[Chamaco]

Hi all,
I am trying to come to a compromise with a pard of mine on using a Precision system. This is what we come to an agreement so far (I skip the contested auctions).
We picked ideas from here and there, and not necessarily all pieces fit together, so I would appreciate comments by Precision aficionados which on what may be the "black holes", thanks to all the BBO gurus and the BBO friends

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1NT
Weak NT, 13-15 (I'd love variable range NT but right now it is banned at my lvel of play in italy).
Development with full xfers, stayman, etc.
This development could be changed if adopting another staymanic structure devised by italian expert Enzo Riolo (RIOLO937 on BBO), to cope also with 4441 hands, which I will not post here until I have the time to translate it

Other stronger balanced hands hcp ranges are:
1C/1NT = 16-19
1C/1H (strong artif. relay)/1NT = 20-21
1C/1H (strong artif. relay)/2NT = 22-23

2C Opening
I prefer not to open any 5c-4M, unles the club suit quality allows me a 3c rebid.
Because of this, the 1D opening becomes more "nebulous" when i have a 1-4-3-5 / 4-1-3-5 shape with lousy clubs.
Std Prec development

1D
11-12 balanced or 11+, diamonds oriented but may be a 1-4-3-5 / 4-1-3-5 see above).
Natural responses, 2/1 (even 2D) strongly invitational.

1H/1S
Std precision opening, use 1NT forcing and Bergen/Jacoby structure.
Thinking of including into it a 2C GF relay when responder needs to take control of the auction. The "Golady" structures seems easy to remember and not so bad (http://www.firesides.net/golady.htm)

1C Opening-16+ any hand
On the negative 1D I'd like to use 1H as strong artificial meaning ither 20+ balanced or a 9 playing tricks/ 4 loser hand. Responder would bid 1♠ as double negative, otherwise any other bid would be natural, GF, at least one cover card, giving distribution (1NT = balanced, 2 of a suit = natural, 5 cards, 3♣= unusual positive, 4441 black singleton, 3♦ = unusual positive red sngltn).
Instead, after 1♣:1♦, any bid other than 1♥ shows a minimum reverse (say 16-18/bad 19)
- 1♠ through 2♥ is natural and may be passed
- 2♠,2NT, 3 of a suit show various two suiters, following the Viking club scheme, and may be passed when the suit bid is a real suit.

On positive responses to 1♣ I'd just be content with "standard" Prec. approaches, (with basic TAB and CABs structure) skipping more complicated relay structures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2♦ and higher level openings

2♦ = multi = weak 2 in a major or strong 4441.
Two alternatives for "strong 4441"
1) two ranges, 17-20/21 and 21/22+. These range can be defined if opps are silent but when they intrude, things get awkward
2) so I'd rather use a 20+ 4441 range, and include 16-19 4441 into the 1C/1NT sequence


2♥= 4441/5431/5440 short in diamonds


2♠ through 3Nt = Bergen's "two under preempts" in 1st-2nd seat

2♠= good/bad ♣preempt (2NT by respnder asks)
2NT = good/bad ♦preempt (3♣ by responder asks)
3♣= good/bad ♥ preempt (3♦ by responder asks)
3♦= good/bad ♠ preempt (3♥ by responder asks)
3♥= good/bad 4-level ♣ preempt (3♠ by responder asks)
3♠= GAMBLING
3NT = good/bad 4-level ♦ preempt (4♣ by responder asks)
4♣/♦ = Namyats
4♥/♠ = Natural 4 level preempt

In 3rd seat
2♠= weak 2 suiter with spades
2NT = unusual
3/4 level = natural, preemptive, may be good or bad preempt

[csdenmark]

Chamaco, on Feb 20 2004, 09:55 PM, said:

Other stronger balanced hands hcp ranges are:
1C/1NT = 16-19
1C/1H (strong artif. relay)/1NT = 20-21
1C/1H (strong artif. relay)/2NT = 22-23

Mauro - like Mikestar in another thread - you are trying to break basics in strong club systems.

The hand to be queried is the one which is limited - mostly the weakest one. Therefore you will see the champions have success playing strong club systems.

[Chamaco]

[quote name='csdenmark' date='Feb 20 2004, 01:44 PM'] [/QUOTE]
Mauro - like Mikestar in another thread - you are trying to break basics in strong club systems.

The hand to be queried is the one which is limited - mostly the weakest one. Therefore you will see the champions have success playing strong club systems. [/quote]
Thanks Claus.
But after reading stuff on the viking club, it seems to me that is not so wrong to use such kinds of sequence.
In Viking club, you can use the 1[cl]/1[he] rebid relay to describe at the next turn your hand.
I like the fact that this way, minor-oriented battleships do not have to jump at the 3-level to establish a force over a 1[di] negative.

