Precision 2C competitive decision

[whereagles]

You got, all red @ imps,

 

K9xxx

xx

AJTx

9x

 

pard RHO you LHO

2♣ pass pass dbl

pass pass ..??

 

2♣ = natural 9-14. Can be 5 cards if 5♣-4M. Else it's 6 a carder.

 

pull or null? (Rdbl = pen, 2x = natural)

[rbforster]

Pass for me.

[the_clown]

Obvious pass, with a poor 5 card suit partner will open 1♦

[steve2005]

Obvious pass, with a poor 5 card suit partner will open 1♦

wouldn't be so sure that's their methods, they are opening pretty light. cant they have weak 5-card suit if light?. Sounds like they don't pass much. :unsure:

 

but would still pass.

[whereagles]

Obvious pass, with a poor 5 card suit partner will open 1♦

 

Yes, but only if he has 3+ diamonds. With 5-4 clubs-major and 0-2 diamonds, open 2♣.

[whereagles]

wouldn't be so sure that's their methods, they are opening pretty light. cant they have weak 5-card suit if light?. Sounds like they don't pass much. :unsure:

 

Yes, weak 5 card possible even if light.

 

The system isn't too sound. The reason for playing this way is its parent system is forbidden (it's a two-way forcing pass). In the parent system the 2♣ opener would start with a natural 1♣ 9-14.

 

The point here is simply to evaluate what seems more likely: pass and hope for the best or gamble pard has 3+ spades (he can't have a diamond side suit).

[biggerclub]

You got, all red @ imps,

 

K9xxx

xx

AJTx

9x

 

pard RHO you LHO

2♣ pass pass dbl

pass pass ..??

 

2♣ = natural 9-14. Can be 5 cards if 5♣-4M. Else it's 6 a carder.

 

pull or null? (Rdbl = pen, 2x = natural)

 

I am happy to pass and proud of my dummy on this auction. If P goes down it's not because I am deficient. You are not going to be any better off in your suits with cards stacked behind you.

[biggerclub]

Yes, but only if he has 3+ diamonds. With 5-4 clubs-major and 0-2 diamonds, open 2♣.

 

Play 4 card majors/canape.

[whereagles]

Play 4 card majors/canape.

 

I actually did that for like 4 years lol. It's better of course.

 

The only reason I play this somewhat unsound club system is I want to mimic as much as possible the two-way forcing pass parent system. I can only play the parent system 3 times a year (open teams, imp pairs, team trials), so I need to have at least some of it in cache :)

[PrecisionL]

Play 4 card majors/canape.

Agree, but playing 4-card majors is a paradigm shift and unless you learned bridge in the 60s or 70s one does not know the techniques for playing 4-3 and 4-2 contracts.

[whereagles]

well, so hands were

 

K9xxx

xx

AJTx

9x

 

Axxx

Axx

x

QJxxx

 

This went for -500 and I was left wondering whether North should pull to 2♠ on grounds of "with clubs stacked, it can't get much worse than this..."

[rbforster]

Most precision systems bid something else, often 2♦, with 44 or (43) majors and short diamonds. Saves a lot of guessing about major fits. In particular, when opening 2♣, you only have to look for one major in openers hand.

[steve2005]

This went for -500 and I was left wondering whether North should pull to 2♠ on grounds of "with clubs stacked, it can't get much worse than this..."

p has 1=4=2=6 wouldn't you feel silly then.

Most serious Precision pairs have gone to promising 6♣.

[biggerclub]

well, so hands were

 

K9xxx

xx

AJTx

9x

 

Axxx

Axx

x

QJxxx

 

This went for -500 and I was left wondering whether North should pull to 2♠ on grounds of "with clubs stacked, it can't get much worse than this..."

 

Well, I don't think you can run unless you have some kind of SOS system and probably not even then. One hand does not a system make. But how much nicer if the auction goes, 1♠ 2♠ all pass or X or whatever OPPs want to do over that.

[yunling]

Don't think you can do anything here, p is still possible to have 6 clubs and, even if he has 5, there is no promise of a better fit you can run to.

[chasetb]

p has 1=4=2=6 wouldn't you feel silly then.

Most serious Precision pairs have gone to promising 6♣.

Yes Steve, except whereagles isn't playing Precision - I am assuming it's a Strong Club created to simulate as closely as possible a Forcing Pass system. After all, the posted hand is the reason why they expanded the Precision 2♦ opener to include this hand type, with a bad Club suit. Or, they can just make 1♦ = 0+ . I have had a bunch of good results when opening 2♣ on 5♣-4M hands (but club suits good enough to play in a 5-1 fit), but very poor ones when partner opens it on a bad Club suit.

 

I would pass at the table, because many times partner will have 6+ Clubs, or at least better spots, and there's no guarantee that Spades will play better than Clubs.

[rhm]

well, so hands were

 

K9xxx

xx

AJTx

9x

 

Axxx

Axx

x

QJxxx

 

This went for -500 and I was left wondering whether North should pull to 2♠ on grounds of "with clubs stacked, it can't get much worse than this..."

While bidding 2♠ on the grounds you mention is not insane, opening such hands 2♣, while often creating problems for opponents, is a disaster waiting to happen.

