[Double !]

Gerben42, on Jul 12 2005, 04:53 AM, said:

Let me start by defining an opening structure:
1♣ = 16+
1♦ = 11 - 15 with 3+♦ or 11 - 13 balanced
1♥ = 11 - 15 with 5+♥
1♠ = 11 - 15 with 5+♠
1NT = 14 - 16
2♣ = 11 - 15 with 6+♣
2♦ = 11 - 15, 3-suited with short ♦ (4414 / 3415 / 4315 / 4405)
2♥ = Weak Two
2♠ = Weak Two
2NT = 20 - 21

Would that be allright?

Actually, in it's initial versions, Precision openings of 2NT were 22-24 (19-21 were shown via 1C-response-2NT jump. Then came the relays where 20+ hands rebid 1 Heart over 1D response and then bid minimum NT to show the balanced 19-21.)

If we are to develop a default or BBO std Precision system, I think it will be very important to discuss responses to 2C openers as there are many different structures being used including those in Polish Club.

[hrothgar]

Hi all

I haven't been posting much on this thread. While I play losts of strong club structures, I really dislike the combination of strong club and 5 card majors and tend to avoid Precision variants. With this said and done, I applaud your efforts and wish you all luck.

For what its worth, I think that the main issue you need to sort outis the trade off between efficiency and "standard" use. I suspect that there really isn't any clear consensus regarding what is or is not standard. Personally, I'd recommend trying to specify a good system and assume (hope) that it will spread.

Here's the opening structure that I would prefer

1♣ = 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced
1♦ = 2+ Diamonds (3=3=2=5 shapes)
1♥ = 5+ Hearts
1♠ = 5+ Hearts (rarely 4315 with bad clubs)
1N = 11-13 HCP unless red on white (otherwise 14-16)
2♣ = 5+ Clubs
2♦ = Prefer Frelling. Willing to play multi
2♥: 4=4=1=4, 4=4=0=5, 3=4=1=5
2♠ = 5+ Spades and 4+ minor
2N = Bad 3 level preempt in either minor
3♣ = 5+ clubs and 5+ Diamonds, 8-12 HCP
3♦ = Constructive preempt
3♥ = weak

[luke warm]

i tend to agree with richard on the 5M thing, but if that's what people like ... anyway:

1c=16+ if balanced, 17+ if not (opposite of his heheh)
1d=4+ diamonds
1h=5+ but can be 4 in a 2425, 1435 or similar hand
1s=5+ but can be 4 if 4225, 4135, 4315, etc
1nt=12-15 always, never 2 doubletons (makes continuations easy)
2c=3 suited
2d=weak 2 in a major or 20, 21 balanced
2h=11-16, 6+
2s=11-16, 6+
2nt=11-16/17, 6+ clubs
3c/d/h/s=preempt
3nt=gambling
4c/d=namyats
4h/s=preempt

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2005, 08:32 PM, said:

For what its worth, I think that the main issue you need to sort outis the trade off between efficiency and "standard" use. I suspect that there really isn't any clear consensus regarding what is or is not standard. Personally, I'd recommend trying to specify a good system and assume (hope) that it will spread.

I agree that there is a trade-off between "standard" and efficiancy. This project could easily turn into some incoherent ratatouli of classic and modern methods.

My intension is to create a document describing a very simple and not too archaic system that one can refer to when playing with a pick-up partner. Now there are thousands of projects out there on the net, describing the "optimal" bidding system. I'm not going to invent yet another optimal system.

I hope it's possible to make a system script that satisfies these succes criteria:
- Simplicity. If you know some kind of Precision you can read through it quickly.
- Not too excentric. It should be within the range of anyone's notion of what "Precision" means.
- Playable. Doesn't have to be hyper-effective. If it's equally playable as SAYC it's fine with me.

[helene_t]

There are a few issues that I haven't adressed in the polls:

- Asking bids?
- (Non)forcing 1NT response
- Development after 2♣ opening for example: what does a response of 2NT mean?
- Response to overcalls (is a shift by an unpassed advancer forcing?)
- Impossible negative?
- Michael's cuebid?

If somebody knows how to phrase a question related to one of those issues, feel free to start a poll.

Those issues aside, I think I have made enough polls that I can write a first draft for a system script after having waited a few more days to collect more votes. Thank you all for your contributions and looking forward to your comments on the first draft.

[luke warm]

asking bids - yup

[bearmum]

helene_t, on Jul 19 2005, 02:39 AM, said:

There are a few issues that I haven't adressed in the polls:

- Asking bids?
- (Non)forcing 1NT response
- Development after 2♣ opening for example: what does a response of 2NT mean?
- Response to overcalls (is a shift by an unpassed advancer forcing?)
- Impossible negative?
- Michael's cuebid?

If somebody knows how to phrase a question related to one of those issues, feel free to start a poll.

Those issues aside, I think I have made enough polls that I can write a first draft for a system script after having waited a few more days to collect more votes. Thank you all for your contributions and looking forward to your comments on the first draft.

asking bids Probably

Can agree if 1NT is F /NF

Impossible neg --or unusual positive (which I prefer having played both)

I like Michaels

Also need to agree on what sort of overcalls over opps NT

[DenisO]

I've only skimmed through these threads/polls but nobody seems to have mentioned that Oliver Clarke (OliverC) teaches Precision in the BIL - so there should be some BBOers familiar with his methods. The notes are at:

http://bbo.pigpen.org.uk/

Denis

[helene_t]

Wow, I wasn't ware of that. Actually, this is very similar to what I intended to write.

