Double !

In response to the question about "how did Precision come to be accepted?"..."seems not to have been unduly vilified by the powers to be"..... I was around at the time. In fact, my regular FTF partner and I were playing Precision when the summer Nationals came to Boston in 1970. The system was not complicated at all: it was a fairly easy shift from what we had been playing. And, the original CC Wei book was not long (the last 3rd to 4th part of the book contained sample hands from the Chinese Dream team., and the book was easy to read. IMO, it was not "vilified by the powers to be" because there was little in the system that they could object to, or that wasn't already being played in one form or another. In its original format, Precision wasn't much more than a combination of limited opening bids (11-15), 5-card majors (with forcing 1NT response), a forcing (16+ hcp) 1 club opening (Schenken 17+ was not unheard of), mini-Roman 2D with the stiff specified, a natural 2C opening (legal) and a 13-15 weak NT (K-S was also played by many at the time). Weak 2's were the norm at the time. There were only 2 sets of asking bids in the original version, Gamma and a combination "support-control" asking bid that followed Gamma- again, not too hard on the impaired memory cells. (and, asking bids were legal) Interestingly, the only aspect of the system that I recall running into resistance from the "powers to be" was the "impossible negative" structure, and this became permitted within a relatively limited amount of time. How did it (Precision) "become accepted"? I don't know. Maybe because it was a vast improvement compared to what many (including the "establishment") were playing and it worked well?

I have always felt that she was a superior bridge author. Easy to read, easy to understand. Try another book of hers, "Bid Better, Play Better" (I think that's the title.)

What would you rebid after opening 1♣ -p-1♥-p-? holding the following: ♠Axx,♥x,xx,♣AKQxxxx ? (.....hope that adds up to 13 cards)

Winstonm: So glad that you opened this thread. Wish something like it had been opened eons ago. I have no idea whether or not Fred's time and contributions will result in a resurrection in the game of Bridge, but I'll say this. I bet it will increase the level of play of the average or above average player who reads and/or posts in this forum. Personally, I look forward to Fred's contributions to forum discussions to the point where I initially go to any place where I see that Fred has posted. Please, Fred, don't stop now! I so look forward to both his suggestions and, mostly, to his expanations of his reasoning for his suggestions. I am often more interested in how top players reason in order to solve problems at the table than in the actual recommendations. Something akin to feeding a starving person versus teaching the person how to feed him/herself. I only wish that he posted more often. How does one thank Fred enough? I periodically write "Have you thanked Fred today?" on my profile. I grew up and started to play Bridge in the Boston area during the time, mid-60s to mid-70s, when Bridge was expanding significantly (aka: "cultural institution"). A number of the new, talented young players were students at some top-ranked institute with a large domed main building that is located along side some river there. (This institution even had its own bridge club: don't know if it still does.) Local bridge clubs were flourishing including some that had games every day of the week and twice on Sunday (literally). Even then, there seemed to be few good players who would take the time to help out less talented but aspiring players. Then came the advent of professional players, not without some debate. Now, unless you were good friends with a top player, you also had to pay to improve your game. Books could only take one so far. Contrast this with BBO which is still essentially a free site unless one elects to play in a $1.00 game, which has a forum where players of all levels of skill and experience can freely ask questions and share information, and a world class player (and some other top-ranked players) who contributes to this. How can we ever thank Fred enough? I now live in the NYC area. Last summer the NABCs were played at the Hilton Hotel in Manhattan. I had the privilege to kib Fred and Brad for a while during one of their Spingold matches albeit sitting a table away (they won). After the match was over, I walked over to where Fred and his teammates were talking and, when the opportunity seemed right, I just had to introduce myself to him and personally thank him for BBO and all that he has done. Fred was so gracious to this total stranger to the point of offering to introduce me to his teammates. I wonder, how many world class players would have responded this way to a total stranger? I guess Fred is just one special person, and I personally want to thank him again for all he has done. I totally agree with winstonm. You are in a class by yourself!

