Semi-Nebulous 1D

[pbleighton]

Has any one had experience with (or opinion of) a Precision 1D, where:

1) 2C = 6+ cards,

2) 1NT = 12(11)-15, opening decent 11 count minor suit 5332s and (24)25s

3) 2D has (34)15 types

4) Passing all flat 11s and bad 11 count minor suit 5332s and (24)25s.

 

This means that 1D is 3+ cards and always unbalanced, having 3 only with (14)35 distribution, or about 5% of the time.

 

Peter

[flytoox]

Has any one had experience with (or opinion of) a Precision 1D, where:

1) 2C = 6+ cards,

2) 1NT = 12(11)-15, opening decent 11 count minor suit 5332s and (24)25s

3) 2D has (34)15 types

4) Passing all flat 11s and bad 11 count minor suit 5332s and (24)25s.

 

This means that 1D is 3+ cards and always unbalanced, having 3 only with (14)35 distribution, or about 5% of the time.

 

Peter

I was thinking this problem too last night. Open 1N with good 12 to 15hcp. Then

1D always promise a unbalanced hand.

 

1D-1H-1S, 4CARD S

1D-1S-1N, 4CARD H.

1D-1M-2C, at least 54 minors

1D-1M-2D, 6+D.

 

 

 

In this framework, you have to open 1N with 2425 or 4225.

 

2C shows 6+ club or 5c+4M, I know many ppl like 2c promise 6+.

 

 

This way i think 1D can promise 4+ diamond.

[mikestar]

Has any one had experience with (or opinion of) a Precision 1D, where:

1) 2C = 6+ cards,

2) 1NT = 12(11)-15, opening decent 11 count minor suit 5332s and (24)25s

3) 2D has (34)15 types

4) Passing all flat 11s and bad 11 count minor suit 5332s and (24)25s.

 

This means that 1D is 3+ cards and always unbalanced, having 3 only with (14)35 distribution, or about 5% of the time.

 

Peter

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.

[irdoz]

I have been playing preciision for the last 6 months with my regular partner after a few years playing 2/1 as an experiment and to get experience playing a big club system.

 

Up until now we have been opening 1nt 11-13 nvul and 14-16 vul and opening 1d when balanced and less than 17 and outside the applicable 1nt range.

 

So 1d was either balanced or diamonds or both minors or 3 suited with diamonds or 5+ diamonds and a shorter major.

 

I disliked the 1d open in competitive auctions intensely and we had to make a number of agreements once we'd identified some of the problems. So I decided to tabulate the last 3 months results.

 

As a pair overall we average in the high 50s at matchpoints and about +0.5 in imps tournaments. Opening 1d vulnerable averaged 35 Matchpoints and -1 imps (a huge difference from the average). 1d non-vulnerable averaged 45 matchpoints and -0.1 imps. If I separate the 1d opens into competitive and non-competitive auctions (and most are competitive) it's clear that the problems are mainly in competitive auctions.

 

This compares to opening 1nt 11-13 where over the same period we averaged 65 matchpoints and +0.8 imps. Opening 1nt 14-16 averaged 61 matchpoints and +1.5 imps.

 

Part of the problem maybe our structure over 1d and the time it takes for pattern recognition to kick in playing new methods.

 

So we've decided to open 1nt as 11-15 with 1d as always 4+.

 

I can come up with an appropriate method to use with 1nt as 11-15 and I can see there will be problems playing antifield in bad 2nt contracts at the hcp ranges that happen to be the most frequent. (ie opening 11-12 and responder has 10-13). I am prepared to live with that - but I can also anticipate immediate interference will cause problems as it will take away the chance to do a range enquiry at the lowest possible level. Im wondering if there are any methods to counter this?

[mishovnbg]

1. Playing 2♣ prec with 6+ cards is unnecessary cowardly.

2. Playing real natural 1♦ bid is great advantage.

3. 1NT with any 5422 hand is bad idea.

4. 1NT (11)12-14(15) is acceptable, because blocking both opps and p.

 

Misho

[Free]

I also hate the 2♣, but it's necessary to make your 1♦ less nebulous... But what I really don't get is why people are trying EVERYTHING to get the 1♦ opening as natural as possible (even sacrificing both 2m openings) while the answer is right in front of them: play 4 card Majors! Supporting goes really agressive as well, and you get opps into troubles when they have to decide about balancing, weither we are going to play in a 4-3/5-3 fit at 2-level, or a 4-4/5-4 fit at 3-level. In both first cases it's better to let us play, while in the 2nd cases, they probably have a successfull balancing option...

 

About the other stuff:

- opening 1NT with (42)-2-5 isn't great, you'll play even more contracts in NT while there's a 4-4 Major fit. Perhaps it's better to put them in your 2♣ opening: 6+♣ or 5+♣-4M.

- 2♦ opening is unnecessary imo, see my first point and open 2♣ with such hands. There are much more usefull things you can do with a 2♦ opening than using it for such specific opening.

- all other seem just fine: 1NT range and natural ♦ (that's what it's all about)

[mikestar]

I've tried my hand at designing a 4cM Precision, and the problem is the Flannery hands: 4=5=x=x, insufficient values for a reverse. If it isn't worthwhile to sacrifice 2D for Precison 2D, do we want to use it for Flannery?

 

4=5=2=2 isn't so bad, you can open 1H and pass 1NT; on 4=5=3=1 2D over 1NT isn't so bad; but 4=5=1=3 is a major pain oven 1NT--2C becomes fairly nebulous:

are we 5-3 in hearts and clubs or 5-4 or 4-5? Is there a good conventional way to resolve this sequence?

