[OliverC]

Hi All,

Had a curious hand in the BIL League on Sunday where I saw something I've never seen in 45 years of playing bridge (and over 30 playing Precision)

---

N/S were playing Precision with Asking Bids and the sequence went:-

South North
1♣ 2♣
2♦ 2NT
3♣ 3NT
4♦ 4♠
All Pass

Explanations:-
2♦ = Control Asking
2NT = 4 Controls
3♣ = Asking in Clubs
3NT = Hxxxxx
4♦ = Asking in Diamonds
4♠ = 3rd Round Control of ♦

South here bid well in the sense that at the point where North bids 4♠ they are known to have the ♥AK, ♣Kxxxxx, and a small doubleton Diamond so South can tell that 4♠ is, after all, the right contract and so passes. Clearly there are numerous ways to bid this hand, whether naturally or using Asking Bids to end up in the right contract.

I've seen plenty of hands where the bidding gets cocked up, where there are misunderstandings or misbids and yet the partnership somehow stumbles into the right contract, but I have never ever seen a hand where Opener hides a strong 7-card Spade suit but agrees Clubs instead (for the right reasons initially), where the Spades do not get mentioned even ONCE during the auction and with no misbids or misunderstandings the partnership intentionally end up in the correct contract of 4♠.

At the table the funniest thing was East's comment after 4♠ had been passed out: "I'm not sure I like this. When did Spades get mentioned?". North (Gerardo, no doubt fearing the mother of all cockups in the bidding) casually replied "Me? I didn't".

I suspect this is unlikely to happen with any system other than Precision where a suit contract is concerned. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has any similar hands they can share.

Regards,
Oliver

[Gerardo]

Nah, I knew opener had a self sufficient ♠ suit (can't have ANY less than that).

On 2nd thought, I could tell dummy before it hit the table (must also have ♣ fit, to prefer it to the ♠ suit, and a hand unsuited for slam, to give up on it. On the bidding, surely ♦ is a problem).

Very nice bidding by Eduardo.

[Echognome]

This happens every now and then in relay. However, I still don't understand why this was good bidding. Reasonable sure, since the odds that responder has a spade void are low, but with asking bids we certainly couldn't tell from the bidding.

How do we know that North isn't: ♠--- ♥AKTxx ♦Jx ♣KTxxxx
Or is North supposed to answer 1♥ with that?

Whereas 5♣ is always going to be safe on the bidding and was where responder was heading until he changed gears.

In my view, this is the problem with the asking bid approach. Here south deemed it enough to take control only knowing about one suit from North.

Give me shape plus denial cuebidding any day.

[1eyedjack]

It is a bit of a shame that the auction was uncontested. Something of a rarety in strong club auctions against aggressive defenders. The vulnerability perhaps inhibited intervention here, but in fact the par contract was 5H doubled by E/W going for 500. Now, if they could get to 4H fairly rapidly, we would be back in lottery land.

[csdenmark]

OliverC, on Oct 31 2006, 02:48 AM, said:

Hi All,

Had a curious hand in the BIL League on Sunday where I saw something I've never seen in 45 years of playing bridge (and over 30 playing Precision)

Dealer: South Vul: All Scoring: Unknown

♠ xx ♥ AK10 ♦ Jx ♣ K10xxxx ♠ AKJ10xxx ♥ x ♦ Qx ♣ AQx

N/S were playing Precision with Asking Bids and the sequence went:-

South    North
1♣      2♣
2♦      2NT
3♣      3NT
4♦      4♠
All Pass

Explanations:-
2♦ = Control Asking
2NT = 4 Controls
3♣ = Asking in Clubs
3NT = Hxxxxx
4♦ = Asking in Diamonds
4♠ = 3rd Round Control of ♦

South here bid well in the sense that at the point where North bids 4♠ they are known to have the ♥AK, ♣Kxxxxx, and a small doubleton Diamond so South can tell that 4♠ is, after all, the right contract and so passes. Clearly there are numerous ways to bid this hand, whether naturally or using Asking Bids to end up in the right contract.

