Magazine GUUS Test

Gazzilli in Depth

Guus Schreiber, schreiber.guus@gmail.com

The bidding situation

The auction 1/1 – 1NT occurs frequently, especially now that 2-over-1 as game-forcing has become the de facto standard. The 1NT bid typically shows 5-11 points without a major fit, so a wide range. Since the opener’s range is also considerable, in practice about 11-21, this auction is both challenging and important to discuss thoroughly. The Gazzilli 2 bid is a way to help navigate this bidding space.

 

Anyone who has tried to work out Gazzilli in detail knows that it is a complex convention. It starts with the observation that 1 – 1NT and 1 – 1NT are significantly different auctions. In the first auction, you almost certainly do not have a spade fit (unless the opener has a 6-5 distribution); in the second, finding a possible heart fit is an important theme. Gazzilli is not a fixed convention, but more a “concept you have to design,” so that it fits within your overall agreements. In this article, we discuss three versions of Gazzilli, with increasing complexity. The emphasis is on agreements that are relatively easy to remember. Readers can refine these as they see fit.

 

We also discuss the use of Gazzilli after 1 – 1. This is a fundamentally different situation: responder’s hand is unlimited, and he may in some cases have support for opener’s major.

 

In some places, we use Bridge-Compass analyses to assess the quality of an option in a bidding scheme. Bridge Compass is a data-science tool developed by Bart Nab (https://b-a.nl/).

Basics

The Gazzilli convention is named after Leo Gazzilli, an Italian top player from the era of Belladonna and Garozzo. Gazzilli is in particular popular in Europe, but also has followers on other continents.

 

In the original version, a bid of 2 after 1/ – 1NT shows either 5 and 4+ with 12-15 points, or a two-suited hand with 16 or more points. Over the years, many variants of Gazzilli have been described; most articles are fairly superficial, some very detailed. The main change, adopted by a number of players, is to bid 2 with 6M and 11-15 points instead of 5M+4+ and 11-15 points. We will return to the reasons for this later. Also, the 16+ Gazzilli variants nowadays typically show a wider variety of hands

 

This is the basic Gazzilli structure, used by almost everyone:

 

 

Gazzilli cannot be viewed separately from the other agreements you make after 1M – 1NT, such as direct jumps to the three level. In this article, we use the term ‘Gazzilli complex’ when referring to the whole set of agreements after 1M – 1NT.

 

In the standard form of Gazzilli, you have no rebid with a 5-3-3-2 shape and 11-15 points after 1M – 1NT. With 11-12 points, the solution is simple: pass 1NT. With 14-15 points, the easiest option is to always open these hands with 1NT. That is definitely the modern style; many top players open a variety of semi-balanced hands in the 14-15 range with 1NT to immediately show their strength. With 13 points, you basically have no choice but to pass, hoping partner does not have a nice 11 and 3NT will make.

 

You also face a problem with 5+4 and 14-15 points. You could bid such hands via Flannery, but that’s a major system change with significant consequences. With a 4=5=2=2 shape you could open 1NT, but that certainly won’t be everyone’s choice. The simplest solution is probably to treat this hand as a six-card heart suit.

The weak variant in the Gazzilli 2♣ bid

As said, in the original Gazzilli convention the 2 bid shows either a 16+ hand or a weak (11-15) hand with four or more clubs. Many players nowadays use a ‘modified’ variant: they bid 2 with a six-card major and 11-15, and use the direct 2M rebid for the hand with a five-card major and four or more clubs. This ‘6M variant’ has some advantages:

• You can stay in 2M with 6M and 14-16 points if partner has a weak hand.
• After 1M – 1NT – 2 it is convenient that with 5-7 points and no clear bid you can bid 2M on a singleton. For example, if you have a 5-4 minor suit with a singleton major, you face a tricky decision if partner can have 5M+4+: either bidding above 2M risking that partner has 16+ without a fit, or bidding 2M and ending up in a 5-1 fit while you have a good fit in clubs.

The disadvantage of the 6M variant mainly lies in the auction 1 – 1NT – 2: if opener has 5=3=1=4 and the 1NT bidder has five hearts with 8-11 points, you might miss a good heart game. This can of course also happen with six spades, but because you might also have the possibility of a 6-2 spade fit, this is less likely to be a problem.

 

In this article, we will assume the 6M variant. However, the bidding schemes presented can also be used with minor adjustments in the 5M+4+ variant.

The weak responses

After 1M – 1NT – 2, the most common response with a weak hand is 2M. You will almost always do this with doubleton support for opener. With a singleton M, you might try for a different contract if you have the hand for it. Below is a typical response scheme:

 

 

After a 1 opening, you can sometimes hide a mediocre five-card heart suit if you have a doubleton spade. Bids at the three-level are only made with a relatively good suit; of course, you’ll be more inclined to do so if you have a void in partner’s suit. The bids to show minors I would only use in the 6M version if you have at least 5-5; as mentioned, with a 5-4 in the minors or, after a 1 opening, with a 1=4=4=4 distribution, it’s usually better to bid 2M.

