1D opening and subsequent bidding

[Nirmalya]

I play 1♦opening in classical Precision way, 11-15 HCP and 4+ Card ♦. 1NT is 13-15 balanced.

 

I do not wish to change this, but want to know if there is a sophisticated follow up is available. Particularly when responder bids 2♣, or 2♦ showing 11+ HCP and denying 4 card major. the minor suit shown promises 4 card.

 

The classical responses of precision are not adequate when partner has a very good hand, close to slam type.

[straube]

I play 1♦opening in classical Precision way, 11-15 HCP and 4+ Card ♦. 1NT is 13-15 balanced.

 

I do not wish to change this, but want to know if there is a sophisticated follow up is available. Particularly when responder bids 2♣, or 2♦ showing 11+ HCP and denying 4 card major. the minor suit shown promises 4 card.

 

The classical responses of precision are not adequate when partner has a very good hand, close to slam type.

 

I think that the classical style of 1D as four+ diamonds is poor. I know you can optimize follow ups for this and I would share them with you if I had spent time thinking about them or knew what they were, but I'd recommend you use 1D as 0+ or perhaps 2+ or even 3+ and then tackle the follow ups. Here's pretty much how Meckwell respond with their 2+ opening...

 

1D-2C

.....2D-4+ diamonds

.....2H-bal 11-13

..........2S-weak relay (threatening to pass opener's rebid)

.....2S-unbalanced with fit

..........2N-asking shortness and min/max

.....2N-can't remember, probably weak and short clubs

.....3C-bal with four clubs

.....etc showing max with 3D/5C unbalanced and other hands

 

1D-2D

.....2H-bal 11-13

..........2S-weak relay

.....2S-unbalanced with fit

.....2N-can't remember, probably weak and short diamonds

.....3C-can't remember

.....3D-11-13 bal with four diamonds

 

 

Sorry not to be more helpful. Zelandakh is better at answering the question asked instead of revising the question. Perhaps he is around...

[antonylee]

Are you giving up on 12HCP balanced hands without 4 diamonds? I've never (OK, barely ever) played Precision so this may be downright stupid but if you're already there I would guess it's better to play 1D as *unbalanced* 4+ and just lump good balanced 12-counts into the 1N opening. After that...

1D-2C(GF)-2D/H/S=natural, 2N=4441 or 4450. Over 2N, responder can (e.g) transfer to set trumps and enter a cuebidding auction. You can put invitational club hands in 1D-3C.

Still not sure if 1D-2D is best played as non-inverted or inverted in that context (you can actually raise quite aggressively with weakish hands when 1D is unbalanced) but in any case you can come up with some ways for opener to show his shape over a forcing diamond raise.

[vitorlopes]

I am not sure that classical 1♦ Precision opening is 4+♦ (doubt it!), but certainly is 11-15 HCP. From C.C. Wei and Berkowitz classic books on Precision, 1♦ opening is 2+♦ and 11-15 HCP. Below is what I play with my regular precision partner on 1♦ opening:

 

1♦

...1♥!/♠!: 6+ HCP, can have just 3 cards (although Opener shld assume 4+), can have the other major, F1R

......1♠: 11-15 HCP, 4♠, unbalanced

......1NT: 11-12 HCP, balanced, can have 4♠ & 3♥ investigated through checkback stayman

......2♣: 11-15 HCP, unbalanced, can have more ♣ than ♦

......2♦: 11-13 HCP, 5+♦

......2♥: 11-15 DH, 4+♥

......2♠: 16+ DH, mini-splinter to ♥

......2NT: 14-15 HCP, 6 card solid ♦ suit

......3♣: 14-15 HCP, at least 5/5 in the minors

......3♦: 14-15 HCP, not so solid ♦ suit :)

......3♥: 16+ DH, 4+ ♥

......3NT: 14-15 HCP, 7 card solid ♦ suit

...1NT: 8-10 HCP, usually balanced but can have long ♣s if no tolerance to ♦s, denies 4+ major, NF

...2♣: 11+ HCP, 4+ ♣s, can have 4+ major, F1R

...2♦: 11+ HCP, 5+ ♦s, denies 4+ major, F1R

...2♥/♠: 2-5 HCP, 6+ major good suit, no outside values, to play

...2NT: 11-12 HCP, balanced, denies 4+ major, NF

...3♣!: 8-10 HCP, 5+ ♦s, denies 4+ major, F1R

...3♦: 0-7 HCP, 5+ ♦s, preemptive

...3♥/♠/4♣ are splinters to ♦

...3NT: 13-17 HCP, balanced, to play

...4♦: preemptive

...4♥/♠: to play

[hrothgar]

I am not sure that classical 1♦ Precision opening is 4+♦ (doubt it!)

 

Playing old school Precision, the 1D opening did indeed promise 4+ Diamonds.

