South African Precision

[32519]

Pard and me are having some fun designing our own Non-Natural System. Coming from South Africa, we have called it “South African Precision” although it has little if anything in common with regular Precision (forget the name).

 

Thus far we are fairly comfortable with our 1-level bids, excluding the continuation bids for the 1♥ opening. We are now coming to the forums for some creative suggestions here.

 

Without boring you with excessive detail, the 1-level structure looks like this –

1♣ = 20+ any distribution

1♦ = 16-19 HCP (a 4 HCP range) any distribution

1♥ = 13-15 HCP (a 3 HCP range) any distribution

1♠ = 11-12 HCP (a 2 HCP range) balanced in 1st and 2nd seat, 5X♠ in 3rd and 4th seat (Rule of 15)

1NT = 10 HCP exactly, balanced, absolutely denying a 5-card suit

 

Regarding the 1♥ bid, without opposition intervention partner is forced to make a noise as the bid is artificial. The cheapest available step is a negative response (0-6 HCP); 1♠ without opposition intervention, Pass with opposition intervention. 7 HCP was decided upon as a positive response on the known guarantee that our side has at minimum half of the HCP in the deck (opener’s 13 + responders 7). With a positive response, the premise is that it should be reasonably safe to bid up to 2NT. With that as a starting point we started experimenting with “any bid greater than the 1st step (the negative response) = shortest suit” (or weakest suit with two 2-card suits, 1NT showing ♠ shortness/weakness). With ♠ as openers best suit, it is easy to just sign-off in 1NT. This scheme was working out OK until we started dealing random hands with a singleton Ace in any suit, more than half of the promised 7 HCP. The problem here being that in any trump contract responder had little left to offer in HCP in the trump suit.

 

Hopefully somebody from these forums may choose to re-evaluate our initial assessment and provide an alternative solution.

 

This post has been edited with what follows below.

 

To bring a bit more sanity to this thread, I will include the 2-level bids as well. I didn’t think this was necessary initially.

 

The 2-level bids are there for the more distributional hands –

2♣ = 1 of the following: 6-card ♣ suit or 5X♣ and 5X♦ or 5X♣ plus 4-card major 10-13 HCP

2♦ = Our own version of the current Multi. I absolutely loathe the current Multi. If you want some clues as to where we are going with the revised Multi, you can find some of them here:

1.) Is the Multi Worth It? http://www.bridgebas...lti-2-worth-it/

2.) Flannery http://www.bridgebas...49815-flannery/

3.) The Hated 4441 Hand Pattern http://www.bridgebas...1-hand-pattern/

4.) Showing 2-Suited Hands http://www.bridgebas...2-suited-hands/

You won’t find all the answers, but this I will say (for now). The Revised Multi we intend using includes 4 possible hand patterns a) A natural weak 6-card ♦ suit with 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 honours, b) The 4441 hand pattern 17-24 HCP. The other 2 will be communicated at a later stage.

2♥/2♠ = Muiderberg in 1st and 2nd seat, Constructive 6-card suit in 3rd and 4th seat 8-12 HCP.

2NT = 5/5 Majors 8-12 HCP as used by Blue Team Club. We have tested BTC continuation bidding structure and found it to be very effective. Sure you get some bad results, but they aren’t that many. You can find it on Dan’s website. http://www.bridgewithdan.com/

 

A lot of the threads started by myself have been to find alternatives to what is currently considered the “norm”. Others are just general information being sought by myself.

[the hog]

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I think this is terrible. Your 1D and 1H bids say nothing about distribution. Do you realise how liable to pre emption these are? There have been a number of systems designed around point counts; none has survived the test of time. I also think 20+ for 1C is far too high. You won't open too many hands with 1C.

[chasetb]

Sorry mate, but I have to agree with the Hog. As Benito Garozzo said, distribution is at least as important, if not MORE IMPORTANT, than points. Heck, I've bid quite a few 15-18 HCP games that made, and 20-22 HCP slams; it's technically possible to make a 5 HCP Grand Slam in a suit. Points are important, don't get me wrong, but once you get below 15 HCP, it's distribution, distribution, distribution and fit, fit, fit! That's why nobody at the top level uses the Roman system and hasn't for years - it just isn't nearly as effective as Precision, or I daresay even 2/1.