Oops, sorry. (Was thinking about where the 12th trick might come from if hearts don't break 2-2 or queen doesn't fall on 1st round of playing trumps.) Count your tricks. How many winners do you have off the top, how many potential losers you have, and what might you be able to do about eliminating them. Do I need to trump some losers? If I pull trumps first, will there be enough left to trump my losers and give me the number of tricks that I need? On this hand, you appear to have a definite diamond loser, and you need to be able to do something about the other two small diamonds in your hand- maybe trump them in dummy. What heart situations will permit this, is there a risk of over-ruff? Does ducking the first trick help? Yes, unless diamonds are 6-1

Ben, hi. Will there be any prizes for people whose declarer play has qualified them for multiple entries per week into this thread? If so, then keep track of my play (when I have time to play) and just keep laughing! Is OK, I can take it.

I think I'd bid 3H (P likely doesn't have 4), If I had had a club stopper with this distro, then would probably rebid 2NT to avoid giving partner an impossible situation should I have rebid 3H and he has no club stopper. Almost seems that 3H denies a club stopper. IMO, is partly a case of the dog that didn't bark: Opener didn't rebid 2 or more hearts. Personally, I prefer to not play 2S as default rebid/ no other bid available after a 1S opener: prefer 2NT as catch-all with scattered values and no other rebid that seems clear-cut. The one bid I would definitely not make, even if 2S showed 6+ spades, is 4S! I play that as a shape bid, like a 6-4 or something similar, not a "quick arrival/ shut up partner" bid as opener's hand isn't limited yet. But-then again, not exactly an expurt over here, so......

OK, I'll take a stab: seems right to duck the first trick, take the second, and count tricks: I need 2 ruffs in dummy (needs 2-2 heart break) unless there is some squeeze position (might need to ruff a club at some point- have a miniscule recessed spade menace), and I can pitch a losing spade in hand with C-Ace. So, what happens after unblocking the club king and playing a high trump. BTW- never take my suggestion on declarer play: have a reputation for going down 2 in contracts that others make with an overtrick.!!!!!

I never get these situations correct, probably because of poor judgement and having learned the approach that dbl constitued a warning to P against bidding on (maybe even have wasted values in Clubs?). I like the above idea of reversing the meanings....then I can blame the bad result on partner.....(laughter) but, seriously folks, how does one distinguish between the hand with wasted values in clubs, the "no clear cut action" hand with club losers but no wasted values in clubs, and the hands with a stiff/void in their suit without extra hcp values per se (not adverse to P bidding 5) in terms of bidding over 5♣? I am sooo bad at this kind of situation.

at imps i might just bash 4 ♠ at this point unless we had discussed rebids after hsgt. at matchpoints, 3♦ would be nice if it had been agreed to be help asking as opposed to control showing. (why do I have this feeling that the hand belongs in 3NT?). At matchpoints, my approach is, when in doubt, if you don't have the tools to find out, then play for the plus score.

what happens if I lead a 3rd club from board at trick 3? (pitching a spade if rho shows out.)

I have a question. What would be your initial action over 1 club holding ♠ AQJxx, ♥ KQ10x, ♦ Kx, ♣ xx ? I question whether 1♠ on this bidding necessarily shows a GOSH.

right or wrong, I play Michaels' weak or strong, not intermediate. The hand is, perhaps, stronger than intermediate via LTC due to being 7-5. Isn't the more co-operative way to bid this hand and elicit partner's participation/ contribution by bidding my suits naturally. (BTW, for any historian that's interested, according to "Contract Bridge Summary" by Albert Morehead: 1963, pp 75., Michaels' at that time was described as being "6-11 hcp, at least 4-4 in the major suits" over 1 of a minor", or "10+ hcp, at least 5-5 other M and unknown minor, without limit". How things have changed..............)

Are there some reasons for not making the normal, natural rebids on these two hands, especially with 6-4? Isn't doing otherwise tantamount to masterminding?

Hand #1: I don't think one can immediately determine whether or not hand #1 is GF playing precision until one gets a rebid from opener. This type of hand opens another can of worms, specifically the almost universal position that an inverted single raise of a minor denies a 4-card major. BUT, should it, especially playing limited openers with 1D showing 2+ diamonds, or whatever? I suspect that I am probably alone in this, but I say no. Wouldn't it be nice to get the invitational-plus nature off of one's chest with a forcing single raise, and be able to rebid your spade suit or raise spades depending on opener's rebid? Maybe some agreements regarding the meaning of opener's rebid would be necessary, maybe not if just playing naturally. An initial response of 1S creates rebid problems. (anticipate many disagreements to this position.) BTW, knowing what 1NT opening range the parternship is playing might help....? Hand#2: 5D is enough. Where is it written that the 4Heart bid necessarily shows a weak hand and that P has a big hand? IMO it shows a hand that could be of any range whereby the 4H bidder has decided to place the contract. Otherwise, the 4Ht bidder might have bid something else?