After all, this would not be the only case where the contract is chosen by the weak hand provided the stronger hand has found a way to describe accurately is holding.
Or am I missing something ?

[luis]

Ciao Mauro!

I'm also starting a new partnership this year using a strong club system, I'll let you know our observations so far since we started with something like you and then evolved. We are bidding 100-200 hands per week and playing 60 boards per week to practice, I'm exhausted but we have a lot of feedback:

1) Our 1c-1d;1N rebid is also 16-19, that's a 4 point range, then use a 1NT opening that is also 4pt range, play 12-15. The 12pt 1NT is very preemptive and it's easy to accept with 14/15 and reject with 12/13 without a terrible analysis with the dreaded middle hand :-). So 1d-1M;1N is exactly 11HCP and you avoid the 11-12 bad 3NT gambles.

2) Over a 1c opening we decided to bid positive responses in transfer. So far this gains more than it loses since making the strong hand declarer is crucial in several hands and when opener has support he has a cheap bid accepting the transfer. We agreed that the 1st two bids by responder are transfers. Please avoid 1c-1N with a balanced hand, NT games MUST be played with the strong hand as declarer to protect weak stoppers from being crossed and to copycat the field (unless you want a lot of random results)

3) We use a power relay after 1c-1d;1h showing 20+ HCP, others are then 16-19 and natural. 1s second negative and others are 4-7 GF and again in transfer.

4) The competitive auctions are more important than the uncontested auctions, so far our "uncontested auctions" chapter has 22 pages and the "contested auctions" chapter has 55 pages. Including forcing pass situations, fit showing jumps, use of artificial 2NT, doubles by opponents, overcalling, defense against two suiters, etc etc.

5) Over 1M openings we use 2/1 game forcing where 2c may not be a real suit if balanced and game forcing. 1NT is semi-forcing allowing opener to pass with a balanced min so we play 1N instead of 2N with a minimum opening and a balanced invitational hand in front.

Luis

[csdenmark]

Chamaco, on Feb 20 2004, 11:28 PM, said:

In Viking club, you can use the 1♣/1♥ rebid relay to describe at the next turn your hand.
I like the fact that this way, minor-oriented battleships do not have to jump at the 3-level to establish a force over a 1♦ negative.

After all, this would not be the only case where the contract is chosen by the weak hand provided the stronger hand has found a way to describe accurately is holding.
Or am I missing something ?

With respect that Viking is invented as a relay system - the approach in Viking is rather similar to Belladonna/Garozzo. Viking uses after "1C-1D" 1 Heart as forcing relay-game invite. BG grants here a bit more room for the real week minor approach.

What I try to say to you is - if you want to play strong club actions then the backbone is the unlimited hand quering the limited hand. It has nothing to do with strong/weak hand - but it will mostly be so. Giving up that important principle you will just be creating another standard classic system. You see Glenn emphasizes the principle in page 13.

Looking into Viking I think you have recognized the similarity to Belladonna/Garozzo. Still with the respect to their different approach of Viking using "next" as relay and Belladonna/Garozzo uses a more descriptive approach.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Feb 20 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

What I try to say to you is - if you want to play strong club actions then the backbone is the unlimited hand quering the limited hand. It has nothing to do with strong/weak hand - but it will mostly be so.

Excuse me????

Having the unlimited hand ask is one possible design goal.
However, as usual Claus's absolutism is open to criticism.

I would argue that "Balanced Hand Asks" is every bit as important.

[mikestar]

Claus, with all due respect, are you saying that your understanding and ideas about Precison are the true and valid Precision system but the understanding and ideas of myself and others are not true and valid unless they agree with yours? Several of your posts seem to imply this without stating it.

[mikestar]

This seems to be a very reasonable interpretation of Precision. Since your 1♦ promises 3 and you don't use Precision 2♦, you will have to open 2♣ on 5C-4M with bad clubs whenever you have less than 3 diamond. I've found that Precison 2♦ helps the defense too much and opening 1♦ with less than 3 causes a lot of problems. 2♣ with weak clubs loses less IMO.

I would suggest you widen your 1NT range to 12-15 as Luis does and pass balanced 11's. Now 1♦ guarantees unbalanced distribution and is easier to handle.

[Chamaco]

mikestar, on Feb 20 2004, 05:17 PM, said:

Since your 1♦ promises 3 and you don't use Precision 2♦, you will have to open 2♣ on 5C-4M with bad clubs whenever you have less than 3 diamond. I've found that Precison 2♦ helps the defense too much and opening 1♦ with less than 3 causes a lot of problems. 2♣ with weak clubs loses less IMO.