 

People love to pre-empt strong openings, and love to mess with weird non-specific openings as well (this was a major factor in the Roman system, where 1♣ was extremely vulnerable). Your 1♥, 1♠, and 1NT bids are garbage. You aren't showing distribution, so can't find slim games with a 9+ card fit, good part-scores, and I can easily imagine you going for a great deal of telephone numbers. I do think the 1♣ and 1♦ openings could work, but you have to go pretty radical as in a Weak NT, 4-card Majors, 5-card minors at the 2-level, and basically write (or do plenty of research and rip off) your own responses. You also would need to lower the 1♣ and 1♦ bids by a point, and distribution hands with good/great suits would need to be upgraded, otherwise 1♣ would never be opened.

 

I highly suggest you just learn a basic Precision, one that uses the Unusual Positive, maybe even the Super Unusual Positive. The Impossible Negative is more complicated, not to mention less effective. If you are hell-bent on playing the system I mentioned in the second paragraph, learn all about Zar points, AFTER YOU LEARN A BASIC PRECISION.

[Free]

I'm also not enthusiastic about this system. It seems like you wanted to respect the "useful space principle", but it's poorly implemented. HCP suck, so don't use them as a basis of your system! Also note that the closer you go to 10HCP, the more frequent the hands are. I haven't done the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if your 1♠ opening is more frequent than 1♥ and/or your 1♥ opening is more frequent than your 1♦ opening. You'll be opening 1M way too often, and you'll have preempted yourselves!

 

I would rather reverse the 1-level openings and play a strong ♠ system with a semi strong 1♥ opening, where 1m encompass most limited openings. But even in that case, it's still way too vulnerable for preemption.

[32519]

To bring a bit more sanity to this thread, I will include the 2-level bids as well. I didn’t think this was necessary initially.

 

The 2-level bids are there for the more distributional hands –

2♣ = 1 of the following: 6-card club suit or 5X♣ and 5X♦ or 5X♣ plus 4-card major 10-13 HCP

2♦ = Our own version of the current Multi. I absolutely loathe the current Multi. If you want some clues as to where we are going with the revised Multi, you can find some of them here:

1.) Is the Multi Worth It? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48792-is-the-multi-2-worth-it/

2.) Flannery http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49815-flannery/

3.) The Hated 4441 Hand Pattern http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50262-the-hated-4441-hand-pattern/

4.) Showing 2-Suited Hands http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50655-showing-2-suited-hands/

You won’t find all the answers, but this I will say (for now). The Revised Multi we intend using includes 4 possible hand patterns a) A natural weak 6-card ♦ suit with 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 honours, b) The 4441 hand pattern 17-24 HCP. The other 2 will be communicated at a later stage.

2♥/2♠ = Muiderberg in 1st and 2nd seat, Constructive 6-card suit in 3rd and 4th seat 8-12 HCP.

2NT = 5/5 Majors 8-12 HCP as used by Blue Team Club. We have tested BTC continuation bidding structure and found it to be very effective. Sure you get some bad results, but they aren’t that many. You can find it on Dan’s website. http://www.bridgewithdan.com/

 

A lot of the threads started by myself have been to find alternatives to what is currently considered the “norm”. Others are just general information being sought by myself.

[gordontd]

Coming from South Africa, we have called it “South African Precision” although it has little if anything in common with regular Precision (forget the name).

In that case, I would call it something else.

[mgoetze]

32519, I really do appreciate your attempts to research older threads before posting on a subject. However, you seem to have missed what happened last time someone tried to discuss a system with opening bids based purely on HCP:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46666-kd-joshi-count-system/

 

I wish you best of luck in your continuing quest to learn more about bridge, and I'm sure you will eventually understand why this is a bad idea. ;)

 

Oh BTW, your "Multi" also seems horrible. A multi needs to be forcing, so basically with a weak 2 in diamonds you are forcing yoursefl to 3♦, and it's not even played by the right side. You'll note that any serious bids of this type take pains to exclude the suit bid from the weak hand types. I don't know why you "loathe the current" (which one?) "Multi", but having a weak 2 in diamonds but not in hearts or spades available is just wrong for a lot of reasons...

