rbforster

Late to reply here, sorry. There are lots of related issues here, many variations are playable in the right combination. David - you mention 2♣ as precision style, but I don't remember how you play 2♦? Is that natural & weak, natural & intermediate like 2♣, 3-suited short diamonds, multi, or something else? That choice will certainly dictate a fair bit of what else is going to be reasonable. In no particular order, here are some of my thoughts on this general issue and some of the things mentioned so far: 1. if you play 2m as constructive/intermediate, 2C should be wider (in terms of shape, values or both) than 2D due to space constraints. For 2C, you could have a wide ranging weak two, say 5-12, or a very sound intermediate one with 12-17 which could take some pressure off your strong club rebids. 2. if you like making life hard on the opponents, consider a 2-suited 2m opener, possibly weak or possibly intermediate, where you promise 5m/4M or better. 3. if you open light, as you like to do, P-1M-2D can serve nearly as well as 2C Drury and frees up a natural 2C PH response to show non-fitting club hands that you didn't open 2C for whatever reason. I do like P-1♠-2♦ as Drury and not 2M-1 for various complicated reasons. Ask me sometime if you really care, but you can put the extra space to good use if you're willing to remember a lot. 4. One solution to narrowing your minor strength ranges is to lower your 1C minimum, 14-15+ instead of 16+ or similar. Well designed strong club methods are overkill in uncontested auctions for unwinding all the strength and shapes by opener after 1C-1D(neg), so they can probably handle the extra load. Competition and/or your desire to play 1C-1S(double neg) may make this less attractive. 5. Traditional strong club methods (with 1C-1D neg) are fairly amenable to having both .....1) a natural wide ranging 2♣ rebid and unwinding various possibilities via 2♦ asking ala precision 2♣, and .....2) an artificial 2♦ rebid to show various hands that might be difficult otherwise. This goes well with the next point - 6. Playing 1♦ opening as potentially stronger than the light 1M openers in precision. 10-18 wouldn't be unreasonable instead of 10-15 for example (which frees up the 1C-1D-2D rebid). There are lots of jump rebids by 1D opener that are pretty darn rare playing a limited 1D so you can use these to show extras and appropriate shapes; add in structured reverses over 1D-1M-2OM and you've got tons of space to handle even a "standard" 10-21 range. You might get less safety psyching 1D-1M now, but only allowing an extra 2-3 hcp shouldn't cause too much trouble. 7. Lowering your 1C and/or raising your min balanced range openings can help narrow your balanced hands to a single 1N opener. This makes 1D natural and also frees up the 1D-1M-1N rebid to help with problem hands (showing extra strength, specific length in both minors, via transfers or whatever). Essentially this lets you trade off passing awkward minor hands for passing awkward balanced hands (which is probably good when Vul; less clear at NV on a frequency basis).

just to offer the other side of the coin, I think you just don't need as much space for SP hands - one relay step isn't the difference between finding your proper game strain below 3NT, but it does let you inquire a little more often about slam prospects safely. However, you don't need that many steps to resolve the limited range of QPs or whatever in a known SP hand (a GF responder can have a wider range of values), and furthermore GF opposite GF is more common than GF extras opposite SP. So both on frequency grounds and useful space grounds, it seemed more important to allocate the extra space to showing GF relays. In the spirit of disclosure, I decided to go the a 3rd route - including almost all the 0-7 hands in 1♦ like precision, while adding a few more GF ones too. This gives: - GF relays at -1 on 2 suiters, -1 to +0 on balanced or single suited, and no relays on SPs Shows you what I think of SPs :).

I'm not sure I want to do this. However, in terms of advantages, it occurs to me that: 1. 2-suited preempts are often "safer" than 1-suited ones, which is good (statistically you get more law level fits) 2. 2-suited preempts are equally or more frequent than 1-suiters (by about 2x for the 4+m/5+M shapes compared to a weak two) 3. 2-suited preempts, especially ones with an unknown major, can be hard to defend against Of course arguments #1 & #2 have nothing in particular to do with a canape preempting style, as opposed to my current style or Muiderberg where you open in your longer suit. That said, most defensive bidding methods over preempts tend to assume the bid suit is the long/anchor suit and are aimed at finding fits in the unbid major(s). This means that if people use standard methods to defend against your canape preempts, they probably will have some hard bidding problems - isn't that the point of preempts? Alternatively, if they want to use a better defense, they're going to be facing a "Multi" type problem where there's a long unknown major that complicates their takeout methods and would involve quite detailed methods to handle decently. In addition, responder is a lot more able to pass the natural minor openings than he would over 2♦ multi having his own long suit. I would judge that something like this is intermediate in difficulty for the defense between a normal 2♦ Multi and a non-forcing 2♥ Multi. Either is going to be hard.

