Designing a precision system

[Chamaco]

1) make 1C=10-12 balanced OR any 15+

Hi Luke ! :D

 

According to this, how do you diffrentiate between a opener min balanced hand and a opener strong bal hand , in the 2 cases (opps silent) ?

1- responder bids a negative 1D

2- responder is positive (8+)

[Free]

"I am a strong advocate of "Real Diamond Precision". I believe that the losses on 5C-4M hands are substantitally less than the losses from the nebulous 2D.

 

Precison 2D uses up a valuable bid for your preemptive sysatem and is very infrequent."

 

Do you open 4-4-1-4 hands 1H then?

 

Peter

Yes, it's imo the easiest way to keep that 2♦ bid free & keep the 1♦ opening natural. The frequency is so low that you can consider the opening as a 5 card.

 

I'm thinking of using Bergen raises after 1M openings. But I don't know if it would be a disaster when opener has his 4-4-1-4. He has a singleton so he should be able to ruff some losing ♦s.

Also, I would rather bid 1♠ (forcing for 1 round) over a 1♥ opening to avoid the 4-3's with a 4-4 available. Opener will clarify his ♠ holding and with less than 3 card support he will show his own hand. This would really reduce the possible problems imo.

 

Does anybody know what the best use of 3-level bids is after a 1M opening promissing 5+ cards with such HCP ranges?

[luke warm]

1) make 1C=10-12 balanced OR any 15+

Hi Luke ! :D

 

According to this, how do you diffrentiate between a opener min balanced hand and a opener strong bal hand , in the 2 cases (opps silent) ?

1- responder bids a negative 1D

2- responder is positive (8+)

after 1C, responder bids as in f/n

1D=0-9, 4 hearts

1H=0-9, 4 spades

1S=0-9, no 4M

1N=10+

 

the response structure is up to free to determine... i'm not saying 10-12 should be a part of 1C, just looking for ways to free up 2C :D

[Free]

Did you ever test this at a table Jimmy? I think it's extremely vulnerable for intervention, but not sure...

[luke warm]

Does anybody know what the best use of 3-level bids is after a 1M opening promissing 5+ cards with such HCP ranges?

very few people posting here know what's "best" on anything :D (though some of us think we do heheh)

 

i do like the under j/s showing 8/9-11 splinter (game force) and over j/s showing 12-15 splinter (coupled with the swiss raise showing 12-15 no stiff: 4C shows 2 honors 4D shows none - jacoby 2NT shows 16+)... i like that using reverse bergen and jacoby 2nt... so 1H : 3S would show 4+ trumps, 12+ points, undisclosed splinter... 1H : 3D is under j/s OR bergen constructive... slam is not out of the question if it shows a stiff, even if both opener and responder are near minimum (12, 13 each).. 3S by opener is the ask

 

after 1H : 3D, showing 8/9-11 and undisclosed splinter (or constructive w/out splinter), i play this as a game force if it's the splinter bid... can construct hands that don't have a good play for game, but they're hard to imagine...

 

bergen using the above:

1S : 3C=bergen limit

1S : 3D=bergen constructive

1S : 3H=under j/s

1S : 3NT=over j/s (4C asks, 4S shows club stiff)

1S : 4C=12-15 with 2 of 3 top spade honors if 4 trumps, A or K if 5

1S : 4D=same but without the honor promises

 

1H : 3C = bergen limit

1H : 3D = bergen constructive else under j/s... 3S by opener says "i want to be in game vs. a constructive raise, and slam isn't unlikely if you have a stiff... do you?" ... 3NT says 'yes, spade stiff'... other bids show the stiff... 4H shows bergen constructive, no stiff... after 1H : 3D : 3H by opener says "i don't want to be in game vs. a bergen constructive raise"... 3S by responder says he has a spade stiff, etc... on this sequence, opener usually signs off

1H : 3S=over j/s

1H : 4C/D=same swiss bids

[luke warm]

Did you ever test this at a table Jimmy? I think it's extremely vulnerable for intervention, but not sure...

nah, i've never played it :D

 

it comes from the fantoni/nunes inverted polish club response system.. my understanding is, they pass rather quickly with weakness.. i don't know how susceptible it is to intervention, i do know they've had a bit of success with it... i think zar has some notes on this at his site

 

in addition the the 1 level responses, 2any shows 5+ and GF, 2NT shows 10+ with 5M332

[MickyB]

I am looking at playing a system quite similar to the one that Free suggested. My only worry is the relays including invitational hands. The alternative would seem to be making 1M:1N GF and new suits constructive. Any comments? Would it be better for new suits at the 2 level to be forcing or non-forcing? What about continuations? If 2/1s were NF, it would seem to make sense for all opener's rebids to be natural apart from 2N = good raise.