 

To make a long story short, it seems like you are missing a lot of reasons for why modern bidding systems are the way they are.

[32519]

Oh BTW, your "Multi" also seems horrible. A multi needs to be forcing, so basically with a weak 2 in diamonds you are forcing yoursefl to 3♦, and it's not even played by the right side. You'll note that any serious bids of this type take pains to exclude the suit bid from the weak hand types. I don't know why you "loathe the current" (which one?) "Multi", but having a weak 2 in diamonds but not in hearts or spades available is just wrong for a lot of reasons...

 

Absolutely spot on here, and it is for that very reason why we stipulate 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 honours. You need a playable suit because with a negative response from partner the contract does indeed go to the 3 level.

 

Once you know what the other 2 hand options are in our version of the Multi, it suddenly all starts making a lot more sense.

 

If you want to know why I loathe the current Multi, read the thread "Is the Multi 2 Worth it?"

[gwnn]

It will never work. If you are interested in something vaguely similar to this, check out Magic Diamond.

[Zelandakh]

You can get close to a workable system from this base by including a weak/mini NT into the 1♣ opening, Swedish Club-style. Something like:-

 

1♣ = 10-12 bal or 20+ any

1♦ = 16-19 any

1♥ = 10-15, 5+ hearts

1♠ = 10-15, 5+ spades

1NT = 13-15 (semi-)bal

2♣ = 10-15, 6+ clubs

2♦ = 10-15, 6+ diamonds

 

To be honest though, it makes more sense just to play Swedish Club itself. Even just changing the 1M and 1NT openings to 10-15 natural would be a serious improvement despite the unwieldy NT range. Incidentally, there are a couple of systems with a 1 level super-strong opening but this is nearly always 1♥ or higher. As has been pointed out, 20+ is just too restrictive a range for your cheapest opening bid. An example of such a system is ETM Change of Heart and a well-known purely point-based system is the Orient Bidding System. I think a small amount of serious playtesting would convince you that the system in the OP is a loser against decent opponents (who will overcall aggressively).

[mgoetze]

If you want to know why I loathe the current Multi, read the thread "Is the Multi 2 Worth it?"

 

Wherein you got a lot of great input which you have mostly ignored. OK, I retract my attempt-to-be-encouraging of the previous post... go ahead and create all the bad systems you want, just don't expect unlimited feedback on them.

[32519]

You can get close to a workable system from this base by including a weak/mini NT into the 1♣ opening,

2♣ = 10-15, 6+ clubs

2♦ = 10-15, 6+ diamonds

 

 

Thanks Zel

 

Without realising it, you have put us back on the right path. We ran a whole bunch of hands through BBO's deal generator again.

1.) The hands with 13-15 HCP with the HCP concentrated in the majors or balanced are opened 1♥.

2.) The unbalanced hands with 10-15 HCP with the HCP concentrated in the minors are opened either 2♣ or 2♦.

 

Pard and me are doing this whole thing as a fun excercise. The way the continuation bidding is currently structured, the above 2 pointers cope with it adequately. We will continue running sims through the deal generator and see what needs to be done about the pre-empts by the opponents. Knowing where the HCP are concentrated is the first step in coping with pre-empts.

 

Thanks.

[DrMunk]

This sounds like a system that Walter the Walrus would have loved.

[gwnn]

This sounds like a system that Walter the Walrus would have loved.

Comment of the year!!!!

[glen]

While it may not be a perfect system you can have a lot of fun with structures like these. For example, here's a twist to focus on the balanced hands:

 

1♣: 13-15 unbalanced with a major, or 20+ any (if responder bids 1♦, 20+ rebids 1NT+)

1♦: 16-19 unbalanced or 17-19 balanced

1♥: 14-16 balanced

1♠: 12-13 balanced

1NT: 10-11 balanced

2♣/2♦: 10-15, no four card major if 13-15

2♥/♠: 10-12

 

Enjoy what you come up with, and keep changing anything that is not doing well

[the hog]

"Knowing where the HCP are concentrated is the first step in coping with pre-empts."

