand types. On the auctions 1♥-1NT and 1♠-1NT responder has already limited their hand as well, making it even more likely that the opponents may profitably compete for the partscore.

In conclusion, I think you could perhaps make the transfers work by including strong hands and reserving the jumps for more shape-oriented bids, but I think it will still be a long term loser. Also I don't see the upside of your proposed version over standard bidding.

Thanks for your reply. I have not thought a lot about this, but I thought the transfer bid could also be bid with stronger hands with not to much extra shape (The 5-5 hands, or 6+ very strong hands could jump to 3 at the second turn, just to make it simlple).

I think the gain in the transfer is that opener gets to show his second suit directly, and that he does not have to worry about responder passing.
I dont see a need for any fancy responses after the transfer:

- If you accept the transfer = You would have passed a nonforcing bid showing 5-4.
- If you bid above the transfer= Same meaning as in standard.

You would need to agree what the openers third bid shows after responder accepts the transfer, eg:

1♠-1nt;
2♣-2♦;
2♥=14-16?. 5-4-4-0 or 5-4-3-1 (I have not thought a lot about this )
2♠=6♠ and 4♦ (Different strength than if you transfer to spades first and then bids diamonds)
2nt= 5♠,4♣, 2-2 or 3-1 in unbid suits¨, approx 17+hcp.
3♣=5-0-4-4 or 5-1-4-3.approx 17+hcp.
3♦=5-5. Approx 14-16hcp (With stronger hand bid 3 ♦ directly)
3♥= Maybee 5-3-4-1, Forcing game?
3♠= 6♠, 4♦. Forcing game.
Higher bids could also be used for something



The sequence also gives lots of options:
1♥-1nt
2♦-2♥

2nt= Could be 6 weakish 6 card ♥suit. Mild invtation to 3nt/4♥.
3♣/♦= 6 card ♥. 4+ suit in bid suit. Mildly invitional
3♥=6 good ♥.
3nt=6♥. Choice of games.

Of course it is also possible to include the direct jump to the 3 levels as intermediate, and leave the delayed bids as the stronger hands. Also the point ranges can be adjusted, based on how light you responds.

[DavidKok]

I understand, that is precisely the response scheme I envisioned. All the downsides I listed apply, I don't think this is a good rebid structure. Your bids will be wide-ranging, and the very strong hands in the transfer will probably have to jump the round after. Also the weak hand doesn't get to show their shape. I forgot to mention this as well, but responder will have to bid higher with non-minima, so you lose bidding space compared to Gazzilli on the game forcing auctions. I think a version including strong hands in the transfers might beat standard if you have a good structure for third and fourth round bids, but I still don't see the gain over Gazzilli.

[dokoko]

I think you lose on the hands with M+C:

- You have no bid for a strong 54-hand (or else cannot distinguish a 17 pt 5-4 from a 19 pt 5-5)!
- What does 1M-1x-2M-3C show? If to play how does responder invite with club support? If natural invite how does responder sign off in clubs?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we play something similar, the xfer responses are limited to 11-14,
stronger hands bid 2C, 15-17 strength, and show the hand type next round.
Partner assumes the weak version, if opener bids 2C, and responder
will act as if facing the weak diamond xfer.

It works. Not always, not perfect, but it works.

The thing is, those seq. dont show up that often, the problematic
cases even less. And being confident, that you know, what auction means
is worth the few % accuraccy you may loose.


I dont have experience with Gazilli.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ali quarg]

I've spent some time looking at various approaches to this issue; as yet with no robust conclusion.
Some points to consider in deciding on where you want to go:

• Are you assuming a basic Gazzilli 17+hcp vs 8+hcp.
  I have seen some versions based on 15+hcp which naturally can stop before game.
  
  
• Are there other approaches that opener can stay low with 17+hcp
  This is an approach which is worth considering in conjunction with other techniques
  http://bridge-tips.c...hakhar_v.03.pdf
  
  
• Do you include balanced 5M in the 1NT opening? or even some 5M(422)
  Using this approach removes a reason for using Gazzilli.
  