I would suggest you widen your 1NT range to 12-15 as Luis does and pass balanced 11's. Now 1♦ guarantees unbalanced distribution and is easier to handle.

My choice was done after reading some comments by Berkowicz ("Precision today": he states that using a "nebulous diamond" that may be 2 cards is less risky than having to rebid 3♣ with a 5 card suit), and trying to copy the nebulous diamond approach used my Meckwell

I will discuss with pard the NT range suggestions you gave me.

I appreciate ur comments, u sure are more experienced than myself !

[keylime]

A few thoughts on what you have:

1. 13-15 NTs suffer from a fundamental flaw. They miss a lot of 4-4 major suit fits when responder is sitting on values but not enough to make a move if the wrong major is selected. Since variable NTs for some reason are not allowed anymore, either go to a 14-16 NT (which now helpes your rebids of the stronger NT) or go to a sporting 10-12NT (which at unfavorable vulnerability can get really interesting).

2. The 1H relay has merit but what I would do is for those rare 24+ hands use a 2H relay to force 2S to show the 24+ hands at 2NT, just in case pard is really broke. You'll find this as part and parcel of the Precision Today system, where their NT tree is very crisp.

3. Your 2C opening is sound and logical. Using standard Precision responses suffers from excluding out the diamond suit and GF two suiters. I'd recommend you eiher use the WS2000 or my favorite the Cohen-Berkowitz structure because now you can show a larger cross section of hands.

4. For opening 1M, the Golady structure works pretty well and I think you'll have enjoyment using them. However, for your Jacoby structure keep in mind that it should only be used for mild slam tries or better since pard is limited. Bergen is ok in terms of memory, but Scanian and Romex Raises give more flexibility in showing more hands.

5. Two words for 1C opening: TRANSFER POSITIVES. This is fast becoming the modern treatment and you should use them. Basically like Jacoby transfer bids, responder transfers into opener's hand thus rightsiding more contracts. You can still use TABS and CABS, just one level lower, thus saving valuable room. Also with transfer positives you can make slam inquiries without bypassing 4 of a major/3NT/5 of a minor using Kickback RKC. Oh yes, for RKC, definitely use 1430 - easier to make queen asks and more important to show one than zero.

6. The 2H opening is Mid-Chart here in the States but it's a good tool. You'll enjoy that.

7. Last thing of note: you absolutely must have agreements over interference of your 1C opening. Learn as many defenses over 1C as possible, that's the key to defeating them.

[csdenmark]

mikestar, on Feb 21 2004, 02:08 AM, said:

Claus, with all due respect, are you saying that your understanding and ideas about Precison are the true and valid Precision system but the understanding and ideas of myself and others are not true and valid unless they agree with yours? Several of your posts seem to imply this without stating it.

Of course not Mike!

Basically I see no point in re-inventing what has been done already - maybe with small tournarounds. Mostly I think people are trying to create their own systems simply because they have insufficient knowledge of the championsystems. It takes years - or you need to be professional - to invent the full dept of a system for 4-6 levels. For most of those partners normally responding to my adverticings for precision partners - it is really so.

I would like to see some more creative resources. Glenn Groetheim is an example of what I mean. Gerben who has created his own little Pass-Precision system which is another maybe prosperious innovation. More of that kind I think will be interesting.

I think most of those talking about Precision don't think right. I cannot right now find the book so let me quote Benito Garozzo from memory. "Maybe the greatest asset of Precision is the limit openings". I think that is exactly what it is about. Therefore I conclude that whenever I see people focussing on 1C-opening they are focussing wrongly. 1C opening is a consequence of the limit openings - it is not the other way around.

I would like to see proposals for how to limit 1C open. Pass open I think might be a way trying - I also think the Regres 1C opening for any hand containing shortage might be a source for inspiration.

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2004, 01:40 AM, said:

Excuse me???? 

Having the unlimited hand ask is one possible design goal. 
However, as usual Claus's absolutism is open to criticism.

I would argue that "Balanced Hand Asks" is every bit as important.

Richard - I hope we are all open to criticism - friendly and open of course. Me too!

I dont think I understand your statement "Balanced Hand Asks". I cannot recall an example for that - please help me!

[the hog]

Mauro, I agree with Luis and would switch to a 12-15 NT range, if you are not allowed to play a variable range. This solves a lot of balanced hand problems.

1C 1D 1H 19+ relay has been adopted by many modern practitioners, and is certainly an integral part of relay systems. It works well.

