The best responses to precision 2C

[johnu]

After a 2♦relay,

 

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ ________________ 4 hearts or 6+ clubs with a maximum

2♠ ________________ 4 spades

2NT _______________ 6+ clubs with a minimum and 2 outside stoppers

3♣________________ 6+ clubs with a minimum and 1 outside stopper

 

Continuations:

 

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - 2♠ _____________ Relay

2NT ________________ 6+ clubs with a maximum and 2 outside stoppers

3♣ _________________ 6+ clubs with a maximum and 1 outside stopper

3♦ _________________ 4 hearts, fragment in diamonds

3♥ _________________ 4 hearts

 

3♦ by responder is another relay

[rhm]

as most Polish players (including good ones) play this opening and there were various tries to make it suck less and none of them seem successful.

Could it be that this is so because 2♣ just showing 5 cards sucks and the US are right and the Polish wrong here?

In most variants of Polish Club 1♦ shows almost as many diamonds as 2♣ shows clubs.

Given the different space consumption between a 1♦ and a 2♣ opening this just does not look right to me.

Play 1♦ as 5 cards or unbalanced. If unbalanced it will be at least 4 cards unless specifically 4-1 in the majors, in which case it could be 3 cards (fairly rare exception).

 

Now 2♣ can guarantee 6 cards.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

What are you opening on (34)15 Rainer?

[rhm]

What are you opening on (34)15 Rainer?

1♣

 

I am talking about Polish Club, not Precision. One (important) difference between Polish Club and strong club system is that 1♦ is not nebulous, quite well defined and tends to show diamonds.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

Could it be that this is so because 2♣ just showing 5 cards sucks

 

Surely so.

 

and the US are right and the Polish wrong here?

 

In what sense ? That 2C should promise 6 ? It would be completely different system then, you can't do that in pc.

 

Given the different space consumption between a 1♦ and a 2♣ opening this just does not look right to me.

 

I don't think space consumption argument is valid at all.

 

If unbalanced it will be at least 4 cards unless specifically 4-1 in the majors, in which case it could be 3 cards (fairly rare exception).

 

What about (3-4)-1-5 or (4-2)-2-5 ? People open 2C with those shapes too.

It's sometimes nice to do it with xx AQxx xx AKTxx or something.

Also what about constructive bidding in sequences:

 

1D - 2C

?

 

In pc you have simple natural bidding with 2D promising 5 and 2H/2S being reverses. You need some artificial scheme with 1D being 3+.

I mean, maybe precision is better than pc but those are completely different systems and that change would ruin it imo. People play pc because it's simple, natural and easy to use and having natural and descriptive 1D opening is part of it.

[Zelandakh]

1♣

 

I am talking about Polish Club, not Precision. One (important) difference between Polish Club and strong club system is that 1♦ is not nebulous, quite well defined and tends to show diamonds.

Being PC is the reason why I asked. My own system was described (by gwnn) as "PC with a weak NT" so I am well aware of what shapes are included. (34)15 is part of the 2♣ opening and not addressed in your previous post. What you are describing sounds similar to the way AUC handles these hands. That is possible of course but if doing this it would seem to make more sense to simply play the entire AUC system and forget you thought it was PC at all.

[rhm]

Surely so.

 

 

 

In what sense ? That 2C should promise 6 ? It would be completely different system then, you can't do that in pc.

Why?.

Jassem mentions it specifically in WJ05 as an option.

I play it with little difficulty

 

I don't think space consumption argument is valid at all.

Come on. The whole discussion in this thread centers on that we do not have the space over 2♣ we need to distinguish different responding hands.

Why else all these discussions about 2M forcing or not etc.

Differentiating different responding hands over 1♦ is far less of a problem.

 

What about (3-4)-1-5 or (4-2)-2-5 ? People open 2C with those shapes too.

It's sometimes nice to do it with xx AQxx xx AKTxx or something.

You open this 1♣, just like balanced hands with 5 clubs or 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5, which even you do now open 1♣, right?

 

Also what about constructive bidding in sequences:

 

1D - 2C

?

 

In pc you have simple natural bidding with 2D promising 5 and 2H/2S being reverses. You need some artificial scheme with 1D being 3+.

Agreed, you will have to modify your responses to cater for all possible distributions, but it is not difficult.

Remember that opener, with the additional hands will have very good club support for responder, when partner responds with 2C. You can splinter in your major, when you have the holding with 3 diamonds for example. i wouldbe delighted when my partner responds 2♣ over 1♦.

I have never found the natural responses in this sequence very satisfactory anyway and I do not worry too much about (41)-3-5 because they occur less than one in twenty when I open 1♦.