Sorry again, but this comment shows a total lack of understanding of competitive bidding. Do you play for high stakes perchance?

[hrothgar]

Designing bidding systems can be a lot of fun.

 

With this said and done, I think that you are headed down a pretty fruitless path and I strongly recommend that you reconsider your basic approach.

Better yet, before you spend a lot of time and effort on something that you will probably decide to discard you might want to consider play a similar system based on the same general principals.

 

With this said and done, if designing this system rocks your boat, have fun.

Just don't make the mistake of taking anyone up on an offer to play Money Bridge using it...

[wclass___]

This reminds my own attempts when i was a total newbie. I didn't know anything about bidding theory, no systems, etc. All I had was simple precision type system written on A4 paper. And as i tried to improve that system my idea was to establish relays so that opener could show his exact HCP. e.g. 1♥-1♠ (REL)-1N=11 HCP; 2♣=12 etc.

 

You are thinking of your own and that is really good. One needs a lot of experience to build a good system. Examine what other players play; take good ideas from them, but always keep thinking of your own and don't assume that others know what they are doing or saying.

[Cthulhu D]

TO me the biggest gain from documenting a system (which was Meckwell Lite, except with all sequences detailed based on the sketchy notes on the internet), was that I had to think about all continuations (what do I do with 17 HCP here?)

 

Very useful.

[32519]

Frequency of Occurrence:

Current Multi

Frequency...Hand Type

2.49%.......6X♥ Suit

2.49%.......6X♠ Suit

0.85%.......Strong Balanced

0.20%.......4441 Hand Pattern

0.26%.......Strong Minor Suit

6.29%.......Total

 

The frequency of occurrence is heavily influenced by the 2♠ and 2♥ bids. The effectiveness of this structure is reduced when your weak 2 is ♠. LHO can still show a ♥ suit on level 2. Therefore, excluding a weak 2 in ♠, the frequency of effectiveness is lowered to 3.80%.

 

Revised Multi (under construction)

Frequency...Hand Type

2.90%.......Weak 2 in ♦

0.20%.......4441 Hand Pattern

0.64%.......Hand Pattern 3

0.16%.......Hand Pattern 4

3.90%.......Total

 

This is slightly better than the current Multi excluding a weak 2 in ♠. If you choose to remove the 4441 Hand Pattern and replace it with a Strong Balanced Hand Pattern, the frequency of occurrence improves to 4.55%.

[Ace4hcp]

Pard and me are having some fun designing our own Non-Natural System. Coming from South Africa, we have called it “South African Precision” although it has little if anything in common with regular Precision (forget the name).

 

Thus far we are fairly comfortable with our 1-level bids, excluding the continuation bids for the 1♥ opening. We are now coming to the forums for some creative suggestions here.

 

Without boring you with excessive detail, the 1-level structure looks like this –

1♣ = 20+ any distribution

1♦ = 16-19 HCP (a 4 HCP range) any distribution

1♥ = 13-15 HCP (a 3 HCP range) any distribution

1♠ = 11-12 HCP (a 2 HCP range) balanced in 1st and 2nd seat, 5X♠ in 3rd and 4th seat (Rule of 15)

1NT = 10 HCP exactly, balanced, absolutely denying a 5-card suit

 

Regarding the 1♥ bid, without opposition intervention partner is forced to make a noise as the bid is artificial. The cheapest available step is a negative response (0-6 HCP); 1♠ without opposition intervention, Pass with opposition intervention. 7 HCP was decided upon as a positive response on the known guarantee that our side has at minimum half of the HCP in the deck (opener’s 13 + responders 7). With a positive response, the premise is that it should be reasonably safe to bid up to 2NT. With that as a starting point we started experimenting with “any bid greater than the 1st step (the negative response) = shortest suit” (or weakest suit with two 2-card suits, 1NT showing ♠ shortness/weakness). With ♠ as openers best suit, it is easy to just sign-off in 1NT. This scheme was working out OK until we started dealing random hands with a singleton Ace in any suit, more than half of the promised 7 HCP. The problem here being that in any trump contract responder had little left to offer in HCP in the trump suit.

