PrecisionL

SCs ???

In C3 it is 4♠ and 5 or more ♣. Maybe, you are having problems with 5♠ and 4 or 5♣? If so, we use the Roman Club approach (giving up weak 2 bids in the majors): 2M = 10-14 hcp and 5M and 4 or 5 ♣.

Owen, Dwayne and I have a similar system design with C3 (Copious Canape Club) and we have not found any problem fitting in the important shapes under 3NT - in a few rare cases a complete distribution showing fragments is not available, but this is rarely important. I really don't understand your reluctance to use 1♠ - 1NT - 2♣ as a 4-5 or 4-6 canape. We have not found this to be a problem in 2 years of playing this system. By the way we play transfers over an opening 2♣ (no 4M) and this works really nice. Larry

Benito Garozzo: "The Blue Club system that we played years ago just is not good enough for top-level play today. Lea du Pont and I have improved on it a lot, and it's now ten times better than the old one. The old system was based on controls, and it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong. The distribution is the most important thing and you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first." [World Class by Marc Smith, 1999, page 66] I think Benito might have been referring to Ambra. http://www.eclipse.co.uk/~sa5046/ambra.htm http://bridgepost.blogspot.com/2008/12/ambra-5-card-majors-with-twist.html

Yes, we have upgraded Ultra to C3: Copious Canape Club and are testing it one more time at the Virginia Beach Regional (after a go at Reno). After that we will probably post it so that Dan Neill can have it on his site. We only canape minor into major or major into minor. With both majors we bid them naturally (longer first). All our two bids are 10-14 hcp 5-cd Major and usually 6-cd minors. Larry

Interesting: 8 7 6 2 8 8 (after the game) 2: usually passive unless hints from the bidding for aggressive lead. Partner should be willing to learn and try new things & not an unusually slow player Willing to play with most Precision partners. ENTF (Myers Briggs)

Almost exactly what I Quoted earlier in this thread, but AWM said I have strange ideas about the GCC. :D

See David Stevenson's Defence to Short Minors: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...123?dmode=print He claims that ACBL's Mike Flader says it is legal.

All I can say is, this is far from the first time that you've had very strange ideas about what is and isn't allowed in ACBL events. Your opinion contradicts any logical reading of the convention charts, and also contradicts the consistent opinion of at least half a dozen national-level directors. The folks they have at rulings@acbl do make many mistakes, and their opinions are far from "official" at times. This particular opinion is also something that has changed in the last six years or so. I am only reporting the official position of Mike Fladder, Associate National Tournament Director or Rick Beye his boss from questions submitted to rulings@acbl.org There does not seem to be a meeting of the minds if National Tournament Directors state otherwise. So, I guess the prudent thing to do is to ask all the TDs at a tournament to decide if there is a unity of interpretation of the King's English (GCC).

In ACBLand: No, conventional defenses to an opening 1♣ or 1♦ that may be short are NOT allowed. I have an e-mail from rulings@acbl.org that says that. However, if the same bids are Artificial AND Strong (15+ hcp) then conventional defenses are allowed.

The Bridge World, September 2010, has eight pages of WHAT'S NEW IN BRIDGE: TRANSFERS EVERYWHERE. Transfer Advances After a Preempt - Probably NOT ACBL legal. Edited: Transfers allowed after opening pre-empt of 2♦ or higher. #7. [but not after a Precision 2♣ or 2♦ opening]. Transfer Doubles [with the Raptor 1NT Overcall] - Probably ACBL legal. Nonpromissory Transfers [after opening NT] - Probably NOT ACBL legal? Both Sides Now - [transfers proposed when partner opens or overcalls 1M and the next hand X or bids 1♠]. [Transfers allowed over the X, but questionable over a suit / NT overcall by the opponent] We know that Transfer Advances are legal after overcalling opponent's opening bid and also that transfers are legal if the opponent's make a conventional bid (like a takeout double) [over our opening / overcall]. The QUESTION: If the opponent's make a normal suit overcall of our 1 of a suit opening bid, are transfers allowed by responder? Note that the ACBl General Convention Chart says: ALLOWED ** Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed ** Thus, I conclude such other transfers are NOT allowed. Comments?

Relays are not necessary for follow-ons and the major suits are ID early. Responding to 1♣ (16+): 0-7 hcp = 46 % 8-11 hcp = 37.5 % (not adjusting for poor 8 hcp hands that respond 1♦) 12+ hcp = 16.5 % I guess you pay your money and take your choice. :( Edited: 9/21/10 2106 EDT 0-4 hcp = 17 % 5-7 hcp = 29 % Probability estimated by numerical summation of most probable distributions for 16 - 30 hcp by 1 ♣ Opener.

