chasetb

32519, do a few searches on the internet for "Precision Club + bridge" and you can find out what people do with the positive 4441 hands. I play Super Unusual Positives over 1♣ to show a specific 4441, but 13+ HCP. If you were to put in the time, I'm sure using 1♦ as either 0-7 negative or 16+ any 4441 can easily work. As for the auction 1♣ - 1♦, 1 of a Major for me only promises a 4-card suit but is Forcing for 1 round. I have artificial responses over 1M, so partner and I know if there's a fit, and generally how big of one.

mikeh pretty much said exactly what I would say, so I gave him an upvote.

First off, I like the title. Second, the hand isn't right for a WJS - I want a 7th diamond, especially at this vulnerability. So passing on the 1st round is what I'd do. Third, from what you've said 4♦ is the best call, but if you are 'out of luck' 3♦ might be a possibility. With anyone I've ever played with though, 3♦ would be the only call.

I'll say that without partnership discussion, I have to bid 3♥. I take away 3 points for the lack of a 4th trump, but then add 2 back for a singleton with 3 trump, and a point or two more for a nice hand. I won't force to 4 because I need partner to have a 5th trump or at least 8 HCP for game, unless my partner was Garozzo or someone similar. What mike777 is going on about is that a few people use 2♦ as either a reverse into Diamonds, or a hand that would rebid 2NT. That frees up 2NT to show this "Death Hand", as well as showing any 15+ HCP hand with 4 Hearts and 5+ Clubs. Playing Walsh transfers (assuming legal) or Mexican 2♦, you also free up a 2NT rebid for this purpose.

I'm a tad surprised that you voted on your own poll Jill, albeit an abstain. I go for 2NT, because it shows my values and the location, and despite what some people think, it DOES NOT exclude a 4-card Spade suit. It's also easier to deal with than a Double.

I can't say that I know of any good books or websites, but an IJS shows 8-11 HCP, at least a 6-card suit (good suit, but shouldn't be AKQJxx or AKQxxxx or better), 0-2 cards in partner's major, and you don't want to force to game or go through 1NT Forcing. Two example hands off the top of my head, after partner opens 1♠: ♠x ♥xx ♦Axx ♣ KQJxxxx ♠xx ♥Kx ♦AQT9xx ♣ xxx

First, after reading all 52 posts before mine, I think I am willing to challenge Justin. The stipulations would be that JLall would play 50 games of Robot Duplicate, the ACBL matchpoint ones. The AVERAGE of the 50 games would need to be 65.00% or better for him to win - the percentage might be negotiable. This wouldn't be his best 50, but rather 50 in a row, from a starting point to later be determined if this 'bet' goes through. If Justin wins, then I pay him $50 to cover his expenses. If he fails, then what I really want is that at Philly, he and I would play in a single session event, as long as it didn't conflict with Spingold or another event he is getting paid to play in. I would prefer pairs, but if he wanted to get a good Swiss team, fine. I play Precision with 4-card Majors. ;) Just kidding about the 4-card Major in 1st or 2nd seat, and I rarely do in 3rd or 4th. I would pay the entry fee for Justin, and would buy him a beer later that day just to have a conversation with someone who will be a force to reckon with for a LONG time (he still has untapped potential if you ask me). If that doesn't work out, it'll be something that won't be very expensive or painful for him. Second, I really like the Achievement idea. I have 5 I would like to propose: 1.) Bid and make 7NT. 2.) Sacrifice with a 7-level contract and lose less points than a slam made by the other direction. 3.) Successfully pull off a squeeze (maybe should be more to it than that). 4.) In a contract that you or partner declare, get the same score (negative) that a pair sitting in the other direction and declaring a contract would have given you. An easy example is if you as North are in 1NT down 3 for -150, and an East or West player is making +150 in a contract that they declared. 5.) Set a contract declared by a star through some ingenious play, this might need to go through a committee though.

I would open 1♣, but ask partner afterwards why we can't play Precision and open this 2♣.

The person who bid 4♥ on THAT deserves to hit partner with ♠KQJxx ♥--- ♦QJTx ♣AKxx and go down a bunch.

If there's a way you can get partner to play in 4♣, then that's what I would do. Otherwise, I am passing.

