jmc

Is anyone else excited about ACBL'S CEO Jay Baum's anouncement of a new performance rating of some kind being used by the ACBL? In this month's Bulletin he said: In the coming year, we will move closer to a system that will allow us to rank players according to playing ability measured in the short term. We are still working on details- and the system would apply only to tournamnets initially- but a players rating might be number of masterpoints earned in a certain period divided by number of sessions played. What do you think? Will it work? Will it increase or decrease the number of players. How will it change strats and flights? Should it resemble a chess elo, a batting average, a golf handicap? Anyone have inside info? All comments welcome. jmc jonathan.cohn@gmail.com

We play pretty standard Precision with transfer positives, 10-13 opening NT. We have started using 1X-1M-2NT as showing a semi-solid 6+ cards in openers first bid suit and extra playing strength. We use 1x-1M-3x as extra playing strength and a solid 6+ card suit. 1D-1S-2NT might show xx-Ax-AQJxxx-Kxx. 1H-1S-3H might be xx-AKQxxxx-Kx-Qx. These are used by example not because they are necessarily prototypical. Is this a reasonable treatment? What might be the disadvantages? What might be better alternatives? I appreciate your thoughts. jonathan

My partner and I play a Berkowitz style precision loosely based on Precision Today and using transfer, game forcing, positives. We only accept with a fit and this requires partner to show controls. We can then cab or tab in any order. Sometimes partner has lots of controls and it would be nice to skip cabs or tabs and instead use some sort of a shape ask. As 2nt is usually free, I thought it could be used for this without major system changes. Most of the relays I've found assume partner has shown some shape already. I'm looking for suggestions on relays we could use in the following auction for example. 1C-1H-1S-2D-2NT where 1C is 16+, 1H is 5+ Spades 8+ HCP GF, 1S is control ask, 2D shows 4 controls. I'd like 2NT to be a tell me your shape ask. Any ideas? Jonathan jmc on BBO

I appreciate all the suggestions and I like many of your ideas. I have also been reading Mr. Gitelman's improving 2/1 articles and think having a forcing balanced raise could be useful. Right now we use bergen raises, jacoby, 2nt, 1M-3OM as a mini-splinter, 1M-3NT as 13-15 bal with 3 cd support, 1M 4C as 16+ bal 3 cd support, and 1M 4D as a 5 card support sub limit raise 8-11 or so. Unfortunately, this does not give us a true balanced forcing raise. We have considered using 1H-2S for this meaning but we still need something over 1S. I know its possible to give up one step of the Bergen raise to make room, but I'd rather not. Any suggestions? Jonathan

Playing Precision many pairs still use Jacoby 2NT as a forcing major raise. It seems that there are better options than the traditional Jacoby responses however. Some, including Bergn's and Rigal's, can be found at: http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~heng/...nal/conv/c.html While theere are many different options for better responses, what would the forum suggest for Precision players. Bergen for example uses 3c as any shortness or a big balanced hand. Precision players can'y really have a "big" balanced hand. While using 2NT as something other than a forcing raise in a major may be optimal, I am really just interested in alternative suggestions for responses to the 2NT. Thank you all in advance. Jonathan BBO: jmc