 

I've never liked opening 1S with 4-5 majors, though K-S advocate it with stong spades and week hearts--I seem to always end up in the wrong partial after 1S-1N-2H.

 

Then again, maybe my thinking is distorted by the desire to keep it GCC legal--Kaplan Inversion solves all of these problems.

[tysen2k]

1. Playing 2♣ prec with 6+ cards is unnecessary cowardly.

I disagree. The 2♣ opening is one of the weak points of precision and 5+,4M is much worse. Promising 6+ helps a great deal. But I don't like the nebulous diamond either. This is what I currently use for GCC matchpoint events. It's a modified version of matchpoints precision:

 

1♣ = 16+ balanced, (14)15+ unbalanced

1♦ = 10-15, 0+ but promises at least one 4cM

1♥/♠ = 11-15 balanced, 8-14 unbalanced, 5+

1NT = 11-15, balanced, no 4cM

2♣/2♦ = 8-14, 6+, no 4cM

2♥/2♠ = weak

2NT = 8-14, (54)+ in the minors, no 4cM

 

The 2NT opening is agressive, but we love it. This is great for matchpoints as you get weak openings and your 1N & 2m openings never have a 4cM so you don't miss 4-4 fits.

 

The 1♦ opening is great and you can use a lot of negative inferences. 1♦-1♥-2♣ shows 5+ clubs and 4 spades. 1♦-1♠-1NT shows balanced with 4 hearts, etc.

 

Tysen

[pbleighton]

Tysen writes:

"This is what I currently use for GCC matchpoint events. It's a modified version of matchpoints precision:"

 

What do you use then at team events?

 

How does this system work at teams?

 

Peter

[tysen2k]

Tysen writes:

"This is what I currently use for GCC matchpoint events. It's a modified version of matchpoints precision:"

 

What do you use then at team events?

 

How does this system work at teams?

 

Peter

I've used this a few times at teams with no real disasters.

[cwiggins]

I have been playing preciision for the last 6 months with my regular partner after a few years playing 2/1 as an experiment and to get experience playing a big club system.

 

Up until now we have been opening 1nt 11-13 nvul and 14-16 vul and opening 1d when balanced and less than 17 and outside the applicable 1nt range.

 

So 1d was either balanced or diamonds or both minors or 3 suited with diamonds or 5+ diamonds and a shorter major.

 

I disliked the 1d open in competitive auctions intensely and we had to make a number of agreements once we'd identified some of the problems. So I decided to tabulate the last 3 months results.

 

As a pair overall we average in the high 50s at matchpoints and about +0.5 in imps tournaments. Opening 1d vulnerable averaged 35 Matchpoints and -1 imps (a huge difference from the average). 1d non-vulnerable averaged 45 matchpoints and -0.1 imps. If I separate the 1d opens into competitive and non-competitive auctions (and most are competitive) it's clear that the problems are mainly in competitive auctions.

 

This compares to opening 1nt 11-13 where over the same period we averaged 65 matchpoints and +0.8 imps. Opening 1nt 14-16 averaged 61 matchpoints and +1.5 imps.

 

Part of the problem maybe our structure over 1d and the time it takes for pattern recognition to kick in playing new methods.

 

So we've decided to open 1nt as 11-15 with 1d as always 4+.

 

I can come up with an appropriate method to use with 1nt as 11-15 and I can see there will be problems playing antifield in bad 2nt contracts at the hcp ranges that happen to be the most frequent. (ie opening 11-12 and responder has 10-13). I am prepared to live with that - but I can also anticipate immediate interference will cause problems as it will take away the chance to do a range enquiry at the lowest possible level. Im wondering if there are any methods to counter this?

What competitive methods did you use with your nebulous 1D?

 

After overcalls, with a combination of negative free bids and negative doubles, I have rarely gotten bad results. The bad ones were caused by opponents preemptive raise when I had the high power negative double--which is why I am looking for a transfer scheme.

 

I don't understand what you mean when you say you "averaged 35 Matchpoints and -1 imps." Presumably the -1 IMP means that you lost an average of 1 IMP per hand. But what does "averaged 35 matchpoints" mean? That you averaged 35% of the available matchpoints? Something else?

 

Thanks.

 

Chris

[Antoine Fourrière]

I don't believe in the strong club or the 12-15 notrump, but if I had to use them in a GCC-legal environment, I would suggest:

1♣ 16+

1♦ unbalanced, 4+ diamonds

1♥ unbalanced, 5+ hearts, not a 4=5=2=2

1♠ unbalanced, 5+ spades

1NT balanced without both four card-majors, but maybe with a five-card major

2♣ 5+ clubs and a four-card major

2♦ both four-card majors (not a 4=4=4=1), or a 4=5=2=2

2♥ weak (6 cards or 5 with a 5-card minor)

2♠ weak (6 cards or 5 with a 5-card suit)

2NT 6+ clubs, 9-12

3♣ 6+ clubs, 12-15

 

Some of these bids are perfectly comfortable, the others are quick.

I love that 2♦ opening, which is inspired by Sontag-Weichsel's Power Precision 2♥ (either a Flannery or a classical Precision 2♦). It caters to three otherwise problematic handtypes. (If responder plays weak or two-way Stayman, a four-four major fit gets buried only when neither partner holds four cards in the other major, which I find acceptable.)

I think an immediate 3♣ is better with six bad clubs than 2♣ followed by 3♣.

And I remain adamant that the weak five-five two-suiters must be opened with a weak-two bid when there is nothing better.