[kellonius]

My partner and I have just agreed to start playing precision, 12-15 NT, 5 card majors, 2/1 is (mostly) GF. We have a couple questions for more experienced precision pairs:

(1) What do you like to do with balanced 11 counts? (1B) If you pass these hands, and since we open a 12-15 1NT, what should a 1D open and 1NT rebid show? Are there any interesting gadgets here, since this seems to lose its natural use?

(2) We've been tempted by the limited 1 level opening bids to open a lot of questionable 11 counts, especially with a 5 card major. For pairs who play 2/1 responses as GF in response to a precision opener, how do you typically define a GF as responder if you have a partner who likes to open these so-so 11 counts? If some 12 counts or so don't count as a GF, how do you bid them?

(3) 2C as (5+C and 4M or 6C) versus always showing 6C? For pairs who don't allow the 4M, what do you do with 4315, 3415 hands?

(3) Any other system reccomendations for a new precision pair?

Thanks so much!

[straube]

This interview by Glen Ashton may give you some ideas...

http://www.bridgemat...com/rodwell.htm

[akhare]

kellonius, on 2014-March-03, 13:19, said:

My partner and I have just agreed to start playing precision, 12-15 NT, 5 card majors, 2/1 is (mostly) GF.

My personal recommendation (somewhat orthogonal to what you intend to play) would be use a 14-16 NT (1st and 2nd) and 15-17 (3rd and 4th).

Among other things:

1) It allows the balanced 11-13 hands to be opened with 1♦
2) The balanced hands in the 1♣ opening are now 17+
3) Balanced 5M332 (5M4m22, 5m4m22) hands in the 14-16 range can be opened with 1N

Also, IMO 2♣works best if it shows 6+♣ and sidesteps many pitfalls with the classic 5+♣ opening.

Finally, my preference is to play semi-forcing NT over 1M.

[Vampyr]

kellonius, on 2014-March-03, 13:19, said:

For pairs who play 2/1 responses as GF in response to a precision opener

Are there any?

[phoenix214]

The system you described sounds like the system most new Latvian junior pairs are playing.
The system goes like this:
1♣:16+ strong, use what you like after. We have mostly natural afterwards
1♦:11-15 4441 with 4♦, 4♦5♣ or 5+♦, unbal
1M - Unbalanced
1NT 12-15(Some pairs do not open bad 12 counts), systematically includes 4414 hands(singleton diamond)
2♣ 5-4 or 6
Rest up to you. Normal 2♦ - majors, 5-4 or better, 2NT - minors

After 1 diamond opening, depends on what gadgets you want and how advanced. I am currently making an improvement over our 1♦, but basically after 1♦-1♥, 1NT shows 5♣-4♦, and after 1♦-1♠, 1NT = 4♥. A better idea maybe to use transfers, or you can always just look at this topic
http://www.bridgebas...ced-natural-1d/

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-03, 15:25, said:

Are there any?

Meckwell. And I think also Shah/Shah from the recent Maharashtra State winners.

[Zelandakh]

1. If you play the system as given then you need to pass balanced 11 counts. A more puopular variant is to use a 14-16 1NT range and then open 1♦ with 11-13 balanced. That also provides a use for the 1♦->1NT rebid. If you stick with your initial method then a useful way of using the 1♦->1NT rebid is to play it as showing equal or longer clubs and a 2♣ rebid now promises longer diamonds. Or you can reverse it if you prefer. There is another option involving relays too that I will not get into in this post.

2. You obviously need to match your GF requirements to your minimum opening range. You can probably use an initial guideline of a good 13+ here and adjust if this is not working for you.

3. Traditional Precision uses a 2♦ opening to cover minimum hands of 4414, (34)15 or 4405 shape. Some have pointed out that this is something of a waste and alternative schemes are around. One reasonable one involves opening all minimum hands with only one minor (with or without a 4 card major) 1♦ and then using one of the 2m openings for both minors and the other for 3-suiters. Obviously to play this you need to be comfortable with the idea of opening 1♦ without any diamonds at all.