Looks nice, easy to read and not too diffent from what these polls seem to be leading to.

Oliver's system defines 1♣ 2NT as semi-positive, natural. I'm not sure if I like that.

[csdenmark]

DenisO, on Jul 19 2005, 08:29 AM, said:

I've only skimmed through these threads/polls but nobody seems to have mentioned that Oliver Clarke (OliverC) teaches Precision in the BIL - so there should be some BBOers familiar with his methods. The notes are at:

http://bbo.pigpen.org.uk/

Denis

Thank you Denis. The version Oliver has put up is a complete SUPER-Precision version. As far as I am informed Oliver is using Jannersten which might be the reason for the 1♣ - 2NT feature Helene is mentioning.

I have taken a quick glance at the version and I see it is in many ways similar to Belladonna/Garozzo version. I will check whether the differences in names of features are substantial too or only names.

Until now I have rejected new partnerships based on Jannersten but from now on I intend to accept.

Especially I noticed Oliver is emphasizing the principle of captaincy. As it is one of the basic principles for Precision I think many posters in this Forum will spend their time well reading that.

[DenisO]

Note that in addition to the basic version which he teaches in the BBO BIL, there is also a more advanced precision variant (which he played with Jason Hackett) available for download.

Denis

[csdenmark]

DenisO, on Jul 20 2005, 10:44 AM, said:

Note that in addition to the basic version which he teaches in the BBO BIL, there is also a more advanced precision variant (which he played with Jason Hackett) available for download.

Denis

This is the private but very solid version: Precision.doc(MS-Word-473k)

The other version below I cannot open and WEB-search cannot find an application. Denis do you know which application can be used to read the document below?

Precision.lwp, (WordPro-550k)

[helene_t]

The first draft can be found here.

I have made some choices on issues that have not been discussed here and/or where there was no clear majority. Many of the issues are minor or (hopefully) uncontroversial, but if you disagree feel free to say so. Maybe we need more polls.

Sorry for the ugly lay-out, I will improve on it at a later stage.

Eventually it should go with a link to Oliver's site, I think, and to other online resources.

[helene_t]

Claus: I think it's the same document, written for another word processor.

[DenisO]

Yes I think so too - written with Lotus WordPro.

[csdenmark]

DenisO, on Jul 20 2005, 07:39 PM, said:

Yes I think so too - written with Lotus WordPro.

Sorry - I am not going to purchase $ 19,- to be able to open the document. If the document is important I think Oliver will be able to convert into standard formats.

[DenisO]

csdenmark, on Jul 20 2005, 06:53 PM, said:

Sorry - I am not going to purchase $ 19,- to be able to open the document. If the document is important I think Oliver will be able to convert into standard formats.

You seem to misunderstand - there is no need to spend any money to open the WordPro document. The two documents ( i.e. Precision.Doc and Precision.lwp) are the same - just available for different wordprocessing programs

And you can open Precision.doc with any version of Microsoft Word.

[bigmax]

Personally, I think that creating standard BBOPrecision is a great idea. But lets keep it simple and reasonably natural. BBOSuperpresision may be next project.

The main reason I prefere sayc or 2/1 in pick up partnership is handling interference over prec 1♣ opening. It seems to involve a great deal of cooperation between partners. And as I found out a few times - here even less snandards exist.

I think it is nessesary to add detailed description of action after 1♣ -(any) and 1♣-(p)-1♦ -(any) into this discussion

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Jul 12 2005, 03:48 AM, said:

I prefer to play Precision with pick-up partners. For some reason, it tends to create less bidding disasters than other systems.

I am really surprised by this statement. We all have our own experiences, to be sure, but mine are completely at odds with this, and I had two main ideas of the reason for this:
(1) There are a number of varieties of precision, in which a sequence defined one way in one version of precision has a totally different meaning in another variety. Similar instances apply in natural systems but I reckon that on balance ( a ) the instances have a lower frequence and ( b ) when they arise they have (on balance, and subject to exceptions) a lesser impact. Misinterpret whether a 1H opening bid is a 4 or 5 card suit and the impact is likely to be less disastrous then whether a 1C.....3H bid is a delta as opposed to an epsilon asking bid.

(2) The inherent weaknesses of precision are well documented as being the vulnerability of the 1C opener (and, depending on its nebulousness, the 1D opener) to opposition intervention. You may take the view that that weakness is more than compensated for by the other strengths of the system, and I will not get drawn into that argument. I will however maintain that in order to protect yourself effectively against the ravages of intervention you need to have a comprehensive defence to intervention, and I fear that no attempt at standardization in this area is likely to achieve sufficient common consent as to achieve a standard that you can expect to adopt with a pick-up partner.

[csdenmark]

DenisO, on Jul 20 2005, 08:35 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jul 20 2005, 06:53 PM, said:

Sorry - I am not going to purchase $ 19,- to be able to open the document. If the document is important I think Oliver will be able to convert into standard formats.

You seem to misunderstand - there is no need to spend any money to open the WordPro document. The two documents ( i.e. Precision.Doc and Precision.lwp) are the same - just available for different wordprocessing programs

And you can open Precision.doc with any version of Microsoft Word.

Thank you Denis. I see that Helene was right in her assumption that it was the same document in 2 different formats.

What I am interested of is Jannersten version to see the differences between Jannersten and Belladonna/Garozzo. I have ordered for the Jannersten book for that purpose.

Thank you very much Denis. - You have been very helpful.