  
• Can responder be weak? i.e. <=6hcp
  This may be an issue if used indiscriminately. i.e. no quick tricks
  
  
• How do you manage misfits when responder has a long suit
  Passable transfer rebids may be useful in this case. i.e. 1M-1NT-2♦ (limited ♥)-Pass
  
  
• When responder has a long suit can you distinguish between the invitational and weaker hands
  Fits well with Gazzilli
  
  
• How do you approach finding the partials in the other Major
  Kaplan Inversion finds the ♠ fit over a 1♥ opening, but over 1♠ it can prove an issue distinguishing between the 5-3 and 6-2 fits weak/invitational fits in ♥
  
  
• Are openers jumps forcing?
  i.e. 19+hcp/tp or distributional?
  
  
• How do you manage opener'sdistributional hands with a lower looser count?
  Similar to suggestions above. I play jumps as Pass/Correct/Raise with 5-5/6+M and a modified looser count of 6 or less and <17hcp
  
  
• What are the benefits of reverse Gazzilli?
  Similar to transfer responses 1M-1NT-2M shows 5+M4+♣ limited
  I've been playing 2♣ shows balanced or 6+M or strong other Major/♣ with 1M-1NT-2NT showing strong♦/balanced w. weak ♦ doubleton. See 2. above
  A jump by responder to 2M then shows 2M and is invitational opposite opener with 6+M.
  Over a 1♠-1NT-2♣; 2♥ shows 5♥2♠ and opener with a weak hand will bid go via 2♥ (passable) after a 2♦ response
  
  
• Can you combine Gazzilli principles with transfer responses?
  Possibly, something to work on.

[nullve]

In one partnership I played something like

1♠-1N; ?:

P = 11-13, either BAL or 5S3-H3-D
2♣ = 5S4+D, not exactly INV if exactly 5-5 / 14+, 5134
...2♦ = < INV, PREF opposite 5S4D
......P = < INV, 4+ D
......2♥ = INV, H fragment (so 5341 or 5350)
......2♠ = 14-17, 5134 (5035 possible?)
.........P = < INV, S PREF opposite 5S4D
.........2N = NAT INV
.........3♣/♦ = < INV, C/D PREF resp.
.........(...)
......2N = INV, 5S4D
......3♣ = GF (18-21?), 5143/5044
......3♦ = GF, 5S5D
......3♥ = GF (18-21?), 5341
......3♠ = GF (18-21?), 5134 (5035 possible?)
......3N = GF (18-21?), 5242
...(...)
2♦ = 4+ H, not exactly INV if exactly 5-5, not 6+ S unless < INV / 14+, 5314
...2♥ = < INV, PREF opposite 5S4H
......P = < INV, 4+ H
......2♠ = 14-17, 5314 (5305 possible?)
.........P = < INV, S PREF
.........2N = NAT INV
.........3♣/♥ = < INV, C/H PREF resp.
.........(...)
......2N = INV, 5S4H
......3♣ = GF (18-21?), 5413/5404
......3♦ = GF (18-21?), 5431/5440
......3♥ = GF, 5S5H
......3♠ = GF (18-21?), 5314 (5305 possible?)
......3N = GF (18-21?), 5422
2♥ = 6+ S, usually < 4 H if < INV
...2♠ = < INV
......P = < INV
......2N = NAT INV
......3m/♥ = NAT, F1
......3♠ = GF, strong S
......3N = suggestion
......(...)
...(...)
2♠ = 14-17, 5224
...P = < INV, S PREF
...2N = NAT INV
...3♣ = < INV, C PREF
...(...)
2N = NAT INV (usually 17-18 BAL, I think)
3m = INV, 5(+?)S5m
3♥ = INV, 5(+?)S5H
3♠ = GF (18-21?), 5224
3N = GF, 5S5C (maybe show fragment first with 5S5C(30)?)

and something very similar over 1♥-1N.

[DavidKok]

Having read the Perry Khakhar document I am once again glad to not be playing a forcing 1NT and the mess of followups. Personally I consider Gazzilli a neat benefit to get more accuracy on a few auctions, not a necessary tool to fix issues with the 'standard' bidding structure. Also am I reading nullve's method right, does a 5=1=3=4 hand transfers to diamonds then cancel this by rebidding 2♠ over partner's preference to diamonds (or hearts)?