First off, FYP (the words in italics). Second, most of my partners won't put me in 3NT with 6 or even a lot of 7s, if your partner does then maybe you can downgrade. Third, KnR hand evaluator tends to downgrade balanced hands. Fourth, I like a challenge as well as applying pressure on opps, so even if you agree with #1 I am still going to play the hand. Fifth, I play Precision, so neither hand is a problem :)

I agree with all 4 posts above. The complexity of the system does depend on the person - I know with the right partner and a few hours a week to practice the system, I can handle the system Chris mentioned above (can you give me his contact info?). I also know that except my Precision partner who I won Flight C NAP with, no one else I play with can handle more than 20 pages; age and desire being the key factors. No one else even has a write-up. There are a few bids/conventions, that while aren't 'Natural', are so commonplace and well-known they have to be used. You're nuts if you don't play Stayman, Jacoby transfers over a Strong NT (Keri if you have the fortitude), Negative Doubles, and Blackwood. A few others may be artificial and a tad complex, but the gains from them are too great to ignore. A Larry Cohen link a friend gave me covers everything in a nutshell. http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=54 I think one of awm's examples isn't quite ideal, though his post is truthful. #1 is a clear system success. I love the 2♣ bid, and while I'm a dinosaur because I like to open it on a GREAT 5♣ - 4M rather than requiring 6+, my experiences are that it is a huge winner, and it's because of knowing distribution and how to bid after it. Partner and I found 4♥, 4♠ in competition, 5♣ when 3NT doesn't make, and +800 because of the bid (at Memphis). EDIT - Larry also has a post where he supports Precision. I just found it while looking through his stuff. WOOHOO! http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=82

To add to Mike's comment, bridge at the top is really aggressive, so you apply maximum pressure by almost never downgrading. While someone said they might downgrade #1, there is NO WAY I would. Though it is 4333 and had KQJ, AQ9 is worth 7, and the hand has 9 honors. Hand #2, you could drop a Jack or even a Queen and I'll still open it 1♣ in Standard because I have the Majors.

I would say since this was opened 1♥, that you rebid 3♦. If I think partner would take 3NT as showing a hand like this (much like 1m - 1M; 3NT showing a long running minor with some side values), then I bid that instead. Then, I would talk to partner about possibly playing Gazzilli or Bart if this hand can't open 2♣. I suggest playing one of those 2 anyways, but that's beside the point that you must force to game once partner responds.

I know of a few people that use 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3♣ as Baron for the minors. I use it as showing 4414 or 4405 shape, but asking partner to cuebid with 4 or a really good 3 (KQT is enough, but only just). 3NT, 6♣, and 6NT are all possible contracts, and I want to explore them all. Another plus for my bidding is after Minorwood, partner or I can stop in 4NT as well.

If you need someone, I'm willing for this Sunday. I can play Precision, 2/1, SAYC, and SA. I would be willing to try 4-card Majors as well, if need be.

In Learn to Play Bridge 2 (I was bored last night, so was going through computer files to delete and stumbled upon it; I've never actually used it), partner's pass of the double asks the Michaels cuebidder to choose his/her best suit. Of course, I have never discussed this with any of my partners, but only 2 would even be remotely interested in discussing it. How does the rest of the story go?

I don't play this with any partners, but why not leave the 1-level bids as natural, and use Woolsey over a Strong Club? 1NT shows any 5+ card minor / 4 (or bad 5) card Major 2-suiter, 2♣ is for the Majors, 2♦ is a pre-empt in a Major, and 2♥ and 2♠ show 5+ of that suit and a 4+ card minor. 2NT can show either the minors or a REALLY strong 2-suiter that basically laughs at the 1♣ opener's hand. I do play Precision (but only in GCC events), and for simplicity's sake partner and I use a Modified Woolsey (that is GCC legal) over a Strong NT as well as over Precision. *Getting off topic here and responding to an earlier post, I congratulated JLall on his Platinum Pairs win while in Memphis, outside of a fancy restaurant right after the Vanderbilt final. I was rather hoping that he would stick with a Strong Club with Hamman, but I'm not a part of the partnership, and I certainly can't argue with success. I know 2/1, when worked on, can work very well, just look at Levin-Weinstein or Gitelman-Moss.

