Simplified Meckwell Precision system (for students

[debrose]

Certainly it's true that many pairs don't have (and will never have) readable system notes. But I don't think that necessarily matters here.

 

Compare it to disclosure at the table. Very often there's a sequence that a pair has not discussed. In this case it's perfectly acceptable for them to say "undiscussed" or "no agreement" when asked. But if a pair does have an agreement they are supposed to disclose it and not say "we have an agreement, but I'd rather not tell you what it is." Similarly the fact that not every pair has legible system notes does not seem to remove the obligation that pairs who do have such notes disclose them to the opposition.

 

Of course, there's nothing really stopping a pair from claiming they have no system notes when they do. But having made such a claim, one could forbid them from producing system notes as evidence in a possible MI case...

Good points Adam. And it would be a bigger lie for a pair to claim not to have system notes when they do, than to say "no agreement" at the table when they actually have one. I think the vast majority of players have too much integrity to do either of those things.

[nigel_k]

Compare it to disclosure at the table. Very often there's a sequence that a pair has not discussed. In this case it's perfectly acceptable for them to say "undiscussed" or "no agreement" when asked. But if a pair does have an agreement they are supposed to disclose it and not say "we have an agreement, but I'd rather not tell you what it is." Similarly the fact that not every pair has legible system notes does not seem to remove the obligation that pairs who do have such notes disclose them to the opposition.

I don't think this is a good analogy.

 

It's nearly always better to have agreements than not have them, because the advantage of knowing what you're doing outweighs the disadvantage of having to tell the opponents what you have. And experienced pairs will develop agreements through practice anyway whether they wish to or not.

 

The advantages of detailed written system notes are, primarily that you can study them to help you remember and you can use them in an appeal if needed. The downside is that the opponents can prepare in greater detail and the whole world gets to copy all your good ideas. For many pairs, the disadvantages will outweigh the advantages.

 

So a requirement to fully disclose system notes creates a perverse incentive not to create such notes in the first place. That is, at least potentially, a serious problem IMO. But a requirement to disclose agreements if asked doesn't create any perverse incentive not to have agreements at all.

[debrose]

So a requirement to fully disclose system notes creates a perverse incentive not to create such notes in the first place. That is, at least potentially, a serious problem IMO. But a requirement to disclose agreements if asked doesn't create any perverse incentive not to have agreements at all.

This is not entirely true. As an example, earlier in this thread someone mentioned Michael Rosenberg's book, where he talks about which minor to open with 4-4. Well really, he talks about not talking about it. To this day he has refused to ever have any discussion at all with me about which minor to open with 4-4. I believe he won't discuss it with his students either. It's not that our partnership couldn't gain from having such agreements, just that he believes the cost of having to disclose it would be greater than any potential gains.

Nonetheless, I do agree (and so does Michael I'm sure) that in most situations it is nearly always better to have an agreement than not to. And I think that the types of pairs who believe it's better to have detailed system notes than not to, are unlikely to be dissuaded from doing so by the requirement that said notes be fully disclosed. But if they are, so be it. The nature of our game is full disclosure. IMO, on balance it would be still be their loss not to have system notes.

As to the downside of people getting to prepare in greater detail, I don't think anyone could argue that this is a reason not to require the notes to be published. In theory at least, pairs are already required to include on their WBF convention card & supplemental notes anything the opponents might want to prepare against. A more legitimate argument is against allowing others to copy your good ideas. That I think is a legitimate grievance, but not enough so to warrant lack of full disclosure.

Carrying over the analogy from the table, if my opponents have a constructive auction, they have to tell me what all the bids mean if I ask, and I might then copy their good ideas. I don't have to prove that I actually needed to know for my bidding or defense. Yes, I know it's not exactly the same, but to me it's similar enough to make it a reasonable analogy.

