Simplified Meckwell Precision system (for students

[stjk]

Simplified Meckwell Precision system (for students)

 

 

1C = 16+ (except 16 or 20-21 Balenced), any distribution

 

1D = 0-7

1H = 8-11 <- ***

1S = 12+, 5+S

1N = 12+, 5+C

2C = 12+, 5+D

2D = 12+, 5+H

2H = 14+, Balenced

2S = 12+, 4441

2N = 12-13, Balenced

3C = 12+, any solid suit

3D = 12+, semi-solid H

3H = 12+, semi-solid S

3S = 12+, semi-solid minor

 

over 1C-1D: (0-7)

1M = 4+, F1, may have longer minor:

1S = 0-7 4+S; 1N = 0-5 any shap; 2C = 6-7 deny 3+M; 2D = 5-7 3 card sup

2M = 0-4 4+M; 3X = 5-7 SPL; 4X = GF SPL; 2N = GF 4+M

3M = 5-7 4+M

1C-1D-1M-2C: 2D = non GF waiting, others = GF

1C-1D-1M-1N: 2m = NF, 3m = F1, 2N=GF with longer minor

1N = 17-19 system on

2m = 5+m NF, deny 4+M

2H = force 2S, GF hands: 2N=24+, 3X = GF natural

2S = 55+ minors

2N = 22-23

3m = INV 6+m

3N = to play

 

over 1C-1H: (8-11, any shape)

1S/2m/2H = natural, 5+ card suit, natural followup

1N = 17-19 or 24+, system on

2S = 4441 any short, 2N ask short, 3C/D/H/S=D/H/S/C

2N = 22-23, system on

 

over 1C-1S: (12+, 5+S), natural follow ups

1N = waiting, usually balenced, could be 4441

2m/2H/2S = natural, nautral followup

 

over 1C-1N (12+ 5+C)

2C = waiting, RSP use natural rebid

2D/2M/2N = natural

3C = set trump

 

Over 1C-2C (12+ 5+D)

2D = waiting, not promise support

2H/2S/3C = natural

2N = nat

3D = set trump

 

over 1C -2D (12+ 5+H)

2H = waiting

2S/3m = nat

2N = nat

3H = set trump

 

Over 1C-2S (12+ 4441)

2N = R

3C/3D/3H/3S = short D/H/S/C

next step asking range (12-13/14-15/16+)

after that:

4C = force 4D, then 4M/4N/5m = slam try

4D = force 4H, then pass/bid = sign off

4H/S/N = RKC in low/mid/high suit

same system applies when opener show 4441

 

Over 1C-2H (14+ BAL)

2S = 5+S: 2N/3C = no fit/fit

2N = 5+H: 3C/3D = no fit/fit

3C = stayman

3D = D

3M = C

 

Over 1C-2N (12-13): system on

 

Over 1C-3C:

3D or the suit = asking

stpe 1 = 0 ctl

step 2 = 1

step 3 = 2

step 4 = 3

new suit after that = CAB (control asking bid)

 

Over 1C-3D/3H (semi-solid H/S)

opener usually accept, start Q bidding

 

 

1D = 11-15 2+D (11-13 for balenced)

 

1M = 4+ F1

1N = 7-10

2C = F1 not GF

2D = limit+

2M = 54+ in maj, S longer

2N = 11-12

3C = weak with both minor

3M = weak

3N = 13-15

 

over 1D-2D:

2H = 11-13 bal

2S = max, unbal

2N = max, semi-bal

 

1M = 11-15, use normal 2/1 system

 

1N = 14-16, use same 2/1 system

 

2C = 11-15, 6+C

 

2D = ask

2H = any 4 card Maj, 2S ask:

2N/3C = mini with H/S

3D/3H = max with H/S

2S = max, unbal

2N = max bal

3C mini

3D = max with 4+D

3M = 65+

2M = NF

2N = force 3C, to play or 2 suited GF

pass = to play 3C

3D = D+H

3H = H+S

3S = S+D

3C = force 3D, to play or GF 1 suited

pass = to play

3M = 6+M GF

3N = 6+D

3D = INV with D

3M = INV with M

3N = to play

4C = weak

4D = RKC for C

4M = to play

 