 

I mean, maybe precision is better than pc but those are completely different systems and that change would ruin it imo. People play pc because it's simple, natural and easy to use and having natural and descriptive 1D opening is part of it.

I am not speaking about precision, because in precision you can not open 1♣ with five clubs and short diamonds when 12-14. There is nothing wrong doing this in Polish club. You often open 1♣ with 5 clubs and you do this short in diamonds. If you open 2♣ with 5 clubs and a 4 card major instead of 1♣ you risk losing your major.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Being PC is the reason why I asked. My own system was described (by gwnn) as "PC with a weak NT" so I am well aware of what shapes are included. (34)15 is part of the 2♣ opening and not addressed in your previous post. What you are describing sounds similar to the way AUC handles these hands. That is possible of course but if doing this it would seem to make more sense to simply play the entire AUC system and forget you thought it was PC at all.

Everybody in PC opens (44)14 or (44)05 with 1♣.

Explain why you see problems opening (34)15 with 1♣ in PC, when balanced hand with 34 in the majors are opened 1♣ as well.

I have never encountered them.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

Everybody in PC opens (44)14 or (44)05 with 1♣.

Explain why you see problems opening (34)15 with 1♣ in PC, when balanced hand with 34 in the majors are opened 1♣ as well.

I have never encountered them.

 

Those hands are very rare. Another thing is that they contain 4-4 in majors which makes for example:

1C - 1M

2M still 4 cards as it always is in Polish club.

 

I feel you take the worst of both worlds (polish 1C promising balanced hand and standard 1C) by introducing some of those hands into 1C but not all. It makes some simple situation awkward, say:

1C - 1D

1M - 2D

or negative free bids with 5 cards. It cripples 1D opening but you still have sucky 2C there for (4-1)-3-5 hands.

 

I don't like it but some good Polish players do that so it's playabale I am sure.

[mikestar13]

,

I have played 2♦ and 2 ♥ as conditional transfers for over 3 years now (in response to a Precision 2♣ opener).

 

The 2♣ opener accepts the transfer with xx or better in the suit indicated by the transfer.

Opener with 0-1 cards of the suit shown by the transfer bids 2NT if maximum or 3♣ if minimum.

 

Responder with invitational hands or better knows what to do after hearing the opener's response to the transfer.

 

Downside: With both partners minimum and no fit, you might get too high, 3♣. Thus, opener might want to have a good ♣ suit for the 2♣ opener.

 

It is unclear if this is an ACBL GCC allowable treatment / convention.

 

RESPONSES AND REBIDS

 

7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),

forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this

classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a

range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See #7 under

DISALLOWED.)

 

Above is the relevant part of the GCC. Transfer response to two level or higher openings are perfectly OK. I assume transfers are OK anywhere in the world, since as far as I know, the GCC is the world's most restrictive convention regulation not intended for beginners.

[blackshoe]

Personally, I think the GCC is intended to keep everyone at beginner level. :ph34r:

[mikestar13]

Personally, I think the GCC is intended to keep everyone at beginner level. :ph34r:

 

A big +1 on that :D.

[glen]

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/6245/directionc.jpg

[blackshoe]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Good one, Glen! :P

[straube]

Our 2C opening promises 6 clubs and denies 4 hearts...so quite a bit more defined than a standard Precision 2C. We wanted the ability to see how opener liked our 5-cd major before giving up on a club partial. Also, we wanted the ability to get out in 2M in a misfit (a la a standard 1C-1S, 2C-2S) auction. So with a little help from Zelandakh and others we came up with...

 

2D-artificial GF OR hearts

.....2H-0-1 hearts

..........P-9-11 with six hearts

..........2S-artificial GF

...............2N-four diamonds

....................3C-asks

.........................3D-2146

.........................3H-3046

.........................3S-1147

.........................3N-2047

...............3C-single-suited

....................3D-asks

.........................3H-3136

.........................3S-2137 or 3127

.........................3N-3037

...............3D-4126

...............3H-4036

...............3S-4117

...............3N-4027

.....2S-2 hearts

..........2N-artificial GF

...............3C-balanced

....................3D-asks

.........................3H-2236

.........................3S-3226

.........................3N-2227

...............3D-four diamonds

...............3H-1237 or 3217

...............3S-4216

...............3N-4207

.....2N-3 hearts, higher shortness

..........3C-GF relay

...............3D-1336

...............3H-1327

...............3S-0337

.....3C-3 hearts, lower shortness

.....3D-0346

.....3H-2326

.....3S-4306

 

2H-5+ spades, constructive or GI, or with a prepared game rebid

.....2S-0-1 spades

..........P-six spades, 9-11

.....2N-2 spades, minimum

.....3C-2 spades, maximum

.....3D-3 spades, minimum

.....3H-3 spades, maximum

.....3S-4 spades, minimum

.....etc

 

2S-GI, club tolerance

2N-constructive, club fit

3C-weak

3D-GI, 6 diamonds, no fit

 

After 2C-2D, opener's rebids reserve room for responder to break relay in the cases of a misfit. For example...

