mikestar

Raptor doesn't miss too many NT games provided that you: Play it in the direct seat only--balancing 1NT is natural. Your partner will balance with sufficient values even if long in the enemy suit. Often you will outscore the field on a sequence like (1♥)-P-(P)-1NT-(P)-3NT because having the opening bidder on lead is on average even more valuable than having the strong hand declare.

I played this in tournaments years ago. I invented it myself (undoubtedly so have many others) and never gave it a name, nor have I ever seen it in print. Here's my best recollecton of the system notes: 2♠=minor suit signoff or game/slam try one or both minors. Opener rebid 2NT with longer ♦, 3♣ with longer ♣. It is assumed that responder knows what suit is trumps. Responder's rebids 3♣/3♦=to play. 3♥/3♠=stiff. Opener rebids 3NT to show duplication. 3NT=signoff. Opener preferred the wrong minor. 4♣/4♦= bid minor is trump, stiff in the other minor, slam try. Opener bids first step with duplication. 4♥=slam try in ♣, no stiff. 4♠=slam try in ♦, no stiff. Higher minor suit bids=to play.

Agreed. A truly expert pair evaluating their hands using expert judgement will beat any pair using any counting method. But quite likely they won't beat a pair using Zarpoints as badly as a pair using Goren Points (assuming Zar's claims are resonably accurate)--the more sophisticated point count method fakes expert judgement better. And that's what all counting methods are about: HCP, losers, distributional points, Truscott's assets, etc. are all attempts to simulate expert judgement for the player who does not yet have it.

Asusming 15-17 NT, I think it is a great sequence. There are 18 HCP, but the spades and the doubleton Jack are horrible--a downgrade is quite reasonable, and partner will have no reason to go slamming with his hand. Having downgraded, if partner tries for slam on a more suitable hand, your Aces will let you bid agressively.

I think part of Mike's comment is being missed. I believe he means that your method of hand evaluation is as important as your system. Mike Lawrence wrote an entire book about this, extending Jeff Rubens work considerably. I would assert that a partnership playing plain vanilla 2/1 but having expert hand evaluation skills will mop the floor with a pair playing the lastest version of MOSCITO or Polish, but whose evaluations skills are limited to Goren Point Count.

I'm not worrying about 4-0 diamonds, if this sinks 7NT, it porbabl7y sinks 7♦ too. I uses Gerber and then 7NT aften I find 4 Aces and 1 King. I can count 12 tricks and the 13th can come from: Q♠ Q of the suit where he has his King J♠ if I guess which way to finesse. Q of the fourth suit if the the finesse works. So there are two cards that make it laydoen and two cards that make it 50-50. To have 20-22 points, he must have at least one Queen or two Jacks and might even have two Queens. So I make the odds about 75% and I'm going for it.

5♥ In this situation, "card-showing" means what we used to mean by "optional": not shapely enough for a takeout double, not strong enough in trumps for a penalty double. We will place partner with 2 (3 4 4) for total trick analysis. They have 10 trumps, we might have 8 (then we have a double fit) but we probably have 9 and may even have 9 with a double fit. So we'll say 19 total trumps=19 total tricks. 5♥ is wrong only if ♥ takes exactly 10 tricks and ♠ takes exactly 9. With the ♥ and ♦ holdings, there may well be more tricks than trumps because of the purity of the deal. If there are 20 total tricks, 5♥ is always right.

Your index seems to be a fine contribution to the theory of the game. It could also be extended to comparing similar non-relay auctions. For example, how much does the Kaplan Inversion gain over 1NT forcing when the opening is 1♥? Different NT response schemes could be compared. . .

I like this--2♣=6+ without overloading 1♦ so badly. I might be willing to accept the difficulties of (2 4) 2 5 hands opening 1NT. Certainly worth trying to see if the tradeoffs are favorable vs 1♦=4 and 1♦=2. Here with only 5% frequncy of 3 card diamonds, you can treat 1♦ as four with fair safety.

No doubt my viewpoint is colored by my different experience with 4-point NT ranges. I rather like them and often played 15-18 in 2 over 1. An occasional loss due to the wider range, an occasional gain by tightening the NT rebids. On the whole, a wash. With any non-standard NT range you will have anti-field positions, I beleive these help you and hurt you about equally. So to my mind, the tradeoff is 1♦ vs 2♣. If, as apparently most experts do, you find that widening the NT range is a big tradeoff, then the decison to use nebulous 1♦ is much more resonable, particularly the 2+ diamonds type. You will never convince me that opening ♠AJxx ♥KQxx ♦void ♣QJxxxx will lead to lasting happiness. I suspect the extra point NT range causes more loss of accuracy for the expert who has a very high level of accuracy than it does for the average player. In other words, the "right" tradeoffs vary from partnership to partnership, but are influenced by skill level.

