precision: 1D-1M/2NT

[bill1157]

what does this sequence show in precision? And if it shows long diamonds, what does 1♦-1M-2♦ show? (and what about 1♦-1M/3♣?)

 

Bill

[blackshoe]

Precision Today (Berkowitz and Manley): a good diamond suit and a good NT hand. Example, after a 1♥ response: [hv=d=n&s=sk5h98dakq974cqt6]133|100|[/hv]

 

Godfrey's Stairway to the Stars (Rosenkranz and Alder): hand worth a 3♦ rebid, but fewer than 3♥. 3♦ is "natural, but with three card heart support". Okay, Romex Forcing Club isn't precisely Precision, but it's close. :)

 

RFC would bid the example hand the same way as Berkowitz and Manley suggest.

 

Rigal's Precision in the 90s may have something different, but I can't find my copy right now.

[rd6789]

I play this as showing good 4 card support of partners major and 5 good diamonds or good 3 card support of partner;s major and 6 good diamonds. 3C from partner asks which hand I have, 3D=3/6 3M=4/5

[the hog]

5/4 or 4/5 in the minors with 3 card support for partner, 14-15 HCP.

[bill1157]

5/4 or 4/5 in the minors with 3 card support for partner, 14-15 HCP.

you are talking about 1♦-1M/2N?

[Double !]

Question is unclear. If mean the opps pass throughout and the bidding goes 1D -p- 1M-p - 2NT: If my memory serves me well (always a risky assumption), in the original version of Precision, the 2NT rebid by 1D opener over 1M by responder showed a max 1D opener with a solid diamond suit. Perhaps things have changed. A rebid of 2D simply showed an opener with 5, probably 6 diamonds, not solid, and no 4-card support for responder, and not appropriate for a 1NT rebid.

1D - 1M - 3C showed a good 5-5, 14-15 hcp.

Again, I strongly suspect that many have their own revisions and interpretations of these sequences.

 

DHL

[the hog]

5/4 or 4/5 in the minors with 3 card support for partner, 14-15 HCP.

you are talking about 1♦-1M/2N?

Yes.

[lowerline]

The following is not uncommon:

 

2♦ = natural 5+crd (if 6crd then minimum or bad suit)

2NT = 6crd diamonds max, not 3crd M support

3♣ = 55m max

3♦ = 6crd diamonds max + 3crd M support

 

Steven

[maggieb]

For

 

1♦-1M

2NT

 

I like that this shows a maximum with exactly 3-card support for the major and 6♦.

 

Rebidding 3♦ just shows a max with long diamonds (usually 7), 3♣ is a maximum 5-5. Most hands with 6♦ should just rebid 2♦.

[agusaris]

Another suggestion. The rebid of 2NT shows four card suport for responders major and a singleton/void in either clubs or the other major. Responder bids 3 clubs and opener rebids 3 diamonds with short clubs and three of the major when short in the other major.

[A2003]

1♦-1M - 2NT: Exactly three card Major, long and strong diamonds, at least game invitational values.

Opener has a hand that is worth 3♦, but with major support.

This bid can also be made with 3=4=6=0 shape for responder 1♠ bid.

 

1D-1H, 2NT- 3C: Something in clubs; the initial meaning is a stopper, looking

for 3NT, but if responder then goes back to 4H he shows a slam try,

too strong to just sign off in 4H. Continuations natural.

1D-1H, 2NT- 3D: Prefers diamonds to hearts for the partial, rejects game.

1D-1H, 2NT- 3H: A fifth heart (usually), but not enough to bid game. Opener is

expected to pass. If you are tempted to keep bidding, remember

that responder can have a less count.

1D-1H, 2NT- 3S: Something in spades; slam try if responder goes back to 4H

over 3NT.

1D-1H, 2NT- 3NT: To play. Responder can have KQxx/QJxx/x/KT9x.

1D-1H, 2NT- 4C: Self-splinter for hearts. Responder has 5+ hearts and is

slamming.

1D-1H, 2NT- 4D: Prefers diamonds, forcing. Probably only four hearts.

1D-1H, 2NT- 4H: Signoff. Not interested in slam.

1D-1H, 2NT- 4S: RKC for hearts.

1D-1H, 2NT- 4NT: Does not exist. Could be a self-splinter for hearts, showing

spade shortness, but probably better to make a lower forcing bid with that hand. Also, if you are short in spades, the opponents would probably have bid something by now.

==============================================

1♦-1M - 2♦: Standard, almost always a six-card suit.

But would raise to 2♥ with three-card support more freely than some, so 2D rebid tends to deny support. It always denies four spades, of course.

Bid 2♦ instead of the raise only with a minimum (less likely to miss a game).

Also, with 6-4 in the minors, you should rebid 2♦ instead of 2♣ if you are minimum. Rebidding 2♣ with that shape should be done only if you are going to accept an invitation.

========================================================

1♦-1M - 3♣: Natural, at least 6-5 minors, maximum opening that does not qualify for a 1♣ opening. Not forcing.

[Tola18]

When playing Strong Club I tried to play it as a sort of reversed Jacoby. Thrue, it was my own invention, but later they told me this is a common approach among experts.

 

Thus: 4-fit, about maximum in points, usually semibalanced hand. This hand IS quite common!

3M would be too 4-fit, good hand - but unbalanced hand. Thus in part preemptive as there is risk for opps to contest.

 

Further bidding natural: With weak hand resp bids 3M and we play there. With modest hand resp bids 4M and we hopefully make it. If partner bids anything else it is a natural slam-searcher.

 

Problem? My last SC-partner, a interm+, when having weak hand did usually passed that 2NT. Thus forcing me to play difficult 2NT instead of easy 3M.... GRRR

 

 

 

Interesting to see there are also other good solutions. I shall perhaps rethink some. :)

 

The main point here is of course, 1D-1M, 2NT doesnt have any natural meaning in strong-club systems, as this cant be the usual NT-ladder. Thus you can use this empty bid for something else and useful.

[jmc]

Awhile back I asked a similar question and Joshs suggested using 2NT over 1d-1s to show either 3-card s support and 6+d or 4-card S support and a stiff somewhere. Look for his response in this thread.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=16395&hl=

 

I have been playing this and we have gotten some very nice results from it.

 

jmc

[mtvesuvius]

I play it showing 6♦, Max w/3 card support, I think this is somewhat common