[Fluffy]

has anyone toyed with 2♣-2♦-2♥ being 3+ and 2♠ being 4?

[whereagles]

I've been playing some precision lately and I detest 2C-2M non forcing bids.

I had a look at the matter and transfer responses are playable (5+ cards). With 4M you can bid 2S as a relay.

[mgoetze]

When gwnn and I played Swedish Club, we agreed that transfers were the way to go, but unfortunately we could not agree whether completion should show 0-2 or 2-3 cards in the suit. I admit I only wanted to play 2-3 because I considered it simpler, 0-2 may well be the superior method. Anyhow, since we couldn't agree we ended up playing Balicki-Zmudzinski responses instead, which have 2M as nat weak and 2♦ as an INV+ relay.

B-Z system: http://www.bridgewit...-Zmudzinski.txt

Thread discussing transfer responses: http://www.bridgebas...post__p__504987
Another thread: http://www.bridgebas...e-precision-2c/

[RSClyde]

I greatly prefer the style of 2♣ opening promising 6+ clubs. Then lump the other hands into 1/2♦.
So with (43)15 open 2♦
(14)35 open 1♦
(24)25 open 1♦
It seems that by playing the 2♣ opening as so wide ranging in shape you create your own problem. You'll have no problem finding a fit with any of the above distributions if you open 1/2♦ and 2♣ is now more descriptive.

As far as responses, I like 2♦ and 2♥ as transfers and opener super accepts freely: if you have a fit then you have some shortness (though possibly just 2 doubleton) so it doesn't pay to be shy. Then 2♠ is like stayman. You may occasionally miss a 4-4 fit if responder lacks a GF but that may have happened anyway and now 4 card majors are less frequent anyway.

[Zelandakh]

 RSClyde, on 2013-September-18, 06:19, said:

I greatly prefer the style of 2♣ opening promising 6+ clubs. Then lump the other hands into 1/2♦.

Another excellent way of splitting the minor suit hands is to play that a 1♦ opening promises one minor but not both. Then either 2♣ = both minors and 2♦ = 3-suited or the reverse. I think Ken Rexford is the biggest advocate of this method on BBF (he plays 2♣ Roman and 2♦ both minors).

 RSClyde, on 2013-September-18, 06:19, said:

It seems that by playing the 2♣ opening as so wide ranging in shape you create your own problem. You'll have no problem finding a fit with any of the above distributions if you open 1/2♦ and 2♣ is now more descriptive.

The wide range of shape is manageable if you insist on keeping the strength range tight. If you try to extend the range too much then there are naturally issues. Finding a fit after a nebulous 1♦ opening is not always as simple as you suggest if the opponents are impolite enough to bid. More seriously though, you lose many part score battles that you would win with, for example, an unbalanced diamond opening, since Responder has little idea how high to compete. In many systems the upsides outweigh the downsides but to suggest there is no downside is not right. Typically (note: personal opinion coming) systems which include a weak NT in the 1♦ opening are better off including further nebulous hand types here to improve the 2♣ auctions. But systems which handle their balanced hands without using 1♦ are usually better off either going for an unbalanced diamond or for a "Flamingo" structure. I do not think the same solution works perfectly for every system.

 RSClyde, on 2013-September-18, 06:19, said:

As far as responses, I like 2♦ and 2♥ as transfers and opener super accepts freely: if you have a fit then you have some shortness (though possibly just 2 doubleton) so it doesn't pay to be shy. Then 2♠ is like stayman. You may occasionally miss a 4-4 fit if responder lacks a GF but that may have happened anyway and now 4 card majors are less frequent anyway.

You do not need the 2♠ Stayman response, just make different super-accepts for 3 and 4 card support and for min or max. I posted mine earlier (in #16) for reference. That also means not missing any 4-4 fit for invitational hands either. And weak hands with a 4 card major will usually pass.

[RSClyde]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-September-18, 07:31, said:

You do not need the 2♠ Stayman response, just make different super-accepts for 3 and 4 card support and for min or max. I posted mine earlier (in #16) for reference. That also means not missing any 4-4 fit for invitational hands either. And weak hands with a 4 card major will usually pass.

I wasn't really thinking of transferring to 4 card suits, or did I miss something?

[rhm]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-September-18, 07:31, said:

You do not need the 2♠ Stayman response, just make different super-accepts for 3 and 4 card support and for min or max. I posted mine earlier (in #16) for reference. That also means not missing any 4-4 fit for invitational hands either. And weak hands with a 4 card major will usually pass.

You did, but a two-liner is hardly an extensive discussion about the pros and cons.
I would really like to know what you suggest to do with the problem hands.
Say you open 2♣ with a seven card suit and a void in hearts. Partner bids 2♦. Do you still accept the transfer? If not what else?
Or you open 2♣ with six and 5 cards in a major. Partner transfers to the other major.
I am not claiming your system is silly, it is more that I get tired of people recommending an approach they are convinced of without discussing possible drawbacks.
Six month later they will be convinced of a different approach.
You are by far not the worst offender in this direction.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

 RSClyde, on 2013-September-18, 11:35, said:

I wasn't really thinking of transferring to 4 card suits, or did I miss something?

You should look into it - I think it makes the whole thing much easier if you do this. Naturally you have some game interest (INV+) if you trabsfer with a 4 card suit.

 rhm, on 2013-September-19, 04:56, said:

You did, but a two-liner is hardly an extensive discussion about the pros and cons.

That is true. But the pros and cons have been discussed in more detail in other threads. Usually either Michael or gwnn links to the main ones on the other threads.

 rhm, on 2013-September-19, 04:56, said:

I would really like to know what you suggest to do with the problem hands.
Say you open 2♣ with a seven card suit and a void in hearts. Partner bids 2♦. Do you still accept the transfer? If not what else?

Yes, complete the transfer. If partner is weak, they will have a real suit. If partner has values they will be bidding again.

 rhm, on 2013-September-19, 04:56, said:

Or you open 2♣ with six and 5 cards in a major. Partner transfers to the other major.

I do not open 2♣ with a 5 card major. This comes back to not trying to get too many hand types into the 2♣ opening. The relays after a 1M opening make allowance for the possibility of 5M6♣ hands.

 rhm, on 2013-September-19, 04:56, said:

I am not claiming your system is silly, it is more that I get tired of people recommending an approach they are convinced of without discussing possible drawbacks.
Six month later they will be convinced of a different approach.
You are by far not the worst offender in this direction.

You are right that I do like to try new things in bidding. And I have made some small changes to the response structure to 2♣ since I first created it. There are certainly problem hands for this method too. My aim for 2♣ auctions is basically to break even, not for it to ever be a strong-point of system. When you commit to 6+ in the opening then you are probably looking for more. I would need to play-test for a while before knowing whether transfers were better, worse, or the same as, for example, a relay-based method in that case. But Justin already pointed out in this thread that this might be a relevant difference and I think I have made it clear where I am coming from.

As always, my recommendation for anything new is to test it for your specific system as much as possible before making the decision as to whether it is right for you or not. I like the transfer response structure a lot. I find the traditional Precision responses very difficult to handle. When I first tried them out, admittedly some time ago, it put me off strong club systems completely for many years.

My belief is that transfers perform better for a 2♣ opening that is 10-14 (or 11-15) and either 6+ clubs with no 4 card major or 5+ clubs and one (or both) 4 card major(s). It is true that someone else might come to a different conclusion. I can live with that.