 

Hopefully somebody from these forums may choose to re-evaluate our initial assessment and provide an alternative solution.

 

This post has been edited with what follows below.

 

To bring a bit more sanity to this thread, I will include the 2-level bids as well. I didn’t think this was necessary initially.

 

The 2-level bids are there for the more distributional hands –

2♣ = 1 of the following: 6-card ♣ suit or 5X♣ and 5X♦ or 5X♣ plus 4-card major 10-13 HCP

2♦ = Our own version of the current Multi. I absolutely loathe the current Multi. If you want some clues as to where we are going with the revised Multi, you can find some of them here:

1.) Is the Multi Worth It? http://www.bridgebas...lti-2-worth-it/

2.) Flannery http://www.bridgebas...49815-flannery/

3.) The Hated 4441 Hand Pattern http://www.bridgebas...1-hand-pattern/

4.) Showing 2-Suited Hands http://www.bridgebas...2-suited-hands/

You won’t find all the answers, but this I will say (for now). The Revised Multi we intend using includes 4 possible hand patterns a) A natural weak 6-card ♦ suit with 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 honours, b) The 4441 hand pattern 17-24 HCP. The other 2 will be communicated at a later stage.

2♥/2♠ = Muiderberg in 1st and 2nd seat, Constructive 6-card suit in 3rd and 4th seat 8-12 HCP.

2NT = 5/5 Majors 8-12 HCP as used by Blue Team Club. We have tested BTC continuation bidding structure and found it to be very effective. Sure you get some bad results, but they aren’t that many. You can find it on Dan’s website. http://www.bridgewithdan.com/

 

A lot of the threads started by myself have been to find alternatives to what is currently considered the “norm”. Others are just general information being sought by myself.

 

Me and my partner Milton are planing to play this against the silent

Brother Anthony and expect great results.

[32519]

People are forever designing new bidding systems as fun exercises, “knowing” more often than not, they will rarely if ever get to play them in any tournament. This is no different. Attempting to modify someone else’s ideas in a non-natural system that you will have few opportunities to use is no fun. So pard and me decided to try something that, (as far as we know), has never been tried before by anyone else.

 

The crazy 1-level structure is an attempt at combing basic Precision principles (the 1♣ and 1♦ bids), with (not quite) constructive major suit orientated hands (the 1♥ and 1♠ bids), and mini pre-empts (the 1♠ and 1NT bids). That said, what do the bids promise and what are the first round responses?

 

1♣ = 20+ any distribution. The probability of being dealt such a hand is only 1.45%. 2/1 and SAYC players have an artificial 2♣ opening promising 22+ HCP. The probability of being dealt such a hand is only 0.42%. Yet they have it.

Responses

2♣ = negative, promising 0-3 HCP. The idea for using 2♣ as the negative response is threefold: (1) With 20+ HCP opener must surely be able to find another bid somewhere, (2) every attempt is made to ensure that opener becomes declarer, (using 1♦ as the negative response still runs the risk of the weak hand becoming declarer when that is openers suit), and (3) when responder starts supporting opener after a double negative he is showing a distributional hand; trump support and shortness anywhere else. With the right sort of hand, game can still be reached.

2♦ = “waiting,” promising 4+ HCP and game forcing. Sure the 1♣ bid is susceptible for pre-empting by the opponents. The agreements thus far are: (1) With 4+ and a 5-card major, show it as high as level 3, (2) with 4+ balanced, double, (3) pass with 0-3 HCP.

 

2♦ = 16-19 HCP any distribution. The probability of being dealt such a hand is 8.31%. Responses are similar to Precision in style.

2♥ = negative, promising 0-7 HCP. Anything else is similar to Precision promising 8+ HCP and game forcing. Depending on the level of any possible pre-empting by the opponents, responses are: (1) Pass with 0-4 HCP, (2) show any 5+ card suit with 5-7 HCP, (3) double promises 8+ HCP and is penalty orientated, especially if the opponents are vulnerable.