I have spent a lot of time studying the various 1♣ strong systems. It does not make sense from a frequency or useful space design to play 1♣ - 1♥ = 8-11 and higher bids as 12+. If you must separate these ranges, they should be reversed. Keylime and I have found the following to work very well. Responses to 1♣ (16+ hcp or the distributional equivalent): 1♦ = 0-8 hcp (8 without an A or K) 1♥ = 4+♠ (unbalanced) , or 11-14 hcp & balanced 1♠ = 4+♥ (unbalanced) 1NT = 54 or better in the majors, or 44(41), or 5m440 with 11+ & 4+ controls 2♣ = 1 or both minors (denies a 4 cd M) 2♦ = 8-10 balanced 2♥ = 5♥332 2♠ = 5♠332 2NT = 15+ hcp 3X = 4441 hands & 8-10 hcp

We play 1M - 2♦ as natural and invitational values only, Not Forcing. In ACBLand, one can not have 2 artificial Game Forcing suit bids at the 2-level over an opening bid of 1 of a suit.

I have been working on such a scheme for about 2 years. Currently, Keylime and I are somewhat agreed on (playing 4-cd Majors and a 1M opening does not have a 5332 hand): 1M - 2♣ Game Force (usually without 4-cd support of the major) 2♦ Balanced, or 3-suited, or 6+M 2♥ and up = various 2-suited hands, or 3-suited with 5M 1M - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♥ = relay 2♠ = 3-suited with 5-cd minor 5440 2NT = balanced hand 3♣ = 4-4-4-1 / 4-4-1-4 3♦ = 6M or better 3♥ = 4-1-4-4 3♠ = 1-4-4-4 3NT = AKQxxx in the Major Opened

I use suits playable opposite a small doubleton to break the relay: AQJxxx KQJxxx Use 3♠ as Beta and 3♥ as shortage ask.

9 Precision references: http://bridgefiles.net/VAR/SearchINFO.htm

What about developing a system / strategy together so each of you owns a part of it? Then practice bidding, practice bidding, practice bidding ...

I recommend a Strong Club Base system and let 1♦ promise one or both 4-card Majors. Now you are not restrained in your responses to 1♣ and you could even take the 5-card Majors out of 1♣ similar to the Millennium Club by Lyle Poe (a book). Now 2♣ and 2♦ openings are 6-cards with NO 4-cd major or 5 of the minor and 4 of the other minor. In GCC you cannot use a 1♥ response as a relay to 1♦ but you can occasionally respond in a 3-cd ♥ suit.

I have given this a lot of thought and would bid the first hand: 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ (4+♥ & 1 round force) - 1♠/1NT (2nd negative 0-4 with or without 4+♠) - 3♦ = G.F. and 4♥ and 5+♦. As for the 2nd hand, assuming the 13th card is a ♥, then same auction and responder would bid 1♠ and then [opener would] rebid 3♠ showing 5 and I am not sure if we would or would [not] want to get to 6♠.

I thought using that scheme that even discards conveyed suit preference. There is also Obvious Shift at trick one.

Actually, 1♠ response to 1♥ opening has to be natural in ACBL GCC events. However, a 1♥ response to a general purpose 1♦ can occasionally be a 3-cd suit. In fact we play it that way if weak, otherwise 4+♥s even if longer ♠s. The Kaplan Inversion (1♠ response with 0-3♠s) is ACBL Mid-chart.

I like your T-Precision! Available this week Aug 9 - 15 evenings, EDT zone. Larry (B: Did you mean someone with less than 2000 MP?) P.S. Your web page is not working.

Golly, doesn't anyone play Obvious Shift at trick one? Then, there is no suit preference even with a singleton in dummy. The obvious shift on this hand is clubs and South would not signal for a club switch with Qx by discouraging a Spade continuation (which occasionally you might want). We always pause 10-15 seconds as third hand and announce it if declarer plays fast from dummy at trick one. I can't believe the commentators made such an issue of it. I doubt Brad considered himself obligated to play a club, I wouldn't as signals at trick one are information, not commands.

I thought inviting with an average 8 hcp (no good 5-cd suit) opposite a strong NT applied only to the old strong NT, 16-18. In the 21st Century aren't students taught to invite with 9 hcp including an A or K and maybe a ten with the honor and only with 8 hcp with a chunky 5-cd suit such as: 973 742 AJ842 Kx or 973 J42 95 AK742. Thanks to the ACBL Daily Bulletin from New Orleans: http://www.acbl.org/nabc/bulletins/2010/02/10/ page 3