Jim Loy's Precision

[gurgistan]

I have decided to learn precision and I am going to use this resource for my learning. Could someone just give it a quick once over and cofirm that it is a common enough form of precision for me to bother learning. I do not expect or want any detailed discussion of it. All I need is confirmation that it is a common enough understanding of precision for me to bother to learn.

[Hairy_Scot]

Have a look at this PDF:-

http://sites.google.com/site/jimwat1/PrecisionClub99.pdf

it outlines the original C.C. Wei version of the system.

[hrothgar]

I have decided to learn precision and I am going to use this resource for my learning. Could someone just give it a quick once over and cofirm that it is a common enough form of precision for me to bother learning. I do not expect or want any detailed discussion of it. All I need is confirmation that it is a common enough understanding of precision for me to bother to learn.

This looks to be a fairly standard, though dated, version of the system.

(2N = 22-23 HCP ??? Wow... that one takes me back)

 

Even so, I think you'd be better off investing in a good book.

[mgoetze]

9. Responses To One Of A Major

 

Reminder: One of a major shows 11-15 pts, and a 5-card suit.

pass: 0-7 pts. or poor fit.

raise: 8-10 pts. 3-card support.

new suit: 1/1=8-15 pts. 2/1=11-15 pts. 4-card suit. Denies good support. Forcing.

Forcing 1NT: 8-15 pts. Poor support. No good new suit. Forcing.

2NT: 16+ pts. Balanced. Forcing to game. No good new suit. May have support.

jump shift: 16+ pts. 5-card suit. Forcing to game. May have support.

jump raise: 11-13 pts. 3-card support.

3NT strong raise: Artificial. Strong raise. 14-15 pts. Good 3-card support.

triple raise: 14-15 pts (less than 11 hcp) 4-card support.

double jump shift: Splinter raise. 11-15 hcp. 3-card support. Singleton or void in bid suit.

 

No.

[P_Marlowe]

What is missing, is how to deal with interference, if our side has opened

with 1C / 1D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[NickRW]

9. Responses To One Of A Major

 

Reminder: One of a major shows 11-15 pts, and a 5-card suit.

pass: 0-7 pts. or poor fit.

raise: 8-10 pts. 3-card support.

new suit: 1/1=8-15 pts. 2/1=11-15 pts. 4-card suit. Denies good support. Forcing.

Forcing 1NT: 8-15 pts. Poor support. No good new suit. Forcing.

2NT: 16+ pts. Balanced. Forcing to game. No good new suit. May have support.

jump shift: 16+ pts. 5-card suit. Forcing to game. May have support.

jump raise: 11-13 pts. 3-card support.

3NT strong raise: Artificial. Strong raise. 14-15 pts. Good 3-card support.

triple raise: 14-15 pts (less than 11 hcp) 4-card support.

double jump shift: Splinter raise. 11-15 hcp. 3-card support. Singleton or void in bid suit.

 

No.

I realise that that strategy has its limitations and such has been well discussed - but apparently the original poster is not aware. Just saying "No" doesn't really help a lot.

[helene_t]

looks very old fashioned. better buy Berkowitz book. Or buy jannersteen s book if u want to follow the bil precision lessons on bbo

[gurgistan]

Thanks to everyone who responded.

 

I wish to play precision as every now and again I can find no one on BBO playing 2/1!

 

Is this material (Jim Loy's) a good starting off point for my precision learning?

 

I only need a general understanding of precision just enough to avoid the obvious and the egregious errors.

[hrothgar]

Thanks to everyone who responded.

 

I wish to play precision as every now and again I can find no one on BBO playing 2/1!

 

Is this material (Jim Loy's) a good starting off point for my precision learning?

 

I only need a general understanding of precision just enough to avoid the obvious and the egregious errors.

The summary that you provided is a random collection of opening bids and a few first round responses. It provides no information regarding

 

Why the system is designed this way

auction continuations

competitive bidding

yada, yada, yada

 

From the sounds of things, you are brand new to Precision. I respectfully suggest that you don't have enough experience to know what you do/do not need.

 

Almost everyone on this thread has told you to go buy a decent book on the subject.