 

Free - I wouldn't bother with Bergen raises opposite a limited opener, you only really need a constructive raise and a preemptive raise. Don't worry about the 4-4-1-4s, they are very rare, and it might be worth considering a 1NT opener. I would make 1M:3m a mini-splinter unless you think that invitational hands with 6-7 cards in the minor aren't dealt with well by the rest of your structure.

[Chamaco]

I am looking at playing a system quite similar to the one that Free suggested. My only worry is the relays including invitational hands. The alternative would seem to be making 1M:1N GF and new suits constructive. Any comments?

That is the Viking Club approach.

 

Viking club uses

1M:1NT = GF

1M:2C = invitational,

1M:2D/H/S = nonforcing (negative free bids)

[flytoox]

it does free up 2C (which is almost as hated in precision as 1D)...

Really? 2C openings are my second favorite opening in Precision, right behind 1NT. When we have game, it's easy to find. When we don't, it's usually very difficult for opponents. It's a perfect pre-empt when responder is weak, because opponents usually don't have the tools to explore game properly, while the clubs are long enough to sit after an X.

 

Do most people find otherwise?

Conventional wisdom among system designers holds that 2♣ = 6+ Clubs OR 5 Clubs and a 4 card major is a big loser. As I recall, most studies show that this is one of the worst performing bids in both Precision and Polish club.

Richard, can you show where the study you quote comes from? I am curious about this. My humble opinion is 2c opening bid as 5c+4M isnt that bad as most ppl thought.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Hongjun

[hrothgar]

it does free up 2C (which is almost as hated in precision as 1D)...

Really? 2C openings are my second favorite opening in Precision, right behind 1NT. When we have game, it's easy to find. When we don't, it's usually very difficult for opponents. It's a perfect pre-empt when responder is weak, because opponents usually don't have the tools to explore game properly, while the clubs are long enough to sit after an X.

 

Do most people find otherwise?

Conventional wisdom among system designers holds that 2♣ = 6+ Clubs OR 5 Clubs and a 4 card major is a big loser. As I recall, most studies show that this is one of the worst performing bids in both Precision and Polish club.

Richard, can you show where the study you quote comes from? I am curious about this. My humble opinion is 2c opening bid as 5c+4M isnt that bad as most ppl thought.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Hongjun

Hi Hongjun

 

I must admit that I don't have firect access to any data. I've discussed the matter with Paul Marston regarding hwy he chose to adopt a 2C opening showing 6+ clubs. I've also seen quotes from Alan Sontag explaining why Power Precision uses a 6+ card 2C opening.

 

Most system books that I have including The Polish club by Matula and Precision in the 90s by Rigal indictate that the 2C opening is a mixed blessing at best...

[pbleighton]

Berkowitz/Manley, in "Precision Today" (recent), also strongly recommend 2C as 6. They feel that it's a pretty good opening if it guarantees 6, but has lots of problems if it doesn't.

 

Peter

[gregsolomon]

I once read an interview with Eric Rodwell where he said exactly the same thing.

 

The other day I saw Prakash Paranjape playing something like:

 

1C 16+

1D 11-15 and a biddable 4 card major

1H/S 11-15 5+cards

1NT 12-15 balanced, no biddable 4 card major

2C/D 9-15 6+cards, no biddable 4 card major

2H/S weak

 

Not sure how big a following this has, but it looks sound enough to me. They mentioned that they often do quite well after opening 2m, because overcalling is mildly hazardous. And when opps double for takeout it goes e.g. 2C-Dbl-3C compared to the rest of the room where it has gone 1C-Dbl-SlowPass :rolleyes:

[mikestar]

I still think it is better to accept the losses from opening 2C on 4M-5C than to deal wiht a nebulous diamond.

 

However, I have been experimenting with a 4-card major Big Club method:

 

(Point ranges approximate)

 

1C= 17+, 19+ if balanced

 

1D/1H/1S = one of these hand types:

(a) 11-16 single-suited 6+ cards

(:) 11-16 two-suited, 5+ cards

© 11-16 four cards and 5+ clubs

(d) 11-16 4-4-4-1

(e) 15-18 balanced (might be only 3 diamonds)

 

1N = 11-14 balanced, may have 5 card major

 

2C = 11-16, 6+ clubs no second suit. (you can use judgement and ignore a moderate d4-card diamond suit or a worthless 4 card major. (Might be 15-18 3=3=2=5).