 

2D = 11-15 3 suited, could be 5431, short D

 

2M = to play (convert 2H to 2S with 4315)

2N = ask

3C = mini, 3D ask

3H = 3415

3S = 4315

3N = 4414

3D = max, 4414

3H = max, 3415

3S = max, 4315

3N = mini, 5440

4C = max, 5440

after asking, 3 suited slam try system on

3C = to play

3D/3M/4C = inv

3N/4M/5C = to play

 

2M = wk2

 

2N = 20-21

[bluecalm]

Is it your version or version used by some pro pair ?

I ask because for example Greco - Hampson who uses simplified Meckwell play that 1C - 1NT is hearts according to their convention card.

[PrecisionL]

Isn't this Meckwell Lite? Now popular among youth and junior players?

[bluecalm]

Yeah it looks like it. I am asking because some things are different. I am also hoping that author have more notes/agreements and I can encourage him to tell me more about some sequences :-)

[SteelWheel]

So this looks interesting and all, but what's the theory behind it? What is gained by using a 1♦ call as 0-7 and 1♥ as 8-11? I suppose having all the other responses as 12+ is useful in that we now have all the room in the world to figure out if a slam is there, and the opponents are probably well-advised to stay out of the fray.

 

OTOH, some of the bigger problems in Precision auctions come after that negative 1♦ response, since we still don't know whose hand it is, and then 4th hand blasts away with some obstructive call, forcing us into uncomfortable territory. Now we have a nebulous 1♥ call, which states that it is our hand, and yet keeps us from knowing what strain(s) are possible. Seems like 4th hand is now in a possibly better position to make just the right obstructive call, since it is now fairly clear that this action will nearly always be a save, rather than any attempt to stake a legitimate claim.

 

What am I missing?

[rbforster]

What is gained by using a 1♦ call as 0-7 and 1♥ as 8-11? ... What am I missing?

Some people don't want to learn relay slam bidding. This is less efficient but simpler.

[olien]

The advantages to playing 1♥ as 8-11 are too many to number. Even though 4th hand could theoretically blast away, they rarely have the hand to do so without significant risk because both players have penalty doubles available. The primary advantage to this response iis that opener immediately knows whether or not slam is in the picture. Also, it is less preemptive than say 1♣-2♦ showing 8+ points and 5+♦ in standard precision.

 

For example, this auction is a common example:

 

1♣-1♥ (any 8-11)-1♠-2♦. Now you're at the same point but both players have given distributional information. Also, if 1♣-1♠ is played as 8+ HCP instead of 12+ HCP, you can gain some space-saving steps after 1♣-1♥// 2m/♥. For those of you who think relay bidding is so great, I'm sure you can figure those out.

 

Yes, Greco-Hampson play 1♣-1NT shows ♥s, but there are some advantages to play transfers.

 

It can be played that accepting the transfer at the cheapest level is like a NT bid as a space saving step, and showing 2-3 card support. Then 2NT can be say a hand with 4+ card support, but denying shortness. This saves responder some room in describing their hand. Think of opener's bid as possibly a natural relay.

 

Anyways, as a person who plays this system and has been playing it for 4-5 years, I highly recommend the system. If it's good enough for Greco-Hampson or Lall-Bathurst or Grue-Cheek, then it's good enough for me.

[PrecisionL]

I think it is backwards. 1♣ - 1♥ should be 12+ hcp and all other bids are 8-11 hcp. This gives more space for slam auctions and gives the frequent and necessary distributional information for game investigation.

 

Edited: 12/14 10:11 PM EST

Some description of Meckwell Lite:

 

http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters...or-younger.html

[bluecalm]

Anyways, as a person who plays this system and has been playing it for 4-5 years, I highly recommend the system

 

Is there any place to find more information ? I am mainly interested in auctions afte 1D opening. Also some more agreements after 1C would be nice.