As an aside I think there is a theoretical benefit to 5M4♣ Gazzilli on the auctions 1M-1NT - if opener has a minimum hand with a 6(+) card major that makes it very likely that 2M is the best spot, while with 5M4♣ you may more often wish to play in responder's long suit (some theorists flip the argument and say that showing 9 cards means you likely don't belong in a third suit, but I've always thought this was a mistake. Majors pay and 6-2 or even 6-1 fits at the 2-level are usually preferable to a minor suit at the 3-level). Reserving the slow route to show the hand without 6M lets you find the side suit more often. I've heard people say that the 6cM-Gazzilli is theoretically superior on the 1♥-1♠ auction, but I don't really know why.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2022-December-15, 05:30, said:

Also am I reading nullve's method right, does a 5=1=3=4 hand transfers to diamonds then cancel this by rebidding 2♠ over partner's preference to diamonds (or hearts)?

Only with 14+*. With 11-13* and 5134 Opener must pass 1N.

* assuming a rule of 20-ish opening style

[ali quarg]

nullve, on 2022-December-15, 06:14, said:

Only with 14+*. With 11-13* and 5134 Opener must pass 1N.

* assuming a rule of 20-ish opening style

Do you really want to pass on 13hcp opposite 2/1 GF where responder's 1NT may be 12hcp? Or are you playing 2/1 GI?

I like the concept of your transfer approach, but have a few of issues with the semi-forcing NT:
a) I currently put a weak raise through 1NT so any game tries after a direct 2M raise are built on a more solid foundation. Is there a way round this apart from Pass and then support if the opportunity arises?
b) I also put a weak 3-card limit raise through 1NT. This isn't too much of an issue as I can use a jump bid to another suit to show this, but I may not be able to distinguish between 3 & 4+ limit raises.1M-3M is preemptive law based for me.
c) I show long-suited misfit hands via 1NT rather than jumping directly simply because I like to see opener's 2nd suit if they have one so I can play in the Moysian rather than 3X. Is this much of a loss?

[nullve]

ali quarg, on 2022-December-15, 08:38, said:

Do you really want to pass on 13hcp opposite 2/1 GF where responder's 1NT may be 12hcp? Or are you playing 2/1 GI?

Our basic system was 2/1 GF except rebid.

I guess we rarely responded 1N with 12 we actually thought of as 12. But the only reason we had for requiring 14+ hcp if 5S4C3R was that Opener should then be willing to show the shape with 3♠ (GF) over the invite

1♠ -1N
[2R-1] -3R,

which didn't promise more than 4c support. I suppose he could do that with only 13. So replace '11-13', '14-17' and '14+' above with '11-12', '13-17' and '13+', respectively, if you like. The 13-17 range for Opener's 2♠ bids is still narrower than the corresponding 11-15 (or even 10-15 or 11-16) range you often see with Gazzilli.

ali quarg, on 2022-December-15, 08:38, said:

I like the concept of your transfer approach, but have a few of issues with the semi-forcing NT:
a) I currently put a weak raise through 1NT so any game tries after a direct 2M raise are built on a more solid foundation. Is there a way round this apart from Pass and then support if the opportunity arises?

I can understand the a priori arguments against having the weak raise in 1N, but who can honestly say it doesn't work well in practice? Accidents are really super-rare IMO.

The (2/1-like) Ambra system uses an ambiguous 2♥ response (GF except rebid with diamonds OR a weak raise) instead, so apparently Garrozzo was not a big fan.

ali quarg, on 2022-December-15, 08:38, said:

b) I also put a weak 3-card limit raise through 1NT. This isn't too much of an issue as I can use a jump bid to another suit to show this, but I may not be able to distinguish between 3 & 4+ limit raises.1M-3M is preemptive law based for me.