For those of us who are or honestly hope to be world class experts, Meckwell's opinion in this matter is highly relevant. And no doubt handling a nebulous 1♦ isn't hard for them, considering how well they do with their frightfully complex 1♣ structure. Most of us will never get close to that level--I certainly won't. I offer the opinion of a player who has played Precision at a level ranging from fair intermediate to fair Life Master for many years. To my mind, reducing the frequency and difficulty of the 2♣ opening is a worthy goal but the nebuluos 1♦ is too high a price. Precision gains vs. 2 over 1 on its major suit openings and loses on its 1♣ and 2♣ openings. Play nebulous 1♦ and you reduce but don't eliminate the 2♣ losses but you've increased the frequency and difficulty of 1♦ openings. Now 1♦ loses vs. 2 over 1. But played as I suggest, 1♦ gains substantially against 2 over 1. It just feels better to have three winning bids vs two losing bids instead of the other way round. My viewpoint is also colored by my experience with my longest term Precision partnership--we adopted Precision becuase it allowed us to use fewer conventions and compicated sequences than 2 over 1--this is a huge gain in terms of memory strain, and I hate to give so much of that back to play nebulous 1♦.

Most interesting discussion, but the best way to handle the nebulous 1♦ is not to play it. Bid 2♣ freely on 5C-4M hands and use a 12-15 range for 1NT, passing balanced 11 counts. Now 1♦ is always 4+ and never balanced. Now 2♣ is harder to handle (though a Berkowitz-Cohen structure can help), but instead of 1♦ being the hardest limited opening to handle, it is the easiest: as well as all the normal rebids, 1NT is available for artificial use to handle the problem hands such as the example x-KQxx-Axxx-AQxx.

While it is legal to open NT with a singleton as an excercise of bridge judgement, it is illegal to agree to do it as a matter of system.

Less disadvantageous would be a better description. Less disadvantageous if the bid is considered by itself--but you have your choice of losses elsewhere: Use a nebulous 1♦ that could be a doubleton and the Precision 2♦ Use a super-nebulous 1♦ that could be a void. The first alternative causes some losses on the 1♦ hands and uses 2♦ for a low frequency opening when it might do good service in your preemptive system. The second alternative causes greater losses on the 1♦ hands. If your 2♣ structure allows you to get out in two of a major on a 4-3 fit, you can get some of the 2♣ losses back. My style: Don't be afraid to open 2♣ on five. Have 1♦ promise 4. Open 4=4=1=4 hands 1♥. It's too infrequent to cause significant loss on our 1♥ hands. Many will not agree with me in the context of Precision, and in Polish, there will be different tradeoffs. I'm hoping to show the kind of analysis that is needed.

Yes Mike certainly. But the point is - it is not for a limited hand to decide what to do. The obligation for a limited hand is to clarify his holdings - therefore all asking bids are from unlimited to limited. You see after 1C open responder is asked and in other openings it is opener who is asked. But responder isn't asking with this structure, he's telling. The 1♦ response followed by a forcing rebid means "Game, but no slam if you're near minimum". The transfer followed by a forcing rebid over a signoff means "Game, slam may be in the picture if your'e minimum if we can find a fit." Opener could find this information useful. That doesn't mean this is a good structure--the forum has convinced me that it is not. But it doesn't contradict your point about the unlimited hand asking. By the way a positive respones to 1♣ isn't all that limited, the theoretical range is 8-24 (assuming opener never opens 1♣ with less than 16).

A point about the lack of focus on Precision limited openings, especially the majors. The tight limits make these very easy to play. For years my regular partner and I played plain vanilla SAYC over Precision limited openings (except 2♣, of course) with excellent results. Our mantra was "if neither of us has the values for a jump shift, there is no slam." Thus most of our game auctions were fairly non revealing, "bid what you think you can make" types. Similarly there were some small slams where we knew the grand was out of the question when standard bidders didn't and our direct leaps to 6 denied the defenders some vital clues. Of course the occasional 4-figure penalty we got from an opponent who would have got away with the bid against an unlimited opening were pretty nice, too. Both direct action and balancing are so much riskier against limited openings.