 

2C-2D, 2H-2N is nf invitational

2C-2D, 2S-3D is nf invitational showing 5/5 in the reds

 

If opener has three hearts, that news should be welcome to responder whether he has any GF hand or constructive+ with hearts

 

2C-2D, 2N-3H shows a constructive hand with hearts

2C-2D, 2N-3D is inviting in hearts. There isn't need to show a GI with both reds when opener has a fit for hearts

 

When responder has a GI hand with spades, opener shows just how many spades he has and whether he is minimum or maximum.

 

2C-2H, 2N-3H shows a GI with 5/5 in the majors

2C-2H, 2S-3S shows a GI with a good six+ card suit

 

A couple of downsides...some of opener's higher responses to a 2D inquiry get us rather high.

 

2C-2D, 3S where opener has 4306 and 10-15 and now we're forced to game. OTOH, these higher responses are infrequent and responder has at least constructive values. Maybe game makes.

 

Another downside is that we give up on finding 4/4 major suit fits (spades is the only 4/4 fit we can have) unless opener is strong enough to force game. What happens is that responder shows whether he has constructive or GI values and then opener decides whether to show shortness and perhaps uncover a spade fit if it exists.

 

2C-2S, 3D-3S, 4S where 2S shows GI values, 3D shows opener is short in diamonds, and 3S is natural showing 4.

 

I think Precision 2C has even more need of a scheme like ours. You don't have the safety of a six-card club suit which (for us) serves as an anchor suit. I'm thinking...

 

2D-GF relay OR hearts

2H-constructive+ spades

2S-3+ clubs with constructive or GI values

.....2N-GT

2N-GI misfitting

3C-weak

 

The difficulty you would have is that your 2C has too many hand types. You would have to collapse some and lose a little accuracy.

 

2D-

.....2H-0-1 hearts

.....2S-2 hearts

.....2N through 3N to handle 3 or 4 hearts

[Fluffy]

has anyone toyed with 2♣-2♦-2♥ being 3+ and 2♠ being 4?

[whereagles]

I've been playing some precision lately and I detest 2C-2M non forcing bids.

 

I had a look at the matter and transfer responses are playable (5+ cards). With 4M you can bid 2S as a relay.

[mgoetze]

When gwnn and I played Swedish Club, we agreed that transfers were the way to go, but unfortunately we could not agree whether completion should show 0-2 or 2-3 cards in the suit. I admit I only wanted to play 2-3 because I considered it simpler, 0-2 may well be the superior method. Anyhow, since we couldn't agree we ended up playing Balicki-Zmudzinski responses instead, which have 2M as nat weak and 2♦ as an INV+ relay.

 

B-Z system: http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/Balicki-Zmudzinski.txt

 

Thread discussing transfer responses: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42243-our-2c-structure/page__view__findpost__p__504987

Another thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/52777-old-style-precision-2c/

[RSClyde]

I greatly prefer the style of 2♣ opening promising 6+ clubs. Then lump the other hands into 1/2♦.

So with (43)15 open 2♦

(14)35 open 1♦

(24)25 open 1♦

It seems that by playing the 2♣ opening as so wide ranging in shape you create your own problem. You'll have no problem finding a fit with any of the above distributions if you open 1/2♦ and 2♣ is now more descriptive.

 

As far as responses, I like 2♦ and 2♥ as transfers and opener super accepts freely: if you have a fit then you have some shortness (though possibly just 2 doubleton) so it doesn't pay to be shy. Then 2♠ is like stayman. You may occasionally miss a 4-4 fit if responder lacks a GF but that may have happened anyway and now 4 card majors are less frequent anyway.

[Zelandakh]

I greatly prefer the style of 2♣ opening promising 6+ clubs. Then lump the other hands into 1/2♦.

Another excellent way of splitting the minor suit hands is to play that a 1♦ opening promises one minor but not both. Then either 2♣ = both minors and 2♦ = 3-suited or the reverse. I think Ken Rexford is the biggest advocate of this method on BBF (he plays 2♣ Roman and 2♦ both minors).

 

It seems that by playing the 2♣ opening as so wide ranging in shape you create your own problem. You'll have no problem finding a fit with any of the above distributions if you open 1/2♦ and 2♣ is now more descriptive.

