PrecisionL

1♣ (A+F) 1♠ ? What does N bid with ♠: - ♥: T953 ♦: AJ952 ♣: J876 5. North bids 2♠ showing a 3-suited hand, short in spades. N-S get to 5♣, 6 is probably too hard and too lucky.

Our Precision-like 2♣ opening denies a biddable 4-cd major. We use conditional transfers to show a good 5-cd or better major. Opener accepts with 2+ cards in the major, otherwise rebids 3♣ with minimum and 2NT with maximum. This works well for us. Responder passes the example hand, no problem.

Aster several years, we play natural advances through 2♥ overcalls. Over 2♠ we play 1-under transfers starting with 2NT to show ♣. Over 3-level overcalls: X is the transfer bid (for the next suit above the overcall). Other Interfence below 2♠: Pass = 0-4 hcp (without an Ace). X = 5+ hcp and no 5-cd suit (opener can pass for penalty). Cue = 6+ hcp and short in the opponent's suit. Bid = 6+ hcp and natural, 1 round force.

Opening 2NT works well and I use that opening in two partnerships. Theoretically, opening 3♣ would be better for the minors (eliminates opponents cue bids) and then 2NT opening would be a pre-empt in either minor. Probably not ACBL GCC (General Convention Chart) allowed.

Probably because the ♥ suit is too weak, less than 2 of the 3 top honors. Another possibility is that the 2♣ bid is a little light (i.e. it has more losers than defensive Quick Tricks).

OK, for $?

Gee, now everyone will be bidding like rabbits on speed against our 1 club opening :wub: I guess I will join the crowd, from our system notes: IX. Strong 1 Club Opening, We Interfere with Bugatti in direct seat: (1♣): 1♦ > 1♥, 1♥ > 1♠, 1♠ = 1444, 1NT = 5m/55M, 2m = DONT, 2M = Natural, 2NT = 5-5 Strong Club Defense over (1♣) - P – (1♦) ? Mathe: 1♥ Natural, good suit 1♠ Natural, good suit 1NT Takeout for the minors X Takeout for the Majors

I would award NP (Not Played = average)

It's the thrill of the chase, the joy of victory!

Although I am a Strong Club advocate, I play a 2/1 system with several partners where 2♣ and 2♦ are strong openers. In those partnerships I use Bob Crosby's Pit Bulls approach: http://www.pitbulls.shawbiz.ca/Coaches%20Corner/Slams/Strong%202D.htm 2♣ Strong & Artificial hand without 5+♦ or 4441 distribution. Responder always responds 2♦ and opener bids naturally thereafter, but responder relays over 2M for further description of opener's hand. 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ (Relay to 2♠) (a) Balanced 25-27 (Kokish), or (b) 1-suited ♥s, or {c} 2-suited with ♥s primary 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 2NT (relay) - 3X = 1 or 2-suited with ♠s primary 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT = 23-24 hcp 2♣ - 2♦ - 3NT = Balanced hand with 5+♣s, 23+ hcp 2♦ Strong & Artificial (a) Balanced and 21+ hcp and 5+♦ (b) 4441 and 4 losers or less. Responder always responds 2♥, now 2♠ is the 4441 and 2NT asks for singleton {c} 6+♦ with or without a 2nd suit 2♦ - 2♥ - ? 2NT = Balanced with 5322 & 23-24 hcp 3♣ = 6+♦ & 4♣ 3♦ = 6+♦ & unbalanced 3♥ = 6+♦ & 4♥ 3♠ = 6+♦ & 4♠ 3NT = 5+322 & 25-26 hcp 4♣ = 6+♦ & 5♣ 4♦ = 7+♦ 4♥ = 6+♦ & 5♥ 4♠ = 6+♦ & 5♠ I have tested and used these and find them an improvement, but the frequency is low and the memory load somewhat higher. Added 4/4/12: Suit Showing over 2 Clubs is another approach: http://rfrick.info/bridge/twoclubs.htm

I have reached a similar conclusion about 20-21 2NT openings. I teach local players that opening 2NT is 21-22 hcp to avoid the bad 2NT contracts.