(Requirements for opening balanced hands were considerably higher)

[Zelandakh]

First of all, if you play 1♦ - 2m as 11+hcp and no 4 card major then you are already ahead of most traditional systems considering that Opener is limited and known to have real diamonds and an unbalanced hand. I honestly do not understand why this should be a problem. On the subject of more sophisticated responses though, here is one of many possible relay schemes that could be employed:

 

1♦

==

1♥ = invite or better, forcing

... - 1♠ = min without 4 spades (unless 4441/4405)

... - ... - 1NT = GF relay (then responses as per 2♣ and up over 1♥)

... - ... - others = nat invites

... - 1NT = 4 spades and <4 hearts

... - ... - 2♣ = GF relay

... - ... - ... - 2♦ = min

... - ... - ... - 2♥ = 4144 or 4054

... - ... - ... - 2♠ = max, 4 spades, 6+ diamonds

... - ... - ... - 2NT = max, 4 spades, 5 diamonds (4153, 4252, 4351)

... - ... - ... - 3♣+ = max, 5 spades, 6+ diamonds

... - 2♣ = max, 4+ clubs, <4 spades, GF

... - 2♦ = max, 6+ diamonds, no other 4+ card suit, GF

... - 2♥ = max, 4 hearts, GF

... - 2♠ = max, 4441, GF

... - 2NT+ = max, 4450, GF

1♠ = weak, 4+ spades, NF

1NT = weak, 4+ hearts and (usually) <4 spades, NF

2♣ = weak, 5+ clubs, no 4 card major, NF

2♦ = weak raise, 4+ diamonds or 3334, NF

 

Obviously it is not worth playing something like this unless you are also doing so after the 1♣ opening, and ideally over the 1M openings too.

[glen]

After 1♦-2♣/♦ 11+, opener decides if hand is minimum or maximum:

 

With minimum, opener makes cheapest bid (2♦/2♣, 2♥/2♦)

With maximum, opener bids naturally not including cheapest bid, bidding a major if possible to show values. This establishes a game force.

 

After opener's cheapest rebid showing a minimum, responder can make the cheapest bid (1♦-2♣;-2♦-2♥ or 1♦-2♦;-2♥-2♠) to artificially establish a game force and ask opener to rebid naturally, major bids showing values.

 

After 1♦-2♣;-2♦(minimum), responder's rebids of 2NT, 3♣, and 3♦ are all not forcing, all other bids are a game force.

 

After 1♦-2♦;-2♥(minimum), responder's rebids of 2NT and 3♦ are not forcing, all other bids are a game force.

 

Generally responder with slam interest values keeps the bidding low to learn more about opener's hand shape.

[the hog]

The original style of Precision is to play 1D as showing a real suit. Personally I think this works quite well. It is certainly not "poor" as Straube posts above.

[straube]

The original style of Precision is to play 1D as showing a real suit. Personally I think this works quite well. It is certainly not "poor" as Straube posts above.

 

The earliest book I read on Precision recommended passing balanced 11 and 12 point hands with fewer than four diamonds. The trend since then has been to open with fewer and fewer diamonds and to require six clubs for a 2C opening. Personally, I'd like to be opening most 11 counts and a short diamond is a way of accomplishing that.

[steve2005]

The earliest book I read on Precision recommended passing balanced 11 and 12 point hands with fewer than four diamonds. The trend since then has been to open with fewer and fewer diamonds and to require six clubs for a 2C opening. Personally, I'd like to be opening most 11 counts and a short diamond is a way of accomplishing that.

I don't mind a 3+ ♦ requirement for 1♦ openings.

is only 3 when exactly 4-1-3-5 or 1-4-3-5 without good clubs or maybe your requiring 6♣ to open 2♣

then 1N is opened with good 12 plus normal 13-15

 

passing 11 pt (or bad 12 pt) balanced hands isn't such a bad thing especially if your not an expert

 

the BBO precision forum convention card uses this method

[Nirmalya]

Thanks for all the inputs.

 

I will prefer to keep it simple after 1♦-2♦ or 1♦-2♣ auction. The way most of the players play the inverted minors.

 

The real 1♦ opening is not that bad at all. The knowledge that partner has at least 4 card in ♦ helps a lot. We play 13-15 NT and for 12 HCP, we bid 1♦ with 4 card and 1NT without 4 card. The 11 HCP hands without ♦ are passed. Nothing is lost really

[the hog]

The earliest book I read on Precision recommended passing balanced 11 and 12 point hands with fewer than four diamonds. The trend since then has been to open with fewer and fewer diamonds and to require six clubs for a 2C opening. Personally, I'd like to be opening most 11 counts and a short diamond is a way of accomplishing that.

 

If that is what YOU want to do fine, but don't call other styles poor. By the way some years ago Dr. Roy Kerr did an extensive study of the Precision 1D opening. After analysing the results from many hands his conclusion was to open on a bal 11-12 points was a losing strategy.