 

After a 1 opening, you have two bids to show length in both minors; the second bid can be used, for example, with longer diamonds. Some pairs also respond 1NT with three-card major support and a hand too weak for a direct raise, for example 4-6 points. In that case, the 2M rebid shows 1-3 trump support.

 

After a weak response, opener continues only with extra strength or shape. The bidding proceeds naturally from there. 2NT shows 18-19 balanced; 3M over 2M invites game; a new suit bid is forcing. That means, for example, that with 16-17 balanced, you’ll usually pass a weak response. With a six-card major and 14-16 points, passing 2M is also preferred. A Bridge-Compass analysis shows that even with 17 points and a 6-3-2-2 distribution, game only has about 33% chance of success opposite 5-7 points and doubleton support. With 17 points and a 6-3-3-1 distribution or 16 points and a 6-4, it pays off to invite.

Version 1: Gazzilli 101

We start with a basic version of Gazzilli, similar to the original version of its creator. Then we’ll refine it in two steps. In the 101 version (101 is American jargon for a first introduction), you only show that you have a two-suiter, but not what type (5-4, 5-5, 6-4). All bids after the positive 2 response are basically natural. Below are the bids after a 1 opening. After 1 it works similarly.

 

 

An advantage of the Gazzilli approach is, among other things, that 1 – 1NT – 2 is no longer needed to show a strong hand with 5-4, freeing this bid for a minimum opening with 6 and 5. A limitation of the simple approach is that you cannot distinguish between the various strong two-suited hands (5-4, 5-5, 6-4). You can use the direct 2NT bid to show other strong two-suited hands, but that is only a partial solution.

 

By the way, the chart shows a small inconsistency, which you see in many Gazzilli versions: the 3 bid shows 15+ instead of 16+. The idea is that the six-card suit offers sufficient compensation. I will return to bidding with 6M and 14-15 points at the end of this article.

 

Version 2: Two-suited hands

A more advanced Gazzilli variant allows you to differentiate between different types of two-suited hands, especially 5-4, 5-5, and 6-4. This distinction matters: in fit situations, a 6-4 is worth about two points more than a 5-4, and a 5-5 is worth one point more. The bidding schemes below are partly derived from the Gazzilli complex published by Robert Todd, based on suggestions from Adam Kaplan.

 

 

With Gazzilli, you show 16+ hands with a 5-4 or 5-5 distribution. After the positive response of responder the 2OM bid (two in the other major) shows a 5-4 shape; the responses to the relay should be based are on your general relay agreements (e.g., from low to high). With a 5-5 shape, you immediately bid the second suit at the three-level.

 

The bidding scheme for other bids after 1 – 1NT looks like this:

 

 

The direct 2NT bid shows a 6-4 shape with at least invitational values. This is a popular agreement even without Gazzilli. Of the discussed shapes, the 6-4 has the most playing strength; with hands like this, it is less important to be able to end the bidding in 2M. After 1 – 1NT, you can only show the minors if you have invitational values (otherwise you would end above 3). To keep the agreements after 1 – 1NT and 1 – 1NT consistent, I would therefore advocate reserving 2NT for the 6M-4m hands. After a 3 relay, you can then show an invitational 6-4 with 3/3, and a game-forcing 6-4 with 3/3NT. Bridge-Compass analyses show that a 6-4 with 17 points opposite partner’s 5-11 1NT is worth a game-forcing bid, and a 6-4 with 15-16 points an invite. Other responses than 3 are natural and game-forcing. A 6-4 with the other major needs to be bid in a different way. After a 1 opening, you can simply conceal the spade suit; after a 1 opening, you can first offer it as 5-4. This is something for your system discussions.

 

Jumps in a new suit show a light-invitational 5-5. Many pairs already bid this way, and the agreement nicely complements the 16+ 5-5 via the Gazzilli route.

 

In Todd’s original bidding scheme a direct jump to 3M shows an invitational hand with 14-15 points and a good suit. However, opposite a 5-11 NT, the 3M contract has with this type of hand an average chance of just 60% to make, thus leading to an average loss of more than 1 IMP per board. The strength of the 6M variant is that with these types of hands, you can still stop in 2M opposite a weak hand. It therefore makes more sense to use the jump to 3M for a specific game-forcing hand. The proposal in the above scheme is that this is a game-forcing hand with a good suit, which takes the pressure off bidding a six-card suit via Gazzilli. An alternative is the approach of Lauria – Versace and Van den Bos – Van Lankveld: they bid 1M – 1NT – 3M with a seven-card suit, fairly minimal values, and lots of playing strength. The direct 3NT bid could be played as a 6-3-2-2 shape, giving partner the choice between 3NT and 4M.