Have usually played Jump-shift response to weak 2 as a control asking bid with some idea where the contract is headed depending on partner's response.

NFB seems to describe the hand.

Peter: Thank you for your response to my question or poll. I have been out of the tourney/ live bridge scene for eons, so I am curious to know how much tactics have changed over the years. My partnerships have usually had the agreement that 3rd seat heard partner's pass, was bidding for the partnership, and that the passed hand need have a good reason for taking action. Reasonable 3rd seat 5-baggers were very common. One of the reasons that I asked is that I have had many pick-up partners on bbo express displeasure when I've taken liberties in 3rd seat (especially white) after they didn't maintain such discipline and competed, and then a poor result ensued (and I had a decent 5-bagger). I almost never comment to pick-up partners about bidding, and have the agreement with my regular bbo partners that, unless immediacy is needed, that issues be discussed privately, not at the table. Again, I appreciate your response. Curious if others agree.

Assuming that you are saying that your 3rd seat 2-bids could be either 5 or 6-baggers, that P is a passed hand, and that liberties are taken especially at favorable: I am curious about what kinds of agreements various members of the forum have with their partners regarding what types of action, if any, that the partner of the pre-emptive 3rd seat 2-bidder (a known passed hand) is permitted to take should the opponents take action and compete? I am also curious about how undisciplined you will go in terms of suit quality, and what assuptions your partner may make regarding your suit quality should he/she be so unfortunate as to be on lead against the opp's contract? I would appreciate feedback.

Phew! Thank heavens that the ability to count to 13 has no bearing on one's ranking or skill as a bridge player.

I believe that raising the range of 1M opener to 18-19 defeats one of the primary purposes of playing a forcing club (or diamond) system. The advantages of playing limited openings are 1) eliminating rebid problems with strong 1-suited hands that are too strong for a nonforcing jump-rebid of the suit, and 2) addressing problems with having to open 1 on strong 2 (or 3)-suited hands that aren't good enough for a 2C opener. IMO, if you eliminate that advantage, then you defeat the purpose of playing a strong, forcing 1C or 1D system that allows opener to handle these in-between types of hands that are problematic in sayc and 2/1-style systems. I agree, playing a forcing C or D system has multiple design flaws, many of which are attempts to compensate for the loss of the ability to bid certain hands naturally. By the way, there are many problems inherent in playing 1m as 3+ as is done in sayc or 2/1 or K-S, and there appear to be many contributors to the forum who view 4-card majors positively. Will be curious to read your suggestions for improving precision. BTW, I am a precision player from eons ago.

Glad others also noticed that there were about 50 hcp dealt on this particular hand. The suspect is the 1NT bidder- it just didn't add up, after all, unless partner was planning to convert the 2nd double, the opps have 9+ spades between them.

Might one respond to a question with a question? ( "NO!" ) How much of the meaning of the second double would be influenced by whether or not the opps are playing pre-emptive jump-overcalls? If they are, then something doesn't quite add up. Given the bidding so far, is it possible for opener to have a relatively strong 17-18 balanced or semibalanced hand that is too good to pass 2S, and can tolerate it if P now bids a 5-card suit or has spades and can convert. If not, would the doubler have hit 1NT with good spades and an almost solid club suit (5 or 6) and entries, relying on the neg Xer to cover the red suits? Curious to hear opinions, because I think this helps determine the meaning of the second double.

would bid 2 spades at this point. Should partner now decide to make a game try, depending on the nature of the try, all of those spot cards including JT9 and T9 start to look better (like well-placed behind opener). By the way, just out of curiosity: Do you play 2 Clubs shows 3+ spades or 4+ spades on this sequence?

My suggestion of a 3 spade bid had a triple purpose. 1) trying to communicate a certain type of hand to partner, 2) trying to first get us to a reasonable game contract (what are the implications regarding the spade suit and the hand should my lho pass over 3S versus X or 4S?), 3) should lho bid 4S over 3S and partner passes, would 4NT by me now be a reasonable description of my hand? and, if it's right, help get us to that 6 of minor contract afterall? Or help the partnership to better decide how to handle further competition from the opps? My opps seem to enjoy making things difficulty; they never shut up when I want them to!!!!