I prefer to have the limit raise in 2♣ so I can stop in 2M (after 1♥-2♣; 2♥-P or 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠; P --- 1M-2♣; 2♦-2♥ and 1M-2♣; 2♥-2♠ are GF relays).

ali quarg, on 2022-December-15, 08:38, said:

c) I show long-suited misfit hands via 1NT rather than jumping directly simply because I like to see opener's 2nd suit if they have one so I can play in the Moysian rather than 3X. Is this much of a loss?

I actually hate 3-level invitational jump shifts, at least the way they are played by GiB and sadly also by most human bridge players. I think their basic meaning should be 'we have game unless you have a misfitting minimum'. Only a small fraction of then hands that GiB jumps with would qualify.

[awm]

There are two big advantages of Gazilli;

1. Better auctions when opener has extras but less than GF and responder is very weak. You can get out in 2M without opener taking another call and you can get out in responders long suit at the three level and sometimes responder can even show a weak two suiter and owner can choose.
2. You don’t miss game when responder has a better fit for openers second suit and is too weak to raise, and opener has extras (but less than GF).

Transfers get you the second but not the first. Transfers also get you better auctions on some of openers GF hands, but they are worse when opener has major+clubs because you are rebidding 2M instead of 2♣ (the latter gives responder space to distinguish invite vs preference with clubs and also show hearts over openers spades).

[nullve]

awm, on 2022-December-15, 15:52, said:

Transfers get you the second but not the first.

Which is why I now play (a version of) Gazzilli.

[mikeh]

awm, on 2022-December-15, 15:52, said:

There are two big advantages of Gazilli;

1. Better auctions when opener has extras but less than GF and responder is very weak. You can get out in 2M without opener taking another call and you can get out in responders long suit at the three level and sometimes responder can even show a weak two suiter and owner can choose.
2. You don’t miss game when responder has a better fit for openers second suit and is too weak to raise, and opener has extras (but less than GF).

Transfers get you the second but not the first. Transfers also get you better auctions on some of openers GF hands, but they are worse when opener has major+clubs because you are rebidding 2M instead of 2♣ (the latter gives responder space to distinguish invite vs preference with clubs and also show hearts over openers spades).

Giving up BART is, imo, far too big a price to pay for whatever advantages transfers may afford

I’ve not played Gazilli so I can’t comment on whether its gains, and I do see gains but can’t begin to quantify them, are greater than the considerable gains from a good set of bart agreements

From my I’ll-informed perspective, bart seems to allow responder more opportunity to describe his hand, especially his strength, while Gazilli focuses more (but not exclusively) on opener’s strength. Now, bart only applies over 1M 1N (forcing or semi forcing) while Gazilli can apply over 1H 1S as I understand it

I wonder if a case can be made for Gazilli after 1H 1S and bart after 1M 1N?

[DavidKok]

As far as I know BART and Gazzilli are very similar treatments. On the auction 1M-1X; 2♣ responder bids an artificial 2♦ generally showing strength, which may or may not contain hearts (the 10-11HCP 5♥ hands are a pain over 1♠ in standard 2/1). The differences:

• With BART, opener is supposed to assume the 10-11 5♥ hand until informed otherwise on 1♠-1NT; 2♣-2♦. Opener will frequently bid 2♥ NF over this, allowing responder maximum room to describe their hand with other hand types.
  
• With Gazzilli opener's third round bid is descriptive: 2M shows a weak hand, all other bids are natural and GF. Since Opener will have to bid 2♣ with 'all' 16+ hands (most people play 17+ but I think the reduced limit is superior) it is helpful to describe hand type.

If a partnership were to change the meaning of exactly the Gazzilli auction 1♠-1NT; 2♣* (Gazzilli)-2♦* (8+ any); 2♥* (NEW: artificial waiting bid) I think you would basically be playing BART, but retain the benefit of having all other second round rebids by opener be limited to a decent 15-count or so. Just keep in mind that the 2♣ rebid contains many hand types, so until further notice opener should be captain of the auction. I think you can port over BART agreements to Gazzilli at a small cost (if you want to keep 1♠-1NT; 2♣-2♦; 2♥ NF you need an agreement that opener chooses a different rebid opposite any hand that wants to be in game opposite the 10-11 hearts hand, which puts pressure on the third round bids by opener. Then again, you likely already have such an agreement).

