MickyB

I don't like this definition. Precision uses an intermediate 2♣ opening with the same distributional constraints to fill a hole in the system, not because it performs well when opened. Better to have 2♣ either deny or promise a 4 card major (so 6♣/5♣4♦; or 5♣4M. Your choice) Given the rest of your openings, the only alternative that I can think of for your 3♠ opening is to differentiate between a good and a bad 3♠ opening.

Oh, I forgot to give partner's hand - [hv=s=saxhkqj9dkt9xc9xx]133|100|[/hv]

I really wish WJ would use opener's 2♦ rebid as any weak NT.

Roy Hughes makes the point that an undiscussed forcing bid is more likely to lead to ambiguous continuations than an undiscussed non-forcing bid.

Again, from the BM bidding contest. Only one panel member shared my choice of 3♠. 3NT = 10 3♥ = 7 3♠ = 1

This hand was also from the Bridge Magazine bidding contest. The ratings assigned were: 4C: 10 3S: 7 X: 4 P: 3 If you play that a protective double by partner would be takeout (or two-way), I think pass is reasonable, and it was my choice. I certainly didn't expect it to score worse than double! I also felt 3S to be a better bid than 4C.

This is one of three problems from Bridge Magazine's equivalent of the MSC. I decided not to give the hand, because it include Axx heart when playing first round cuebids, making pass almost automatic. Unfortunately, a large proportion of the panel didn't think any further than "hearts, too weak for a direct 3♥ bid".

You might remember that I messed around with '1M = 4 or 6 cards' idea for a while. I was never happy with any of the options for handling major two-suiters. Opening 1♥ on 5♠4♥ would be disgusting (it would need some serious work in uncontested auctions and would create impossible situations in contested auctions). It gradually evolved into Gemini, which I think is much superior.

Richard - I don't want to get into a discussion of all this just yet, as I'd like to present reasoning and system simultaneously. Would you care to elaborate on point three, please? Oh, and I'm not actually sure which Reese quotes you are referring to!

I'm developing something along those lines, hopefully to appear soon under the name "Gemini" - as well as finishing off the continuations, I need to ask a friend's permission to use the name. I think there are big advantages to this. Dual spade openings allow you to comfortably show the boss suit whenever you have them and are in range. It also puts partner in a much better position to judge competitive auctions - after all, if 5 card majors didn't have benefits when opened, people would be unlikely to play them! Richard's point about the 2♦ opening is fair. It's a case of whether the gains outweigh the costs. Obviously, I believe that they do :( Btw, my preference is using 1♦ as precisely 4♠ and 1♥ as nat. I've seen a couple of related systems - Glen Ashton's Storm uses a 1♦ opening showing 4-5♠ (1♠ 5+cards) and another strong club system - I forget the name - used a 1♦ opening as 3-4♠.

I suspect that pard just has a case of matchpoint-itis and wants to play in the 6-1 major fit.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skq62hqdj86cakq76]133|100|Scoring: IMP (2♦)-P-(3♦)-?[/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sahjt643dq74cq754]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♠:1NT, 3♦:? You are playing Acol (three weak twos) so 1NT is limited to nine points or so.[/hv]

1♦-(3♣)-X-(P) 3♠-(P)-4♥ What does this show? To any Acol players out there - do you think it is any different playing Acol, when responder has to routinely act on any hand that wants to be in game opposite 15-16 bal and opener has promised an unbalanced hand?

I much prefer 1NT to show 18-19 in this sequence. Why bid again on a weak NT without support? It's both the worst hand you could have and the most common hand to have, you are best off out of the auction and leaving it up to partner.

