[csdenmark]

1eyedjack, on Jul 20 2005, 09:20 PM, said:

(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.

I disagree Jack. It is no weakness of precision but a strong argument for playing solid versions - and that only.

I agree with you that handle of interference is of great importance but also defense. Bidding sequences for uncontested actions tend to be obsolete nowadays.

I studied Bocchi-Duboin system a month ago. A rather poor construction summarised as:

• 5 card major
  
• Balanced
  
• Preempts

It is in fact an excellent system due to emphasiz on interference handle and defense. A bit similar you see by Hamway, an ordinary canape' system with solid interference handle.

[Robertn]

I've played various forms of Oliver's system with Oliver himself and with fellow students from his BIL classes. In broad terms, the website describes:
- a basic framework system, much like Helene is developing
- a few gadgets that Oliver likes using within this system (e.g. Romex trial bids, fit jumps or mini-splinters over 1H/S)
- a very detailed system of asking bids, similar to Jannersten and Garozzo but with extra tweaks in the asking sequences, responses, and interference handling
- some suggestions on using Lebensohl and transfer Lebensohl in many sequences
- the complete Clarke-Hackett system (65 pages), some duplicating the above but completely different sections on e.g. point-showing responses to 1D openings, and multi-style preempts


I find the basic system fine for playing with precision learners - most get the basics fairly quickly and any problems come as much from basic bidding judgement as from forgetting the specialised bids.

It does get harder playing the asking bid sequences with a partner who isn't familiar with all the details. There are nine different asks (alpha-iota), some of which have variable response tables depending on the situation - and of course a misunderstanding can result in chaos! I've managed these ok when playing with Oliver, but with other partners it may require a friendly enough table that you can have the web-page open and discuss as you go along

Classes are on Saturdays in BIL (8pm UK, 3pm Eastern) for anyone interested - Delta/Theta/Iota asks this coming Sat!

Robert

[coyot]

csdenmark, on Jul 20 2005, 02:36 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jul 20 2005, 09:20 PM, said:

(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.

I disagree Jack. It is no weakness of precision but a strong argument for playing solid versions - and that only.

The question is:

Will you be able to come up with a good and solid enough system to handle all types of artifical interventions, WHILE keeping this system simple enough to be usable by intermediate players?

The strong club, being the supposedly best thing about the system, needs to be protected and once it becomes popularl, people will play a ton of psychic defenses against it. Disrupting the club is so important that I will put my favorite gadgets against it into profile :-)

[hrothgar]

coyot, on Jul 20 2005, 11:52 PM, said:

The strong club, being the supposedly best thing about the system, needs to be protected and once it becomes popularl, people will play a ton of psychic defenses against it. Disrupting the club is so important that I will put my favorite gadgets against it into profile :-)

I haven't seen a reputable author claim that the 1♣ opening is the "strength" of Precision in 20 years.

Most players consider it a necessary evil...

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2005, 11:08 PM, said:

I haven't seen a reputable author claim that the 1♣ opening is the "strength" of Precision in 20 years. 

Most players consider it a necessary evil...

Agree Richard! I normally call it a strong 'trash can' - but just the same.

On the other hand - much of the fun playing Precision comes from the features assigned to 1♣ opening. It is here you have most of the asking bids and it is also here it is disclosed whether your new partner is a Precision player or just a strong club player.

The strong club opening is the nerve of the system but the advantage is of course the limit openings and the absence of all the curious conventions used in standard systems in order to sort out range and distribution. This advantage is of course shared with most other strong systems(Pass-, club- and diamond systems).

[bearmum]

csdenmark, on Jul 19 2005, 10:24 PM, said:

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.

Any "super Precision" type structure is IMO not for pick up partnerships and I think Helene is looking for a few BASIC conventions for use in a Precision style structure (right?)

Also -- playing any system (not only Precision ) I thing the "captaincy" idea is mandatory as having TWO people trying to captain is often a disaster

[mgoetze]

I am pretty much happy with Gerben's opening bid structure (though I like a natural 2♦), and please don't oust the three-suiter short in diamonds, I have found it works much better than most people give it credit for.

However, in the realm of responses to 1♣, I consider transfer positives sufficiently superior to consider them worth including in "BBO-Precision" even though it will add to the learning curve somewhat. Number one reason: 1♣-1NT - everyone else is making 3NT, you're the only one playing it from the wrong side...

