[keylime]

Folks,

I've been asked to form the CC for the basic and the advanced Precision elements of Full Disclosure.

I would like some feelers about the general approach of the following items, with regards to the advanced card (the basic card will be very natural in scope):

1. The response mechanism to 1♣?

2. NT range?

3. 2♦ opening?

4. The "convention IQ" of the members that would use it?

5. What is weak versus strong, constructive versus preemptive, etc.

[Robert]

Hello Keylime

I just lost the complete list so I will try several smaller posts

The sign over the door that you just entered reads, "Abandon all hope, Ye who enter here.

The CC card varies with almost each pair(much above the beginner level)

1. Hundreds of different variants. From control showing to shape showing.
The choice of shape showing bids also will vary almost with each pair.
I have seen Control showing, 1C-1D=Game forcing, 1C-1D double negative, 1C-1H
double negative, 1C-1M showing the other major, Meckwell played 1C-1H=14+ balanced or a suit, 1C-1NT ranges from 8-10, 8-11, 8+(unlimited), 8-13HCPs.
Meckwell plays 1C-1NT=clubs and 1C-2C=Ds
1C-2 level bids vary over a wide range. Both natural and artificial.
1C-2S sometimes means 8+ 5-5 minors, 1C-2NT ranges from 11+(unlimited)to
11-13 balanced.
1C-3level bids oftten show less than 8+ and long suit. I play 1C-3C, 3M and 3NT showing all 4450 hands with 8+ and a long minor. 1C-3D*=a 'solid suit' AKQxxx(x)

Regards,
Robert

[Robert]

Hello Keylime

Try, try again.

2. I have played 1NT=12-14, 12-15, 13-15, 14-16 and 15-17.
I have seen 12+-15, 13-16, 13+-16, 14-17 and 14+-17.
At least on New Zealand(?) pair plays 12-16 1NT at high levels of play.

3. 2D played as Multi, natural, Flannery, 5-5(+) majors 10-13HCP,
various 4441 shaped types and also some 'mini Flannery' type openings.

4. Precision type bidders range from the basic book methods to 'mad science rules." I am way past the 'mad science' camp.

5. Anything goes.

Ther are a bunch of books out on this subject. Danielson's Precision was a series of booklets(12-13?) with a heavy relay style and asking bids for everything.

Part of the Blue Team invented and wrote their Super Precision methods. It carried over much of the Blue Team style switching to 5 card majors and dropping canape bidding. Lots of control and asking bids here also.

Power Precision: 12-16HCP for minors and some major hands. 15-17 1NT
2D was a two way bid weak 2H or 16+ 4441 any shape.

Truscott has a 'between type' Precision. Some basic parts and some science.

Precision in the 90's offers three versions. Basic, advanced and 'buckle up your seat belts." This is a very complete version and I highly recomment it to any 'mad science' types up there. It also has a relay version in the back which does require that you switch over to 10+ positive bids.

Reese put out a good Precision style version with British influenced advice. Good advice for any bridge player. Some mad science types will not like some of his 'natural' type suggestions for some bidding. Very good book.

Regards,
Robert

[Robert]

Hello Keylime

This list just begins to describe the numerous versions of Precision.
The only bid that I retain from basic Precsion is that I still open 5 card majors.

Even my opening 1C* bid has changed, I play 16+ unbalanced or 18+ balanced.

Bridge is evolving at a faster and faster rate and Precision offers a solid platform to start building your own variant.

When asked about my methods, I reply Big Club with a 15-17 NT. If that draws a blank. I say 'Precision like' with a 15-17HCP 1NT.

I have played the asking bid style. I have also played the vanilla version.
My current style is a rocket powered version. It is closest to the Precision in the 90's Book in style. I also added many additional 'tools' and treatments.

If you want a really good outline and explanation from one of the top books on Precision, I can highly recommend this book, Precision in the 90's.

Good luck. You will need it.

Regards,
Robert

[hrothgar]

I recommend selecting a "standard" Precision reference and coding the version supported by that book without adding any improvements.

This will ensure consistancy, simplify your workload, and allow players to find a good reference book. Personally, I think that Jannerstein is a good choice. Precision in the 90s is also reasonable.

[Robert]

Hello hrothgar

Thanks for the reminder.

What was I thinking? Jannerstein's Precision book was a top notch version.

I like Precision in the 90's because of it is a somewhat more modern version. It is also a somewhat larger book and goes into a bit more detail in certain areas.

Nothing against Jannerstein's version. Either book is first rate.

I think that hrothgar suggestion for picking one book as your source is a great idea. It is perhaps the only possible way to avoid hundreds/thousands of different versions of Precision.