I've seen plenty of hands where the bidding gets cocked up, where there are misunderstandings or misbids and yet the partnership somehow stumbles into the right contract, but I have never ever seen a hand where Opener hides a strong 7-card Spade suit but agrees Clubs instead (for the right reasons initially), where the Spades do not get mentioned even ONCE during the auction and with no misbids or misunderstandings the partnership intentionally end up in the correct contract of 4♠. 

At the table the funniest thing was East's comment after 4♠ had been passed out: "I'm not sure I like this. When did Spades get mentioned?". North (Gerardo, no doubt fearing the mother of all cockups in the bidding) casually replied "Me? I didn't".

I suspect this is unlikely to happen with any system other than Precision where a suit contract is concerned. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has any similar hands they can share.

Regards,
Oliver

Oliver - This looks a bit strange and as far as my studies has led me I really think this auction is very unlikely to happen in most solid precision versions.

I took a short round into your web-sites and noticed this might very well be possible in your methods - but I think it will be 2nd priority. OK the self-sufficient spade suit might constitute that option. 1st priority is by you as well in most methods given to find fit.

For as well SUPER Precision(Belladonna/Garozzo), Viking Precision(Aa/Groetheim) as Power Precision(Weichsel/Sontag) you will never bypass a 4card major as response to CAB. I have understood your system is based on Jannersten which I have never studied. From a quick look into that book it really looks that Jannersten here is on the majority line.

I think the bad news in this auction is that responder will be declarer but for this laydown layout it doesn't matter.

[sfbp]

1eyedjack, on Oct 31 2006, 04:24 AM, said:

It is a bit of a shame that the auction was uncontested.  Something of a rarety in strong club auctions against aggressive defenders.  The vulnerability perhaps inhibited intervention here, but in fact the par contract was 5H doubled by E/W going for 500.  Now, if they could get to 4H fairly rapidly, we would be back in lottery land.

I couldn't disagree more.

1. In the BIL it makes perfect sense for them to get their methods right. (the rules state NO advanced, except as mentors, ie no advanced pairs)

2. Generally the more the opponents bid (and this goes for any bidding system including strong 2♣ openers) the more information we have. The cost of making high level intervention against 18+ point hands is just that, a cost. Hopefully a telephone number.

3. When there is interference against a minimum 1 club opener, both players of the forcing club need a system which indicates us/them, ie do we have the balance of the points? It's called..... er ..... DOUBLE

4. On the example hand 5 spades makes. WTP?

I really think that suggesting that advanced players are entitled to a lottery to try and dissuade intermediates and beginners from learning precision (we'll punish them and they won't try *that* again) is doing a huge disservice to the game of Bridge.

Stephen

PS the defences I use against 2♣ strong work FAR better than the non-defences Jack is suggesting here, and I only know about them because I got sick of people preempting to try and punish precision ("stinkin' precision" one of my 2/1 pards calls it to this day), and worked out my artitificial defences to strong club(s).

[1eyedjack]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion - except as regards the suggestion that 5S makes. Perhaps you do not have access to all 4 hands, but there are 2 Diamond losers and a Spade loser. If they bid on to 5S (and they really should not be going for a speculative game bonus instead of a certain 500 penalty) then it would certainly have justified the intervention.

I am really not sure what specifically I have said against which you are expressing unlimited disagreement. Are you saying that aggressive defensive methods against a strong 1C are a long term losing strategy? Or are you suggesting that as a strategy they may be sound in the long term (if occasionally expensive) but that such methods are inappropriate in a BIL setting? Perhaps both unsound and inappropriate to the event?

I am not going to get drawn into a long drawn out debate about whether such methods gain or lose in the long term. It is not an argument that can be won or lost by some brief interchange of correspondence in a message forum. I merely observe that it is not an original theory of mine, nor one to which I uniquely adhere.