I would like to see asking bids but they will need to be much simpler than the ones Oliver offers if they are to find widespread acceptance. While I'm sure many will agree that a full relay structure is superior, the main thing as far as I'm concerned is to have a system that you can easily play with a pickup partner, without gobbling up tons of memory resources which you would rather spend on your regular system with your regular partner. And as has been pointed out, the strong point is not the 1♣ opening, it is more of a necessary evil. Yet still, we want to be spared the 1♣-1♥-1♠ "so let's see, he's got, uh, 12-21 points and I forgot to ask him about the XYZ convention" not to mention the 2♣-2♦-3♦-3♥-4♣ "uh... ok maybe I shouldn't show my spades" situations.

Meanwhile, can we please have Ghestem? It's really not that much harder than Michaels. Also, what about 1♣-1♦-1♥ - articial or natural? I'm really fond of the 20-22 1NT.

[mgoetze]

So, I guess we have let the polls run for long enough now... is someone volunteering to evaluate the results and put it all together? Or are there already people secretly writing Full Disclosure files for BBOPrecision?

[helene_t]

As allready mentioned, the first draft is available. I haven't received any feedback yet.

But since Oliver is allready teaching Precision in the BIL and has made an elaborate description of his system, you can also refer to his page.

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Sep 10 2005, 08:57 AM, said:

As allready mentioned, the first draft is available. I haven't received any feedback yet.

But since Oliver is allready teaching Precision in the BIL and has made an elaborate description of his system, you can also refer to his page.

Helene , I had missed the post where you referred to this pdf. :-)

I cannot visualize the suit symbols, though

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

For the moment, all I can say is that I much prefer to have 1D opening to have strintly 4+ diamonds, and that, when I do have (41)=3=5 with bad clubs, I prefer to open it a weak NT if it falls within range, rather than opening a 3 card diamond suit (unless the diam suit is made of AKx or similar).

[awm]

As far as I know, almost no one (well except Elianna and me) actually plays that two-over-one calls are not game forcing but promise a rebid. For most of the world it seems like either 2/1s are forcing to game, or 1M-2X-2NT/3X is non-forcing. Personally I don't like that treatment, or find it particularly playable, but a lot of people do play it. I have encountered very few who play the style you recommend in the precision document.

Perhaps just making 2/1s forcing to game would make things easier?

[mike777]

awm, on Sep 10 2005, 04:40 AM, said:

As far as I know, almost no one (well except Elianna and me) actually plays that two-over-one calls are not game forcing but promise a rebid. For most of the world it seems like either 2/1s are forcing to game, or 1M-2X-2NT/3X is non-forcing. Personally I don't like that treatment, or find it particularly playable, but a lot of people do play it. I have encountered very few who play the style you recommend in the precision document.

Perhaps just making 2/1s forcing to game would make things easier?

easier for us old..fogeys YES.

[Chamaco]

awm, on Sep 10 2005, 09:40 AM, said:

As far as I know, almost no one (well except Elianna and me) actually plays that two-over-one calls are not game forcing but promise a rebid. For most of the world it seems like either 2/1s are forcing to game, or 1M-2X-2NT/3X is non-forcing. Personally I don't like that treatment, or find it particularly playable, but a lot of people do play it. I have encountered very few who play the style you recommend in the precision document.

Perhaps just making 2/1s forcing to game would make things easier?

Marshall Miles in "Modern Constructive Bidding" in the chapter specific on Precision, recommends the style used in the Blue Team Club (2/1 inv+, forcing to 2NT or 3 of a suit, so usually promises a rebid unless opener bids 2NT ).

But of course Marshall Miles' ideas are not always represenatative of the most common views :-)

BTW, I like 2/1 GF, because I think that - in absence of a strong GF relay - responder should be able to set early on a GF.

[helene_t]

Sorry, I hope the card symbols are readable now.

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Sep 10 2005, 10:20 AM, said:

Sorry, I hope the card symbols are readable now.

I guess it's just my PC.
The adobe reader still says it cannot extract some embedded fonts.
No big deal, the document is only a few pages long, and the sequences are easy to figure out

[card_judge]

For what its worth I would like to add my 2 cent worth (or some minor portion of a Euro).