I agree your 2C opening should show 6C. Again most practitioners have adopted this.

Again I'm with Luis in suggesting that 2/1 should be a GF. I would also explore an artificial 2C structure over 1M.

One other aspect you may want to consider if you are not going to play a full relay structure, is to play transfer responses to 1C.

Cheers
Ron

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Feb 20 2004, 11:24 PM, said:

>I dont think I understand your statement "Balanced Hand Asks".
>I cannot recall an example for that - please help me!

Suppose that you are playing a full blown relay system such as Viking Club, Ice Relay, Ultimate Club, or MOSCITO. [I am going to arbitrarily define "full blown" as a system in which the Relay Asker will typically relay for complete shape during slam-going auctions]

One basic principle of relay bidding is that it is better for the balanced hand to ask and the unbalanced hand to show. The balanced hand is in a better position to understand whether its Aces and Kings are "working" than the unbalanced hand.

[mikestar]

Mauro,

I misread your notes and didn't notice that you were using 2♥ for the three suiter short in ♦. This is a bit better than Precision 2♦ because it is passable and therefor harder to defend.

With the balanced hands removed from 1♦, the 5-4-2-2 hands with 5 weak clubs and doubleton diamond are easier to handle via 1♦. Perhaps an artificial 1NT rebid oved 1♦-1M when partner does not hit your major to show 5 clubs and shorter diamonds with the other major. Natural rebids would show a real diamond suit.

Claus,

Thank you for the clarification, now I understand what's motivating you. I agree the Precision is about the limited opening bids. I think investing some effort in the 1♣ bid is worthwhile (as long as you don't neglect the limit bids) however. Since on balance 1♣ loses matchpoints/IMPs, if we can significantly reduce the loss, we have a smaller offset against our limit bid profits. I doubt if even Meckwell break even on 1♣, but they lose less on it than a lot of Precision players.

This is why I personally prefer to increase the minimum count for 1♣ to 17--it reduces the frequency of the 1♣ opening without overstraining the limited openings. (I think Romex with its 18-19 minimum for the Dynamic NT does overstrain the limited openings.)

I also personally don't mind passing balanced 12's and most of the forum disagrees with me. For those who are unwilling to pass balnced 12's, I would advocate a 16 minimum for 1♣ and a 12-15 1NT range.

[mikestar]

A point about the lack of focus on Precision limited openings, especially the majors. The tight limits make these very easy to play. For years my regular partner and I played plain vanilla SAYC over Precision limited openings (except 2♣, of course) with excellent results. Our mantra was "if neither of us has the values for a jump shift, there is no slam." Thus most of our game auctions were fairly non revealing, "bid what you think you can make" types. Similarly there were some small slams where we knew the grand was out of the question when standard bidders didn't and our direct leaps to 6 denied the defenders some vital clues.

Of course the occasional 4-figure penalty we got from an opponent who would have got away with the bid against an unlimited opening were pretty nice, too. Both direct action and balancing are so much riskier against limited openings.

[Chamaco]

csdenmark, on Feb 20 2004, 08:24 PM, said:

Mostly I think people are trying to create their own systems simply because they have insufficient knowledge of the championsystems. It takes years - or you need to be professional - to invent the full dept of a system for 4-6 levels. For most of those partners normally responding to my adverticings for precision partners - it is really so.

Hi Claus,
at least for my case your point is true.
I certainly cannot say to be knowledgeable in Precision sequences.
Yet I am reading very much: I have read and re-read 5 books on Precision, plus a few on strong club in general, plus one on Viking club and one on "Nightmare".
This means nothing in terms of expertise of mine, and I am well aware of it.

But it says another thing: if I am ignorant even after reading and rereading these books, what should I expect from my partners who did not even read them and are expecting me to feed them with system infos?

This brings my second point.
There are things that are theoretically sound.
Other that are practical.
For instance, I know my partners and I know that the only way I can get them introduced to Precision (or strong club) is to "fool them", e.g. let them think that "Precision is like natural bidding, with just a few differences". Of course these differences would be strong club, NT ranges, and limited-range suit openings.

So the only way to "jump the barrier" is to take the usual SAYC-2/1 structure and try to move it into a strong club system modifying as little as possible at first; then adding in a gradual way minor differences so that the transition is acceptable.

Remember that these are pards that play bridge once in a week or twice at most and do not play online.

The alternatives would be either to change pard (not so easy if u live in an area with limited potential bridge partners) or to give up hopes to play a strong club (a common sense approach, but trying to play more sophisticated systems is fun, even if not exactly properly, isn't it ?).

The last resort is to try to mix a natural SAYC-2/1 system and a strong club system in the most compatible way.
I chose the latter not because I think it is best, but because I believe it will scare less people.