 

1♥ = 13-15 HCP, both suit length and strength concentrated in the majors, or balanced. Therefore when the bidding goes 1♥ (13-15 artificial), 1♠ (0-6 negative), 1NT (promising a balanced hand as in regular Precision). Responder can still use Jacoby Transfer bids after 1NT to improve the contract, including 2♣ as a transfer to ♦. After the 1♠ first response showing 0-6 HCP, 2♣ couldn't possibly be Stayman. So we use it to transfer into a long ♦ suit instead.

The hands in the 10-15 HCP range with suit length and strength concentrated in the minors are opened 2♣.

 

1♠ = 11-12 HCP, balanced in first and second seat as a mini pre-empt, 5-card ♠ suit in third and fourth seat (the rule of 15).

 

1NT = 10 HCP exactly, balanced in first and second seat as a mini pre-empt, pass in third and fourth seat. The bid absolutely denies holding a 5-card suit. The probability of being dealt such a hand is 2.94%, still a reasonable rate of frequency. With a 1NT bid so low and so exact, the 2-level belongs to partner as follows –

2♣2♦2♥2♠ = to play, a so-called “shut-up” bid. Sure we gonna go for some telephone numbers here but we will keep record of the gains and losses before changing the 1NT bid.

2NT = a sort of “reverse Stayman.” Responder has 14+ HCP with a 4-card major. Responses are as follows –

Pass = no 4-card major and a really bad 10 HCP (not backed up by good 10s and 9s)

3♣ = both majors

3♦ = 4-card ♥ suit

3♥ = 4-card ♠ suit

3NT = no 4-card major, HCP backed up by good spot cards (10s and 9s)

 

Other responses to a 1NT opening bid –

3♣3♦ = 6-card suit 15+ HCP, invitational to 3NT or 5 of minor

3♥3♠ = 5-card suit 14+ HCP, game invitational

 

It will never work.

 

Making these sort of sweeping statements have yet to be proved. Walter the Walrus and his partner, Dumbo the Elephant, are having fun with these crazy ideas.

[gwnn]

yet you seem to be perfectly happy with giving up on a treatment based on exactly one bad hand ;)

[gwnn]

38 different HCP values, 36 first calls. COINCIDENCE?

 

pass=0

1C=2

1D=3

1H=4

1S=5

1NT=6

2C=7

2D=8

2H=9

2S=10

2NT=11

3C=12

3D=13

3H=14

3S=15

3NT=16

4C=17

4D=18

4H=19

4S=20

4NT=21

5C=22

5D=23

5H=24

5S=25

5NT=26

6C=27

6D=28

6H=29

6S=30

6NT=31

7C=32

7D=33

7H=34

7S=35

7NT=37

 

The only problem hands with this system are 1 and 36 counts, but in practice you can always uograde or downgrade them one step.

[glen]

...

1♣ = 20+ any distribution. The probability of being dealt such a hand is only 1.45%. 2/1 and SAYC players have an artificial 2♣ opening promising 22+ HCP. The probability of being dealt such a hand is only 0.42%. Yet they have it.

Responses

2♣ = double negative by responder, promising 0-3 HCP. The idea for using 2♣ as a double negative is threefold: (1) With 20+ HCP opener must surely be able to find another bid somewhere, (2) every attempt is made to ensure that opener becomes declarer, (using 1♦ as the negative response still runs the risk of the weak hand becoming declarer when that is openers suit), and (3) when responder starts supporting opener after a double negative he is showing a distributional hand; trump support and shortness anywhere else. With the right sort of hand, game can still be reached.

2♦ = “waiting,” promising 4+ HCP and game forcing. Sure the 1♣ bid is susceptible for pre-empting by the opponents. The agreements thus far are: (1) With 4+ and a 5-card major, show it as high as level 3, (2) with 4+ balanced, double, (3) pass with 0-3 HCP.

...

Did I read this correct, and there are two responses to the 1♣ opening, 2♣ negative and 2♦ 4+?

 

Edit: below it is mentioned that typo error has been corrected, not sure where to find this correction, unless it was the change from "double negative" to "negative" for the 2♣ response