Interesting, I have been looking for a new use of 1♣ - 2NT. Currently, we use 1♣ - 3M to show a solid suit, similar to Power Precision. But 2NT allows distributional asks. Maybe, using 2NT as a one-loser suit AQJxxxx / KQJxxx might be better and more frequent.

You remember correctly, what was in our Ultra notes is not exactly in their 1996 book: Your choice of leads (from best to worst) against suit contracts below the five level: A-K any singleton (not trumps) K-Q Q-J J-T 7-x and lower doubletons snall trumps T-x J-x Q-xK-x 3 or more to an honor (the smaller the honor the better) A-x any other Ace lead

Reading further in Bridge Additions 96 (pgs. 104 - 114), New Age Opening Leads: "The Interior 9 Lead the 9 from the following holdings [after choosing the suit to be led]: J-9-8-x, Q-9-8-x, K-9-8-x, A-9-8-x [yuck]"Ace asks Attitude, King asks Count "Drop the Touching Honor Lead the K from AKJT, Q from AKQT, Q from KQT9 "Come-on = Cash "T or 9 shoes 0 or 2 Trash this convention - you never know when it is zero and when it's two in crucial situations "T Promises, J denies Modify it: T implies, but J does not deny "Now you have the whole lead system against notrump (and you can play it against suits as well)."

Interesting, we also use 2♦ to show 6♠ or better, then 2♥ asks for 2nd suit and 2♠ shows no 2nd suit, then 2NT asks for shortage and bid the shortage up the line, 3♠ = 6-cds & no shortage (6322), 3NT = 7222. If opener has 2-card support he can bid 3♠ if available as a Beta, otherwise 4♣ is the Beta. Our system ignores good 8-card suits and does not show exact distribution for 7-card suits as these are very low frequency. Thus, I am thinking and testing a 3-level bid for 1-loser suits and eliminate the 3-level 4441 and 44(50) hands.

We use 4-level responses to a Strong Club as an 8-card suit with one honor. I have been thinking about changing this. In another system I use the 3-level as a transfer to a suit such as HHxxx or better. Maybe the 3-level could be used in your system for a 1-loser self-sufficient suit and asks for cue bidding by opener? [Edit: AQJxxxx+ / KQJxxxx+] However, 4-level bids need to be narrowly defined and the weak hand does not want to ask for Keycards, maybe Controls (A + K) will work when you have xx in a suit.

Did Matthew Granovetter have his tongue in his cheek when he wrote the article: Robot Opening Leads? I DON'T THINK SO. Here is the preamble from BRIDGE ADDITIONS 96, Matthew Granovetter, 1995, pgs. 53 - 57: "... There is a great deal to be said for making regimented opening leads. ... By regimented opening leads, I mean that your choice of leads is by a fixed preference system. For example, against suits, you first lead from an ace-king combination, otherwise you lead a singleton, otherwise you lead from a king-queen, otherwise from a queen-jack, and so forth. .... By always leading in a prescribed method, you help your partner with the entire defense. ... If your partner knows your style of leads, it will also increase his ability to defend well." "Consistency = Success The important thing here is consistency. By keep[ing] consistent in your style of leads - in fact, by leading like a robot - you can turn what otherwise was a blind choice with no implications to a meaningful card, a building block for the entire defense." "Concrete Vs. Circumstantial Evidence There are two clues to the best lead: your hand and the bidding. The cards in your hand are concrete evidence, whereas the bidding is circumstantial. Thus, when you are determining your opening lead, it stands to reason that you should give much more weight to the former than the latter. Most people do this the other way around, however. ..." "In one of my early books, 'Murder at the Bridge Table,' I outlined the choices for opening leads (based solely on your hand) from the best to the worst. Here is a similar chart for review. [Chart similar to one in Ultra Club notes] I do NOT follow these suggestions blindly, I don't always lead from AK or a singleton if I have one and I have found KQx and QJx leads to be poor at game contracts. I defend passively against 1NT contracts unless I have a 5-card suit. What the chart in my system notes (or in Granovetter's book) accomplishes is that it a starting point for discussion of style of leads and defense.