It seems from everything previously posted on this thread I too would make the suggestion of using the BBO standard either Oliver's basic (without asking bids) or Helene's.

I listened, learned and watched Oliver's discussion of Precision in the BIL (basic version). I was amazed at how quickly you can learn it. Now I much prefer to play Precision to either Std. Am. or even 2/1.

My partner and I got so enamored with it we play Oliver's full 65 page version (complete) with the exception of 2♦ Multi and Transfer Lebensohl. It's too bad the ACBL will not allow 2♦ multi in the General Convention Chart. But those rules are there for some purpose I still do not fully understand. The main deviation we added was Swedish 2NT to the system for much better shape showing while concealing responders hand.

Speaking as an intermediate, I think playing a standard would allow us to be able to confidently play with much better (true advanced/expert) partners. This in turn should allow the neophytes like me to learn from those with more experience. After all how do we pass on the knowledge we have learned to those with less experience if we don't play with them?

♥ ♥ ♥

[mgoetze]

Well, I have not yet found any pickup partners on BBO offering to play "BIL Precision". There are a few points in it which are not entirely specified, Oliver's text is certainly a good start for quickly assembling a simple precision system with a new partner but it is not quite ready to play "out-of-the-box". What I would like is to be able to ask "BBO Precision, Partner?" with the same satisfaction as someone asking "BBO Advanced, Partner?" - no extra discussion needed, ready to play, and nothing oversimplified for the sake of learning (note that BBO Advanced contains quite a lot of gadgets yet is still known by quite a decent number of people, many of whom have not yet played with each other).

So by all means, we can borrow good stuff from Oliver, for instance I think the 2/1 as F2NT is sound (have played this treatment in both a custom precision and Blue Club and never been unhappy about it), but let's try to put together a version which is playable out-of-the-box with no relics which noone actually wants (such as the impossible negative).

On a technical note, how do people like to play 1♦-2♥/2♠? I prefer WJS to the 16+ version given by Oliver.

[helene_t]

mgoetze: In the draft I suggest jump shifts over a limited opening to be natural GF by an unpassed hand and fitbid by a passed hand. In competition, SJS don't make much sense, so it must be either fitbid or WJS, this has not been specified. Over 1♣, jump shifts are semipositive over 1♣. Presumably they would be very weak by a passed hand (too weak for a preempt) but this hasn't been specified. This was the closest I could come to a concensus from the polls.

Mauro (Chamaco): Yes, 1♦ is natural according to my proposal, again this was the closest I could come to a concensus from the polls. However, with a 4135/1435 you have the option to open 1♦ as "smallest lie" if you prefer.

[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jul 12 2005, 07:29 AM, said:

I've always been fond of Jannerstein's book on Precision...

That's the guy I learned precision from

It was called Advanced Precision,and I think his name
is spelled Jannersten.

This was around 1980 tho,played it a few years when
me and my pd had time to put an effort into bridge and
it was alot of fun

[Gerben42]

Quote

In competition, SJS don't make much sense

Add fire: Without competition they don't make much sense either
Yes I know that's not true, but WJS (5 - 8 HCP) work even better after Precision than after a normal opening bid! See http://www.geocities...e/weakjump.html for details.

Quote

BTW, I like 2/1 GF, because I think that - in absence of a strong GF relay - responder should be able to set early on a GF.

I don't think this is a good suggestion. 2/1 GF is so helpful in "standard" because otherwise no one is limited and the whole auction is a mess. In Precision opener is limited so you don't need to establish a GF, in fact it is now better to get your suit in early so partner can help judging the situation. I guess 2/1 forcing to 2-of-openers-suit is best for Precision.
Besides, 2/1 GF will punish partner when he has a light opening, which he is entitled to have in Precision.

Quote

I cannot visualize the suit symbols, though

Acrobat 7 for Linux can't either. How do you make your PDF file?

About the system file:

1. I always thought in "standard" Stayman the two invitational sequences with 5-4 majors were 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ and 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ and NOT 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥...
2. balanced is with one l (1♦ - 2nt)
3. Include a runout after 1NT doubled. Simplest is natural and redouble scrambling (at least two suits)

Quote

please don't oust the three-suiter short in diamonds, I have found it works much better than most people give it credit for.

Me too. The bad convention that has been in this spot for many is Mini-Roman: 4441 with any shortness.