[lowerline]

I want to play 2NT as limit or better with support over the limited 1♥/♠ openings in Precision.

Rebids after 1♥-2NT:

3♦ = max, any shortness
3♥ = min, balanced (5332 or 5422)
3♠ = 5♠6♥
3NT = max, balanced (5332 or 5422)
4♣/♦ = 5crd suit
4♥ = min, 6-7crd suit, no shortness (6322/7222)
3♣ = none of the above

What do you think of this? Any suggestions on how the bidding should proceed after 1♥-2NT-3♣?

[whereagles]

I think the 4♥ bid isn't too good. No shortness is ok, but it should also show a hand with BAD controls, especially in the minors. Say ♦Qxx ♣Qx or worse.

The rest of the structure seems ok. In fact, Precision is one of the few systems in which the standard J2NT structure works ok. In a system with 11-20 openings, standard sucks so much it's scary.

[foo]

whereagles, on May 19 2006, 03:39 AM, said:

In fact, Precision is one of the few systems in which the standard J2N structure works ok. In a system with 11-20 openings, standard J2N sucks so much it's scary.

Interesting comment. Why or how do you find that "In a system with 11-20 openings, standard J2N sucks so much it's scary."?

[lowerline]

lowerline, on May 19 2006, 03:24 AM, said:

Rebids after 1♥-2NT:

3♦ = max, any shortness
3♥ = min, balanced (5332 or 5422)
3♠ = 5♠6♥
3NT = max, balanced (5332 or 5422)
4♣/♦ = 5crd suit
4♥ = min, 6-7crd suit, no shortness (6322/7222)
3♣ = none of the above

What do you think of this? Any suggestions on how the bidding should proceed after 1♥-2NT-3♣?

This is what I have come up with until now:

after 1♥-2NT-3♣:
3♦ = GF relay
3♥ = bad limit
4♥ = good limit

after 1♥-2NT-3♣-3♦:
3♥ = max, 6-7crd suit
3♠ = min, any void
3NT = min, single ♠
4♣ = min, single ♣
4♦ = min, single ♦

[whereagles]

foo, on May 19 2006, 11:51 AM, said:

whereagles, on May 19 2006, 03:39 AM, said:

In fact, Precision is one of the few systems in which the standard J2N structure works ok. In a system with 11-20 openings, standard J2N sucks so much it's scary.

Interesting comment. Why or how do you find that "In a system with 11-20 openings, standard J2N sucks so much it's scary."?

It's not 2NT by itself that is bad, it is the standard follow-ups. These are unsound because they basically have no objective:

1. They don't allow a minimum opener to relinquish control to responder.
2. They don't enable opener to take control when he's strong.
3. When one of the sides makes a positive-looking move, you never know if he's making it by courtesy or because he's really slam-oriented.

So basically what the standard J2NT follow-ups do is to demand that opener gives a muddy picture of what he has to a responder who usually is not even interested in slam. Well, to put it in another way, the scheme is all wrong. Anyone who uses it will be bidding more on luck and hope rather than judgement or science.

Actually, if you browse the net for alternatives, you'll find out that most other schemes are very, very badly designed as well. Only the Martel-Stansby follow-ups are well-thought and sound. But those are not very well known and require a pard who's willing to study a bit. Plus, a J2NT doesn't come up very often which makes it even worse memory-wise.

[foo]

I myself am a big fan of Martel 2N (Chip is the one who developed it, and is in general the "Mad Scientist" of that partnership.)

IMHO "Ordinary" J2N isn't too bad expect for one icky that I've seen bite pairs over and over: 1M-2N!;4M as Fast Arrival.

The odds say that when Opener is a minimum is exactly when Responder is going to have extras and be curious about slam. IOW, exactly when Responder needs bidding space is when System is robbing him of it... ugh.
Using 1M-2N;3M for such hands solves that problem.

1M-2N;4M should be used to describe some special hand that does not occur too frequently and that tells GOP lots of important stuff when it is described (2/3 top honors or better in trumps as well as 15+ HCP for instance).

[whereagles]

foo, on May 19 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

Chip is the one who developed it, and is in general the "Mad Scientist" of that partnership.

Well, I he is a mad scientist in real life If I recall correctly, he's professor at a computer department of a major US university.

[foo]

whereagles, on May 19 2006, 09:59 AM, said:

foo, on May 19 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

Chip is the one who developed it, and is in general the "Mad Scientist" of that partnership.

Well, he is a mad scientist in real life If I recall correctly, he's professor at a computer department of a major US university.

Prof of Comp Sci at Stanford.

EDIT: Oops! I meant UC Davis. Very embarassing given I certainly know better!
Sorry for mistake and thanks awm for pointing it out.

Not sure that makes him a mad scientist...

...and compared to a "Gadgeteer" like Eric Rodwell (the 700-800 pages of Meckwell's system notes are (in)famous...) or others, he is actually relatively tame.

[awm]

Chip Martel is at the University of California, Davis. This has been the case for quite some time.

In fact I'm also a computer science professor in the same field (at UCLA) and have run into Chip a few times at academic conferences.

[cherdano]

foo, on May 19 2006, 01:51 PM, said:

whereagles, on May 19 2006, 03:39 AM, said:

In fact, Precision is one of the few systems in which the standard J2N structure works ok. In a system with 11-20 openings, standard J2N sucks so much it's scary.

Interesting comment. Why or how do you find that "In a system with 11-20 openings, standard J2N sucks so much it's scary."?

As usual, I agree with whereeagles. The big problem of standard Jacoby2NT is, IMO, that neither side can show/deny extra values without using rotten fast arrival.

I would claim many partnership would gain by switching from J2N as GF to limit+ simply because they have to discuss how opener shows extra values

Arend

[foo]

As I said, just get rid of %$#@! Fast Arrival and you improve J2N immeasurably.

1M-2N!;3M is all "ordinary" hands that would bid 4M if playing Fast Arrival.

1M-2N!4M is some form of Picture Jump (as Fred would call it)
If pressed for time and/or playing with a pickup. I say 15+ HCP and at least 2/3 top honors and no strong side suit or stiff/void.

Clearly, there are more optimal arrangements for the bids, and I happen to agree that J2N should be designed to be used w/ LR+ hands.

OTOH, you have no chance of playing something radically different from standard J2N w/o extensive discussion, but you at least have a chance of getting the above two sequences discussed and defined quickly.