No (me three)! I believe that one of the main reasons Precision became popular and is still among system 'geeks' is that the 16-17 hcp hands with a 5-cd major are difficult to handle in non Strong 1♣ systems. [i.e., gazzilli]

At least two published books (that I know of) used the idea of other bids other than 1♣ in a STRONG CLUB System being stronger than 16 hcp. The Millennium Club by Lyle Poe, 2002. 1♣ = 15+ hcp (a) Balanced (b) 5+ clubs, maybe a side 4-cd suit {c} 4-loser hand or better, any distribution Thus, an opening bid of 1♦ or 1♥/1♠ could be up to 19 hcp. The American Forcing Minor System, Fink & Lutz, 1995 1♣ = ? {a) 16+ hcp Club hand {b} 17+ hcp Major Suit hand {c} 18+ hcp Balanced {d} 21+ hcp Diamond hand 1♦ = 15-20 hcp, 4+♦ or NT hand, 98% forcing

I get this similar response from opponent's if I don't respond immediately. I play three complicated systems with 3 different partners and each one is somewhat different from the others. I assume that they are assuming that I don't know the answer and am about to tell the table that I don't know. Rarely is that the case in my established partnerships. Since most agreements are on the CC, I offer that to them if they don't like my delay before answering. In some cases they ask after the alert and before I can decipher the meaning (often step replies). In our pre-alert, we tell the opponent's that we will explain complicated auctions before the opening lead hoping to minimize the questions. Some opponent's don't care, some don't ask, and some ask about everything. I wish ACBL or the Laws would work on improving this situation.

Yep, here is one reference: http://bridgewithdan.com/systems/Burgay.txt Don't forget Magic Diamond: www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/MagicD.zip

Interesting. I spent a lot of time analyzing a Strong Diamond System in the 1960s .... Revolution in Bridge, 1965, G. R. Nail and Robert Stucker, 325 pages, LCCC 65-26321 Nail played in the Bermuda Bowl in 1962, 1963. However, this system was not played by Nail in the BB. Italian Asking Bid influence and lots of memory work. Ahead of his time? 1NT = 14-16 2NT = 20-21 5-card Majors 1C = Balanced or 5-cd minor, or unbidable Major 1D = 16+ hcp and UNBALANCED I still prefer almost any Strong Club system ....

Multi is allowed in 6-board matches or greater (in ACBLand) in A bracket KOs and Swiss A/X and I have played this convention. I have also played Multi-Landy over an opponent's NT opening which is also a mid-chart convention even in non A events (2000 MP / person or higher) on the east coast of the USA.

My preferred system is a strong club variant with Majors first, always. In ACBLand I am able to use any design I want after an opening bid of 1♣ if it is 15+ hcp. Thus, I play three versions (with 3 different partners) of a strong club system which are quite unlike each other. One convention I can't play that I miss is transfers to opening bids, however allowed if 2nd hand doubles or partner overcalls. A good NT defense is multi-Landy (Robinson / Woolsey) which is rarely allowed in ACBL GCC events (but is allowed in the DC area - Maryland / Virgina).

Brian, Dwayne and I played against a pair in VA playing a similar system. Thought you might be interested in this hand played against us (we passed thru out). 1♦ (17+ hcp) - 1♥ (Artificial and negative) - 2♠ (4+ cards and 22+ hcp) - 2NT (dbl negative) - 3♣ (2nd suit, 4-cards) all pass This was a top for them as the opening lead gave declarer a trick and there was no entry to dummy. The field played 2NT down 1 or 2. Larry Will check with Dwayne for schedule for BBO