[Phil]

As an example, earlier in this thread someone mentioned Michael Rosenberg's book, where he talks about which minor to open with 4-4. Well really, he talks about not talking about it. To this day he has refused to ever have any discussion at all with me about which minor to open with 4-4. I believe he won't discuss it with his students either. It's not that our partnership couldn't gain from having such agreements, just that he believes the cost of having to disclose it would be greater than any potential gains.

I take it you've never read his book then, because if you did you would know his personal tendencies, and would have to disclose this to the opponents?

[debrose]

Hmm, there was a copy on the bookshelf earlier today, but Michael must have read Phil's post and burned it. Luckily I'd snuck a look before I posted before, to review exactly what he said - and didn't say - on the subject. He does list all possible criteria for making the decision, but doesn't say how he applies them. Some are contradictory. I don't think the book would help anyone guess which he'd open on any given hand. Now I'm sure I should have a guess from partnership experience, but perhaps I've made a point of trying not to pay attention, and perhaps we just haven't played all that many boards, but I honestly believe I don't know. In most other situations I feel I can guess what Michael would do, maybe because we have so much more experience based on discussion than actual boards played together.

[borag]

What about moving 12+ balanced hands into 1s and freeing 2h/nt for 5-5 two suited hands ?

[robert_za]

Hi,

I've complied what I know and how we play Meckwell light in the following cheat-sheet:

http://scale-it.pl/files/precision-meckwell_lite.pdf

 

I hope it will be helpful.

[PrecisionL]

What about moving 12+ balanced hands into 1s and freeing 2h/nt for 5-5 two suited hands ?

Rodwell's new idea is to use 1♣ - 2♠ as the 5-5 game forcing response. I have used this design in two Strong Club systems that I play.

 

2NT asks and 3♣ = ♣ + ?, 3♦ = ♦ + ♥, 3♥ = ♥ + ♠, 3♠ = ♦ + ♠

[straube]

Rodwell's new idea is to use 1♣ - 2♠ as the 5-5 game forcing response. I have used this design in two Strong Club systems that I play.

 

2NT asks and 3♣ = ♣ + ?, 3♦ = ♦ + ♥, 3♥ = ♥ + ♠, 3♠ = ♦ + ♠

 

Seems weak to me. At the point of 2S, Symmetric Relay identifies each possible 5-5 combination.

[benlessard]

For the last 2 years ive been teaching to university students, I mostly teach to the "A" and "B" players, some of them are among Canada best juniors (but Canada is not very strong) and even if technically some of them are more than strong enough to play a strong club system its just a terrible idea. (and I usually play a strong club system).

 

Its better they perfected their local standard first since as defender you need to learn it to know what your opponents are doing.

 

The strenght of precision is reaching game quickly without giving too much information (1M-game vs lenghty 2/1 auction)

Being able to open light and raising quickly (quick in quick out). Those two features are best against opponent that will squeeze the maximum out of the bidding space and defend double dummy when you give them too much information.

 

They have very few masterpoints so they mostly play players weaker than them and even in junior comp they are usually playing against players that wouldnt use the bidding space to the maximum. So stealing bidding space and hiding information is less important vs inexperienced opponents.

 

The drawback of precision for constructive auction will hit them hard. A decent precision system also need special tools or agreement that arent really useful in any other system ex 2C/2D openings, response to show both minors after a 1!D opening etc..

 

I would teach them polish club,weak Nt or even 4cM system before teaching them a strong club.

[straube]

Strong club's core advantage is that it handles strength ranges better than most systems. The split between strong and limited hands allows for the quick auctions you mentioned. It also allows for lighter openings and lighter responses and preemptions to those openings. It allows for limited hands to bid aggressively on shape without misrepresenting strength.

 

Most would say that the weakness of strong club is the club opening itself, particularly for the interference it attracts.

 

Just within uncontested auctions, however, I think there's some difficulty when responder has enough strength to invite but not force game, the 5-7 range. For example, 1C-1D, 1S-2S where 1S is natural and forcing and 2S is some raise. The partnership may only have a 4-3 fit here, opener may have a moose, but a lot of space has been consumed. It could be worse on some non-fit auction such as 1C-1D, 1S-2H where opener wants rebids for both sign offs and forces. The basic problem here is that 1C-1D, 1S is very wide in range, opener is the first here to start describing shape, but responder by definition is not strong enough to relay opener's hand.