 

2N = 21-22 balanced, may have 5 card major.

 

All other 2D+ bids per taste. (I rather like aggressive weak twos on five card suits.)

 

In general, a three card raise of a major opening should be given, though there will be more exceptions than if playing 5 card majors. For example, responding to 1H with 4 spades and 3 hearts, I would bid 1S in this system rather than 2H.

 

Our LOTT decisons after 1M-2M will be less accurate, but so will theirs.

[hrothgar]

In general, a three card raise of a major opening should be given, though there will be more exceptions than if playing 5 card majors. For example, responding to 1H with 4 spades and 3 hearts, I would bid 1S in this system rather than 2H.

I think that you might want to reconsider this idea:

 

Playing 4 card majors, its often best to treat consider your 1♥ opening analagously to a 1♥ advance of a 1m opening playing "standard" methods.

 

Playing standard, expert treatment

 

1. Prefers to raise 1H to 2H holding minimum hands with 4 sapdes

2. Prefers to rebid 1NT holding a balanced hand

 

By inference, the 1♠ rebid promises either

 

1. Any strong hand willing to show Spades and then support Hearts

2. An unbalanced minimum without Heart tolerance

 

I find it best to apply these same principles when deciding whether or not to raise a MOSCITO type "Heart: opening. Indeed, MOSCITO's 2M raise explictly denies 4 card trump support. Please note: Many of our best results occur when the opponent's decide to get frisky after a 1M - 2M auciton.

[mikestar]

In general, a three card raise of a major opening should be given, though there will be more exceptions than if playing 5 card majors. For example, responding to 1H with 4 spades and 3 hearts, I would bid 1S in this system rather than 2H.

I think that you might want to reconsider this idea:

 

Playing 4 card majors, its often best to treat consider your 1♥ opening analagously to a 1♥ advance of a 1m opening playing "standard" methods.

 

Playing standard, expert treatment

 

1. Prefers to raise 1H to 2H holding minimum hands with 4 sapdes

2. Prefers to rebid 1NT holding a balanced hand

 

By inference, the 1♠ rebid promises either

 

1. Any strong hand willing to show Spades and then support Hearts

2. An unbalanced minimum without Heart tolerance

 

I find it best to apply these same principles when deciding whether or not to raise a MOSCITO type "Heart: opening. Indeed, MOSCITO's 2M raise explictly denies 4 card trump support. Please note: Many of our best results occur when the opponent's decide to get frisky after a 1M - 2M auciton.

Certainly worth considering--I'm definitely still in the design stages. I suspect similar frequency statistics apply as in the 1m-1H-2H case--patner may have 4 spades but he woun't have them that often when he has only 4 hearts. In fact, the only possibilities are a 4=4=1=4 or 4=4-3-2 15-18. The former is very rare, the latter is only a problem at the low end, 17-18 will take another bid.

 

How is the 4 card raise handled in MOSCITO?

[EricK]

I once read an interview with Eric Rodwell where he said exactly the same thing.

 

The other day I saw Prakash Paranjape playing something like:

 

1C 16+

1D 11-15 and a biddable 4 card major

1H/S 11-15 5+cards

1NT 12-15 balanced, no biddable 4 card major

2C/D 9-15 6+cards, no biddable 4 card major

2H/S weak

 

Not sure how big a following this has, but it looks sound enough to me. They mentioned that they often do quite well after opening 2m, because overcalling is mildly hazardous. And when opps double for takeout it goes e.g. 2C-Dbl-3C compared to the rest of the room where it has gone 1C-Dbl-SlowPass :)

There doesn't seem to be a bid for eg 1-3-4-5 hands.

 

Eric

[hrothgar]

Here is the current response structure over a MOSCITO type 1♥

 

1♥ shows 4+ SPADES, ~9-14 HCP, could have a longer minor

If balanced, opener will hold ~13-14 HCP

 

4♠ = To play

4♥ = 4+ Spades, singleton Heart, 5-6 losers

4♦= 4+ Spades, singleton Diamond, 5-6 losers

4♣ = 4+ Spades, singleton Club, 5-6 losers

3NT = To play

3♠ = 4+ Spades, 8-9 losers

3♥ = 6+ Hearts and 3 Spades, construvtive but non-forcing

♦ = 6+ Diamonds and 3 Spades, constructive but non-forcing

3♣ = 6+ Clubs and 3 Spades, constructive, but non-forcing

2NT = 4+ Spades, 7 losers

2♠ = 3 Spades, 8-9 losers

[luke warm]

There doesn't seem to be a bid for eg 1-3-4-5 hands.