 

I think it is backwards. 1♣ - 1♥ should be 12+ hcp and all other bids are 8-11 hcp. This gives more space for slam auctions and gives the frequent and necessary distributional information for game investigation.

 

Yeah that sound like good idea I think.

[kenrexford]

I kind of liked old-fashioned Neapolitan-style responses, personally. Very easy. If I were teaching beginners, I think I'd use that.

 

One major reason. I want something incredibly easy to play when the opponents leave us alone, because that never happens, especially when the precision players are beginner precision players. Everyone wants to jam the heck out of them. So, easy for uncontested, so that you don't blow your brain cells on that.

 

Spend more time and energy, then, on when the auction is contested, which is more difficult.

 

The upside to Neapolitan responses is that the "whose hand is it" is often better resolved, IMO, when 4th seat pipes in.

[fred]

I have played this system in some majors tournaments with various strong partners. Given the pathetically small amount of work I put into actually learning the system properly (close to none) and practicing it (none), I suppose my results with it were pretty strong - an NABC win, a Buffett Cup win, and a very good record at the Regional level.

 

But in general I find statements like "system X is clearly better than system Y" pretty hard to take seriously. IMO comfort with whatever you play is far far more important than whatever it is that you actually play.

 

I can tell you that, as a person who has played "natural" my whole life, the time I spent playing Meckwell Lite was really fun for a few reasons:

 

1) Lots of new problems I had never faced before

2) Exciting to be able to open the bidding with terrible hands

3) Interesting that some hard hands become easy to bid and vice versa

4) Lots of scope for doing creative and tricky things

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[SteelWheel]

@Fred: Interesting observations. I think that any aspiring bridge player should spend some amount of time sampling different styles and systems. I don't get a chance to play much serious bridge these days, so I generally play a variant of Berkowitz/Cohen with a couple of my old friends; it doesn't quite reflect my current theories as to which system is "best", but I'm too old and too much off the tournament bridge circuit to develop new systems/partnerships. In my day though, I've at least dabbled some with K/S--weak NT systems, super-strong NT Vienna style systems, EHAA, and several others. Even if you end up going back to "natural" 2/1 systems, you will gain some new insights into the problems that your opponents who do play such systems will encounter from time to time, which is information you can use to your advantage.

 

@stjk/olien: Suppose I have an auction in Meckwell Lite as follows (opps silent):

1♣ 2♣ (=diamonds)

2♦ 2♠ (natural)

??

What is a 3♠ call here and how does it differ from an immediate 4♠? Having found a suit under game, I assume that cuebidding is mandatory here given the extra values we know we have?

 

By contrast, the way B/C Precision handles this sort of situation is as follows (I don't know if this is in "Precision Today" or not--but it was in David's copy of his system notes as of about ten years ago, and I believe it's still there today):

 

1♣ 2♦ (=natural, 8+)

2[NT] (=semi-artificial, forcing) ??

Responder's second bid:

3♣ (=four card heart suit)

3♦ (=four card spade suit)

3♥ (=rebid of diamonds)

3♠ (=four+ clubs, but diamonds better, stronger, longer, etc)

 

Now opener can "accept" the transfer into the four card major, and invite the cuebid from responder (alternatively, opener can terminate the auction via a 4♦ puppet, or bid RKC in either of responder's suits, or make a "natural" try via a 4♣ puppet, indicating a hand for which RKC was not a useful/suitable slam investigation tool). Does anyone want to weigh in on which of these methods has more going for it? Should the big club hand be inviting the cue from responder, or vice versa?

 

@PrecisionL: Hi, Larry. The idea of inverting the Meckwell Lite responses reaches its logical conclusion with "Revision Club", in which most immediate responses are natural and 0-7, and 1♦ is a mark-time bid, which might be 0-7 with no five+ length suit, or can potentially be almost any kind of strong 8+ hand.