 

Adam and Sieong's system solves this particular problem as well as doing a great deal to address the interference issue as well. The 1C-1H+ responses show limited hands of roughly 5-10 hcps, a useful range which is frequently subdivided in later rounds between 5-7 and 8-10. It also allows for short uninformative auctions.

 

If a design goal was having responder give useful suit information to the 1C opening, Meckwell Lite would be behind most strong club systems. Solving the 5-7 problem appeals to me more than the 8-11 from 12+ problem.

 

've made rough tallies to compare systems for "actionable suit information" frequencies in response to a strong club. For example, I considered such things as a known 4-card suit (these were always a major) or a known balanced hand as "actionable" whereas a response that promised a 2-way bid (e.g. either hearts or spades) or 2 of a suit (e.g. balanced or diamonds) as not actionable. These results were based on small samples (usually 200 hands per system) generated on BBO. While SCREAM and MOSCITO 2005 immediately separate double negatives from semipositives from positives, they are truly awful at giving early suit information.

 

SCREAM..............................7%

MOSCITO 2005....................7%

Meckwell Lite.......................18%

TOSR...................................26%

Meckwell Lite (1H=12+).......29%

RMprecision.........................33%

My version of IMprecision....35%

IMprecision..........................40%

[PrecisionL]

@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.

 

Or one could play that acceptance of responder's transfer is Beta (asking for controls where A=2 and K=1). I have used this approach for years and really like it. Also suggested in Precision Today in the advanced section.

[PrecisionL]

1526408422[/url]' post='951219']

Seems weak to me. At the point of 2S, Symmetric Relay identifies each possible 5-5 combination.

I have improved on showing 5-5 hands by responder by including them in the 1NT response. However, they are mostly described by 3♦ (majors) not 2NT as in Symmetric Relay.

[nige1]

Bridge-rules mandate that you disclose your methods to opponents. In principle that means that your opponents know as much about your agreements as you do --

• positive inferences from the calls that you make -- and
• negative inferences from the calls that you don't make.

Usually, there are practical limitations as to how far this is possible. For example, opponents will find it hard to understand all inferences from your auction, in a club match-pointed pairs tournament,

 

In high-level play e.g International events, trials, and major national competitions, however, your opponents seem to be entitled to as complete a blue-print of your system as they are willing to put in the work to learn. Disclosing understandings, a short time before a match -- or even worse, as the auction progresses. -- severely disadvantages opponents who want to fine-tune defences, tailored to each specific method.

 

Hence, IMO, private system-notes clash with the very principle of disclosure, flouting Bridge rules.and ethics. The more sophisticated your methods, the greater your secret advantage.

 

A box for "special calls which may require defence" is a step in the right direction but not far enough. Why should you choose, which of your methods, your opponents are allowed to counter?

I would like the rules to mandate that your system-file be clarified and published in supplementary notes with your convention-card.

For on-line play, legislators could insist that a partnership also publishes an FD (Full-Disclosure) file.

The opinion of a top-director, like Gordon Rainsford, would be interesting.

[PrecisionL]

1548567646[/url]'

 

 

I have improved on showing 5-5 hands by responder by including them in the 1NT response. However, they are mostly described by 3♦(majors) not 2NT as in Symmetric Relay.

 

Kurt Schneider has improved the design by describing all 5-5 distributions by 3♣. See rec.games reference, 2/15/16.

 

https://groups.googl...HA/

 

However, this design confounds the major responses of 2♦ and 2♥. (Edited 2/16/19)

[gordontd]

I would like the rules to mandate that your system-file be clarified and published in supplementary notes with your convention-card.

For on-line play, legislators could insist that a partnership also publishes an FD (Full-Disclosure) file.