 

Eric

eric, i see a lot of polish club systems that have differing 2- and 3-way 1c openings... within the framework of a 12-14 nt, are there theoretical drawbacks to this?

 

1c=any 15+, or

any 11-14/15 with clubs, or

any 2 suited hand with clubs (clubs may be canape)

 

for example, 1c can show 1345 hands here, or 1354 or 4225, etc... this seems to (i admit i haven't thought deeply on this) free up 2c and 2nt, it seems to allow a 1h opening to guarantee an unbalanced hand, even if 4 hearts (say 2452)

 

the main reason for opening 1h on 4 cards is to have a rebid over 1s (assuming a hand in the 1nt range that i don't open 1nt with - i try not to open 1nt on 4522)

 

another thought i had, is a 2-way 1nt bid allowed under gcc? i was thinking of 1nt=12-14 OR 18-19... the responses are very easy (responder passes with any hand that would pass 1d/1h/2nt, except of course responder always bids a 5M, even with zero points)

[mikestar]

...

another thought i had, is a 2-way 1nt bid allowed under gcc? i was thinking of 1nt=12-14 OR 18-19... the responses are very easy (responder passes with any hand that would pass 1d/1h/2nt, except of course responder always bids a 5M, even with zero points)

All contructive calls for both sides beginning with the openers's rebid are GCC legal.

[EricK]

There doesn't seem to be a bid for eg 1-3-4-5 hands.

 

Eric

eric, i see a lot of polish club systems that have differing 2- and 3-way 1c openings... within the framework of a 12-14 nt, are there theoretical drawbacks to this?

 

1c=any 15+, or

any 11-14/15 with clubs, or

any 2 suited hand with clubs (clubs may be canape)

 

for example, 1c can show 1345 hands here, or 1354 or 4225, etc... this seems to (i admit i haven't thought deeply on this) free up 2c and 2nt, it seems to allow a 1h opening to guarantee an unbalanced hand, even if 4 hearts (say 2452)

 

the main reason for opening 1h on 4 cards is to have a rebid over 1s (assuming a hand in the 1nt range that i don't open 1nt with - i try not to open 1nt on 4522)

 

another thought i had, is a 2-way 1nt bid allowed under gcc? i was thinking of 1nt=12-14 OR 18-19... the responses are very easy (responder passes with any hand that would pass 1d/1h/2nt, except of course responder always bids a 5M, even with zero points)

You need to find bids for all the hands included in 1♣ after a negative 1♦ response.

 

Standard Polish Club will bid 1M with any of the weak hands, and hope to scramble to a playable spot at a low level. I am not sure what I would like to bid if I might have a 2-2-4-5 hand.

 

I think strong/weak bids work better if either the weak hand(s) or the strong hand(s) is well-defined. Otherwise you can have difficulty sorting everything out, even in an unopposed auction, let alone a competitive one.

 

Eric

[Antoine Fourrière]

If you don't want to consume an opening for the 4=4=1=4 type, it will spoil whichever opening you tuck these hands into. Since 2♣ is the least common opening, wouldn't it be better (well, less awful) to start with 2♣ instead of 1♥?

2♣ five clubs and a four-card major, or 4=4=1=4

2♦, 2♥, 2♠ preempts

2N six clubs with a near opening

3♣ six clubs with a full opening

 

After 2♣ 2♦?

2♥ four hearts and maybe four spades (2♠ pass or correct to 3♣)

2♠ four spades and five clubs

[luke warm]

What do you open with the following hand?

 

AKQ

7642

7

Q5432

1♥ ... B)

[tysen2k]

3♣ six clubs with a full opening

B)

[MickyB]

I take it that that hasn't done too well in simulations, Tysen?

[tysen2k]

I take it that that hasn't done too well in simulations, Tysen?

I'm not going to even try simulations. :D

2♣ is somewhat of a burden already in Precision, I can't imagine trying to do it at the 3-level. Restricting it to 6 cards makes it decent at the 2-level but I would never subject myself to the cruelty of trying to handle constructive bidding after a 3♣ opening...

 

Tysen