tommylee

Some time ago in this forum a reader commented that his partnership overcalled 1 diamond with 2 clubs with a hand that in terms of high card strength did not meet did not meet the bridge standard for such call. He said that their standard for the 2 club overcall over 1 diamond was a weak overcall but did not elaborate further. The obvious reason for this concept is that it makes it necessary for responder to start his response at the 2 diamond level or higher. My impression is that this is only with the 1d/2c overcall sequence and nothing was said how this fits in with hands that warrant a traditional 2 club overcall or how it interfaces with a weak jump overcall to 3c. Does anyone have any experience with a system that incorporates this concept?

In his advanced book on 2/1, Max Hardy in his full and complete system used "Inverted Trump Swiss." He had bidding sequences to show splinters (the under jump shift) and his Jacoby 2NT was 16+ so the bids of 4c and 4d described 4 card support and 13-15. 4c was either (i) 4 card support with 2 of the top 3 honors or (ii) 5 card support with the Ace or King of trump. 4 diamonds was any hand with 4 card support and 13-15 that did not meet the criteria of 4 clubs. I played it and liked it, but the frequency of occurrence was poor. I am sure that does not bother anyone in this forum.

On 6/29 in the Common Game I was dealer non-vulnerable and held KQT98 Q9532 K 74 (Board 12). We play an aggressive style of Precision featuring light openings in the majors. Our general standard for majors is 8+ hcps and no more than 7 LTC. We also play a 1NT response as Non-Forcing 8-11 hcps. and denying a fit. I chose to open, but my partner thought I should have downgraded for the single King of diamonds and passed. Am I the only one on the planet that would open this had?

If t he bidding goes 1c/1d/1h/? what bid should responder use as the double negative (0-5 hcps). Many use 1NT, but Match Point Precision suggests that you invert 1 spade and 1NT so that 1NT shows 4 spades and 1 spade is the double negative 0-5. The apparent point is to right side the contract. Opener has an unbalanced hand so is he better of trying to find a 2 level suit contract? Would a better alternative be to simply pass responder's 1NT?

Partner and I play Precision mostly at match points. Partner wishes to substitute Mini-Roman (11-15) 4441 and 4450 (no 5 card majors) with no guarantees as to suits for our standard Precision 2 diamond sequences. Pard cites frequency of occurrence but I am concerned that the structure of mini-roman as suggested introduces more risk and fewer opportunities to stop at a playable level when there is no fit. Is my concern unfounded?

Some commentator suggested that any success is based on the fact that pairs don't have agreed ideas on how to accurately get back into the best contact starting at the 2 level. The also suggested that my competition may not be the best defenders. I concede both issues. We are totally blown away by how many players do not have an agreed systems for action over weak 1NT openers. In particular it often seems that there is no clear understanding about whether double is take out or penalty and whether that answer changes when the opening no trump is weak. To the extent that represents weak opponents I concede it. The other factor at work here is plain and simple "greed." Nothing fires an opponent up as much as the fact that you are trying to steal the hand from them. This almost invariably brings out the testosterone and impairs judgement. We do use our escapes from time to t ime, but most often it is unnecessary as the opponents jump in and save us. These are human factors that will not show up on a simulation.

Having reread these ideas about the 1NT bid being to "play, it appears that you are suggesting it for both 3rd and 4th seat. Is that correct? How about to"play" unless responder has a 5 card major to transfer too.

Thanks for your efforts to run a "'sim". I have never done that but i do believe in numbers. The system was designed to be edgy and pushy, but maybe we are running too close to the line of "unsound."

I agree that a 3 point range can be less productive in terms of constructive bidding.Many better players today who open 15-17, also upgrade some good 14's. We can leave it at a "good ten" and use standard no trump valuation techniques to upgrade. I like the i.e. sea of defining the 4th seat bid of 1NT "to play." Never thought about that so thanks.

We are trying Precision with a 10-13 1 NT nv 1st and 2nd seat and otherwise 11-13, all other seats and vulnerabilities. We open all 5332 and some 5422 hands 1NT. With good "escapes" we are getting some good results and is not a scary as we thought it might be. I know that conventional wisdom would argue for a higher range vulnerable and certainly in 4th seat. Still, we have not gone for any big numbers, and are wondering if anyone else has any experience with this structure. Our 14-16 balanced and semi-balanced hands are opened 1d with a no trump rebid. It may sound non-sensical but it sure feels good not to have to open balanced 11-13 hands 1 diamond.