4. If you are interested in strong club methods generally rather than specifically Precision then you might also consider some of the systems based on the base of 1♣ showing "15+ natural or 15+ balanced or 18+ any", which can make the rest of the system work out more simply and naturally. Along the same lines you can move into Polish Club territory, where the strong hands are "protected" from early preemption by including a weak NT hand type instead of the strong NT hand type. Moving even further along this path leads to Swedish Club. All of these systems are perfectly viable.

If you prefer to stick with Precision then the next area to consider is the 1♣ response structure. Natural works but also available are methods based on asking bids or relays, and these have some advantages. I will give a special mention here of a system called IMPrecision, which is complicated but worth it if you are willing and able to learn it fully. Finally, whatever method you go with pay particular attention to dealing with interference after your 1♣ opening over a wide range of defensive methods. This is an area easy to neglect and it pays dividends to make the extra effort here.

[phoenix214]

Zel, i have a question for you. Do you feel its bad to pass balanced 11 counts?

[Zelandakh]

phoenix214, on 2014-March-04, 17:50, said:

Zel, i have a question for you. Do you feel its bad to pass balanced 11 counts?

It certainly is not bad to pass them - my system uses an (11)12-14 1NT range so passes balanced 11s often enough - but especially not vulnerable I would say that opening these has a small edge. That said I will immediately qualify it. There is some reasonable evidence around that a NV mini (10-12) NT is a plus against equal or better players but a minus against weaker players. That is because it tends to randomise the results to some extent. This is the reason that Meckwell gave for giving it up. You also have to bear in mind that including weaker balanced hands in some opening means that more hand types are being covered and that leads directly to less accuracy.

What this means in practise is that if your system can open balanced 11s NV without having to give up anything important then by all means do so. But if the system design fits better without this then do not stretch to include them. And vulnerable any gain from opening balanced 11s is pretty much negligible. A couple of examples to illustrate this - in my system, to open all balanced 11 counts I would either have to make the 1NT range uncomfortably wide, or reduce the minimum for a 1♣ opening to 14, or include the hand type in 1♦. My 1♦ opening is real (4+ diamonds), promises an unbalanced hand and uses relay-based follow-ups. Including a weak balanced hand here would lose all the advantages of the unbalanced diamond and also mess up the relay structure. The benefits of this do not match the issues.

In Precision the 1♦ opening is already somewhat nebulous and has natural follow-ups. That makes including a weak balanced hand here relatively painless. In addition, having the 1♣ show 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced works rather well since the minimums for both hand types are now more equal in power, as well as now making the old problem auction of 1♣ - 1♦; 2NT safer and tightening the 1NT opening range. In other words, what you get here are mostly advantages with little downside.

So you have to look at the system as a whole. In general I would be in favour of opening balanced 11s not vulnerable and think it is fairly much 50-50 vulnerable. But the difference is small enough that not doing so is also ok and other system requirements can easily make opening balanced 11s even not vulnerable a losing proposition.

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-05, 04:09, said:

There is some reasonable evidence around that a NV mini (10-12) NT is a plus against equal or better players but a minus against weaker players. That is because it tends to randomise the results to some extent. This is the reason that Meckwell gave for giving it up.

I can see why having something that worked well against better players might have been a bit of a waste of time for Meckwell.....

[steve2005]

WellSpyder, on 2014-March-05, 09:42, said:

I can see why having something that worked well against better players might have been a bit of a waste of time for Meckwell.....

maybe Meckwell does so well with their nebulous 1♦ they saw no plus using mini-NT.
They only used it NV vs Vul in 1st & 2nd seat so 1♦ should be effective in that situation.

who are these weaker players? Anyone not in the top 100 rankings? lol

[SteelWheel]

I know I'm late to this thread, but I'm just gonna toss in a few thoughts here:

I don't play all that much serious bridge anymore--usually just make it to maybe one or two tournaments a year, and it's always with one of my old regular gang, so we rely on our old Precision stuff. It was largely based on Berkowitz/Cohen Precision, so we played 14-16 NTs except for 1st and 2nd NV, where we played 10-12 (described by one of our old gang as "1st and 2nd seat non-vul is forcing" ).

