[Ayjay]

My personal experience is that even with the aid of tools such as Roman Key Card blackwood and Jacoby 2NT, natural systems like 2/1 are at a loss when it comes to slam bidding, where systems like Precision triumph big time with their asking bids (alpha, beta, gamma, epsilon etc etc.). It's very crucial for example to know if partner has second round control in a specific suit, in order to reach a slam. Can anyone shed some light? An efficient method of cue bidding perhaps?

[EricK]

Asking bids used to be very popular even in natural systems. A good reference is "Slam Bidding" by Hugh Kelsey which details a few different methods both for asking bids and cue bids.

The fact that they went out of fashion may mean that "experts" decided they weren't as efficient as cue-bids, or it may be simply a question of fashion.

Can anyone shed any light on their disappearance?

Eric

[Free]

The biggest difference between precision and natural systems is that natural systems need to bid 2 hands, while precision systems need to bid only 1 hand.

In natural you also need to find forcing bids, and need to find a good suit to play in while describing both your hands. In precision you just bid a relay and your partner tells you want you're asking for.

If you're able to put as many relayauctions as possible in a natural system, I've noticed the system improves. I used to play a system where we started natural, and in some situations we could switch to relays (like a full checkback system which could describe the hand completely under 3NT). I noticed our slam bidding improved a lot everytime we switched to relays, because we could start our slam approach lower, and with more information.

Jacoby 2NT take a whole lot of space away! You're at 3-level and all you know is opener has 5+ cards in his Major, and responder has support, and you're in a GF auction. If opener rebids 4M, then you only know he's minimum, nothing else... Do you know what doubletons he has? Side 4-cards?

Slams based on pure HCP are easy to find, it's the sharp slams which are a lot more difficult in natural systems.

[nikos59]

To Ayjay: since you so much admire the slam-reaching
capability of Precision asking bids, can you give us
a couple of real-life examples where a good slam was
reached using epsilon or even gamma asking bids?

Nikos

[Fluffy]

My natural system at some point also may switch to relay system, the cases where it comes are as follows:

1m-1x
1NT-2♣*

2♣ is a relay after wich you may succesfully find exact distribution and strenght at the 3 level.

1M-2♣
2♦

2♣ is natural game forcing, and 2♦ is cheapest voice forcing meaning either ♦ or minimum balanced, on either case also able to ask about exact distribution.

As you can see the main difference is that it is opener who explains all his cards, not responder, but with the same effect in the end.

[Gerben47]

In a standard 2/1 system you can of course play that after 1M, 2♣ is GF relay. Some people play this, and then something like:

Step 1: Minimum
Step 2: Maximum (forcing until 4M or 4NT)
Step 3 and up: Middle range, zoom on distribution

and so on...

[mikestar]

When the opponents leave us alone (always the big disadvantage with Precision), our slam bidding is better than 2/1 even without asking bids and relays. The very common positive auction 1C-1M-2M agrees trumps and establishes a game force at the two level. By the time we're are at the five level, we can be cuebidding queens.

[inquiry]

Any system is a trade off. There is a trade off on memory work required, there is trade off on part-score bidding to optomize for game and slams, there is trade off on info you give the opponents (allowing double dummy defense) as opposed to finding the same information to lead to double dummy contracts.

You can, as suggested above, gimmick up 2/1 GF where it is hardly recongnizable as the system most of us think about. For instance, my jump to 2NT is not natural after 1m-1M-2NT. This shows great hand with four card support for responders major. The trade off I make is new minor forcing by opener, so that I can't for instance open 1D and then play in 2C on this auction... 1D-1M-2C-all pass. This virtually forces us to at least 2D. At matchpoints this will cost you a board every now and then, but at imps, this seems not to be a huge detriment. In exchange I get two very nice auctions...

1m-1M
3M <--- this is nwo VERY NARROWLY defined. Having a narrow definition here is very important, because partner has to decide, now, rather to stop short of game (with pass), or to press on to game. If you had a four point range for this bid, partner would be put to a horrible guess sometimes. My range here is 2 points essentially.

The next advantage is that 2NT can quickly establish game force, slam invite auctions using the same structure we use after 1M-2NT (except that it is now opener using the 2NT bid) and some hands are eliminated from possibility for lack of different bids at second round (like jump to 4m).

Ben

[1eyedjack]

Ayjay, on Nov 16 2004, 06:31 AM, said:

My personal experience is that even with the aid of tools such as Roman Key Card blackwood and Jacoby 2NT, natural systems like 2/1 are at a loss when it comes to slam bidding, where systems like Precision triumph big time with their asking bids (alpha, beta, gamma, epsilon etc etc.). It's very crucial for example to know if partner has second round control in a specific suit, in order to reach a slam. Can anyone shed some light? An efficient method of cue bidding perhaps?

My personal experience of systems based on a natural unlimited opener is that given sufficient work you can make your small slam bidding very accurate. Grand slam bidding still tends to be a bit of a problem for me, but fortunately rare.

My personal experience is that against competent opponents you are seldom given a free run to slam after a precision 1C opener, and opportunities to use your greek asking bids are consequently likewise seldom.

