Continations after showing controls

[Trick13]

We play a fairly simple system. A good start would be:

 

1♣* - 1♥* 16+; 8+ with 5+♠

1♠* - 2♦* showing support and asking controls; 4 controls (A=2, K=1)

 

But we might be a level higher.

What next?

 

I have devised the following scheme that seems better than the traditional suit asks.

 

Relay to ask about a side suit or trumps. Responses are [steps]:

[1] No top honours, or shortness ...

[2] relay asks

[3] None

[4] Doubleton

[5] Singleton

[6] Void

[2] Q or AK

[3] K or AQ

[4] A or KQ

[5] AKQ

 

The responses to a trump ask are the same, except first step shows possible extra length instead of shortness, then [2] relay ..... [3] None, [4] Q or AK, [5] K or AQ etc

 

On some hands this tells you just what you want to know. On others you quickly get quite high without learning much.

 

What else is there that people are using?

[straube]

Not really an answer to your question, but I also used to play 1C-1H, 1S as agreeing spades and then I realized that it was too much of a good thing to have both established a game force and agreed fit so low. We had way too much room there and too little room for other starts. Meckwell played 1C-1H, 1S as opener showing hearts which is not too bad.

 

I haven't played asking bids in a long time though I remember having some success with them. Rather than spend your energy developing better asking bids, why not use some that have already been tested? Or arguably better, use your time learning a symmetric relay system?

[PrecisionL]

1st step after a positive response asks for distribution (not controls yet), continue using transfers by responder to show 6cds or 2nd suit.

Now that you know how good the fit is, ask about controls by bidding either of responder's suits, Beta.

If 10 controls without a singleton/void (or 9 total controls with shortness), bid an unknown suit as CAB, asking for 1st or 2nd or 3td round control.

Decide on slam - usually you have enough information now if you have a fit.

If you don't fit either of responder's suits, bid your own 5-cd suit as a support asking bid.

 

Practice, practice, practice on hands with DD results, just the two of you.

[TylerE]

Having played them extensively, I've ultimately decided that the classical Precision asking bids are just a big loser. You gain marginal utility of infrequent slam hands, but are worse off whenever you end up in only game, which is most of the time.

 

I've become a big fan of the Meckwill Lite structure, which there have been a couple of books written about recently. A few different variants, but the core idea is that as an unpassed responder 1♥ is all (or virtually all) 8-11 hands, and then 1S+ show 12+ hands. Continuations are typically natural.

 

This has two main advantages - the delineation in strength is in and of itself quite useful, and on the most common hand types, opener, rather than responder, is the one showing shape, which is more useful and harder for the opponents to interfere with.

[HardVector]

One thing I've tried to stress to my partners, is don't go into these kind of asking systems until you have an idea of where you want to play it. So, making the beta response of 1♠ asking controls should say to partner, "Ok, I've got this. Just tell me what you have." If you don't have the kind of hand that is sure of where to go (strong balanced hands, for example), don't make the asking bid, do something else. So, after finding out about your overall controls, further bidding should be asking for specific controls in other suits.

 

A 1♠ bid should actually be a rare thing. More common should be a bid like 2♠, saying "I like your spades, but can't take control. Let's cooperate to find the right spot".

[etha]

play some sort of symmetric relay instead of the asking bids.

[foobar]

This has two main advantages - the delineation in strength is in and of itself quite useful, and on the most common hand types, opener, rather than responder, is the one showing shape, which is more useful and harder for the opponents to interfere with.

 

Can you please elaborate on the interference comment? Isn't say 1C - 1H* (*:8-11 any shape) - (3C) harder to unravel than 1C - 1S (GF 5+ any strength) - (3C)?

[TylerE]

Opener doesn't just go jumping around for no reason.

 

1c-1h-1s-2s is much easier than 1c-2c-2s-3s and also reveals less about dummys hand.

 

Uncontested auctions aren't as common as they used to be, either. We're much better off after 1c-(p)-1h-(3s) than after 1c-(p)-1h(5+)-3s. Knowing responder is limited really helps opener not do something foolish - and conversely knowning that responder is 12+ will make it easier to find competitive slams.

[straube]

Opener doesn't just go jumping around for no reason.

 

1c-1h-1s-2s is much easier than 1c-2c-2s-3s and also reveals less about dummys hand.

 

Uncontested auctions aren't as common as they used to be, either. We're much better off after 1c-(p)-1h-(3s) than after 1c-(p)-1h(5+)-3s. Knowing responder is limited really helps opener not do something foolish - and conversely knowning that responder is 12+ will make it easier to find competitive slams.

 

I think foobar was asking about 3C interference, not a 3C rebid by opener.

 

I get that after say 1C-2D it's more difficult for the opponents to interfere with your slam auction, but in your example of 3S interference, I'd rather know that partner had 5+ hearts (GF but unlimited) than that partner had a limited hand and any shape.

[billyjef]

I've become a big fan of the Meckwill Lite structure, which there have been a couple of books written about recently.

 

Something other than Standard Modern Precision has been published? Can you share it? Thanks.

[Trick13]

Not really an answer to your question, but I also used to play 1C-1H, 1S as agreeing spades and then I realized that it was too much of a good thing to have both established a game force and agreed fit so low. We had way too much room there and too little room for other starts. Meckwell played 1C-1H, 1S as opener showing hearts which is not too bad.

 

I haven't played asking bids in a long time though I remember having some success with them. Rather than spend your energy developing better asking bids, why not use some that have already been tested? Or arguably better, use your time learning a symmetric relay system?

 

Thanks, I was sort of asking for tested methods, I accept symmetric is better, but we are not going down that path.

[Trick13]

1st step after a positive response asks for distribution (not controls yet), continue using transfers by responder to show 6cds or 2nd suit.

Now that you know how good the fit is, ask about controls by bidding either of responder's suits, Beta.

If 10 controls without a singleton/void (or 9 total controls with shortness), bid an unknown suit as CAB, asking for 1st or 2nd or 3td round control.

Decide on slam - usually you have enough information now if you have a fit.

If you don't fit either of responder's suits, bid your own 5-cd suit as a support asking bid.

 

Practice, practice, practice on hands with DD results, just the two of you.

 

 

I think it is the Berkowitz-Manly scheme we use - responder transfers to his first suit, opener accepts the transfer with support and then responder shows controls, otherwise with no support opener bids his own suit and responder bids one step with no support, otherwise shows controls. Opener can try a second suit to ask for 4-card support if there is no support for his first. How does this compare to your scheme? It seems there are pluses and minuses, but yours might be better if you can take advantage of the additional distributional information.

 

 

 

[straube]

http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/AskingBids.php

[PrecisionL]

I think it is the Berkowitz-Manly scheme we use - responder transfers to his first suit, opener accepts the transfer with support and then responder shows controls, otherwise with no support opener bids his own suit and responder bids one step with no support, otherwise shows controls. Opener can try a second suit to ask for 4-card support if there is no support for his first. How does this compare to your scheme? It seems there are pluses and minuses, but yours might be better if you can take advantage of the additional distributional information.

 

I have tried both ways, the simplest is to accept the transfer and ask for controls, good for Match Point Pairs where difficult slams are less important.

 

However, in IMPs, all slams are very important, thus distribution before controls should be the emphasis.