Certainly showing 4(5) minor cards and 5+ major cards has to be safer opening the hand 2m vs 2M. I'm less clear whether this makes it a more effective preempt (since responder may quite often correct to 2M and that puts you back in a similar situation as Muiderberg). However, if you think the Muiderberg M+m hands are worth opening preemptively, this might give you a way to open these hands with your 2m openers while still having a natural 6+ weak two for 2M. So I normally play 5+m/4+M for my 2m openers, but I don't think the basic responses would need to be that different. We play: 2♣ weak two with ♣ + Major 2♦ relay, usually invitational. Opener bids his other major (which can be passed), after which 2N invites. ---> 2C-2D-2OM-2N: 3♣ min (NF), 3♦+ max with shape relays for the 2 suit lengths 2M pass or correct 2N GF relay. 3♣ spades, 3♦ hearts (transfer), 3OM 6M-4m, 3N+ extreme shapes 3♣ preemptive raise 3♦ GF natural 3M pass or correct 4♣ preemptive raise 3N, 4M to play 2♦ weak two with ♦ + Major 2M pass or correct 2N invite relay. 3♣ = hearts min, 3♦ spades min, 3M that major max (or maybe opposite major?) 3♣ GF relay. 3♦ = hearts (transfer), 3♥ = spades (transfer), 3♠+ extreme shapes 3,4♦ preemptive 3M pass or correct 4♣ GF natural 3N, 4M to play

I think it's actually going to be worse for fit-finding to have the known, cheaper suit be the shorter one. Figure that opposite 4D/5M it's most likely you belong in the major, so what do this mean? First, it means responder is going to be correcting a lot, which is generally bad since it gives the defense two bites at the apple. Second, the longer suit is unknown, which means that responder may want to take a chance to improve the contract by correcting since he only needs 33(4=3m) shape to think that correcting is better, maybe even (32)(5=3m) is still worth it if you'd rather play the 5-2 2M contract over the 4-3 minor and it's certainly going to be right when it's a 5-3 fit you find. In short, it seems like if you respond conservatively to just find the best fit, I think you're going to bid 2M as pass/correct a lot and sometimes have to recorrect back to 3m which is clearly unfortunate. All that said, I think IF responder was willing to pass a lot these canape preempts would be quite difficult to defend. I guess in some way, it's almost like playing both 2♣ and 2♦ as "multi" with a 5cM, but you bid your better minor so partner can pass if he wants.

Yeah, it's possible the 2M versions aren't nearly as good as the 2m ones, I just threw them both out there for consideration without tons of thought. There's overlap with the 5M/5m hands, so that's probably a bad sign. It's possible one might want to play the 2m ones as canape 2-suiters, but 2M as natural weak twos or something else weird (2H majors, 2S bad minor preempt?).

If you've got some two-level openings free for weak bids, what do you think about some sort of canape 2 suiters, perhaps showing 4 cards (or 4+?) in the suit opened and a longer higher ranking suit? 2m 4+ that minor, 5+ in a major 2M 4+ in that major, 5+ in a minor I'm unsure whether it would be better to have these show exactly 4 cards in the suit opened vs 4+ cards and a longer higher suit. It seems in particular that the 2m preempts would be hard to defend since having takeout shape for a double is going to be pretty unlikely with opener having a 5 card major.

I don't think this is a fair criticism. I like to open light, but when you do, your range gets pretty wide for 1 level openers, say (9)10-15(16), to the point where bouncing to game on decent hands can still miss lucky slams. I don't know the right thing to do (i.e. is exploring for a rare slam worse because it guides the defense the rest of the time and costs overtricks?), but it's much less clearly a loss. You can have one or the other, each of which are advantages, but I don't think you should count both together as drawbacks. That said, I think something that's not obvious from the Ben's bidding system is how well it will hold up in competitive situations. Having a big split-range in values for your openers means that almost all of your competitive decisions will be very easy. That's certainly not something that can be said for any other standard system, precision or otherwise.