 

For completeness, here is the bidding scheme after 1 – 1NT:

 

Version 3: Three-card suit in the other major

It is often useful to know whether opener has a three-card suit in the other major. After a 1 opening, you can use this information to detect a 5-3 heart fit. After a 1 opening, it’s a bit more subtle. The 1NT bidder has at most three spades, so in 3NT, the most obvious game contract, there is a risk of a weakness in spades. Opposite a doubleton spade in the 1NT bidder’s hand, it makes a big difference whether opener has two or three spades. With a three-card suit, the NT contract is actually located in the right hand, since it is often better to get the lead towards the doubleton (think, for example, of Axx-Qx, Jxx-A10, etc.). Note also that in this situation it is not really necessary to keep your spade distribution hidden from the opponents: the spade lead against 3NT is almost always marked.

 

There are various Gazzilli versions that develop this idea. In this article, I mainly base myself on the descriptions by Alain Levy and Lauria – Versace. The basic idea looks schematically like this:

 

1M – 1NT – 2 – 2

 2M = 6 cards in the major, 11-14 points

 2OM = 3-4 cards in the other major, 16+, any distribution

 other bid = 16+, denies a three-card holding in the other major

 

It may seem a bit complicated, but in fact you can maintain most agreements from version 2. Below you find a bidding scheme for 1 – 1NT:

 

 

The main difference with version 2 is that after 1 – 1NT – 2 – 2 you need the immediate 2NT bid to show the 5-4 shape with a four-card minor and 0-2 spades. The 16-19 balanced hand thus moves up a level, to 3NT. After the 2OM bid, the next bid is a relay; the responses are fairly straightforward. For the non-Gazzilli bids, little changes except that 1M –1NT – 3M now shows a hand without a three-card holding in the other major.

 

The descriptions by Levy and Lauria – Versace go into much more detail. For example, with Levy you can show a 5-5-3-0 or a 6-4-3-0 with a three-card holding in the other major. Lauria – Versace distinguish between a 16-18 and a 19+ hand by the opener. Thit goes beyond the scope of this article. You then leave the world of reasonably easy-to-remember sequences. If you use the scheme above, you have to decide with 5M-5m-3OM or 6M-4m-3OM which two features you want to show.

 

For completeness, below is the bidding scheme after 1 – 1NT – 2 – 2:

 

Gazzilli after 1♥ – 1♠

The Gazzilli version above also fits well with the auction we haven’t discussed yet: 1 – 1. The two bidding schemes below are exactly the same as after 1 – 1NT, except of course for the support bids in spades.

 

 

The bids for showing four-card spade support can be assigned any way you like. The approach I use here is: the slower, the stronger. The 15+ point hands with four-card spade support are shown via Gazzilli. You will need to discuss the details with your partner, as you also have the four-level bids to show such hands.

 

Still, the situation after 1 – 1 is more complicated than after 1 – 1NT, mainly because the responder’s hand is still unlimited. Two bidding situations are in particular worth discussing.

 

 

Here you need to agree which forcing bids responder has. Lauria – Versace use 2 as a game-forcing bid in this situation, and the rest as invitational. That seems like a reasonable approach; after all, you have already denied a weak hand with spades. However, you should consider how to handle an invitational hand with six spades; for example, it might be useful to play 1 – 2 as 8-11 points. This is a good example of how playing Gazzilli influences the entire set of agreements after a 1M opening.

 

Another situation that deserves attention is this one:

 

 

In the 6M variant, this is a tricky situation, especially if responder has a forcing hand. The fourth suit (3) is awkwardly high. You need to discuss with your partner how to show a game-forcing hand with 5 and heart support (since you will often introduce your spades first). You could deploy 2 also in this situation as a general game force, but be aware that it’s easy to forget such a bid at the table.

For consideration

Finally, I want to offer two additional issues for consideration.

 

Firstly, after 1M – 1NT – 2 – 2, you sometimes in an awkward position with 6M and good 14 points (or a good 13 with a 6-4 shape). You’d rather not bid 2M because with a good 8-9 points it might already be game, but for a game-forcing bid you do not really have the values. You might consider adding an invitational 6M option, for example by adjusting the meaning of two bids in version 3:

 

 

We follow the well-known principle: the slower, the stronger. For the invitational 3M-bid you do not show the length of the other major; it simply gets too complicated.

 

Secondly, after 1 – 1NT – 2 – 2 – 2 you could miss a 5-3 heart fit if the 1NT bidder has five hearts and 8-11 points. You might want to consider bidding 2 (3+) also with six spades 11-14. You would then have to carefully agree on the continuation. Here too, you leave the realm of relatively simple memorized sequences.

Finally

The author is grateful for the feedback and suggestions of Toine van Hoof and Tim Verbeek.

 

References:

Todd, R. Modern Gazzilli. Blog post 488, 28 August 2023.

URL: https://www.advinbridge.com/this-week-in-bridge/488

Levy, A. Le 2 Trèfle Gazzilli, redemande conventionnelle après ouverture majeure.

Le Bridgeur, number 825, January-February 2018.

URL: http://usf.bridge.free.fr/bridge/art/LB20180144.pdf

Neill, D. Lauria-Versace System – Win the Italian Way. 2013.

Order via: https://bridgewithdan.com/