The auction 1♥-1♠ is a bit of a mess always. I really like having a strength distinction with Gazzilli - it helps to clean up auctions like 1♥-1♠; 3♥, which is a major headache in standard. That being said it is still somewhat iffy since both opener and responder may have extra length in the major to show, and it is not clear which suit would be most suitable for trumps, or which side should be given priority to describe their hand. It is an ironic sidenote that standard 1♥-1♠; 2♣-2♦ is 4S(G)F, so compared to standard little is lost by adopting BART or Gazzilli.

As a final remark, in my main partnership we artificially include the 10-11 5(+)♥ hand over a 1♠ opening in the 2♣ response, and play a relatively sophisticated rebid structure over that. As far as I can tell this eliminates the main advantage BART has over Gazzilli, though the two are comparable.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2022-December-16, 05:32, said:

As far as I know BART and Gazzilli are very similar treatments. On the auction 1M-1X; 2♣ responder bids an artificial 2♦ generally showing strength, which may or may not contain hearts (the 10-11HCP 5♥ hands are a pain over 1♠ in standard 2/1). The differences:

• With BART, opener is supposed to assume the 10-11 5♥ hand until informed otherwise on 1♠-1NT; 2♣-2♦. Opener will frequently bid 2♥ NF over this, allowing responder maximum room to describe their hand with other hand types.
  
• With Gazzilli opener's third round bid is descriptive: 2M shows a weak hand, all other bids are natural and GF. Since Opener will have to bid 2♣ with 'all' 16+ hands (most people play 17+ but I think the reduced limit is superior) it is helpful to describe hand type.

If a partnership were to change the meaning of exactly the Gazzilli auction 1♠-1NT; 2♣* (Gazzilli)-2♦* (8+ any); 2♥* (NEW: artificial waiting bid) I think you would basically be playing BART, but retain the benefit of having all other second round rebids by opener be limited to a decent 15-count or so. Just keep in mind that the 2♣ rebid contains many hand types, so until further notice opener should be captain of the auction. I think you can port over BART agreements to Gazzilli at a small cost (if you want to keep 1♠-1NT; 2♣-2♦; 2♥ NF you need an agreement that opener chooses a different rebid opposite any hand that wants to be in game opposite the 10-11 hearts hand, which puts pressure on the third round bids by opener. Then again, you likely already have such an agreement).

The auction 1♥-1♠ is a bit of a mess always. I really like having a strength distinction with Gazzilli - it helps to clean up auctions like 1♥-1♠; 3♥, which is a major headache in standard. That being said it is still somewhat iffy since both opener and responder may have extra length in the major to show, and it is not clear which suit would be most suitable for trumps, or which side should be given priority to describe their hand. It is an ironic sidenote that standard 1♥-1♠; 2♣-2♦ is 4S(G)F, so compared to standard little is lost by adopting BART or Gazzilli.

As a final remark, in my main partnership we artificially include the 10-11 5(+)♥ hand over a 1♠ opening in the 2♣ response, and play a relatively sophisticated rebid structure over that. As far as I can tell this eliminates the main advantage BART has over Gazzilli, though the two are comparable.

There are different versions of bart. I suspect most expert pairs who use it customize it

In one partnership we play 1S 1N 2C:

2D shows 5+ hearts, any non gf strength but not invitational with 6+H

2H puppets to 2S, to play or to show various hands, such as 2N shows 11-12 with 4 clubs, 3C shows 10-12 with 5+ clubs, lacking positional values for 2N, 3D shows 10-12 with 6+ diamonds (we open almost all 11 counts and some 10s so non-fit 12 counts don’t game force…if you open sounder, shave these ranges down)

2S shows 2S with 9-11 hcp

2N shows 10-12 with positional values but denies 4C

Etc

In my other partnership, going through 2D is a prelude to weakness….the opposite of the approach above

Over 1H 1N 2C things are different, because one has 2S as an option, either directly or after puppeting to 2H

I’ve not heard of your version and think it unduly limited.

Indeed, I don’t consider Bart as remotely close to Gazilli. The 2C bid promises no particular strength and the 2D/2H responder bids contain a myriad of hands, depending on whether one relays with the ‘better’ or the ‘worse’ responder ranges.