If you get a contested auction then you are better off from having made a more descriptive opener than a 1C bid that says nothing about distribution.

[luke warm]

howdy jack where ya been?

[Fluffy]

mikestar, on Nov 16 2004, 03:21 PM, said:

When the opponents leave us alone (always the big disadvantage with Precision), our slam bidding is better than 2/1 even without asking bids and relays. The very common positive auction 1C-1M-2M agrees trumps and establishes a game force at the two level. By the time we're are at the five level, we can be cuebidding queens.

Well mike: 1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠ also sets trrump with slam interest and you even know a side suit from each player so that argument doesn´t really convince me.

[junyi_zhu]

1eyedjack, on Nov 16 2004, 06:08 PM, said:

Ayjay, on Nov 16 2004, 06:31 AM, said:

My personal experience is that even with the aid of tools such as Roman Key Card blackwood and Jacoby 2NT, natural systems like 2/1 are at a loss when it comes to slam bidding, where systems like Precision triumph big time with their asking bids (alpha, beta, gamma, epsilon etc etc.). It's very crucial for example to know if partner has second round control in a specific suit, in order to reach a slam. Can anyone shed some light? An efficient method of cue bidding perhaps?

My personal experience of systems based on a natural unlimited opener is that given sufficient work you can make your small slam bidding very accurate. Grand slam bidding still tends to be a bit of a problem for me, but fortunately rare.

My personal experience is that against competent opponents you are seldom given a free run to slam after a precision 1C opener, and opportunities to use your greek asking bids are consequently likewise seldom.

If you get a contested auction then you are better off from having made a more descriptive opener than a 1C bid that says nothing about distribution.

There are always some difficult hands for any systems:
Ax Axxxxx xx Axx
vs, xx Kx AKQJxx xxx
you want to be at 6D(needs H3-2 after a sp or club lead) , but I don't really think it's easy. after one heeart opening for either precision or natural systems.
It may go like(for 2/1 GF systems):
1H 2D
2H 3D
?
anything can be right and anything can be wrong.
Suppose you bid 3H, and partner raises you to 4H, nobody would try for the slam.

As I said before, the disadvantage of tradional 2/1 is that it's extremely hard
to set up trumps in responder's 2/1 suit at low level by responder.
Even if you play my 2/1 framework, you still might not find the slam:
1H 2D
2H(waiting, either minimum or balanced) 3D(extra, long D, denies 3 H support)
3H(6 hearts, minimum) 4H
?

However, some old styled strong jumpshift players might have an easy day to bid
this:
1H 3D(solid, set up trumps)
3H(6 hearts) 4H(support)
6D(easy, partner holds a solid diamond suit and a heart filler, and partner denies
sidesuit controls, so partner must hold HK.)

However, even if you play strong jumpshift, you may not play 1H - 3D as strong jumpshift, which means you lose the ability to show your solid diamonds at a lower
level, especially when your hand isn't very strong.

[PriorKnowledge]

Playing Precision does not preclude you from also playing 2/1. Meckwell does.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I doubt Precision deserves its name, which doesn't mean it is a bad system. Precision often ends up playing 3N with less information available to the opponents than from the opponents. But I don't view its slam bidding as particularly impressive. The asking bids are wonderful on occasion, and often irrelevant.
(For what is worth, this comes from someone who reads a lot of World Championship books, but has never played Precision in his life.)

Like Precision, 2/1 suffers first and foremost from lack of shape definition. Too many bids at the two- or three-level are undefined. Setting trumps and cue-bidding is not a panacea as long as you do not know the exact patterns. There should be a lot more game-forcing bids saying 'I'm balanced, so all your honors are more or less bound to be useful, and I will be in a decent position to place the contract if you start by showing your complete pattern and your strength and forget about your honor location', in accordance with David Morgan's balanced hand principle.
So I think a well thought-out Jacoby (2♠ over 1♥, no fast arrival) should be one of the few bids capable of doing a correct job.

In that respect, it would help to open all balanced hands 1♣ or 1N, and to answer more often 1♦ (whichever significance you give to it) over 1♣ than is currently fashionable. But then, a natural 2♣ opening (or an equivalent) seems necessary, to differentiate between a minimum balanced hand with five spades (with which you should ask) and a minimum hand with five clubs and four spades (with which you should tell) in case of opponent intervention, which suggests something akin to (the WJ brand of) Polish Club more than Precision. Similarly, a strong jump shift in clubs might be interesting because 2♣ is shapeless, but is useless in diamonds because you can always play that a 3♣ rebid by responder retransfers in diamonds.
(By the way, it is the Poles who invented that the cheapest step after 1X 1M 3M asks for a singleton. 2/1 needs a lot of shape-asking bids like that.)

[WrecksVee]

? "(By the way, it is the Poles who invented that the cheapest step after 1X 1M 3M asks for a singleton. 2/1 needs a lot of shape-asking bids like that.)"

This looks like Mathe asking bid to me. Mathe used it originally after 1S-3S(limit). But I knew people playing as attributed above to the Poles in 1969. Not saying that the Poles did not make more use of this idea, just that the idea is not recent.