metobillc

Yes, that's a downside. So with lowest and highest, you would need to overcall the minor, then bid spades (possibly hearts) later. And if you want to play a continuous range rather than weak or strong, it's a bit worse.

Does the following convention already have a name, and regardless, is it superior to both Michaels and Ghestem? After the opponents open 1 of a suit: 2N = 2 lowest unbid Q bid = 2 highest unbid Jump overcall in minor (1♣-2♦ or or 1♦|♥|♠-3♣) = that minor + highest major Seems easier to remember than Ghestem, the minor jump always promises that suit, so it can be passed, making it more difficult for the opps, and the 2 suits are always specified, unlike in Michaels. You have to give up the minor suit jump overcall, of course, which isn't trivial.

OK, but wherever the dividing line is, there are four auctions that can occur when responder has spades, and they should have different meanings: 1) 1♣-(3♣)-P-P 3♦-P-P 2) 1♣-(3♣)-P-P 3♦-P-3♠ 3) 1♣-(3♣)-X-P 3♦-P-3♠ 4) 1♣-(3♣)-3♠-P In my mind, they only differ by "points", however you count them, not number of spades. If that's the case, where should the dividing line be? I've played Precision for a number of years now, and of the 5 or 6 Precision system books I've read, they all treat the negative double after 1C is overcalled as 5-8 at the 1-level, 6-8 at the 2-level, and 7-8 at the 3-level. So it surprised me to see a number of different opinions here.

We didn't get the right spot last night in the following auction (unfavorable, IMPS): 1♣-(3♣) and I held: ♠QTxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxx ♣Jx I thought this was a bit light for a double, which we play as 7-8 here, so I passed and heard: P-3♦-P Now I was happy to introduce spades, but we hadn't discussed how weak I can be to do so. 3♠ was passed out, and partner held: ♠AK9 ♥Axx ♦AQJTx ♣Tx Club, club, heart shift, but spades split and we made 10 tricks for a bad score. Bad luck, bad bidding by me, my partner, both, or all of the above? Any agreements that might help in these awkward situations? Bill Campbell

Thanks everyone for your input. I've decided to go with the following: 1D-1S; 2C shows 9+ cards in the minors (4=5 or 5=4 or better) with a minimum range hand (11-13), 8+ cards with a max (so 1=4=4=4, 1=4=3=5, and 1=4=5=3 hands rebid 1N with a min, 2C with a max). As for 3-card spade raises, maximum 3=1=4=5 and 3=1=5=4 hands, and all 3=4=5=1 hands, make the 3-card raise; otherwise rebid 2C. Judgment is used in the case of singleton honors, with unbalanced hands sometimes opening or rebidding 1N (along with 2=2=4=5 and 2=2=5=4 hands).

Playing Precision with 2♣ showing 6+♣, 1♦ showing 2+♦, what's the best agreement on the 1♦-1♠; 2♣ auction? In the past I've played it as guaranteeing at least 9 cards in the minors, but there are obvious problem hands with this approach, even if one freely raises 1♠ on 3 cards, or freely rebids 2♦ with 5 cards regardless of suit quality. 1=4=3=5, 1=4=5=3, 2=4=5=2, 2=4=2=5 are all still problematic. If you only guarantee 3♦ and 4+♣, how do you handle the followups? Bill Campbell