The wide range of shape is manageable if you insist on keeping the strength range tight. If you try to extend the range too much then there are naturally issues. Finding a fit after a nebulous 1♦ opening is not always as simple as you suggest if the opponents are impolite enough to bid. More seriously though, you lose many part score battles that you would win with, for example, an unbalanced diamond opening, since Responder has little idea how high to compete. In many systems the upsides outweigh the downsides but to suggest there is no downside is not right. Typically (note: personal opinion coming) systems which include a weak NT in the 1♦ opening are better off including further nebulous hand types here to improve the 2♣ auctions. But systems which handle their balanced hands without using 1♦ are usually better off either going for an unbalanced diamond or for a "Flamingo" structure. I do not think the same solution works perfectly for every system.

 

 

As far as responses, I like 2♦ and 2♥ as transfers and opener super accepts freely: if you have a fit then you have some shortness (though possibly just 2 doubleton) so it doesn't pay to be shy. Then 2♠ is like stayman. You may occasionally miss a 4-4 fit if responder lacks a GF but that may have happened anyway and now 4 card majors are less frequent anyway.

You do not need the 2♠ Stayman response, just make different super-accepts for 3 and 4 card support and for min or max. I posted mine earlier (in #16) for reference. That also means not missing any 4-4 fit for invitational hands either. And weak hands with a 4 card major will usually pass.

[RSClyde]

You do not need the 2♠ Stayman response, just make different super-accepts for 3 and 4 card support and for min or max. I posted mine earlier (in #16) for reference. That also means not missing any 4-4 fit for invitational hands either. And weak hands with a 4 card major will usually pass.

I wasn't really thinking of transferring to 4 card suits, or did I miss something?

[rhm]

You do not need the 2♠ Stayman response, just make different super-accepts for 3 and 4 card support and for min or max. I posted mine earlier (in #16) for reference. That also means not missing any 4-4 fit for invitational hands either. And weak hands with a 4 card major will usually pass.

You did, but a two-liner is hardly an extensive discussion about the pros and cons.

I would really like to know what you suggest to do with the problem hands.

Say you open 2♣ with a seven card suit and a void in hearts. Partner bids 2♦. Do you still accept the transfer? If not what else?

Or you open 2♣ with six and 5 cards in a major. Partner transfers to the other major.

I am not claiming your system is silly, it is more that I get tired of people recommending an approach they are convinced of without discussing possible drawbacks.

Six month later they will be convinced of a different approach.

You are by far not the worst offender in this direction.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I wasn't really thinking of transferring to 4 card suits, or did I miss something?

You should look into it - I think it makes the whole thing much easier if you do this. Naturally you have some game interest (INV+) if you trabsfer with a 4 card suit.

 

 

You did, but a two-liner is hardly an extensive discussion about the pros and cons.

That is true. But the pros and cons have been discussed in more detail in other threads. Usually either Michael or gwnn links to the main ones on the other threads.

 

 

I would really like to know what you suggest to do with the problem hands.

Say you open 2♣ with a seven card suit and a void in hearts. Partner bids 2♦. Do you still accept the transfer? If not what else?

Yes, complete the transfer. If partner is weak, they will have a real suit. If partner has values they will be bidding again.

 

 

Or you open 2♣ with six and 5 cards in a major. Partner transfers to the other major.

I do not open 2♣ with a 5 card major. This comes back to not trying to get too many hand types into the 2♣ opening. The relays after a 1M opening make allowance for the possibility of 5M6♣ hands.

 

 

I am not claiming your system is silly, it is more that I get tired of people recommending an approach they are convinced of without discussing possible drawbacks.

Six month later they will be convinced of a different approach.

You are by far not the worst offender in this direction.

You are right that I do like to try new things in bidding. And I have made some small changes to the response structure to 2♣ since I first created it. There are certainly problem hands for this method too. My aim for 2♣ auctions is basically to break even, not for it to ever be a strong-point of system. When you commit to 6+ in the opening then you are probably looking for more. I would need to play-test for a while before knowing whether transfers were better, worse, or the same as, for example, a relay-based method in that case. But Justin already pointed out in this thread that this might be a relevant difference and I think I have made it clear where I am coming from.

 

As always, my recommendation for anything new is to test it for your specific system as much as possible before making the decision as to whether it is right for you or not. I like the transfer response structure a lot. I find the traditional Precision responses very difficult to handle. When I first tried them out, admittedly some time ago, it put me off strong club systems completely for many years.

 

My belief is that transfers perform better for a 2♣ opening that is 10-14 (or 11-15) and either 6+ clubs with no 4 card major or 5+ clubs and one (or both) 4 card major(s). It is true that someone else might come to a different conclusion. I can live with that.