I don't understand this, care to explain? :blink: I haven't tried breaking with 3 card support, I guess that it may occasionally happen that your hand is improved markedly by the transfer but I think the losses from going down in three (or, indeed, four) may outweigh the gains from reaching making games. The exception may be when you have 3♥2♠ and a max, when there is a reasonable chance that the opponents are making 2/3♠. Then again, my preferred methods use 1N:2♣, 2♦/♥:2♠ as a five card invite, which covers some of the hands that you are trying to cater for here. I quite like the approach of using step 2 to cover most of your breaks. If we are always going to game (or stopping in 3) anyway, I'd rather not tell the opponents how to defend it.

3♠ for me. If I opened 2♠ then I wouldn't feel comfortable on most auctions - we could be too low, we probably should be competing over 3/4♥, etc. I agree that 3♠ is about right on offensive strength. There is a case for passing, but only if you feel that you can describe the hand (much) better by passing first, e.g. if pard will expect a 6-5 for a pass followed by a high-level spade bid. This will enable your side to reach diamonds when it is right, and for partner to judge whether there is a double fit. However, it does make life much easier for the opponents. Preempting on these hands often leads to getting doubled in a making contract, or in a contract that gets let through.

Ooh, yes, now that I like. 17-20 balanced(ish) is now much less happy to pass in competition as it could still be a flat 11 count! Of course, if your 1♣ opening included 11-13 bal then the 14-16 bal hands aren't getting their strength across immediately. How about 1♣ as 14-16 bal, 17+unbalanced or 20+balanced, with a 17-19 1NT opening that can be fairly off-shape?

14-16 is more common amongst the top Precision pairs, I believe. As JMC says, the idea of removing 16-20 balanced from the strong ♣ opening is interesting. I'm not particularly keen on it because - a ) I think minimum balanced hands cope well after opening 1♣ - they can pass in most competitive auctions and partner will play you for approximately what you have b ) I don't see that knowing that opener has an unbalanced hand (or a lot of extra strength) will help much in competition. I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise, particularly on the second point. It is perhaps worth noting that one of the OzOne pairs (Ish+Vince) have had a similar idea - they are playing MOSCITO with a 15-17 NT. Their 1♠ opening shows either diamonds or a weak NT and the 1♣ opening either 15+unbal or 18+bal.

I believe that your expected score when opening a strong club depends very much on your hand. Minimum-ish balanced hands are happy to open 1♣ and then pass in competitive auctions. They rate to do well if partner describes his unbalanced hand. Stronger balanced hands may have to take an uncomfortable call in competition, but a standard 2NT opening isn't dealing with these hands too well either. Three-suiters are happy to pass if the opposition settle in one of their suits, and double for takeout if not. Offensive single-suiters, particularly with a major, are well described by opening a strong club and then rebidding their suit at whatever level is necessary. Of course, there are exceptions - maybe the auction will be at 5♦ by the time it gets back to you, and you will feel unable to introduce your massive club suit. Maybe the opponents will manage to play in your fit, giving you +350 against a slam, but those tactics can certainly backfire. Other hands tend not to cope well in interference, as their second call won't describe the hand nearly so well. Credit to DavidC - he covered these sorts of issues on his bridge blog much better than I could.

Is there really much difference?

A Polish Club is less likely to be unbalanced with clubs than a standard 1♣ opening is, because the 11-14 hands have been opened 2♣ instead.

I'd already posted them, Mike :D

Board 1 - I led J♠ having considered a small diamond. Diamonds need to be attacked before declarer attacks hearts - pard has Q♦ and K♣, dummy has stiff K♥ and Axx♦. Anyone for a small club lead? [hv=n=st8xxxhxdq9xxxcxx&w=sxxhj9xdjt8xckxxx&e=sqj9xhtxxxdkxcaxx&s=sakhakq8xdaxcqjtx]399|300|Scoring: IMP A small heart lead wasn't a success![/hv]

Pass. I'll pay off to pard having a maximum pass with club length. Given what a 3♣ bid could be on at those conditions I think that it is percentage to hope that no contract is making at the 3 level, and that pard might protect if we belong elsewhere. If RHO is known to be a solid citizen I'll try 3♦.