Hi Nigel,

 

The principle is simple and widely understood, that your opponents are entitled to know as much about your system as you do, or as David Burn would say "tell them what you play". The problem comes with deciding how this should be disclosed, because it's rarely practical to tell your opponents every little detail of your agreements and often won't be necessary, but pairs should recognise that if they have been economical with their disclosure they may well be ruled against for misinformation if it ends up making a difference.

 

An associated question is about what should be alertable, because if too many calls are made alertable they simply become ignored and the ones that really do need to be drawn to your attention will be missed. In the bad old days in England, three-card minor suit openings were alertable and it was widespread that an alert of 1C was assumed to be for this reason, with the consequence that a strong and artificial 1C opening might well be missed until too late.

 

When it comes to insisting on system files being provided as supplementary notes, there are some pairs that do this but their opponents do not always welcome it, preferring to have a well-judged summary instead.

[paulg]

Bridge-rules mandate that you disclose your methods to opponents. In principle that means that your opponents know as much about your agreements as you do --

• positive inferences from the calls that you make -- and
• negative inferences from the calls that you don't make.

Usually, there are practical limitations as to how far this is possible. For example, opponents will find it hard to understand all inferences from your auction, in a club match-pointed pairs tournament,In high-level play e.g International events, trials, and major national competitions, however, your opponents seem to be entitled to as complete a blue-print of your system as they are willing to put in the work to learn. Disclosing understandings, a short time before a match -- or even worse, as the auction progresses. -- severely disadvantages opponents who want to fine-tune defences, tailored to each specific method.

I would have more sympathy with your ideals if your own disclosure was exemplary. However your system card remains the epitome of non-disclosure even though it is used in international representative events and national trials - http://www.sbu.org.u...uthrie-2018.pdf

 

However there is almost sufficient information to play against you on the card, save for saying which suit you open with a balanced 12 count and 4-4 in the red suits (which is really a naughty omission). My own card has almost no white space remaining in an effort to provide disclosure of the system, following the WBF guidelines, but it looks complex and intimidating (it's not suitable for club play, but it is not designed for that).

 

On the topic of Full Disclosure on BBO, it was an experiment but it would have to improve at least hundred-fold to be viable.

[nige1]

The principle is simple and widely understood, that your opponents are entitled to know as much about your system as you do, or as David Burn would say "tell them what you play". The problem comes with deciding how this should be disclosed, because it's rarely practical to tell your opponents every little detail of your agreements and often won't be necessary, but pairs should recognise that if they have been economical with their disclosure they may well be ruled against for misinformation if it ends up making a difference.

The interesting question is:

• Suppose you have fairly comprehensive up-to-date system-notes.
• A pair, against whom you are about to play a long match, request a copy.
• Are you legally obliged to comply with their request?
• Are you morally obliged to do so?

 

However there is almost sufficient information to play against you on the card, save for saying which suit you open with a balanced 12 count and 4-4 in the red suits (which is really a naughty omission). My own card has almost no white space remaining in an effort to provide disclosure of the system, following the WBF guidelines, but it looks complex and intimidating (it's not suitable for club play, but it is not designed for that).

Paul's efforts at disclosure are commendable.

 

Jim likes to play a simple, natural, free-wheeling system with other partners. He and I adopted a similar approach for my monthly outings. The few conventions that we now play are mainly at my suggestion. We have no system-notes. We'll add to our card as soon as we address system grey-areas.

 

Take Paul's example: with 4 card-suits, we recently agreed to open Ms before ms and ♥s before ♠s. I confess, however, that when we last played, we both opened 1♣ holding 4414 :(

 

I intend to write up a simple strong-♣ system to tighten-up our agreements, so this thread is of great interest and use :)

 

On the topic of Full Disclosure on BBO, it was an experiment but it would have to improve at least hundred-fold to be viable.