[blackshoe]

It's a start - but the Berkowitz book would be a better one, IMO. For one thing, there are some parts of Precision where there are two ways to bid. For example, Loy suggests the "Impossible Negative", but there's also the "Unusual Positive", which you'll more likely find on modern system cards. Berkowitz talks about NT ranges — 13-15 was Wei's original, you'll also see 10-12, 14-16, and other variations. The thing is, the book will at least introduce you to the possibilities, so that even if you choose not to go with, say, the Unusual Positive, at least when your pickup partner suggests it, you'll know what he's talking about.

 

There are a lot of asking bids in Jannersten's book. For my money, you really only need a couple of them.

[nigel_k]

For one thing, there are some parts of Precision where there are two ways to bid.

This is quite a large understatement.

 

It's hard enough finding a pickup partner who plays Standard American or 2/1 in a somewhat predictable way. With Precision it surely must be much worse. I think if the only available partners play Precison but not SAYC then you won't miss much if you log off and come back later. If you do get a book, then sit down and play with a pickup partner, I definitely wouldn't try anything outside of chapter 1.

[straube]

People are giving you lots of good advice. Hope I can, too.

 

A good strong club system is (I think most would agree) better than a natural system like Standard American or 2/1. They handle strength ranges better and resolve captaincy issues better. They make better and more frequent use of 1C-1D sequences than does standard systems.

 

You need a regular partner for a strong club system. There are myriad versions of Precision. I think of Precision as just a family of similar strong club systems that have at their core 5-cd majors, something like a 13-15 NT, a 2D (usually) bid that shows diamond shortness, and a 1D opening that has a minimum of 2, 3, or even 4 diamonds.

 

Avoid any system that recommends an impossible negative. That treatment is unsound and should raise your suspicion that the system designers either don't know what they're doing or think that you are not up to learning better methods.

 

One of my partners plays a strong club system with me and he sometimes misses inferences in defense because he doesn't play Standard American or 2/1. It pays to know your opponents methods and the weak spots of their system.

 

I would recommend having a decent understanding of standard american and then move quickly to 2/1. You will learn a lot that you can incorporate into a strong club system (for instance you might decide to play 2/1 GF and forcing NT). After this, get a partner, get some good books on Precision, and work together to develop your own system.

[mgoetze]

I don't think it's impossible to play precision with a pickup partner. I do think that it is a horrible way to "learn" anything, though.

[the hog]

gurgistan, the Jim Loy version is not detailed enough and gives you the bare bones only. Get a book.

Reese's published version of Precision recommended the impossible negative, and I would not say that Reese "did not know what he is doing". It is certainly a playable method, though not too many do so. Similarly the 13-15 range is not used much today. You need to look at the system as a whole entity and not pull out some aspects of it when judging whether it is sound or not.

[Zelandakh]

To the OP, are you a member of the BIL? My suggestion would be to learn the version of precision taught there and to try and hook up with one of the other students to form a regular partnership with. That way you are learning together and know that you are on the same wavelength when it comes to system. It is most important that you have agreements about competitive sequences.

 

Other things...

"A good strong club system is (I think most would agree) better than a natural system like Standard American or 2/1."

 

I would not agree. Given an uncontested auction you are probably going to have a more accurate bidding sequence with a strong club than 'natural'. But auctions are not uncontested, especially after a strong 1C. Precision auctions after 1D and 2C openings are often much less precise than the comparable 'natural' auction. In essence you trade 1 set of problems for another.

 

"Avoid any system that recommends an impossible negative."

 

An impossible negative is not unsound. There are probably better ways of handing these hands in a well-edesigned modern system but to suggest that anyone using INs does not know what they are doing is extremely arrogant.

[straube]

Other things...

"A good strong club system is (I think most would agree) better than a natural system like Standard American or 2/1."

 

I would not agree. Given an uncontested auction you are probably going to have a more accurate bidding sequence with a strong club than 'natural'. But auctions are not uncontested, especially after a strong 1C. Precision auctions after 1D and 2C openings are often much less precise than the comparable 'natural' auction. In essence you trade 1 set of problems for another.

 

"Avoid any system that recommends an impossible negative."

 

An impossible negative is not unsound. There are probably better ways of handing these hands in a well-edesigned modern system but to suggest that anyone using INs does not know what they are doing is extremely arrogant.

First, I said that i thought most would agree. Not everyone. I've noticed that many of the top partnerships use a strong club system....despite the preparation involved.

 

I think "extremely arrogant" is unkind. Plus I gave two reasons for why folks might have recommended impossible negatives. The first was because they didn't know what they were doing, but the second was because they didn't give their followers enough credit to learn something better.