For programming purposes I would suggest Jannerstein since he concentrated on one version(as I remember, it has been several decades since I read his book)

Regards,
Robert

[Gerben42]

I think an advanced Precision system should include agressive openings and a constructive 1♣ opening bid.

1. The response mechanism to 1♣?

I'd vote for Meckwell here.

2. NT range?

Two way: 11 - 13 (or even 10 - 13 or 10 - 12) 1st 2nd NV , 14 - 16 otherwise. Note that including 16 is a must in my opinion. 16 balanced is NOT a 16+ big Club.

3. 2♦ opening?

3-suited with short Diamonds. Includes 4414, 4405, 4315 and 3415. This is actually more annoying for the opponents than it looks.
2♣ shows SIX cards (or 5 that look like 6 )

4. The "convention IQ" of the members that would use it?

Well below a mad scientist like myself

5. What is weak versus strong, constructive versus preemptive, etc.

Simple philosophy: Jumps are preemptive, if you have something bid lower. I.E. no strong jump shifts, strong jump raises, strong jump overcalls, or strong jump anything.

2nd simple philosophy: Bid whenever possible. Minimum opening 1-bids are rule-of-19-ish.

[helene_t]

We had a series of polls about a BBO-standard Precision (Basic). On the bsis of those polls I wrote a description of the system. I have uploaded a FD-file for that system to the FD forum.

Basically, the consensus was CC Wei + Jacoby transfers. In my experience, many pick-up partners prefer a neboulous diamond (sometimes in combination with a 15-17 1NT), contrary to the majority in the polls who basically agreed with Mauro (Chamaco).

OliverC teaches Janersteen Precision in the BIL.

As for an advanced Precision I prefer something like Moscito 2005, just with natural 1♦/♥/♠-openings. (Not that I have anything against transfer openings, but then you can't call it Precision anymore). If we can live with a nebolous 1♦, I think a relay system would benefit from a weak (11-13 or 12-14) 1NT in 1st and 2nd seat. Except for that, I prefer a (semi)-natural 1♦, though.

[luke warm]

my preference would be for some sort of shape showing relay responses to 1C .. i find them easy to learn when there's logic behind the relays.. with a weakish 1nt

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 20 2005, 10:43 PM, said:

my preference would be for some sort of shape showing relay responses to 1C .. i find them easy to learn when there's logic behind the relays.. with a weakish 1nt

Relay is VERY far from standard...

Lets try to recall the goal here:
We want to document a standard system that (ideally) can be used by pick up pairs...
Any "serious" Precision partnership will (probably) spend significant time documenting their own card...

I repeat my earlier suggestion:

Document Jannerstein or Precision in the 90s

[Robert]

Hello everyone

Relay methods are not for pick up partners.

Choose a decent book and use a nearly vanilla type response structure.

Regards,
Robert

[Chamaco]

Quote

1. The response mechanism to 1♣?

Probably shape-first is the most popular, so I'd stick with that.

I am fond of the 1C-1D-1H artificial relay for 19+ hands (or equivalent playing strength), but I doubt this falls into the mainstream precision-ers preferences.

Quote

2. NT range?

I like (12)13-15, so that 1D guarantees 4.
Alright, I can live with opening exceptionally a 3 card diamond suit only when holding a (14)=3=5 with bad clubs.

IMO, having diamonds show a real suit is a much greater advantage than all the fancy stuff of the 10-12/14-16 1NT opening.

Quote

3. 2♦ opening?

No special preference, many pros and cons, I won't open the Pandora box here.

Quote

4. The "convention IQ" of the members that would use it?

I don't understand the question, sorry

Quote

5. What is weak versus strong, constructive versus preemptive, etc.

a. Use losers count for hands with a fit.
Opposite a limited opener:
- preemptive = 10+ losers
- constructive = 9 losers
- invitational = 8 losers
- GF = 7 losers

b. I'd avoid the use of the term "weak", and use it as "Nonforcing", so that responder is free to raise immediately, just like a preempt, to the level with any hands that does not foresee game, even if the strength/texture is not a pure preempt.

[Gerben42]

Quote

5. What is weak versus strong, constructive versus preemptive, etc.

This is not about hand evaluation, Losing Trick Count or HCP or Zar or whatever are independent of system. The system should just say "this bid is weak" or "this bid is forcing to game" and you have to figure out if your hand is worth that yourself using the different evaluation tools.

When I write 1♦ p 2♠ = 6+♠, 5 - 9 HCP, I don't mean 5 - 9 HCP, I mean "not invitational but constructive".

Quote

Document Jannerstein or Precision in the 90s

Good idea, I don't have either book. In fact I don't have any bidding system books (perhaps surprising for someone who plays Fantunes on Monday, Magic Diamond on Tuesday and Relay Precision on Wednesday etc. ) except the Viking Club which is basically about relays only and the important part of the system (when for some odd reason you do NOT have GF values or opponents interfere) is left as an exercise for the reader.