Mauro, I misread your notes and didn't notice that you were using 2♥ for the three suiter short in ♦. This is a bit better than Precision 2♦ because it is passable and therefor harder to defend. With the balanced hands removed from 1♦, the 5-4-2-2 hands with 5 weak clubs and doubleton diamond are easier to handle via 1♦. Perhaps an artificial 1NT rebid oved 1♦-1M when partner does not hit your major to show 5 clubs and shorter diamonds with the other major. Natural rebids would show a real diamond suit. Claus, Thank you for the clarification, now I understand what's motivating you. I agree the Precision is about the limited opening bids. I think investing some effort in the 1♣ bid is worthwhile (as long as you don't neglect the limit bids) however. Since on balance 1♣ loses matchpoints/IMPs, if we can significantly reduce the loss, we have a smaller offset against our limit bid profits. I doubt if even Meckwell break even on 1♣, but they lose less on it than a lot of Precision players. This is why I personally prefer to increase the minimum count for 1♣ to 17--it reduces the frequency of the 1♣ opening without overstraining the limited openings. (I think Romex with its 18-19 minimum for the Dynamic NT does overstrain the limited openings.) I also personally don't mind passing balanced 12's and most of the forum disagrees with me. For those who are unwilling to pass balnced 12's, I would advocate a 16 minimum for 1♣ and a 12-15 1NT range.

This seems to be a very reasonable interpretation of Precision. Since your 1♦ promises 3 and you don't use Precision 2♦, you will have to open 2♣ on 5C-4M with bad clubs whenever you have less than 3 diamond. I've found that Precison 2♦ helps the defense too much and opening 1♦ with less than 3 causes a lot of problems. 2♣ with weak clubs loses less IMO. I would suggest you widen your 1NT range to 12-15 as Luis does and pass balanced 11's. Now 1♦ guarantees unbalanced distribution and is easier to handle.

Claus, with all due respect, are you saying that your understanding and ideas about Precison are the true and valid Precision system but the understanding and ideas of myself and others are not true and valid unless they agree with yours? Several of your posts seem to imply this without stating it.

This is the sort of stimulating discussion I was hoping to hear. After consideration, it is obvious that the 1♦ component is too vulnerable to premption. I put forth the idea off the top off my head, not at all sure it was any good. My experience is that bad ideas often inspire others to share good ideas, so it's still a good outcome. Any chance of seeing more detail on this aspect of KLP before v14 is published? The concept seems quite interesting. Responder certainly can have slam interest opposite a 16-37 Precision 1♣. Slam interest opposite an unlimited bid means: there could be a slam if partner has a well-fitting, little bit better than minimum hand. If there is a slam opposite an only fair fitting minimum, this would be strong slam interest. (If there is a slam opposite a subminimum misfit, bid the darn thing already!) There are a fair number of 12-14's that fit the description of slam interest opposite 1♣, few 9-11's do.

I had a thought about a structure of responses to Precision 1♣: 1♦=any shape, 0-4 or GF with no slam interest 1♥+=transfer, 5-8 or GF with slam interest. Would this sort of structure be helpful in constructive sequences? In cases of intervention over the response? If anyone finds this interesting, I'd like to hear ideas for developing the concept.

Interesting structure. I'd invert 2N and 3♣. In either case you may be wrongsiding the NT, but the stronger the hand, the less likely it is. Your 2♥/2♠ bids do well if you catch partner with 3+ cards in the major, but will get you to 3♣ on a fair number of 5-2 fits. May well be worth it for the clarification of the rest of the system.

Speaking about Mini-Roman 2♦ in general, I've never understood why some players have it promise ♠. If you are going to guarantee one suit it should be ♦: then partner can pass. This puts more pressure on the opponents.

The same problem arises in Precision with this slightly weaker hand: [hv=s=sajxhxdaqjxxxckxx]133|100|[/hv] This hand is well worth 3♦ but has 3-card spade support. Precision players have a unique solution available. Assume 12-15 1NT that can be opened with a five card major (or at least with 3 ♠ and 5 ♥). Balanced 11's are passed. Now opener has no need for a natural 1NT rebid and we can use 1NT as the equivalent of a support double: 3 card support for partner's major, unlimited in strength. We can use checkback mechanisms to get the shape and range. Some difficult non-support hands can be included as well. 1♦-1♠-1NT could also be 4♥ & 5 or 6♦ or with insufficent values to reverse or 1-4-4-4 with any strength.

An attempt to define terms: Psychic Bid: A call which deliberately and grossly misrepresents the player's high-card strentgh and/or suit length. For example opening 1♠ with a stiff or 6 HCP. This is the ACBL's official definition. Tactical Bid: A call which deliberately but not grossly misrepresents the player's high-card strength or suit length. Strategic Psychic: A psychic bid made because the bidding situation makes the odds of success favorable. Ben's example is a good one. Destructive Psychic: A psychic bid made without regard to chances of success or in spite of high probability of failure in order to randomize results or disconcert opponents. Example overcalling a Precision 1♣ with 1♠ regardless of your strength or spade length, when your partnership agreement is that 1♠ is natural or some other convertion. (If overcalling 1♠ in this fashion is your partnership agreement, this is legally a Destructive Convention--it isn't any form of psychic.)