Why I don't like Precision

[luke warm]

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

i didn't say 4 card majors are 'so much better' than 5 card majors... to answer your question tho, i think most people play 5M because it's simpler (at least they think it is)

[flytoox]

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

i didn't say 4 card majors are 'so much better' than 5 card majors... to answer your question tho, i think most people play 5M because it's simpler (at least they think it is)

Yes, Jimmy I understand your point. The reason you gave here is a very simple but good one: ppl like it cos it is simple and easy to learn.

[Gerben47]

You want your 1M opening bids to be frequent to put pressure on opponents, and also they should have high information content. There is always a tradeoff between those. I guess from this point of view 5-card majors work better than 4-card majors in a standard system and 4-card (with canape!) works better than 5-card with limited opening bids.

 

However with Precision I like 1M to be 5-card major and opened on thin air showing 9 - 15 HCP or the like (extremely high frequency).

[hrothgar]

"Jimmy, 4-card will do well in uncontested auctions. However, in the competitive auctions, 5-card major will have some advantage over 4-card major. "

 

Disagree strongly! It is precisely in contested auctions that opening 4 card Majors has a huge advantage over 5 card major systems. 5 card Majorites have to open 1D, whereas 4 card Majorites can immediately open the Major. Note that this also has a slight pre emptive effect.

This is not what I said. This is what Lawrence said. Please check lawrence's 2/1 workbook.

 

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

From my perspective, 5 card major systems replaced 4 card major systems because the 5CM structure is easier to teach.

 

5 card major based structures are often taught using a rules based approach: With shape XYZ, bid A. With shape QRD, bid B, ...

 

In contrast, in the US, the dominant 4 card major based systems required a fair amount of judgement to apply effectively. There were all sorts of requirements surrounding bidable suits, quick trick requirements, and the like.

 

As an analogy consider the difference between Milton Work's point count structure and the earlier point count metrics. Work's 4321 structure didn't win out becuase it was more accurate. It won because it was simple...

[mila85]

I understand your point. However, this logic applies to most system. If you open 4-card major then there are other problems.

that might be true fly, but what if the 4 card opening guaranteed another, usually longer, suit?

1c= 16+ if balanced, 17+ if a Major, 18+ if a minor oriented hand

1d= 5x4x; x54x; xx44+

1h= 54xx; x45x; x4x4+

1s= 45xx; 4x5x; 4xx4+

1nt= 12-15 balanced, all 5332 and no 54xx hands

2c= all 3 suited hands

2d/h/s= all one suited hands, 6+ long and limited (11-16/17)

2nt= one suited club hands, 14-17

3c= the same but 11-14

What do you bid with 5-4♣-2-2?

[pbleighton]

"However with Precision I like 1M to be 5-card major and opened on thin air showing 9 - 15 HCP or the like (extremely high frequency)."

 

I agree. I play 9-14. It's very descriptive, and common.

 

The 15+ one club opening is a bit of a stinker, though B)

 

Peter

[tysen2k]

I showed you a system a while back which had 1♥ as 5+ cards 11-19 and 1♠ as 4+cards 10-15, which allowed 1♥ to be a strong relay after a strong club and negative response. Tysen has said on here that his simulations suggest that the 1♥ and 1♠ openings are actually better reversed; I don't know to what extent this took into account the effects on the 1♣ opener, or how a response structure would work.

When I did my simulations, the definition of each bid measured not only the effectiveness when it was bid, but it's effect on other definitions as well. Although I did not do an exhaustive search of all possible definitions, I tested several possibilities within a natural system.

 

The strongest thing suggested by the simulations was that unbalanced hands need to be opened as much as possible, even when weak. Balanced hands can afford to pass at first, even if moderately strong (thus my earlier proposal of a 0-16 balanced pass).

 

The simulations also greatly valued a 5-card spade suit. It felt that whenever you had one, that information was so valuable to give to partner that you should open 1♠ whenever possible. I don't remember the exact numbers, but within a GCC context I think 8-18, 5+ cards was the best range if unbalanced, 11-18 balanced.

For a 1♥ bid it prefered a more narrow point range with only 4+ cards. Something like 8-13 unbalanced, 11-14 balanced.

 

I also found it interesting that the simulations suggested that a strong 1♦ was superior to a strong 1♣. The extra bidding space was more valuable for the limited hands than it was for the strong ones.

 

Tysen

[Chamaco]

The thing to notice here is that the strength required to open 1C is almost independent of the distribution of the hand. This is what I perceive to be a problem with the system.

 

I believe the strong club hand types which can give more headaches are 2-suiters.

Balanced hands are relatively easy to handle, and strong one suiters will usually come out alive from a contested auction.

 

But 2 suiters are:

 

a. VERY vulnerable to preemption (side suit may disappear)

b. even in uncontested auction, minor suit slams are often missed, especially at MP (when 3NT is an option).