What probably can be cleared up here is whether it is appropriate to allow, or even encourage, defensive methods against strong club systems in a BIL setting. Personally I take the view that BIL players who decide to adopt artificial systems should not be protected from the consequences of those decisions, and indeed it is not in their interests to be artificially protected.

In the real world they will seldom get an uncontested 1C sequence. If intervention is unsound, they should be afforded the opportunity to capitalise upon it. If it is sound they should develop countermeasures or give up on the method in the first place.

Well, that is just my opinion. As I said, you are welcome to the contrary.

[csdenmark]

sfbp, on Nov 1 2006, 04:30 PM, said:

When there is interference against a minimum 1 club opener, both players of the forcing club need a system which indicates us/them, ie do we have the balance of the points? It's called..... er ..... DOUBLE

NO - Precision applies to principle of captaincy. 1♣ opener is per definition captain unless captaincy is handed over.

Unless an immediate overcall to 5♦ I doubt there will be any problems here.

[david_c]

csdenmark, on Nov 1 2006, 04:17 PM, said:

sfbp, on Nov 1 2006, 04:30 PM, said:

When there is interference against a minimum 1 club opener, both players of the forcing club need a system which indicates us/them, ie do we have the balance of the points? It's called..... er ..... DOUBLE

NO - Precision applies to principle of captaincy. 1♣ opener is per definition captain unless captaincy is handed over.

So, what is responder supposed to do when 1♣ is overcalled? Hang around and wait for something to turn up?

You are stretching the "principle of captaincy" way too far here.

[sfbp]

Quote

Well, you are entitled to your opinion - except as regards the suggestion that 5S makes.  Perhaps you do not have access to all 4 hands, but there are 2 Diamond losers and a Spade loser.  If they bid on to 5S (and they really should not be going for a speculative game bonus instead of a certain 500 penalty) then it would certainly have justified the intervention.

There's no reason why non precision bidders won't be going on to 5 spades. The vulnerability was not shown but I'd expect lots to bid one more. Isn't that "just bridge" - I don't see what the defenders' hands have to do with a discussion on systems.

Quote

I am really not sure what specifically I have said against which you are expressing unlimited disagreement.

The attitude that people, especially beginners, should be dissuaded from learning precision by punishing it whenever possible.

Quote

What probably can be cleared up here is whether it is appropriate to allow, or even encourage, defensive methods against strong club systems in a BIL setting.  Personally I take the view that BIL players who decide to adopt artificial systems should not be protected from the consequences of those decisions, and indeed it is not in their interests to be artificially protected.

WRONG! You cannot learn 2/1 playing against the blue team club, either. BIL provides an ideal environment for learning whatever systems. Sure, encourage BIL members to work on "defences" to precision (ie by using it against their fellow BILlies) - they will end up stronger.

However the overriding attitude you appear to support (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the best way to stamp out forcing club is to mess with it. BIL is *not* IMHO the right place to stamp out anything.

Funny thing, since I started playing precision every time I play locally, it's now at the point where at least 3 pairs you meet will be playing something like that. I think they saw that it worked. Not to mention the fact that many top pairs play some variant. The problem was that the gap (between club level and the top pairs) was too wide, and nasty opponents similar to the ones in the other thread on physical assaults at the table tended to make it a very scary experience for learning players to use many of the ancillary strategies (eg NFB) that work well with precision.

I had to practise a lot of assertive director calls, including a number of times that the TD tried to tell me something was illegal when it wasn't, as the old guard (like you?) attempted to fight anything different.

So, the BIL IS a great place for Oliver and others to teach this way of bidding. Don't spoil it just because it's "stinkin' precision" (yeah, I know you didn't say it but I bet you and my pd would agree). And it wouldn't be "stinkin'" if it didn't succeed much of the time.

Keep it up Ollie

Stephen

[hrothgar]

Wow, this discussion sure has drifted from the original posting...