[inquiry]

Don't worry so much about making the final decision of what is and is not part of the systems. For good or bad, Wayne and I will have to do that. What I hope comes out of the precison initiative, at least at first, is a very vanilla version of fairly modern precison. Certainly, for this version, no relays what so ever.

The iniitial goal, at least in my mind, should be to come up with fairly accurate FD files for pickup partnerships that go several bids deep. These basic FD cards can then be expanded by the addition of conventions, etc by existing partnerships.

As an example, I imagine one "standard american" version with game forcing raises, and one with limit raises and inverted minors. When I talked with Keylime about this, it was to develop first a BASIC simple precison. Any advanced version is ok, but I am sure I can speak for Wayne when I say that of the two, the basic version will be fast tracked for FD standard approval, while an advanced version will likely have to wait a while to be approved.

When the next version of Bridgevu rolls out, we like to have FD versions for at least SAYC, simple 2over1, BBO Advanced, BBO Italia, Standard French, Acol, precison, and WJ2000. Add to that, Richard has sent us a moscito file that is being reviewed currently by two players and the co-Czars.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Nov 21 2005, 04:43 PM, said:

Add to that, Richard has sent us a moscito file that is being reviewed currently by two players and the co-Czars.

I MIGHT have 25% or so of the MOSCITO file done...

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2005, 08:56 AM, said:

inquiry, on Nov 21 2005, 04:43 PM, said:

Add to that, Richard has sent us a moscito file that is being reviewed currently by two players and the co-Czars.

I MIGHT have 25% or so of the MOSCITO file done...

should we not review it yet then?

[keylime]

With regards to the dual approach:

The 1st draft of the basic card is moving along nicely. I'm at probably 25-30% (I'm filling in to a certain layering desired).

The advanced card is much slower but I have a good idea of where I think the majority lies with regards to "structure".

[hrothgar]

I hope that the information that I sent you is "accurate".
By this, I mean that said data describes my preferred methods.
I don't expect to be make any significant changes and/or refinements.

However, I don't beleive that the material is anywhere near complete...

[Robert]

Hello everyone

I just noticed my Terence Reese, 'Precision Bidding and Precision Play' book.

He gives a good version of the system and also points out numerous 'trouble spots'
in 153 pages and also gives some card play advice.

This book might be a good choice to chose the Precision system methods.

Regards,
Robert

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Nov 21 2005, 10:27 AM, said:

I hope that the information that I sent you is "accurate".
By this, I mean that said data describes my preferred methods.
I don't expect to be make any significant changes and/or refinements.

However, I don't beleive that the material is anywhere near complete...

I guess this as good a time as any to discuss a "sticky" issue for volunteers who are working on FD cards for us.

Just because you or a small group of people workng with you develop a completed FD card and submit it, even if we begged you to do so, doesn't mean we will accept it as written. All compeleted FD cards will be examined for:

1) Completeness. Obviously if we think it needs more, we will add it. Often, defensive bidding is left out completely for some reason.

2) Standardization. These FD cards should be relatively standard, so that a new partnership would have a reasonable guess as to what will and will not be on it. For instance, most 2/1 GF would be thought to included inverted minors and limit major raises (Bergen would be an option that could be added from convention file).

3) Complexity. In the basic versions, things that are not only more or less not "standard" but appear overly complex will not be allowed in the default FD convention card.

Let's take Moscito for example. Richard has, as he said, provided a good start to the system. One thing he has done, is include Freeling two bids, which is a conventin he likes involving preemtitg with two four card suits at the two level. This is not part of the basic Moscito system, and would fall under non-standard issue mentioned above. We might not mind having the Freeling two bids as a "convention" to be included in the convention directory for all to use, if they like, but as part of the standard Moscito (assuming we can approve such a thing), it would not be. But the idea might be to approve standard Moscito without Freeling, and put Freeling in as a convention. Then, someone wanting to add Freeling to Moscito, in theory, could merget the moscito file with Moscito file and get close to the right system. I fully understand that the merged product might not as well described (At least as the start), as if they were placed together initailly.

A second issue, Richard (and others developers probalby) suggest. "I dont' expect to make significant changes". I think the review process will undoubtable turn up additions, deletions, and alterations to almost every FD file submitted to Wayne and I. We (the czars), after getting as much input into the process as needed, will simply have to decide what the final product look like. The final decision, I think, will necessarily reside with the two of us. That is, we will propably be making the changes we think is necessary to get the product "stanardized". Some of our decisions will be good, some no doubt may not be the "Best", but hopefully we will not make any horrible ones. The main idea is to get usable FD files for the masses before the next major release of the BridgeVu client.