 

And finally we've reached my pet system :) which is a good deal closer to Millennium Club than it is to Precision. But, as I said, I don't like Precision.

 

Most of the pitfalls you mention can be avoided by using Fantoni-Nunes system (all 1-level bids forcing unlimited, 14+ hcp - weak NT- 1♣ may be clubs OR strong NT or stronger bal - 2 level opening bids natural 5+, 8-13).

The system gives up wild weak 2s (daring people can use 3 level bids for them), but on balance has a sound mix of solidity and aggressiveness.

[the hog]

"This is not what I said. This is what Lawrence said. Please check lawrence's 2/1 workbook. "

 

Fly I don't care who said that, I still disagree. everyone has their own barrow to push. dO you think if I wrote a 2/1 book I would be extolling the virtues of a 4 card major system. Ask other players and you will get other opinions.

 

5 or 4 card systems are all playable provided your partner is on the same wavelength. 4 card Majors clearly have a greater pre emptive effect as you get to open them more often. That is obvious!

[DenisO]

Off topic: One of the most effective of all openings was in the early versions of Moscito, where 1D or in later versions 1NT, showed both majors. When you opened something else you immediatley knew whether the opps had a Major suit fit or not.

Is there anywhere that describes how "mainstream" Moscito has evolved over the years? It would be interesting to see how/why bids have changed in the search for greater efficiency.

 

Denis

[MickyB]

The simulations also greatly valued a 5-card spade suit.  It felt that whenever you had one, that information was so valuable to give to partner that you should open 1♠ whenever possible.  I don't remember the exact numbers, but within a GCC context I think 8-18, 5+ cards was the best range if unbalanced, 11-18 balanced.

For a 1♥ bid it prefered a more narrow point range with only 4+ cards.  Something like 8-13 unbalanced, 11-14 balanced.

 

I also found it interesting that the simulations suggested that a strong 1♦ was superior to a strong 1♣.  The extra bidding space was more valuable for the limited hands than it was for the strong ones.

Thanks, Tysen. What other openings worked out well with the 4 card heart, 5 card spade described below? and with a strong diamond? Cheers.

[flytoox]

I also found it interesting that the simulations suggested that a strong 1♦ was superior to a strong 1♣. The extra bidding space was more valuable for the limited hands than it was for the strong ones.

 

Tysen

What is the negative response to strong 1D opening?

[junyi_zhu]

"Jimmy, 4-card will do well in uncontested auctions. However, in the competitive auctions, 5-card major will have some advantage over 4-card major. "

 

Disagree strongly! It is precisely in contested auctions that opening 4 card Majors has a huge advantage over 5 card major systems. 5 card Majorites have to open 1D, whereas 4 card Majorites can immediately open the Major. Note that this also has a slight pre emptive effect.

This is not what I said. This is what Lawrence said. Please check lawrence's 2/1 workbook.

 

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

Because 4 card major isn't an easy system for beginners and intermediate players, and the most difficult part is not even the bidding, it's those shaky 4-3 fit you have to play sometimes. For beginners, intermediate players or even advanced players, 4-3 fit , especially very shaky 4-3 fit, always brings up a big challenge to them. When 5 card major opening can often exclude this possibility, why people bother to figure out how to play a 4-3 fit? However, in gamebidding area, 4 card major opening system has a big advantage, that it often discloses way less information than 5 card major systems. 4 card major opening systems find major 4-4 or 4-5 fit much faster than 5 card major systems and that's why negative double was invented. In major suit slam bidding area, 5 card major system has some advantage, that's partially because of such kind of sequences: 1S p 2N(jacoby), opener has more hand types to describe if he plays 4 card major opening system, so the accuracy isn't as good as 5 card major, especially when you want to confirm a 9 card fit at early stage which is often critical for slams. However, playing 5 card system, it's often not very easy to confirm at minor suit 9 card fit early, for example, you may hold 5 clubs when partner opens 1C and you often don't how whether he holds 3 clubs or 4 clubs, which can be very important in slam bidding. So it's just a trade off in my point of view.

 

Overally, I believe 4 card major is a very good opening scheme and more and more good players might at least give it a try.

[tysen2k]

Thanks, Tysen. What other openings worked out well with the 4 card heart, 5 card spade described below? and with a strong diamond? Cheers.

Within a precision or strong diamond context, a natural 2♣ bid was best when it promised 6+ cards and no 4cM. The optimal point range was also quite wide, something like 8-18 as well, although points didn't make that much of a difference and narrowing the range did not hurt much.