From my perspective, the whole issue of

Precision versus "standard"
Artifical or natural defenses to Precision

are flip sides of the same coin. Players with no experience competing against Precision are, pretty much, in the same boat as Precision pairs with no experience competing against "real" defenses to strong club openings. In both cases, the sheltered pairs are going to be in for a VERY rude awakening when they leave their happy little walled gardens.

For what its worth, I've always felt that its reason (possibily even desirable) to create a protected area where noobies can learn the game. If I were running things, I'd even go so far as to suggest that everyone playing in this area should be playing exactly the same system. (Or at least, as much of that system as the players remember at any given point in time).

Eventually, the noobies are going to want to spread their wings and fly. Potentially, they will want to start making modifications to their preferred methods. Alternatively, they might decided to partner someone who doesn't feel comfortable going out and bunny bashing.

Either way, I think that this is (pretty much) and all or nothing sort of affair. Once you decide that you should be allowed to start adding your favorite little gimmicks, its only right that the opponents be allowed to do the same thing. I might not like the fact that the opponents crash my strong club openings all them time, but this is the price that I pay for opening those eight counts that can't be bid safely playing standard.

[1eyedjack]

sfbp, on Nov 1 2006, 05:29 PM, said:

There's no reason why non precision bidders won't be going on to 5 spades. The vulnerability was not shown but I'd expect lots to bid one more. Isn't that "just bridge" - I don't see what the defenders' hands have to do with a discussion on systems.

The vul was stated at game all, but that is of dubious relevance to the point that you are making here. My point is that a precision pair is generally going to be placed in the position of having to consider bidding one more where a natural pair, faced with less aggressive intervention, is more likely to buy it at the 4 level and not presented with a losing option.

sfbp, on Nov 1 2006, 05:29 PM, said:

However the overriding attitude you appear to support (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the best way to stamp out forcing club is to mess with it. BIL is *not* IMHO the right place to stamp out anything.

Very well, I accept your invitation to correct you. Since you insist on attributing to me an attitude which could not be further from the truth I shall set out my opinion in detail. These are of course just personal opinions and observations, having myself played precision with reasonable success for about 10 years, albeit not recently.

In my opinion the overall, long-term relative technical merit of any reasonable and popular system, over any other reasonable and popular system, when played by good players with sound partnership understandings against other good players with sound and agreed defensive methods, is marginal, to the point of being almost insignificant.

In my opinion it is harder, when playing precision, to achieve that standard of competence (against optimum defensive methods) than it is to achieve an equivalent standard of competence playing natural systems. That competence (playing precision) is rendered considerably easier to achieve if the opponents are required to play non-optimal defensive methods, but that of course applies whatever system you are playing. However, where you are playing precision at a level of competence that falls short of that ideal, it is my contention that aggressive defensive methods are disproportionately effective.

So, yes, there are expert players out there who play strong club systems and achieve success. You may well rank among that number. That is because they have developed countermeasures to the aggressive defensive methods employed against them.

There are also average players out there who play strong club systems and achieve success within their sphere of influence. That is because their opponents have not developed effective defensive methods.

Personally, if I were to sit down at a local club and play precision, I would expect to do so successfully, because I do not expect optimal defensive methods to be employed against me. But on the other hand, I do not rail against opponents at local clubs who choose to play precision against me. Far from wanting to stamp it out I encourage its use by my opponents because I am confident that they are not Meckwells of this world who have developed effective countermeasures to aggressive competition. Far from the "stinking precision attitude" I "welcome the little fishes in, with gently smiling jaws".

Turning now to the BIL environment, I would actively encourage any student to go through a stage of playing precision, as indeed I would encourage them to experience playing as many other systems as they can cope with. Even if you have no serious intention of playing it in the long term, there can be no better way to develop counter measures against a system than to have experience of playing it yourself.