6 years ago, Kungsgeten created an enormous improvement

[paulg]

The interesting question is:

• Suppose you have fairly comprehensive up-to-date system-notes.
• A pair, against whom you are about to play a long match, request a copy.
• Are you legally obliged to comply with their request?
• Are you morally obliged to do so?

Jim likes to play a simple, natural, free-wheeling system with other partners. He and I adopted a similar approach for my monthly outings. The few conventions that we now play are mainly at my suggestion. We have no system-notes. We'll add to our card as soon as we address system grey-areas.

I would call your "simple, natural, free-wheeling system" a system of implicit, undocumented, agreements where you have a free rein to deny disclosure whenever you see fit. Even though you do try to provide full disclosure the lack of explicit agreements is not to your advantage. Granted you will lose most rulings without dispute since there is no proof of any agreement but, personally, I regard it as unacceptable at international trials level. It is how bridge in played in clubs and there is nothing wrong with it in that environment, but you have a greater responsibility at a higher level.

 

In answer to your question, I'd be happy to provide my comprehensive system notes when you provide me with all your implicit agreements.

 

Unfortunately your approach is adopted by too many Scottish pairs in national trials and they get very frustrated when they lose rulings because they cannot prove an "obvious bid" is so obvious in their methods. A needless corollary to the "freely open to all" approach.

[nige1]

Unfortunately your approach is adopted by too many Scottish pairs in national trials and they get very frustrated when they lose rulings because they cannot prove an "obvious bid" is so obvious in their methods. A needless corollary to the "freely open to all" approach.

 

Neither directors nor opponents have complained about our card but we're happy to change it, in the light of Paul's criticisms.

[paulg]

Neither directors nor opponents have complained about our card but we're happy to change it, in the light of Paul's criticisms.

As I said originally, the card is sufficient for me (and most) to play against you but that does not mean that I think it is adequate. But this is just my opinion and I have nothing to do with the Scottish selectors, except for the juniors which are handled separately.

 

However I tend to be the first port of a call when a complex ruling is involved in any trials, since I am not Scottish, especially with misinformation and unauthorised information cases. The first question I ask is can the pair prove their claimed agreement and I fear you would be poorly placed.

 

The U21 pair I mentor is young and inexperienced and have no system notes, aside from their system card. Personally I regard their card (PDF) as the minimum for an international pair, but it contains more than many international pairs disclose (whose cards were considered fine for the Europeans).

[nige1]

As I said originally, the card is sufficient for me (and most) to play against you but that does not mean that I think it is adequate. But this is just my opinion and I have nothing to do with the Scottish selectors, except for the juniors which are handled separately.

 

However I tend to be the first port of a call when a complex ruling is involved in any trials, since I am not Scottish, especially with misinformation and unauthorised information cases. The first question I ask is can the pair prove their claimed agreement and I fear you would be poorly placed.

 

The U21 pair I mentor is young and inexperienced and have no system notes, aside from their system card. Personally I regard their card (PDF) as the minimum for an international pair, but it contains more than many international pairs disclose (whose cards were considered fine for the Europeans).

Thank you, Paul. Your mentees' system-card is augmented and enhanced by full, clear supplementary-notes.

[Kungsgeten]

6 years ago, Kungsgeten created an enormous improvement

 

Actually it was almost 7 years ago :) https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/52574-bml-markup-language-for-full-disclosure

Time flies by!

[nige1]

Actually it was almost 7 years ago https://www.bridgeba...full-disclosureTime flies by!

 

IMO, Kungsgeten's brilliant BML will soon be revived and developed as the standard online disclosure method, especially for high-level competition,.

[paulg]

IMO, Kungsgeten's brilliant BML will soon be revived and developed as the standard online disclosure method, especially for high-level competition,.

I have not been through BML, but how does it handle competition? This was one of the main reasons I stopped putting effort into Full Disclosure, since calls are dependent on the meaning of the opposition's calls.

 

Even something simple like (1C) 1H (X) where double might show 4 spades, 4+ spades, or show 0-3 spades.