I have 3 more approaches to share: Winning Trick Count (WTC) - basically this is like LTC (original), but it counts winners instead of losers. Occasionally, you get different evaluations. I've modified it, and my 'new' version is pretty similar to NLTC. Here's the link (A .pdf I made of it only runs 23 pages, so if you want this information to print out but like to save paper, PM me and I'll send my file to you) - http://www.harlowbridgeclub.org.uk/winning.pdf Four Aces - This was by a superstar American team led by Oswald Jacoby in the 30s. I don't remember as much as I'd like, but I remember an average hand was 6.5 points, and any hand 9.5 points or better had to open. Of course, modern day bridge would open all 9.0 hands, most 8.5 hands, and distributional 8.0 hands. The scale is 3/2/1/0.5, but for NT hands there is an additional factor, the formula is 0.5 x (# of honors - 7) and then add it in. My gut feeling and some very basic paper-and-pencil analysis says that the honors thing is extremely useful, especially once you have 20+ HCP balanced hands. Bissell - This is somewhat similar to Work, considering that you take the points the hand evaluates to and divide by 3 to get the expected # of tricks. I've slightly modified it as well, but only to correct for a few cases where it overevaluated. It looks to be valuable only for suit contracts. Aces start at 3, Kings start at 2, and Queens start at 1. Depending on the suit, lower honors gain points. Some example to show what I mean - AK is 6, AQ is 5, AQJ is 7, AQT is 6, KQ is 4, KQJ is 6, and KJT is 4. 4-card suits gain a point, 5-card suits add 2 more (for 3 distribution points total), and for every card above 5, add 3 more points per card. Original Bissell is that for 5+ card suits, you add 4 points for every card over 4, but then you have to remember the most you should have per suit is 3 x (# of cards). I'll admit it might be better to start adding 4 points per card once you get to 7+ cards, but I don't care enough to look into it.

There have been one or two where I opened 1♥ on a 16 or even bad 17 HCP in 1st or 2nd seat with 15(43) distribution, expecting interference (and receiving it). I've even discussed raising 1♦ to be up to 18 HCP, but haven't instituted it. The one thing I think NEVER should be done is downgrade when you have the boss suit in 1st or 2nd. 3rd or 4th seat, my partnership forces 1♣ to be 18+ (less with distribution and Spades), so those 3 bids go up in range as well.

There is very little good slam bidding with GIB (especially in the minors, but that's a problem with most non-expert partnerships playing 2/1), most of the time I just bid it directly or pass out 4.

I have two problems with this - 1.) Why does X promise 2+ but GIB only has one? I had to choose between CHO and RHO lying, and I chose the wrong one apparently. (2.) Why didn't GIB support me, knowing we had AT LEAST 9♦? http://tinyurl.com/6qz7j5h

I play 2♣ as 10-15 with either 6+ or a good 5 with a 4-card Major, and I actually like it. There's been a few games found because I've opened at 10 or 11, and I can still remember a 9 HCP hand loaded with spots where we ended up in 4♠ making after a competitive auction because my AT9 of trump and a singleton ♦ was perfect for partner. You have a good point that minor-suit hands should have a bit more in terms of points to open 1♣, but on frequency and my possibly bias view based on my own results, I am sticking with the range. It might be playable to not open single-suited club hands, but it's a bidder's game, so I'm opening the bidding. Though I like the my 2♣ to be that low range, I think 1♦ would be better if the top of the range was bumped to 16 (or even 17). While it's more constructive if 1♦ isn't opened on 11 or some 12 balanced hands, I have found, at least in the lower and middle end of players, that opening hands they wouldn't throws them off because they don't know how to bid well defensively and can't determine how good a fit they have. The reason I would bump the range of 1♦ is because of the real possibility of wrong-siding the contract after 1♣-1♦, the space wasted with 1♣-1♦; 2♦, and the difficulty of showing the 16-17 hands with diamonds in competition. What also might help my cause is 1♣-1♦; 1M only promises 4 in the system I play, so the 2m rebid shows a single-suited hand.

Eugene, I'm happy to see that you posted in here - big fan of BW. I tend to agree with you that I feel those things in your post should be moved up (I can't believe I left out Namyats 3NT). My problem with this, even coming as a 24 year old, is that 57.3% of all ACBL members are UNDER 300 points, and 81.11% are UNDER 1000 points. I come from a horrible area on the Ohio-WV border - the local game only has 2 games a week, averaging between 5-7 tables depending on the day and the season. Four of the past five years, there were 0 games in January and February. I'm the only person within a 50 mile radius that plays Precision - I've seen people with 1500 points tremble after hearing I'm playing Precision, just imagine hearing that I'm using 2H opener as 5+ Hearts and 4+ in a minor. While it might have a high frequency, I can't see too many people using it (at first anyways), and we all know how inconsistent most ACBL directors (no offense). Woolsey isn't common in Pittsburgh or Cleveland, and from what I've read people can't even follow the rules when they are playing Woolsey, to pre-alert it before the round starts. Agua, I agree with your first post as well, but again with Mid-chart or higher it comes down to the directors being inconsistent and people inbetween the experts and the novices not properly pre-alerting it, or not having defenses, etcetera.

I thought there were three types of mathematicians, but then again, what do I know? I do know there are 1 types of people: those who know binary, and those who don't.