Whether or not this particular event should have been treated primarily as a protected training environment is something on which neither you nor I should really comment. That is down to the event organiser. There will come a time, however, when a precision BIL player will have to come to grips with the real world. I had the impression that the event that sparked this thread was intended to be more of a competitive environment, albeit restricted to BIL players, than a protected training ground. As part of their precision learning experience they will have to get to grips with the warts in the system as well as the benefits. You have expressed an opnion that this event is not the place for them to be exposed to the warts in the system. So be it. I disagree, but not from any desire to "stamp out" the system.

Perhaps you should be asking those in the competition who are actually playing precision whether THEY would prefer to be playing it against opponents whose hands are tied. I can only speculate, but my expectation is that they would rather their opponents had free reign.

[sfbp]

Quote

For what its worth, I've always felt that its reason (possibily even desirable) to create a protected area where noobies can learn the game. If I were running things, I'd even go so far as to suggest that everyone playing in this area should be playing exactly the same system. (Or at least, as much of that system as the players remember at any given point in time).

I don't agree. Why can't you teach newbs precision?

[whereagles]

A friend of mine tried to teach precision to beginners and the students themselves disliked the idea claiming "no one plays it. Why should we learn it then?"

Technically speaking, if one passes 1st/2nd seat on 11-12 balanced hands, the precision 1♦ opener becomes natural, 4+ cards, and the whole system becomes very, very natural.

The great advantage of precision for beginners is the issue of capitaincy being solved from bid 1. Resolving this issue is one of the most difficult points of standard bidding, and, in my opinion, the #1 cause of bad results for adv+ players.

In short, I believe that a natural version of precision is technically the best system for a beginner to start on. It's the political reasons that prevent it from being popular.

[sfbp]

Right on. And BIL provides one place where it can happen. Its exactly a political issue.

Shooting at them in BIL is just not cricket. Nor rounders/baseball/<insert ball sport of your choice>.

[hrothgar]

sfbp, on Nov 1 2006, 08:47 PM, said:

Quote

For what its worth, I've always felt that its reason (possibily even desirable) to create a protected area where noobies can learn the game. If I were running things, I'd even go so far as to suggest that everyone playing in this area should be playing exactly the same system. (Or at least, as much of that system as the players remember at any given point in time).

I don't agree. Why can't you teach newbs precision?

Comment 1: I posited that the noobie area should feature a single bidding system. I really don't care what this system is. I would expect that this system would vary by region (SAYCish in the US, Acol in Britain, some form of Polish Club in Poland, Precision over in China)

Comment 2: I have no objection if you, or anyone else wanted to teach (or learn) a system other than whatever passes for standard. I simply suggest that noobie area isn't the right environment to do so...

[Vilgan]

hrothgar, on Nov 1 2006, 01:00 PM, said:

sfbp, on Nov 1 2006, 08:47 PM, said:

Quote

For what its worth, I've always felt that its reason (possibily even desirable) to create a protected area where noobies can learn the game. If I were running things, I'd even go so far as to suggest that everyone playing in this area should be playing exactly the same system. (Or at least, as much of that system as the players remember at any given point in time).

I don't agree. Why can't you teach newbs precision?

Comment 1: I posited that the noobie area should feature a single bidding system. I really don't care what this system is. I would expect that this system would vary by region (SAYCish in the US, Acol in Britain, some form of Polish Club in Poland, Precision over in China)

Comment 2: I have no objection if you, or anyone else wanted to teach (or learn) a system other than whatever passes for standard. I simply suggest that noobie area isn't the right environment to do so...

I dunno... I think newer players exploring precision as an optional playing style shows interest in the game that ought to be heavily encouraged.. not stamped out in a "everyone plays standard here in this newbie game" campaign. Precision has its strengths and weaknesses, and I think the BIL is an awesome place for newer players to try out various styles and figure out which one they like best.

On this style of auction, we've actually had something similar. Partner accepted initially with an enormous major... with interest in possibly playing 6 of a minor. Found out I had garbage (1 control) and cashed out at 4 of his ginormous major instead of the minor.

[keylime]

I'm happy to see that some are willing to test-drive something different.