[rbforster]

The advantages to playing 1♥ as 8-11 are too many to number.....  The primary advantage to this response is that opener immediately knows whether or not slam is in the picture. 

If you compare the number of relay sequences below 3N, you'll realize that those starting with 1♣-1♥-1♠(relay)... to all the rest of them (1♣-1♠ or higher, relay, etc), they are in a ratio of something like 1:1.6 (Fibonacci). This means that you are allocating about 40% of all your relay sequences to showing 8-11 hands, and 60% of them to showing slam hands.

 

I'm sure this makes for great slam bidding, but slam hands are so rare compared to game hands that this seems like overkill... you are assigning the majority your constructive bidding space to slams! Consequently your game hands will suffer accordingly, from having less available space to describe themselves as well as often suffering from a lack of total strength to keep bidding safely past 3N.

 

I think it would be clearly an improvement to swap and show all the limited hands directly with 8-11's, and reserve 1♥ as any 12+. This way even though you start 2 steps higher after the 1♠ relay by opener, at least you've got the strength to keep going past 3N without as much risk while looking for the right game/slam.

 

Personally, I think it would be better to just use positive unlimited responses. Then everything will finish 1-2 steps lower in your relays and now there's space to ask about strength (or have opener make a weakness-showing signoff to discourage any marginal slam tries). Of course then you have to learn/remember a relay slam bidding system, but these are quite good and if you're going to play relay for shape you might as well learn on of these too :).

[stjk]

@stjk/olien:  Suppose I have an auction in Meckwell Lite as follows (opps silent):

1♣    2♣ (=diamonds)

2♦    2♠ (natural)

??

What is a 3♠ call here and how does it differ from an immediate 4♠?  Having found a suit under game, I assume that cuebidding is mandatory here given the extra values we know we have?

 

As I know, 1C -2C (5+D, 12+) - 2D does not promiss D fit, so over 2S (2nd suit)

3S should show S fit with slam interest, and 4S should be to play(vs a mini 12-13).

[stjk]

Is it your version or version used by some pro pair ?

I ask because for example Greco - Hampson who uses simplified Meckwell play that 1C - 1NT is hearts according to their convention card.

It's not the ofiicial Lite version from meckwell, but should be clsoe. It's based on the version used by the US youth team and I added some followups.

[Apollo81]

This may already be clear from previous posts, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

 

Regarding continuations after 1♣-1♦, what are the differences between the OP in this thread, the version commonly played by american juniors, and the official meckwell lite version?

 

Thx

[jjbrr]

This may already be clear from previous posts, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

 

Regarding continuations after 1♣-1♦, what are the differences between the OP in this thread, the version commonly played by american juniors, and the official meckwell lite version?

 

Thx

The version in OP, from a quick glance, is what I play and is what is in the notes I received from someone close to the source, though I don't recall 1♣ 1♦ 2♠ showing minors. I might have overlooked it, but im reasonably confident it was just GF with ♠

 

And just a btw... are we certain meckwell or whomever else is OK with OP posting this information in such a public place? I know it's not private info or anything, but some credit should be given to the source, in my opinion.

[rbforster]

And just a btw... are we certain meckwell or whomever else is OK with OP posting this information in such a public place? I know it's not private info or anything, but some credit should be given to the source, in my opinion.

Just hearing people think like this makes me sad. Next thing you know I'll be able to copyright 2-way NMF and start suing people for playing it and getting their internet connections pulled for mentioned it online. Remember that 1st amendment?

 

PS Credit was certainly attributed in the title, unless you're talking about whoever "simplified" it.

[jjbrr]

And just a btw... are we certain meckwell or whomever else is OK with OP posting this information in such a public place? I know it's not private info or anything, but some credit should be given to the source, in my opinion.

Just hearing people think like this makes me sad. Next thing you know I'll be able to copyright 2-way NMF and start suing people for playing it and getting their internet connections pulled for mentioned it online. Remember that 1st amendment?