For those not familiar, I play 2m as two-suited weak: 5+ in that minor and a 4+ major, weak two or slightly lower range (given our light openings). Note that passing the classic 2♦ precision bid is not a "diamonds" hand, but rather a 3-suiter short in diamonds. When we pass in 1st/2nd with an unbalanced 10-15 pt hand, we always 4+ clubs and almost always 5: 4414, 4405, (43)15, or 6+ clubs. Both minors hands open 1♦ (natural or balanced). Yes, this was part of my observation for how to cater to certain passed opening hands - there is way too much space especially if you're opening light in 1st/2nd and partner can't even have a 10 count as a PH. Our response scheme is: P-1M 4+ 8-15 points, one of two hand types ----> 8-9 balanced or unbal with 4+M, will pass any NF response or signoff in 2M after Drury (protecting partner's strong pass) ----> 10-15 5+M (normal precision 1M opener) P-1M-? 1♠ natural NF, less than 10 points (over 1♥) 1N semiforcing, less than 10 points 2♣ 5+ natural NF, 10-15 points, fewer than 3 card M support 2♦ Drury, 10-15 points with clubs and 3+ support 2♥ 5+♥/6+♣ 10-15 points (over 1♠) 2♠ std raise For reference, the NF or semiforcing bids above are played such that you would bid on if you have the 2nd hand type (a "real" opener), while you would pass or try to signoff with the weaker variety of the 3rd/4th 1M opener.

"Everyone knows" you can bid on any sort of crap you want in 3rd seat. "It's just bridge." 4th seat is a little weirder, but at least you can play nearly-FP in 1st seat :).

You might also check out "Lorenzo Two's", which IIRC were semi-natural weak two bids with 4+ suits and 0-7 pts. Throw in a strong opening of Pass/1♣ and you can have your limited openers all natural at the 1 level.

I've played around extensively with this idea in theory and played one or two of the methods live for some time. Passing with precision 2♣♦ hands (my current system of choice) Passing with 10-12 or 13-15 balanced (played live for a while, seemed reasonable) Passing all 13-15 hands (a bit silly) Big Balanced Pass, 0-16 always balanced all unbalanced hands open! (see especially Adam's suggestions)

It seems ok, but I can think of at least 3 issues: 1. You seem to have overlooked 5332 shape - there is no opening for this. Maybe NT? 2. What are you doing with strong balanced hands too weak to open 2♣? If you bid either 1N or 2N, so is that 1N 13-15 and 2N 19-21, then what do you do with 16-18? Or do you just pass 13-15 balanced, and open 16-18 1N and 19-21 2N? Weird but possible I guess, although I wouldn't want to be passing 5M332 hands with 15 counts. 3. Your 1M openers are going to be ambiguous with respect to the longer suit (major vs minor), which means you'll have a hard time playing in the right part score sometimes. 1♥ is opened on x4x6 and also x6x4, and there isn't space to separate these if partner makes a cheap 1N response.

Of course having a more specific 1♦ opener is going to be better than 2+, the question is what are you doing with the balanced hands? Passing 0-13 balanced seems super conservative, opening 4 card majors on balanced hands doesn't seem so good, and so that leaves either dropping your strong club from 17+ to 15+ and playing one NT range, or playing 2 ranges with a 2+ diamond opener. I feel like either of the latter options is playable, not sure which I would prefer.

In my Silent Club version of precision, they are weak twos (although we play them as 5+m/4+M rather than 1 suiters). Just play vanilla precision with 1♦ natural or balanced (2+), and pass with all the hands that would open 2m in standard Precision (clubs, clubs + major, or 3 suited short diamonds). It works well, even if you have to pass some 15 counts. :)

If you want to minimize the extra work of dealing with nebulous minor openings, I suggest natural 2m bids. This just leaves 1♦ as a catchall for 2 and 3-suited hands with a 4 card major. For example, 2♦ 5+ 10-14, no 4 card major (6+♦ or 5/4+ minors) 2♣ 5+ 10-14, no 4 card major (6+♣ or 5/4+ minors) 1N 12-14 balanced 1M 5+ 10-14, includes 5M/6m hands 1♦ 0+ unbalanced 10-14, promises at least one 4 card major (4441s, 4M/5+♣, 4M/5+♦) 1♣ 15+ There are a lot of inferences after 1♦-1M here. For example, if you don't raise partner's major, you promise 4 of the other major. Also, you can't have both minors, so if you rebid either minor it shows 4OM/5+m. You could even use 1N rebid to show a minimum misfitting partner's major, while 2m (natural) could show extras with the other major.