Yet, my post is oriented towards trying to understand what is wrong with the structure I thought.
And I will appreciate any CONCRETE comment/criticism to a *specific* bidding sequence(rather than theoretical discussion on the value of captainship by limited/unlimited or balanced/unbalanced hands).

In any case, thx to all the people who responded, I got several good points to discuss/investigate further !!!!

[csdenmark]

When I started bridge it was 13+ else relax.

Today entrance has lowered to 11 and lower kamikadze has been profane.

By that the value area has expanded undermining all systems. Most visible for the well defined systems - like precision. You don't notice such in standard classic and canape' is also more adaptable.

You cannot continue just to twist around the 10-15 commands for standard openings(1C-2NT, 1C-3NT). You will need to invent - you will need to be creative - you will need to think.

1) Letting your present system untouched and work with defense. Hoping to find ways for getting you back on track.
2) Letting your present system untouched and work with interference handling. Hoping to find ways for getting you back on track.
3) Divide systems into 2 halves. Part one for 1-2 seat and part two for 3-4 seat.
4) Dividing 1C-open horisontally or vertically.


Sources for inspiritation:

- Weak Opening systems - Ruminski/Slawinski
- Interference handling - Hamman/Soloway
- Defense - Balicki/Zmudzinski
- The polish high 2's
- Regres 1C-open
- Meckwell 1NT-open

--------------------------------------------------------------

My hints for Mauro was not rude. I believe Mauro has the age and the capability to initiate that kind of creative process which is needed. I simply tried to feed the process. I understand of course the pragmatism Mauro informs about.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I like to say the loud cries about advantages of transfer responses after 1C seems much exagurated. Meckwell is not dependent of that - I think Fred is right when he at Vugraph told that Meckwell has that brilliant playing technique that they would be capable of playing any suit-contract succesfully in 3NT.

[irdoz]

Hi Mauro

These are not some 'expert' comments from an experienced precision user - my regular partner and I decided to swap to precision 3-4 months ago. We have decided to play Precision for 6 months, Polish Club for 6 months and then maybe Power or Moscito for 6 months just for the experience (this is after 3 years playing 2/1 with variable nt).

We based our initial precision structure on the advanced structures in Rigal's book 'Precision in the 90s'. This structure is very similar to what you are using. We also put strong 4/4/4/1 hands in multi.

We also play a variable no trump. Our decision is not to open balanced 11-12 when vulnerable - this makes knowing that the 1d open is more likely to be diamonds much easier in competitve auctions when vulnerable.

We did include 5c4M hands in 2c opens (but if it was 5 clubs and 4 hearts and 1 diamond we had a choice of 2c or 2h opens) - but had to find a good structure over 2c. We used Sontag's one described as part of Power Precision. Overall our results with 2c opens seem good.

These are my experiences with using Precision:

The up-sides:

1. Despite the bad press of 1c opens, when opps occasionally didnt get in your auction, asking bids etc. allowed some very neat auctions and located grands standard bidders couldn't safely bid.
2. The limited openings - this is the real upside of precision. I had to learn strategic underbidding and the paradox that a more defined opening range allows more low level penalty doubles in part-score auctions.

The down-sides:

1. Interference with 1c auctions. This gets tedious - particularly when there are methods like '1h=13 cards'... . I needed to find some good interference handling methods. Rigal's book was a start, and the notes from experienced pairs like Hamman/Soloway useful. The most comrehensive write up of interference handling I found was in a book documenting Tanc (a precision like big-club system) by Bulgarian/Australian Theo Antoff.

2. The 1d open. In matchpoints not knowing 1d is diamonds in competitive auctions is a really big minus for me. And opening 1d with 2 in a balanced hand when partner can't mount a response can also be a disaster in matchpoints.

[the hog]

Mauro,
I have played big C systems of and on for 15 years or so. I can fully echo Irdoz' comments. Get the Tanc book as Irdoz is right, it has a very thorough section on coping with pre emption over 1C. You can get it from Paul Laving's "Post Free Bridge Books" in Australia; I know he has some second hand copies.

I also agree that the 1D opening not showing D is a big minus in competitive auctions. Also have a look at Ambra on Dan Neill's site. This system has some good ideas, including things like Gazzilli and Rubens advances after overcalls which, while not directly related to big C systems, provide interesting frameworks for further thought.

[pbleighton]

Irdoz writes
"I had to learn strategic underbidding and the paradox that a more defined opening range allows more low level penalty doubles in part-score auctions."

I have read of this. Would you please give me some examples?

Thanks,

Peter