 

The optimal range for a natural 1NT opening is up for discussion, mainly because of the double-dummy assumptions used in the simulations. In real life at the table, after 1NT - P or 1NT - 3NT a declarer will usually do much better than double-dummy results. So the simulations felt that 1NT was doomed a lot more often than it really was and it sought shelter in a suit contract. Therefore the simulations rated a weak NT worse than it would fare in real life. I made my own adjustments to the DD results, giving bonus fractional tricks to NT contracts, based on Peter Cheung's research on how DD results compare to SD declarers. Even after these adjustments, the sims still thought strong NT was better. The sims also felt that a wide point range was acceptable, and if the minimum points are high enough, you should be able to handle the wider range. Something like 17-21 or even 17+ or 18+. Playing that at the table should raise some eyebrows of the opponents. B)

 

Tysen

[tysen2k]

What is the negative response to strong 1D opening?

I've seen a 1♥ bid used as a negative response, but the beauty of the simulations that I ran is that you don't even have to know what the continuations are to be able to judge the merits of the opening bids.

 

For those of you who are wondering how that's even possible, I use a method described by Matt Ginsberg here. The basics are that you don't assume what the continuations are going to be but rather assume that you will be able to define the continuations later at some given level of efficiency (I assumed 18% which seemed to work out quite well).

 

Tysen

[hrothgar]

What is the negative response to strong 1D opening?

I've seen a 1♥ bid used as a negative response, but the beauty of the simulations that I ran is that you don't even have to know what the continuations are to be able to judge the merits of the opening bids.

 

For those of you who are wondering how that's even possible, I use a method described by Matt Ginsberg here. The basics are that you don't assume what the continuations are going to be but rather assume that you will be able to define the continuations later at some given level of efficiency (I assumed 18% which seemed to work out quite well).

 

Tysen

I'll note in passing that Ginsburg's own results with these methods were highly questionable. As I recall, he eventually abandoned the work...

[mike777]

Please note if opening ( often canape) 1D, 1H or 1S promises 2 suited hand and often(not 100%) exactly only 4 card opening length then responder becomes much less concerned about raising with 3 card support and more concerned with P longer unknown second suit.

 

Playing in 4-3 fit becomes a rare event at 2 level or higher but you get many of the advantages of playing 4 card major openings.

[tysen2k]

I'll note in passing that Ginsburg's own results with these methods were highly questionable.  As I recall, he eventually abandoned the work...

Yes they were questionable, but in studying the system and his results, it looked like the reason his results were so strange was because his assumed continuing effeciency was too high. The opening bid definitions that his computer eventually produced said to pass on ~80% of all hands. What was happening was that the computer assumed that the follow-ups would be so effecient that it didn't want to waste any precious bidding space on opening since his partner would be able to open better than he could. I've talked with Matt about this and he agreed with my conclusions.

 

In duplicating his work with a lower effeciency I'm producing much more "normal" results.

 

Ginsberg did abandon the project but that was because of a lack of time, not interest. This was before GIB was released and so once that became a product he spent his time maintaining that. He did try to start to tackle the problem again about a year ago, got some programmers to volunteer to help him, and then everyone ended up flaking on him.

 

Tysen

[blahonga]

My preferred opening structure, which is quite popular in Sweden, playing strong club is as follows:

 

1♣ 16+

1♦ 11-13 bal or 10-15 unbalanced with a four card major

1♥/♠ 10-15 5+

1NT 14-16 bal

2 ♣/♦ 10-15 6+ or 12-15 5 cards, with 4 of the other minor. Denies a four card major.

 

The 1♦-opening is quite easy to cope with, although high level competition is a bit troublesome. Undisturbed it is a breeze though. Knowing that 2♣/♦ denies a four card major really makes the difference though.

 

/Mattias

[MickyB]

Think I would rather play a 12-15 NT denying/rarely having a 4 card major, then 1♦ can promise a 4 card major. Or even better, play 1♦ as promising exactly 5 cards in a major...

 

BTW david_c is unable to access the forums atm, which may be why he hasn't participated in this thread for the past few days. None of the normal links work for him, and DrTodd is having the same problem.

Edited January 28, 2005 by MickyB

[pbleighton]

I play:

1C - 15+, any shape

1D - 10-14, 0+ diamonds, unbalanced, either

1) any 4441, or

2) minor 2 suiter, or

3) 4 of a major and 5+ of a minor

1M - 9-14, 5+ cards

1NT - 11-14

2m - 6+ cards, no 4cM

2M - 3-9, 5+ cards (vul is better)

2NT - 8-12, 5-5 or better in the minors

 

The 1D opener in uncontested auctions is good, the

non-fit rebids after 1D-1M clarify the shape quite

nicely.

 

The 1M and 2m openings are great.

 

Peter

[mgoetze]

1. How useful is it for the limited opening to be limited?

 

balanced hands - It is essential that the stength required for opening 1C with a balanced hand is relatively low. If it was made higher, then either you would have to play a wide-range 1NT opening, or you would have to open a nebulous 1D on lots of hands. This would be highly undesirable.