Playing 10-12 was and is fun--but it does put a strain on things (like having to open 1♦ and rebid 1NT when holding 13-15, for example). In general, I find that the big "win" in Precision is opening 1♥/♠--which will always put you ahead of the field. Open 1♣ against a modern aggressive opponent, and you'll often find the opponents in your face, robbing you of all of your bidding room and your wonderful relay sequences--but at least there, pard knows that you have "16+". So opening 1♣ might put you a little behind the field/other table. Opening 1♦ frequently puts you a little behind, since pard can almost never raise diamonds with safety in a competitive auction.

If I was starting again from scratch, I'd probably go the "other way" a little bit: Give up the 10-12 NT, play 12-15 NT all around (with even some of those really crappy 12-counts getting passed when vul)--this would allow a 1♦ opening to show "real" diamonds (Remember Edgar Kaplan's line? "In the 1970s we started losing the club suit. Now diamonds are nearly gone and hearts are fading fast"), and more or less suggest an unbalanced hand.

As for the 4=4=1=4 hand type: I've played the Precision 2♦ opening, and it works well--when it comes up, but is it often enough to justify using it? Not so sure. I despise playing a totally ambiguous 1♦ opening--it almost forces pard to respond, even when his hand doesn't justify a response--especially when he is short in diamonds; also, opening 1♦ on those hand types frequently makes it difficult for our side to determine if we have the diamond suit covered as we try to figure out if 3NT is in the picture.

I'm kind of a simple soul. A natural weak 2♦ opener still has something going for it. I could make the argument that when holding the dreaded 4=4=1=4 hand type, just open 1♥, or maybe even 1♠ with a really chunky four-bagger spade suit. You'll usually come out ok. Just make sure to do it in tempo, so as not to give away UI.

Just my $0.02..

[kenrexford]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-04, 11:00, said:

3. Traditional Precision uses a 2♦ opening to cover minimum hands of 4414, (34)15 or 4405 shape. Some have pointed out that this is something of a waste and alternative schemes are around. One reasonable one involves opening all minimum hands with only one minor (with or without a 4 card major) 1♦ and then using one of the 2m openings for both minors and the other for 3-suiters. Obviously to play this you need to be comfortable with the idea of opening 1♦ without any diamonds at all.

I can expand on this.

2♣ Opening = Any three suits, 10-15 HCP. This covers more turf than the Precision 2♦ opening, obviously. It also takes some of the heavy load away from the 1♦ opening. You might think that the call covers too much territory, but the response structure is vastly superior to the traditional "Mini-Roman" 2♦ response structure. With M-R, 2NT is the asking bid. With 2♣ Roman 3-suiter, 2♦ is the asking bid:

2♣-P-2♦ = asking:

2♥ = Min (10-12) with 4 hearts (4441, 4414, 1444). After this, most is logical, but 3♦ asks again (3♥ = 4441, 3♠ = 4414, 3NT = 1444).

2♠ = Min without 4 hearts (4144)

2NT = MAX (13-15) with 4441

3♣ = MAX with 4414

3♦ = MAX with 4144

3♥ = MAX with 1444

2♦ Opening = Both minors, 10-15. This also takes heat off the 1♦ opening. It has "preemption with a punch," because it jams the majors to the two-level while allowing good penalty doubles by Responder if they do intervene (you don't need negative doubles). The response structure is somewhat easy to remember:

2♦-P-2♥ = Artificial, asking

2♠ = Min (10-12) with 3 spades

2NT = Min with no 3-card major

3♣ = Min with 3 hearts

3♦ = MAX with no 3-card major

3♥ = MAX with 3 hearts

3♠ = MAX with 3 spades

These two two-level openings are IMO superior to the Precision two-level openings because they cover more territory, are more manageable, and preempt them more than us when we want to preempt them more than us. They allow difficult-to-describe hands to be described fast, which makes the system less interference-prone, while causing problems for the opponents in describing major-oriented hands. On the last point, if the OPP opens 2♦ for minors, is 2M weak (what you would bid after 1♦) or intermediate? You cannot do both.

The structure comes together when a 1♦ opening shows EITHER minor but never both (or balanced). This is akin to opening 1♦ with any hand with which you would open a minor, with the 4441 hands removed and the minor two-suiters removed. 1♦...2♣ is identical to the standard 1♣...2♣, where not a single diamond is shown (but where you MIGHT have 4♦/5♣ in a pinch). But, again, you have no trouble worrying about the "normal" minor two-suiters, because you went through 2♦ opening with those hands, or with the 4441 hands. The response structure is fairly standard and normal, except that there are no "minor raises" because no minor has been shown.

