[DavidKok]

Before looking into Gazzilli over an unbalanced diamond I played 3SGF, other bids natural. So on the 1♦-1♠; 2♦ start we played:

Spoiler

• Pass: Most hands with at most 8 HCP.
  
• 2♥: 3SGF, most GF hands without an immediate descriptive bid.
  
• 2♠: ~9-11 6(+)♠ invitational NF (direct 1♦-2♠ was weak, ~4-8 ish, 6(+)♠).
  
• 2NT: ~10-11, at most 2♦, invitational NF.
  
• 3♣: ~9-11, 5(+)♣, invitational NF.
  
• 3♦: ~10-11, 3(+)♦, invitational NF.
  
• 3♥: 5-5 in the majors or longer, invitational NF.
  
• 3♠: (6)7(+)♠, game forcing, sets trumps and begins slam investigation.
  
• 3NT: To play, wide ranging.
  
• 4♣: Splinter for diamonds (weird bid).
  
• 4♦: Slam try setting diamonds.
  
• 4♥: Splinter for diamonds (weird bid).
  
• 4♠: To play, wide ranging.

To me it makes a lot of sense to play 3♣ as a generic force not saying much about clubs instead. The 3♣ bid in my system rarely comes up and does not obviously gain when it does come up. I think the very weak natural use and also the GF use with 5(+)♣ don't make sense, but GF can-be-short does.
With 5=3=3=2 we don't have to worry an extreme amount about spades on 1♦-1♠; 2♦ as I expect partner to raise frequently, i.e. almost always, with a minimum with 3-card support. 2♥ 3SGF solves some but not all of these problems - particularly the 1♦-1♠; 2♦-2♥; 3♥ auction is awkward as it is the highest response and can still be several hand types. For a systemic solution I prefer changing up opener's rebids instead of attempting to gain back the space the round of the bidding after that.

My apologies for derailing a N/B thread.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-09, 11:25, said:

Before looking into Gazzilli over an unbalanced diamond I played 3SGF, other bids natural. So on the 1♦-1♠; 2♦ start we played:

Spoiler

• Pass: Most hands with at most 8 HCP.
• 2♥: 3SGF, most GF hands without an immediate descriptive bid.
• 2♠: ~9-11 6(+)♠ invitational NF (direct 1♦-2♠ was weak, ~4-8 ish, 6(+)♠).
• 2NT: ~10-11, at most 2♦, invitational NF.
• 3♣: ~9-11, 5(+)♣, invitational NF.
• 3♦: ~10-11, 3(+)♦, invitational NF.
• 3♥: 5-5 in the majors or longer, invitational NF.
• 3♠: (6)7(+)♠, game forcing, sets trumps and begins slam investigation.
• 3NT: To play, wide ranging.
• 4♣: Splinter for diamonds (weird bid).
• 4♦: Slam try setting diamonds.
• 4♥: Splinter for diamonds (weird bid).
• 4♠: To play, wide ranging.

To me it makes a lot of sense to play 3♣ as a generic force not saying much about clubs instead. The 3♣ bid in my system rarely comes up and does not obviously gain when it does come up. I think the very weak natural use and also the GF use with 5(+)♣ don't make sense, but GF can-be-short does.
With 5=3=3=2 we don't have to worry an extreme amount about spades on 1♦-1♠; 2♦ as I expect partner to raise frequently, i.e. almost always, with a minimum with 3-card support. 2♥ 3SGF solves some but not all of these problems - particularly the 1♦-1♠; 2♦-2♥; 3♥ auction is awkward as it is the highest response and can still be several hand types. For a systemic solution I prefer changing up opener's rebids instead of attempting to gain back the space the round of the bidding after that.

My apologies for derailing a N/B thread.

2♥ GF allows plenty of space to show shape/strength similar to an invite over a Weak 2♦