IM 1N 2C isn’t ‘artificial’ other than that it shows 2+ clubs. Why? To make 2D promise 4. One can play bart with 2C promising 3, but that reduces its frequency…with 5332 one bids 2D over 1N, which makes little sense to me.

[DavidKok]

I took the most vanilla version as an example. As you say I'm sure a lot of partnerships customise their BART agreements. My main point is that you can choose to use the same agreements over a Gazzilli 2♣, whatever they are. If opener really is very strong they get to hear about responder's hand and can take intelligent action. The main issue would be puppets to a final contract, which opener may have to break with a strong hand. Then again I presume you already play something like that?

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2022-December-17, 17:46, said:

I took the most vanilla version as an example. As you say I'm sure a lot of partnerships customise their BART agreements. My main point is that you can choose to use the same agreements over a Gazzilli 2♣, whatever they are. If opener really is very strong they get to hear about responder's hand and can take intelligent action. The main issue would be puppets to a final contract, which opener may have to break with a strong hand. Then again I presume you already play something like that?

My understanding of Gazilli is that the 2C rebid might be even on a void…all hands above a certain strength threshold bid 2C (I suspect that in some versions 2N and beyond might have strong meanings as well). 2C is either natural 4+(?) or entirely artificial

Then responder is required to bid 2D with 8+ hcp, committing to game opposite the strong opening hand. Responder can’t pass.

This is completely unlike bart.

In bart 2C shows as few as 2. But it’s never a void and, importantly, it’s not forcing!

If one opens 1H on 4=5=3=1, one has to choose which misdescription to give…2C showing 2+ or 2D showing 4+…but this rarely arises in real life.

And over 2C, 2D does NOT promise strength. In simple bart it doesn’t even promise hearts but in more complex versions, where 1S 2N 2C 2H puppets to 2S, 2D promises 5+ hearts.

Nor does a non 2D bid show weakness

Responder, in any version, can jump to 3H over 1S 1N 2C but exactly how that’s different from 1S 1N 2C 2D 2H 3S is for agreement…I play it differently between my two partnerships.

As I understand it, Gazilli is primarily about enhancing opener’s ability to show strongish hands. Bart, otoh, is primarily about allowing responder to better describe his wide range 2N bid…in 2/1 methods with light opening bids, 1N can be 4-12 hcp!

I just don’t see them as comparable.

As a further example, after 1H 1N opener, in my partnerships, can bid 3m with say a 15 count 5-5, non forcing but constructive. With a gf jumpshift, he bids not the Gazilli 2C but instead 2S…either very strong with spades or gf with a minor or huge with self-sufficient hearts, just short of a 2C opener. Thus we bid entirely differently than any form of Gazilli I’ve ever seen.

[mw64ahw]

awm, on 2022-December-15, 15:52, said:

There are two big advantages of Gazilli;

1. Better auctions when opener has extras but less than GF and responder is very weak. You can get out in 2M without opener taking another call and you can get out in responders long suit at the three level and sometimes responder can even show a weak two suiter and owner can choose.
2. You don't miss game when responder has a better fit for openers second suit and is too weak to raise, and opener has extras (but less than GF).

Transfers get you the second but not the first. Transfers also get you better auctions on some of openers GF hands, but they are worse when opener has major+clubs because you are rebidding 2M instead of 2♣ (the latter gives responder space to distinguish invite vs preference with clubs and also show hearts over openers spades).

How big a loss is it being unable to stop in 2M?
Using a transfer approach one could play say:

1♠-1NT
2♣ as ♦ or Strong with ♣

After a preference 2NT can be GI (17/18) with weak hands passing or supporting either of the shown suits. Any other bid is then GF.

GF hands can then bid above 2NT (18/19+) in a way similar to the Khakhar doc. so:
3♣ 5+♣
3♦ 5224
3♥ 5314
3♠ 6xx4
3NT 5134

If Responders preference is their own long suit then this can be bid directly if GI or via 2NT asking opener to bid 3♣ then Pass/Correct.