This "Flamingo 1♦" opening (the term Jake Parrott coined) avoids the difficulties in Precision of the 4MAJ/5+clubs hand. You instead with Flamingo open 1♦, which makes the major-suit exploration no problem, and THEN show the clubs. The "Flamingo Diamond" is perhaps viewed as the "Walsh" approach to a Precision structure, therefore.

FWIW, all three of these openings are discussed in my Modified Italian Canape System book. The two-level openings are described exactly as you would play them in Precision, even though in a canapé context, because the canapé context is not relevant to those openings (except in sideline discussions of nuances for other sequences and the like). While the MICS book discusses Flamingo in the context of "Canape Flamingo," I took time to mention the nuances for Precision.

[PrecisionL]

(1) In one Precision partnership we put the 17+ hcp balanced hands into 1♣, and the 15-16 hcp hands into 1♦.

(2) We open a lot of 11 hcp hands with 5-cd majors and use 2NT as an invitational game invite, 3♣ response to 2NT shows the light opening bid (LOB). Now, 2♣ is the Game Forcing Response, usually a good 14+ hcp.

(3) 4315 and 3415 hands we open 1♦ (See the Diamond Major reference below).

(4) If you insist on playing 5-card majors in a Precision system, then consider adding the Diamond Major Scheme: http://www.bridgeclu...ude/Diamond.htm

1♦ = 10-15 hcp and promises at least one 4-card Major, may have zero ♦s.

I play this scheme in two partnerships of 5 years duration.

2♣ opening: 10-15 hcp and 6+♣, or 5+♣ and 4♦ (Note: No 4-card major)
2♦ opening: 10-15 hcp and 6+♦, or 5+♦ and 4♣ (Note: No 4-card major)

Responses to 1♦:

1♥: Usually 4♥,occassionally could be 3♥ if short in ♦, ♠ could be longer than 4,

less than Limit Raise Values, N.F.

1♠: Almost always 4+ cards and 0-3♥, less than Limit Raise Values, N.F.
1NT: 6-9 hcp and balanced
2♣: 9-cards in the minors, pass or correct, less than Limit Raise Values, N.F.
2♦: Artificial Limit Raise or better, does NOT deny a 4-card major.

[steve2005]

While nice Larry and not too complicated. Is it supposed to be ACBL GCC compatible?

cause there are three bids in the responses to 1♦ which I don't think are.

responding 1♥ on 3 cards

and 2♦ as a limit+ artificial raise. needs to have 3♦

even 2♣ response there might be a problem, in GCC says a jump response could be use to show 5♣4♦ but it has to be know which is 5+ and which is 4+

[rbforster]

steve2005, on 2014-April-05, 09:37, said:

is it supposed to be ACBL GCC compatible? cause there are three bids in the responses to 1♦ which I don't think are.

responding 1♥ on 3 cards
and 2♦ as a limit+ artificial raise. needs to have 3♦
even 2♣ response there might be a problem, in GCC says a jump response could be use to show 5♣4♦ but it has to be know which is 5+ and which is 4+

You're correct about these issues. I would suggest

1) making 1♥ by responder nominally promise 4, even if that leaves a few hands without a bid. With those, responder uses discretion whether to bid 1♥ with fewer than 4 (as a psych to avoid passing with a weak hand and short diamonds, could be a silly contract), or something else. Some systems don't believe in 4441 patterns - those have no bid, just pick your smallest lie.

3) if 2♣ shows 3+ clubs, it's fine as a response. I guess maybe you've got no other bid with 2272 weak, but I don't know the system in detail. It seems that with fewer than 3 in the majors, you've almost always got 3 clubs.

2) yes, this one is isn't going to work without 3+ diamonds or requiring GF values.

[awm]

Quite a bit of questionable advice in this thread...

For a new precision pair I'd recommend using mainstream methods rather than going down the rabbit hole of exotic structures proposed here (many of which strike me as poor on technical merit as well).

