tysen2k

why not just play control responses and save space? Because it actually is a waste of space if you haven't found your fit yet. Find the fit first, then ask for controls, not the other way around.

That's what I use except that I reverse hearts and clubs since when you bid 1NT (clubs) you are much more likely to end up in a wrong-sided NT contract than if you bid 1NT (hearts). I play that accepting the transfer is a total control ask. That way if responder is a minimum then opener can jump to game without relaying and revealing responder's shape. Tysen

2♣ for me. 5♣ is a close second.

The first hand takes an average of 9.94 tricks in its best contract and the second hand takes an average of 9.57 tricks. The average number of tricks that balanced hands take by HCP: 16 = 9.42 17 = 9.67 18 = 9.89 19 = 10.09 So the first hand is worth about 18.3, and the second about 16.6. Tysen

I believe standard is that the lower cue shows the lower-ranking suit and the higher cue shows the higher-ranking suit. So 3♦ = clubs and 3♥=spades. Easier on the memory. Regardless, the cue that shows spades should show 4 of them. Here you have a headache. Double could be wrong if LHO preempts diamonds. I think I cue spades anyway and treat AQx as 4.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sj954hqtdq752ct52&e=s632hj5da4cakq763]266|200|Scoring: IMP 2C* (2H) All Pass *Precision Partner leads the CJ. You overtake with the CQ and continue with the CK. Everyone follows. For trick 3 do you lead the ace or the three as suit preference for diamonds?[/hv]

My rank: 2♥ (best) 3♥ Pass 1♥ (worst)

♠xx ♥xxx ♦Kxxx ♣Qxxx 1NT - (P) - P - (2H) P - (P) - ?

The 2♦ opening is not GCC, the rest are legal. I'd put the 19-21 balanced in with the 1m bids. As far as holes, it looks like you dont' have a bid for a major that is 19+ but not strong enough for 2♣. Tysen

I'd make 1C - 1H; 1S be a forcing bid. This should confirm the 16+ hand type. The 2-level should be safe especially if opener has spade support. Plus if responder rebids 1N with only 4 spades, you can stop there. There will always be hands that have difficultly with whatever system you come up with. I'm worried that your difficulty will be when opener has 16+ and long clubs. What's your rebid when partner responds with one of the 0-9 bids? I assume 2C has to cover the 11-15 club hands.

The 2 bids (except 2N like you said) actually aren't GCC legal. They are Mid-chart though. To be GCC you'd have to make it so that the anchor suit was the suit bid (2C has to have clubs always). Either that or it can only be a 2 suiter (both known suits - so 2C can be D&H but nothing else).

I personally don't like immediate control showing. Showing your suits/shape first is much better I think.

What about: 2C = any 4441/5440 2D = H&S or H&C or weak H 2H = S&C or S&D or weak S 2S = D&H or D&C or weak D 2N = weak C I guess you could also move the D&C option to 2N if you wanted.

It seems pretty good. I like it. The 1♣ bid might be a little overloaded, but doesn't seem too bad. Opener might have a problem with 16+ and long clubs, especially with interference. Am I reading it right that the 1♦/1♥/1♠ bids never have exactly 5 cards unless they are 5/4 with clubs? How do you handle 4441 hands?

No, this is after a Precision 1♣, so only two suits have been shown at responder's rebid. Plus, the positive response shows 5 cards already.

I currently use a homegrown precision system with transfer positive responses. While I am happy with the system, one of the situations we seem to have problems with is when both responder and opener are stronger than a minimum, but we don't find a trump fit in the first two rounds of bidding. Something like: 1♣ - 1♥ (positive ♠) 2♦ - 3♣ ... Sometimes both hands have extras, but not enough to take unusual action by jumping, etc. We sometimes miss slams. Does anyone have a good way of handling these hands? No 1st round relays or 1♦ positive please. Rigal's "Precision in the 90's" has a system where responder bids the 1-step response (artificial) with 12+ HCP if opener bids a new suit. So: 1♣ - 1♥ (positive ♠) 2♦ - 2♥ (artificial - extras) This is good both when you show the extras as well as when you deny them. The drawback is that now you have to bid 2N both with balanced hands as well as those hands that would have bid the one-step suit. So 2NT could be balanced or with hearts. Has anyone tried this method? Anyone have a better one?