[blackshoe]

If I've had 11 or 12 pints there's no telling what I might do at the table. :P

[the hog]

Yes, very good. Meant points. 11-12 pints and I don't think I'd be able to pull a card.

[straube]

If that is what YOU want to do fine, but don't call other styles poor. By the way some years ago Dr. Roy Kerr did an extensive study of the Precision 1D opening. After analysing the results from many hands his conclusion was to open on a bal 11-12 points was a losing strategy.

 

Here's what I said...

 

I think that the classical style of 1D as four+ diamonds is poor.

 

Even if i'd said the opening 1D was poor, a reasonable person would understand that I was expressing an opinion. I wrote "I think" to be very sure that even a stupid person would realize that I was expressing an opinion. Apparently it was not enough.

[the hog]

And I told you that it is silly to lable it as "poor", especially with the huge amount of evidence you supplied to support your argument. It might have been sensible to say, "It is not what I prefer."

[chasetb]

I would like to see the study, since I highly doubt that opening balanced 12s is losing strategy, even if the 1♦ could only be 2-3. I also do think that opening 1NT on 13-15 is poor and losing strategy as well. If you put all your bal. 16s into 1♣ and the opponents interfere, you are shooting yourself in the foot. It's almost as bad with balanced 17s. I wish I had hard data, but you technically haven't shown any, and I have this blog by David C. In particular, look at Balanced-Hands-Show-Strength, parts 1 and 2.

[the hog]

I would like to see the study, since I highly doubt that opening balanced 12s is losing strategy, even if the 1♦ could only be 2-3. I also do think that opening 1NT on 13-15 is poor and losing strategy as well. If you put all your bal. 16s into 1♣ and the opponents interfere, you are shooting yourself in the foot. It's almost as bad with balanced 17s. I wish I had hard data, but you technically haven't shown any, and I have this blog by David C. In particular, look at Balanced-Hands-Show-Strength, parts 1 and 2.

 

Read the introduction to "Symmetric Relay" by Prof Kerr. His study is detailed in that. I am sure if you get in touch with him or with Paul Marston they can supply you with the actual data, By the way, your post is illogical as you appear to be talking about 2 different things.

[PhilKing]

Read the introduction to "Symmetric Relay" by Prof Kerr. His study is detailed in that. I am sure if you get in touch with him or with Paul Marston they can supply you with the actual data, By the way, your post is illogical as you appear to be talking about 2 different things.

 

Stats from the Richard Pavlicek site (collected from late stages of USBC, Vanderbilt, Spingold and World Championships) suggest otherwise. On 657 occasions 1♦ was opened on a hand passed at the other table, usually by a Precision pair. The net gain from opening was a huge 349 imps - over half an imp a board.

 

Now there are a few caveats, two of which stand out:

 

1. A lot of the boards feature Meckwell or Greco/Hampson, both pairs being, on average, significantly better than their opponents even at this level.

 

2. Opening trash may show losses elsewhere (opening leads, constructive and competitive auctions etc), since the 1♦ opening is less well defined. But that cuts both ways, since it becomes harder for the oppo to play in diamonds and when you finish in 3NT you have leaked less distributional info.

 

Link again: http://www.rpbridge.net/rpme.htm You can see the most recent hundred hands in the web page.

[straube]

Read the introduction to "Symmetric Relay" by Prof Kerr. His study is detailed in that. I am sure if you get in touch with him or with Paul Marston they can supply you with the actual data, By the way, your post is illogical as you appear to be talking about 2 different things.

 

I thought his post was very logical. I understood it, and I don't understand your criticism of it.

[the hog]

Prof Kerr's analysis, (I assume you know who he is?), was conducted by analysing 3 WC. Admitedly his data is rather dated now.. However I guess the standards of the players would be a bit closer given that it was WC that were analysed.

Anyway, who on earth is DavidC?

[655321]

Agree that playing a strong club and passing 11-12 balanced hands is very poor.

[the hog]

Agree that playing a strong club and passing 11-12 balanced hands is very poor.

 

Evidence?

[Zelandakh]

I play a strong club system where many balanced 11s are passed and almost all balanced 12s are opened - does that mean I can be the referee for this little spat?

[655321]

Evidence?

 

Hog, haven't you read the thread? PhilKing provided you with a link with some evidence, but my opinion (yes, just an opinion!) is based on a combination of what I think works for me, what the top players actually do, and the logic of the thing (playing a strong club allows you to open light without partner becoming over excited, so deliberately passing a fair chunk of openable hands makes no sense).

 

Saying it is silly to claim that passing these hands is wrong is, well, silly, and your having read a 30-odd year old analysis claiming that passing these hands is the way to win imps doesn't influence me at all, sorry!