The most common precision base among strong (US anyway) players is based on what Meckwell play. This includes: 1nt as 14-16, 1D could be short and includes 11-13 balanced, (41)35 with three diamonds, and real diamond hands; 2C promises six, 2D three suited short diamonds but includes 4315 types.

The original post suggests closer to Wei precision (13-15 NT, 2C can be five, 1D a real suit) which is okay but somewhat old fashioned and does not work well with the modern style of opening 11&12 balanced.

As for what 1D-1N-1NT should show when 1D is natural unbalanced, the main hand types "missing" in standard rebids are 3-card major raise and 4H/5+D over a 1S response. I'd suggest the 1nt rebid is 3-card raise to 1H and 4H/5+D to 1S, with 1D-1S-2H being a three card spade raise.

[PrecisionL]

Quote

While nice Larry and not too complicated. Is it supposed to be ACBL GCC compatible? Because there are three bids in the responses to 1♦ which I don't think are. Responding 1♥ on 3 cards and 2♦ as a limit+ artificial raise. needs to have 3♦ even 2♣ response there might be a problem, in GCC says a jump response could be use to show 5♣4♦ but it has to be know which is 5+ and which is 4+

Yes, these treatments are GCC compliant, I asked ACBL before playing them in tournaments several years ago.

If this is too exotic, then use the the ambiguous 1♦ may be short approach. This is intended for partnerships that are looking for an improvement over such a 1♦ opening.

As Bob Hamman said many years ago mixing 5-card Majors with a strong club is like mixing oil and water. This scheme works well for my partners that insist on playing 5-card majors. I learned bridge in the mid 1960s from K-S and Sheinwolds 5 Weeks to Winning Bridge.

[steve2005]

PrecisionL, on 2014-April-04, 19:09, said:

(
Responses to 1♦:
2♦: Artificial Limit Raise or better, does NOT deny a 4-card major

If by artificial it means it could have 0-2 ♦ I don't see how it can be GCC legal. and if it could have a 4 card major it easily could have only 2♦.

does this mean you can use 1♥-2♥ as a limit raise with 2♥? why you want to do this I don't know!?

If it were GF you can do whatever you want

[straube]

PrecisionL, on 2014-April-05, 21:21, said:

Yes, these treatments are GCC compliant, I asked ACBL before playing them in tournaments several years ago.

David,

In my opinion, what your describing is Bridge, and is legal. I'll research the
matter. Please proceed on the assumption that it is legal, unless you hear
something to the contrary from me.

Best Regards,

Ken
________________________________________
From: dastraube@aol.com [dastraube@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:16 AM
To: Ken Horwedel
Subject: Re: Important Info--District 20 GNT Online

Hi Ken,

My partner and I are competing in the B flight on Sunday and we
understand it uses the GCC. We play that an 1H response to a Precision
1D opening is four+ hearts but could be fewer hearts if responder is
going to game force and has a balanced hand. For example, with...

Axx Axx AKx Jxxx

we would like not to introduce clubs. In our opinion, the bid of 2C is
too directional for the amount of room it consumes. We also don't want
to jump to 3N and find out that we are cold for 6D when partner has
KQxx KQx QJxxx x.

We were challenged once by opponents at a Salem OR sectional and the
ACBL director informed us that this use had been ruled legal, but my
impression is that people have different understandings of it and we
would like to know how you would rule.

I can point to a few instances where it has been recommended to respond
1M though short...

1) folks that play 1D-2N as GF and 1D-2C as promising 5-cd suits have
to improvise with a 3-cd major when they have something like Axx Axx
xxx Kxxx and want to invite 2N. This used to be common practice before
most switched to 2N as GI.
2) the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge gives AKx xx xxxx xxxx as a
possible 1S response to 1D.
3) my understanding is that Meckwell used to respond 1S with 31(54) to
partner's 1H opening. Similarly, I think Rodwell invented support
doubles to stay out of 3/3 fits because he liked to respond with major
suit fragments.

To me though the main reasoning for allowing it is that it makes so
much more bidding sense and we ought not use rules that in effect force
us to bid poorly...especially when we have values. 1H for us is 4+ most
of the time and when we are short we have a lot of extra strength.

What is your understanding? Please let me know if you have any
questions.

Thanks,

David Straube