I know this style is popular with Polish club.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

Totally agree. In fact, I've been there many times. The precision 2♣ opener (and to a lesser extent 1♦) can get very cumbersome from time to time.

 

Before I turned to forcing pass I played some versions of precision with a super-nebulous 1♦, i.e. a 1♦ that could be

 

(a) balanced hand in some range (usually 11-12 or 13-15)

(b) irregular with 5+ diamonds

(c ) irregular with 5+ clubs (i.e. a hand which would normally open 2♣ on standard precision)

 

Quite frankly, it was somewhat nightmarish, even without opponents butting-in.

 

One thing I've still to try is to remove variant (a) from the lot (with 11-12 just pass, with 13-15 open 1NT) and make it a sort of "constructive multi for the minors". This might actually be playable, and even fun. You could have auctions such as

 

1♦ pass 3♣ ??

 

where 3♣ is preemptive, pass/correct. The pressure on 4th player would be very considerable. Being able to make a bid like this on, say,

 

xxx

Axxx

Qxx

xxx

 

might be very profitable.

[dake50]

I'm bidding 2S.

We're certainly into 500+ in 2C, stacked over opener.

Partner cannot have C+D, so upped he has spades.

[mikestar13]

Totally agree. In fact, I've been there many times. The precision 2♣ opener (and to a lesser extent 1♦) can get very cumbersome from time to time.

 

Before I turned to forcing pass I played some versions of precision with a super-nebulous 1♦, i.e. a 1♦ that could be

 

(a) balanced hand in some range (usually 11-12 or 13-15)

(b) irregular with 5+ diamonds

(c ) irregular with 5+ clubs (i.e. a hand which would normally open 2♣ on standard precision)

 

Quite frankly, it was somewhat nightmarish, even without opponents butting-in.

 

One thing I've still to try is to remove variant (a) from the lot (with 11-12 just pass, with 13-15 open 1NT) and make it a sort of "constructive multi for the minors". This might actually be playable, and even fun. You could have auctions such as

 

1♦ pass 3♣ ??

 

where 3♣ is preemptive, pass/correct. The pressure on 4th player would be very considerable. Being able to make a bid like this on, say,

 

xxx

Axxx

Qxx

xxx

 

might be very profitable.

 

Interesting concept, I rather like it. Do you get a lot of criticism for passing flat 12's? My Real Diamond Precision partnership has moved to requiring 6 for the 2♣ opener, and using a wide range 12-15 1NT which may include 5-4-2-2 shapes, and passing flat 11's. Now 1♦ almost always has 4, it cam only be 3 with 4=1=3=5 or 1=4=3=5. I would be happier with a 13-15 1NT with pass or bash style responses, but this would require passing flat 12's.

[PrecisionL]

Interesting concept, I rather like it. Do you get a lot of criticism for passing flat 12's? My Real Diamond Precision partnership has moved to requiring 6 for the 2♣ opener, and using a wide range 12-15 1NT which may include 5-4-2-2 shapes, and passing flat 11's. Now 1♦ almost always has 4, it cam only be 3 with 4=1=3=5 or 1=4=3=5. I would be happier with a 13-15 1NT with pass or bash style responses, but this would require passing flat 12's.

I agree with an opening 2♣ requiring 6 cards, or a very good 5 and NO 4-card major. I have played this way for 10 years now.

 

In addition we have made the 1♦ opening artificial also, 0+♦ AND at least one 4-card major. Now we use a design similar to whereeagles comment:

1

♦

- 2,3,4,5

♣

= No 4-card major and 9+ cards in the minors (0-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16+).

2♦ opening is now like 2♣ opening, 11-15 hcp and 6-cards.

 

Also 12-15 for 1NT is too large a range. We use 11-14 and upgrade or downgrade 15s.

[steve2005]

Also 12-15 for 1NT is too large a range. We use 11-14 and upgrade or downgrade 15s.

Isn't 11-14 and 12-15 the same range width? or are you assuming only opening good 11's?

[PrecisionL]

Isn't 11-14 and 12-15 the same range width? or are you assuming only opening good 11's?

Yep, the Kaplan-Sheinwold weak NT.

[shevek]

I actually did that for like 4 years lol. It's better of course.

 

The only reason I play this somewhat unsound club system is I want to mimic as much as possible the two-way forcing pass parent system. I can only play the parent system 3 times a year (open teams, imp pairs, team trials), so I need to have at least some of it in cache :)

 

Stating the obvious, your "two-way forcing pass system" should feature 4-card majors.

 

Concerning the actual, XX should be rescue.

[whereagles]

1. Stating the obvious, your "two-way forcing pass system" should feature 4-card majors.

 

2. Concerning the actual, XX should be rescue.

 

1. That system has all 1x openers as natural, 9-14. You can therefore play any opening structure you like: 5533, 5442, old days 4CM structures, 1x always 4, etc. I can think of one advantage of playing "1x always 4", which is the ease of finding a fit at the first bid, regardless of suit. Coupled to the limited nature of the opener, it allows for frequent 1x-pass-3x preemptive bids.

 

2. By opener, you mean? E.g.

 

2♣ pass pass dbl

rdbl