 

I think there's been a strong trend away from the impossible negative (RM Precision for one) and for good reason. Opener doesn't always make a simple suit rebid which allows for an impossible negative. Also the opponents can get in the way and make it hard for that hand to show values.

[the hog]

"I've noticed that many of the top partnerships use a strong club system."

 

Not really. Far more use something like 2/1

 

"Plus I gave two reasons for why folks might have recommended impossible negatives"

 

Yes you did, and both were funny and inaccurate.

[helene_t]

I don't think it's impossible to play precision with a pickup partner. I do think that it is a horrible way to "learn" anything, though.

Agree with this.

 

I've played precision with p/o's lots of times. Maybe on those occasions bidding misunderstandings are slightly more likely to occur than with standard systems but I am not even sure of that.

 

But indeed, it's not the way to learn it.

[straube]

Wikipedia had an overview of Precision...

 

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Precision_Club

 

Here's another on Superprecision...

 

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/Precision/Su...ecisionClub.pdf

 

Superprecision was developed by Garozzo. It included the modification to Precison of using unusual positives instead of impossible negatives. RM Precision also uses unusual positives.

 

Impossible negatives can create difficulties when opener has a good hand. For instance it conflicts with the zeta ask...

 

http://www.reginabridge.com/conventions/bc_ask.html

 

The zeta asks occurs after 1C -1D. 2M presumes that 1D is 0-7 and asks responder to describe his support for the major in one of 8 steps. There is no step to show the impossible negative.

 

Even if one doesn't play the zeta ask, one has difficulty sorting out the strength of the 4441 hands after opener's jump (forcing) rebid. 1C-1D, 2H-4C can't be used as a splinter showing something like 6-7 hcps, four hearts and short club because it has to mean 4-4-4-1 with 8+ hcps.

 

The impossible negative also poses difficulty after a simple 1N rebid by opener.

1C-1D, 1N. At this point, all 3 level responses are devoted to the 4441 hands. This means that one can't play the same structure over 1C-1D, 1N as one would for an opening 1N.

[mycroft]

The big problem with the impossible negative is that fourth chair has been known not to be silent.

 

After 1C-p-1D-2S, opener is going to play you for 0-7, not 1444 and a big hand; and if you have to reserve responder's double for the impossible negative (and what about the odd time where opener has the short spades, and you have a 4144 8-count?) it's going to be hard to resolve.

 

Best to get those bids off responder's chest the first time, in case there isn't a clear second time.

 

In general, I n-th the suggestion to get a modern book (that isn't Rigal's - good book, but NOT for learning Precision) and read up on what and why.

[the hog]

I would not rely on Wikipedia as a resource for anything. Have you actually played an unusual positive yourself? If the answer is "no", then you cannot comment sensibly. It is certainly playable, though as I have already said, and as mycroft says in his post above, it is not optimal.

By the way, a number of very good players still use it.

[straube]

I would not rely on Wikipedia as a resource for anything. Have you actually played an unusual positive yourself? If the answer is "no", then you cannot  comment sensibly. It is certainly playable, though as I have already said, and as mycroft says in his post above, it is not optimal.

By the way, a number of very good players still use it.

I had a partnership that used a fairly standard version of Precision that did use the impossible negative and I've more recently played unusual positives. I didn't try to recommend the latter approach based on my experiences as much as provide reasons why unusual positives are imo better. One doesn't have to play every bad treatment to know that it's bad. I also mentioned the trend toward use of the unusual positives and that trend probably confirms that other people are deciding that unusual positives are better.

 

I'm glad you agree that impossible negatives are not optimal. I would go further and say that the impossible negative is unsound. Apparently it's just a difference of opinion.

[Mbodell]

I have decided to learn precision and I am going to use this resource for my learning. Could someone just give it a quick once over and cofirm that it is a common enough form of precision for me to bother learning. I do not expect or want any detailed discussion of it. All I need is confirmation that it is a common enough understanding of precision for me to bother to learn.

If you already knew that link well and asked "could I play this system of precision and be mostly ok" the answer would be yes. If instead you ask "should I bother to learn it" the answer is not if you have any other choices (like learning from Berkowitz's precision today book).

 

If you just want to mess around with a partner and have both of you look at that web site you could get your feet wet, but it is not the best way to learn.