 

PS Credit was certainly attributed in the title, unless you're talking about whoever "simplified" it.

Thank you for your ignorance. A little bit goes a long way.

 

Meanwhile, I received an electronic copy of these notes from Jeff's son a couple years ago after I promised that I wouldn't distribute them without permission. My only point was that if they still feel that public dissemination is inappropriate, perhaps that point should be made clear, and we should respect the wishes they had, albeit a couple years ago.

 

Where you got this lawsuit and copyright business is totally beyond me. Care to explain wtf you're referring to, because I in no way implied anything like that in my post?

[bluecalm]

Meanwhile, I received an electronic copy of these notes from Jeff's son a couple years ago after I promised that I wouldn't distribute them without permission.

 

Many people play this system. It's only fair to discuss it or reverse engineer it. Bridge is not copyright business.

[jjbrr]

Prove to me that it is fair, and I'll concede.

 

Edit: It seems to me that a simple request like "I don't want you to share this with too many people" is totally fair also. I have no idea whatsoever if any of them still feel this way, but if they do, I respectfully say you are completely wrong. It is not only totally unfair, but amazingly disrespectful for someone to post this with neither permission or even any reason whatsoever.

 

I'm very aware that many, many people play this system and that nothing here is a big secret. I don't know the originators of the system well enough to guess their intentions. Perhaps they're delighted that people are posting their ideas for everyone to read. Perhaps they have a book in process that they plan to make money from and OP just cost them lots of dough. All I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, posting this wasn't without some damage to somebody somewhere.

 

Edit again: and why do people keep mentioning copyrights? wtf is going on? in no way did i imply anything about copyrights at all. it's the principle of the matter.

 

Edit a third time: Maybe they just don't want random people approaching them offering their theories about how to improve the system. A totally fair request, in my mind.

 

Am I totally out of line here? This is basic, kindergarten, golden rule stuff. If you told someone not to share something, and they did anyway, you would feel upset. Why do you think it's ok in this instance?

[mycroft]

Prove to me that it's not. If you're under an NDA, official or otherwise, fine. I'm not, nor are others; they see what happens in the real world, and start to combine it into what they think is the system. More experience with hands -> more complete. They won't get it 100% right; but "close enough for my partnership" is good enough, no?

 

In a world of software licensing, most licenses remove the right to reverse engineer as a condition of license. This is using copyright to limit what you can do with the software. It doesn't, however, apply to people who don't buy or license the product!

 

While a written version of a bridge *system* is copyrightable, and the system definitely can be a trade secret (to the extent that Law 40B6 allows), it is both legal and ethical to attempt to reverse engineer trade secrets, or duplicate the work in a different format (to not break copyright).

 

You, jjbrr, are under (an informal) NDA; I commend your adherence to what you agreed to. There's lots of information I am barred from sharing, formally and otherwise - and I don't. If what is above is leaked from such an NDA, then I have a problem with it (however, legally, it's no longer a trade secret, and I am allowed to make what use of it I wish). If, however, it's generated from watching the players play, and other publicly available information, well, then, what moral, ethical, or legal grounds require me to not look? or assist?

[jjbrr]

LOL@mentioning copyrights again. reading comprehension ftw.

[Vilgan]

LoL at this entire line of discussion.

 

There is a bunch of meckwell stuff floating around, including much more in depth ones. I doubt the main notes (which I'd assume are pretty extensive) will become public knowledge anytime soon and not due to copyright or NDA or any of that nonsense.. but the simple expedient of not sharing them outside the partnership.

[Apollo81]

This may already be clear from previous posts, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

 

Regarding continuations after 1♣-1♦, what are the differences between the OP in this thread, the version commonly played by american juniors, and the official meckwell lite version?

 

Thx

The version in OP, from a quick glance, is what I play and is what is in the notes I received from someone close to the source, though I don't recall 1♣ 1♦ 2♠ showing minors. I might have overlooked it, but im reasonably confident it was just GF with ♠

Thank you Jeremy.