That's my view as well. In precision, after responder rebids 1N there's no chance for game and I would bid 2♥ with 3 whenever I thought it would play better than NT, especially with a weaker distributional hand.

Not for the faint of heart... 8-9 1NT 10-12 1♦...1NT 13-15 pass(!) 16+ strong club, or 16-17 1♣...1NT 18-19 1m...2NT 20-21 2NT etc In 3/4, 8-9 1♦, partner will bid 1NT with 13-15 10-17 1NT, partner will invite with 13-14 and bid game with 14-15

This is exactly what we play when Vul - 12(+) to 15 NT and 1♦ 4+. Works great. At white, we still play 2+ 1♦ so we can open a 10-12 NT.

I don't think we explicitly promise QPs with our opener (16+ hcp), but it's almost always 9+. In our auction, responder had already failed to zoom showing his QPs as 6 or less. Normally over a 3N signoff, we bid on in steps starting at 9+ QPs, but of course that doesn't apply here since he already showed his strength. This particular sequence hadn't occurred to me, but useful treatments might be solid/non-solid suit distinctions, as well as extra length beyond 7 (which we don't explicitly show).

Here were the hands (rotated for South declaring). I bid 3N facing the misfit, and partner raised to (an undiscussed) 4N hoping to suggest a solid suit, which I passed. [hv=pc=n&s=saq2hakj432dca983&w=sk987h985dt8cqt65&n=s43htdakqj543cj42&e=stJT65hq76d9762ck7]500|400[/hv] 3N by South is cold with an endplay at T1 (a heart lead got my hopes up for the T♥ holding), while 4N made when West switched to a spade after rising with the Q♣ at T2. 6♦ by South would have been an excellent contract with play for an overtrick, needing only 2 out of 3 of: not 5-1♦, Qxx♥ or shorter, or K♠ onside. Would your methods have been able to find this?

I like my precision reverses to be 5=6 hands rather than just maximum values, but if your agreements permit I prefer 1♦...2♥ to opening 1N or 1♦...2♦. I will point out that if you're more conservative and willing to pass your 11-12 balanced hands so 13-15 NT is your only balanced opener, you can play a nice swap with the "extra" 1N rebid: 1♦-1M-1N shows a 2♦ rebid (just diamonds), effectively forcing 1♦-1♠-2♦ shows 4♥ & 5+ ♦, non forcing

If they aren't conventional, can I bid 4N natural with the first hand and 5♥ invitational with the second?

Thank you for all the feedback. I agree that relay breaks are on my list for system improvements. For those who bid 2♥ and hear partner persist with 3♦, is your next move 3N or 3♥? Regarding Ken's point of thinking about what normal auctions might be to help pick a field contract, at the point where I was picking games, I would judge the following would be possible "standard" auctions: 1♥-1N-3♣-3♦-3♥? 1♥-1N-2♣-2♦ 1♥-1N-2♣-3♦ 1♥-3♦ Notes on our system, for those who might be interested or offer suggestions: 2♥ would have been a stronger relay, GF relay even if partner has only the invitational diamond hand, so that wasn't available as natural. Over 2♠, normally high (♠) shortness, I relayed since partner was likely to have 2-3 hearts, but he can still have hi/mid shortness with 7xx1 and unfortunately it turned out he showed short hearts. I suppose I could still bid 3♥ over 2♠, but that seemed like catering to a worst case and would give up a lot of our slam tools which might be appropriate if we have a heart fit.

We had a couple uncontested strong club relay auctions in the NAOP qualifier yesterday and here was one of the more difficult ones. This was opener's hand: [hv=pc=n&n=saq2hakj532dca982&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp2cp2dp2sp2np3cp3dp3sp]266|400[/hv] After a relay auction starting with 1♣ (16+) and 2♣ (inv+ single suited diamonds), responder proceeded to show a 7+ diamond suit with a singleton heart and no void. Typical shapes would be 2173 or 3172. He also showed minimum GF values, around ~8-10 hcp and specifically <=6 QPs (where A,K,Q=3,2,1). What would you bid next here, assuming you can sign off in any game or inquire about specific honors (denial cues) by bidding 4♣?