Precison

[lowerline]

How should the bidding proceed after a strong club and a positive response? Do you use all kinds of asking bids or symmetric relays or something else?

What is most popular and what is best?

Is there a book you can recommend to someone who wants to learn Precision?

 

Thx,

Steven

[Gerben42]

Do you use all kinds of asking bids or symmetric relays or something else?

Personally I use symmetric relays. This however may not be what you would prefer yourself.

 

What is most popular and what is best?

I have no idea but I like my relays. Also popular is to just bid naturally, and that also makes a lot of sense.

 

Is there a book you can recommend to someone who wants to learn Precision?

Barry Rigal - Precision in the 90s.

[csdenmark]

How should the bidding proceed after a strong club and a positive response? Do you use all kinds of asking bids or symmetric relays or something else?

What is most popular and what is best?

Is there a book you can recommend to someone who wants to learn Precision?

 

Thx,

Steven

Steven I read your text as you ask for basic info of precision. To play precision in a decent way you need to have some background. 'The Precision bidding system in bridge' by C.C. Wei will give you the history and the basic theory. This book is also called Cinderella Team and is not a complete system but a scheme. You can buy from Barclay Bridge Supplies, Louisville, Kentucky.

[keylime]

I personally like transfer positives; it tells pard your shape and values off the hop.

 

I like Rigal's book as mentioned, but I think Precision Today (by David Berkowitz - Larry Cohen's regular partner) is an easier read because it places more emphasis on the structure of Precision unlike Rigal where there are many pages to conventions and treatments to Precision.

 

In essence, get both books and read Precision Today first.

[mike777]

I personally like transfer positives; it tells pard your shape and values off the hop.

 

I like Rigal's book as mentioned, but I think Precision Today (by David Berkowitz - Larry Cohen's regular partner) is an easier read because it places more emphasis on the structure of Precision unlike Rigal where there are many pages to conventions and treatments to Precision.

 

In essence, get both books and read Precision Today first.

I note Rigal recently won a Nat. Team event playing with a pick up partner with almost no system discussion. His partner played 2/1 with very sound opening bids, almost Roth style.

[awm]

After playing a lot of strong club and/or diamond methods, here's my opinions:

 

(1) Using asking bids exclusively is not a good approach. When responder has a wildly distributional hand (say 5-5 or more in two suits) the asking approach will fail because opener doesn't know which are the "right" questions to ask. On the other hand, in some auctions asking bids are quite useful (for example when a trump suit is agreed, asking for trump quality and/or overall strength).

 

(2) Relays work pretty well, provided that you have well-defined relay breaks and are able to remember the structure. I think there is a slight advantage to using well-structured relays over natural bidding after a transfer or natural game forcing positive. However, unobstructed auctions after the strong club are fairly infrequent to begin with, and memorizing the relay structures in order to gain this small advantage may not be the best use of time. Perhaps better is to have good agreements about what to do after 1♣-interference.

 

(3) I personally like a system where direct bids show semi-positive to min game force. The big win here is that you immediately describe your most frequent hand patterns (which are around 6-10 hcp after a 16+ 1♣ for example). However, this type of structure potentially requires even more complex agreements than (2). We are currently trying this in one of my partnerships (with Sam Ieong, sieong on BBO) and while it seems to work well we are not wholly convinced that (even though we're quite good at memorizing system) that we'll actually remember all the agreements well enough to make it worthwhile.

 

(4) The major "wins" for a strong club system normally come when you open something other than 1♣. You can comfortably pass in some situations where otherwise you might have to "keep the auction alive" and it's easier to show extras in some situations because of the upper limit. Personally I like to open light in the majors, which has many competitive and lead-directional advantages while the losses are reduced because of the low upper limit for the bid.

 

In my time playing strong club with Sam, my observation has been that we win boards in the following ways, in rough order of frequency:

 

(1) We win a lot of boards because of good play and defense. This is always more important than system.

(2) We win a lot of boards because we have methods to show a "2.5 major raise" after partner's 1M response to 1♥ or 1♦ without getting past the two-level.

(3) We win some boards because we get in a light opening bid in a major on hands where the field is passing.

(4) We win some boards because we play better methods over 1NT than the field (Keri-Garrod).

(5) We win some boards because our natural, intermediate 2♣/2♦ openings preempt the auction while making it easier for partner to compete than in standard bidding.

(6) The number of boards that we win because of relays over 1♣ is substantially smaller than any of the above.

 

On the other hand, also in rough order of frequency:

 

(1) We lose some boards because of playing different ranges than other people for various bids. However, I think we win more than we lose this way.

(2) We lose some boards in competitive auctions after the strong 1♣ opening, or after the 1♦ opening.

(3) We lose some boards due to our own mistakes in play or defense.

(4) We lose some boards because our light openings locate values for declarer.

(5) We lose a very small number of boards because of relay "accidents," usually due to forgets of methods or because relays get us too high before the needed information is found.

 

I guess the point here is that our methods over the strong club in unobstructed auctions are not really all that important. We are honestly considering switching to "natural" here even though we think relay is "better" simply because of the effort to memorize all the agreements.

[luke warm]

i also think relay is better... it's especially good on finding the right strain/level, and usually well below 3nt... however, i prefer the limit bids being some form of canape based bidding... i also prefer the 2 bids showing intermediate (i use 2h and 2s for 5+M and 4+ clubs, which really seems to simplify things when the opening is 1M and rebid is 2c)... another advantage to this (in my mind) is that 1d is always 4+

 

the weakness of relay is no more marked than the weakness of any other strong club system, imo

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, your decision whether to play relay over your strong club opening is very dependent on the methods that you are using over your limited openings.

 

MOSCITO has adopted relay responses over the limited openings.

Accordingly, the memory load of adding relay responses over the strong club opening is minimal. However, without this synergy, there's really no reason to use relay as opposed to an asking bid structure.

[keylime]

Construction of relays/auctions are important. I believe it starts with understanding what the primary goal of 1C-g/f bid should be: either the game-before-slam concept or the "slam probing" mentality.

 

I have never been a fan of TABs, CABs, and the like. I like my compressed transfers a lot just because of the follow-ons; the inferences gained are substantial.

 

To effectively play strong club, I think of three things off the hop:

 

1) Effective agreements when dealing with competition.

2) The right balance between science and playability.

3) Scalability issues.

 

1. People at times feel compelled to bid over 1♣, just because they want to. One of the first things that I do when playing against strong clubbers is test their agreements. If they haven't practiced and determined how to combat it, I'm going to go to the well often. However if they make my bid look childish, then I'm picking my spots carefully.

 

2. You can't have so much science that your defense and play suffers because of it. This item is a MAJOR reason KLPV16 has a large reduction in memory-sensitive items (no more under/over jump shifts, no complicated response structures over 1M-G/F, fewer rebids/responses, adoption of slow arrival, etc.). Frankly, in V15, on my bad days I couldn't take a trick with the Ace of trumps if my life depended on it, and I freely admit that.

 

3. Scalability for me revolves around two concepts: comp bidding and game-before-slam auctions. It's not often at all that over a limited 1 or 2 bid that slam was ever acheived; game was quite sufficient. I can only count on two hands that after one of a major was opened that slam was reached, and I've been at this for a few years now. You want the ability to get in and get out - work very hard on your comp bidding.

 

I'd start with your 1♦ and 1M structures. That will determine how to play your 1♣ methods.

 

One last thing, always consider the fatigue factor and how your system will cope when you're NOT at optimum.