 

I disagree. With my regular partner, I am currently playing a wide-ranging 1NT opening (11-15) which denies a 4-card major. This gives us the bidding room we need to invite in two different ways depending on responder's range. Our 1D opening has a lot of hand types in it, of course, but this is actually OK - it is, after all, the third-lowest possible opening bid. :) We just need a few artificial methods after 1D so that by the time of opener's rebid, we almost always know whether we have a 4-4 fit in a major or not. For instance, 1D-1H-2C/2D both show 4 Spades as well as 5+ in the minor; without 4 Spades the rebid is either 1NT or 3C/3D. This works quite well for us, YMMV.

 

"spades" and "hearts" hands - Limited 1S and 1H opening bids are very useful indeed. Indeed you could say that these bids are the reason you play a strong club in the first place. Even so, you would have to rate a limit of the order of 15-16HCP as "useful", rather than "essential" as in the case of balanced hands. (You'd find it difficult to argue that a Standard American 1S or 1H opening bid is unplayable.)

 

Sure, but it is easy to put various not-too-weak NTs into a system, because the continuations are usually quite simple. 1NT, 1C-1D-1NT, 1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT, you can play them as all the same thing just with different ranges. Distributional hands are more difficult to bid, because there are more combinations. We've even gone so far as to include all hands without a singleton/void in our "balanced" positive response to 1C, even 7222's.

 

Limited 1H/1S openings are great because you know right away whether trying to find out more about opener's distribution rates to be worthwhile. If you have only 2-card support but can see right away that you won't have enough points for 3NT, there's no need to mess around looking for a minor suit fit.

 

"diamonds" hands - These definitely get the wooden spoon. It is certainly useful to have a small range for 1D, but much less so than for 1S and 1H, the reasons being:

- responder often needs to check on major-suit fits before knowing what the final contract should be, which is not a problem when the opening bid is 1S or 1H;

- the shape is less well defined (another reason why it is difficult for responder to set the final contract quickly);

- there is more space available after 1D than after 1S or 1H.

 

I think it's very important for 1D to be limited, but maybe that's because my 1D includes a lot more than just "diamonds hands". The more you need to find out opener's distribution the less you want to be worrying about how many points he might have.

 

"clubs" hands - It's so difficult to bid constructively after a Precision 2C opening that it's absolutely essential for 2C to have a narrow range - even more so than in the case of balanced hands.

 

It gets much easier if you play that 2C denies a 4-card major, putting such hands in 1D instead.

 

2. How easy is it to bid the hand after opening a strong 1C?

 

Yes, there is a problem with the standard responses to 1C in Precision. Or make that at least two problems, if you consider wrongsiding the contract a problem. Particularily 1C-1NT as a balanced positive is silly. It's quite easy to fix, thought. Just an example: 1C-...

...1D is negative

...1H is positive in Spades or Clubs

...1S is balanced positive

...1NT is positive in Hearts

...2C is positive in Diamonds

 

leaving plenty of room for Semipositives/4441's/whatever.

 

Of course, in my experience, actually getting to respond to 1C at the one level is so rare it is hardly worth worrying about. :)

 

Of course, the modifications I suggest do mean you won't be playing "Standard Precision" anymore. But I think the system is not so fundamentally flawed as to still be unplayable after a few tweaks.

 

Regards,

Michael

[Free]

Peter, at this moment I play something similar (1st & 2nd seat only) :) :

 

1♣ = 15+ any

1♦ = (9)10-14 no 5 card M, 0+♦

1M = (9)10-14 5+M

1NT = 10-12 balanced, no 5 card M

2♣ = weak, 4+♣ & 4+M (no 3-suiter)

2♦ = weak, 4+♦ & 4+M (no 3-suiter)

2♥ = weak, 4+♥ & 4+♠ (no 3-suiter)

2♠ = weak, 5+♠

2NT = preempt ♣

3♣ = weak with 5+♣ & 5+♦

 

Full relaystructures after all 1-level bids (including 1NT).

 

I also noticed the 1♦ is quite workable if we don't get much intervention. Without any intervention it works like a charm.

1M openings are always great.

1NT is heavy, gains a lot in MP's. At this moment we play this at any vulnerability, but this might change when we have to play really serious matches in imps :)

2m openings are VERY frequent and work out quite well. Finding a playable contract is often quite easy.

[mila85]

BTW david_c is unable to access the forums atm, which may be why he hasn't participated in this thread for the past few days. None of the normal links work for him, and DrTodd is having the same problem.

I had the same problem.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/

[inquiry]

BTW david_c is unable to access the forums atm, which may be why he hasn't participated in this thread for the past few days. None of the normal links work for him, and DrTodd is having the same problem.

I had the same problem.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/

If you are in touch with him, have him try...

 

www.bridgebase.com/forums