With NFB: pass Without NFB: 2♣ I really don't think pass is too bad. I play NFB so double is out for me since that should show either 4♥ or GF. I'm neither. 2♣ should also show a better suit for NFB. So for me I think it's pass with 2♦ and 1NT in a close tie for second. They could all be reasonable. Without NFB, I think 2♣ becomes the new winner, but not by much. It shouldn't promise more than 10+ with 4+ cards. That's what I've got even though it isn't pretty. This hand is much weaker than it looks. Totally flat with spread honors. Tysen

One more thing to consider. It also looks like this could be a big misfit hand. We have extreme shape and the auction is relatively non-competitive. I'd say neither side likely has a good fit. I believe Modern Bridge Conventions by Root and Pavlicek defines a cue in the balancing seat as Michaels, "intermediate or better" strength.

I was going to post pretty much the exact same post as mikestar. Paradox bids are superior but not "standard" In standard, only those 2 particular sequences are not GF Tysen

2♠. If opener passes partner may have a tough balance.

Yes, the numbers are the % of the time where we can score no higher. Maybe an example is in order: No one is vulnerable. If we can take 9 tricks in hearts, and they can take 10 tricks in spades, then our par contract is 5H. From our opponents' point of view, their par contract is 4S. For Pass to be the best contract for us, it means that any 1-level contract by us doubled would give the opponents a better score than any contract they could make on their own. I see what numbers you are interested in (the par of the whole hand rather than one side). I don't have those numbers and I don't think I'll have time to generate them anytime soon. Sorry. :( Hope you can find some use in what I do have. Tysen

Here is the distribution of our double-dummy par contracts by vulnerability. Numbers are percentages: None Unfav Fav Both P 2.40 6.33 0.89 2.34 1C 0.86 1.45 0.42 0.83 1D 1.23 1.80 0.61 1.19 1H 1.70 2.23 1.02 1.68 1S 2.29 2.76 1.46 2.20 1N 1.53 1.50 1.61 1.52 2C 2.48 2.63 1.86 2.37 2D 3.23 3.41 2.62 3.11 2H 4.29 4.36 3.74 4.16 2S 5.83 5.88 5.26 5.75 2N 2.64 2.59 2.66 2.64 3C 4.31 4.22 4.05 4.25 3D 5.29 5.10 4.99 5.21 3H 6.23 5.96 6.02 6.16 3S 7.19 6.85 7.07 7.15 3N 3.67 3.64 3.73 3.68 4C 3.59 3.14 3.71 3.54 4D 4.07 3.64 4.28 4.05 4H 5.59 5.01 6.01 5.59 4S 6.41 5.51 7.28 6.39 4N 3.26 3.11 3.37 3.26 5C 1.89 1.49 2.47 1.95 5D 2.28 1.74 2.98 2.29 5H 3.32 2.72 4.07 3.32 5S 3.46 3.06 4.02 3.50 5N 2.16 2.15 2.18 2.16 6C 0.95 0.78 1.28 1.01 6D 1.17 0.98 1.49 1.24 6H 1.34 1.15 1.64 1.41 6S 1.54 1.36 1.95 1.69 6N 1.72 1.72 1.73 1.72 7C 0.32 0.22 0.65 0.45 7D 0.37 0.27 0.81 0.55 7H 0.35 0.26 0.75 0.51 7S 0.35 0.29 0.59 0.44 7N 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.69 Tysen

Double should also be penalty when 3 suits have been bid... 2♣ is fine, 4♥ is crazy. I see either passing or pulling to 3♣ as reasonable.

I also vote for 1♠. Raise with 3 cards only if you have no other attractive option. Here you have an easy rebid. Bid out your shape.

Just didn't want this post to be forgotten. It seemed like the initial results were the exact opposite of what everyone expected.