A BBO-standard Precision style?

[awm]

As far as I know, almost no one (well except Elianna and me) actually plays that two-over-one calls are not game forcing but promise a rebid. For most of the world it seems like either 2/1s are forcing to game, or 1M-2X-2NT/3X is non-forcing. Personally I don't like that treatment, or find it particularly playable, but a lot of people do play it. I have encountered very few who play the style you recommend in the precision document.

 

Perhaps just making 2/1s forcing to game would make things easier?

[mike777]

As far as I know, almost no one (well except Elianna and me) actually plays that two-over-one calls are not game forcing but promise a rebid. For most of the world it seems like either 2/1s are forcing to game, or 1M-2X-2NT/3X is non-forcing. Personally I don't like that treatment, or find it particularly playable, but a lot of people do play it. I have encountered very few who play the style you recommend in the precision document.

 

Perhaps just making 2/1s forcing to game would make things easier?

easier for us old..fogeys YES.

[Chamaco]

As far as I know, almost no one (well except Elianna and me) actually plays that two-over-one calls are not game forcing but promise a rebid. For most of the world it seems like either 2/1s are forcing to game, or 1M-2X-2NT/3X is non-forcing. Personally I don't like that treatment, or find it particularly playable, but a lot of people do play it. I have encountered very few who play the style you recommend in the precision document.

 

Perhaps just making 2/1s forcing to game would make things easier?

Marshall Miles in "Modern Constructive Bidding" in the chapter specific on Precision, recommends the style used in the Blue Team Club (2/1 inv+, forcing to 2NT or 3 of a suit, so usually promises a rebid unless opener bids 2NT ).

 

But of course Marshall Miles' ideas are not always represenatative of the most common views :-)

 

BTW, I like 2/1 GF, because I think that - in absence of a strong GF relay - responder should be able to set early on a GF.

[helene_t]

Sorry, I hope the card symbols are readable now.

[Chamaco]

Sorry, I hope the card symbols are readable now.

I guess it's just my PC.

The adobe reader still says it cannot extract some embedded fonts.

No big deal, the document is only a few pages long, and the sequences are easy to figure out

[card_judge]

For what its worth I would like to add my 2 cent worth (or some minor portion of a Euro).

 

It seems from everything previously posted on this thread I too would make the suggestion of using the BBO standard either Oliver's basic (without asking bids) or Helene's.

 

I listened, learned and watched Oliver's discussion of Precision in the BIL (basic version). I was amazed at how quickly you can learn it. Now I much prefer to play Precision to either Std. Am. or even 2/1.

 

My partner and I got so enamored with it we play Oliver's full 65 page version (complete) with the exception of 2♦ Multi and Transfer Lebensohl. It's too bad the ACBL will not allow 2♦ multi in the General Convention Chart. But those rules are there for some purpose I still do not fully understand. The main deviation we added was Swedish 2NT to the system for much better shape showing while concealing responders hand.

 

Speaking as an intermediate, I think playing a standard would allow us to be able to confidently play with much better (true advanced/expert) partners. This in turn should allow the neophytes like me to learn from those with more experience. After all how do we pass on the knowledge we have learned to those with less experience if we don't play with them?

 

♥ ♥ ♥

[mgoetze]

Well, I have not yet found any pickup partners on BBO offering to play "BIL Precision". There are a few points in it which are not entirely specified, Oliver's text is certainly a good start for quickly assembling a simple precision system with a new partner but it is not quite ready to play "out-of-the-box". What I would like is to be able to ask "BBO Precision, Partner?" with the same satisfaction as someone asking "BBO Advanced, Partner?" - no extra discussion needed, ready to play, and nothing oversimplified for the sake of learning (note that BBO Advanced contains quite a lot of gadgets yet is still known by quite a decent number of people, many of whom have not yet played with each other).

 

So by all means, we can borrow good stuff from Oliver, for instance I think the 2/1 as F2NT is sound (have played this treatment in both a custom precision and Blue Club and never been unhappy about it), but let's try to put together a version which is playable out-of-the-box with no relics which noone actually wants (such as the impossible negative).

 

On a technical note, how do people like to play 1♦-2♥/2♠? I prefer WJS to the 16+ version given by Oliver.

[helene_t]

mgoetze: In the draft I suggest jump shifts over a limited opening to be natural GF by an unpassed hand and fitbid by a passed hand. In competition, SJS don't make much sense, so it must be either fitbid or WJS, this has not been specified. Over 1♣, jump shifts are semipositive over 1♣. Presumably they would be very weak by a passed hand (too weak for a preempt) but this hasn't been specified. This was the closest I could come to a concensus from the polls.

 

Mauro (Chamaco): Yes, 1♦ is natural according to my proposal, again this was the closest I could come to a concensus from the polls. However, with a 4135/1435 you have the option to open 1♦ as "smallest lie" if you prefer.

[Brandal]

I've always been fond of Jannerstein's book on Precision...

That's the guy I learned precision from :)

 

It was called Advanced Precision,and I think his name

is spelled Jannersten.

 

This was around 1980 tho,played it a few years when

me and my pd had time to put an effort into bridge and

it was alot of fun :)

[Gerben42]

In competition, SJS don't make much sense

 

Add fire: Without competition they don't make much sense either ;)

Yes I know that's not true, but WJS (5 - 8 HCP) work even better after Precision than after a normal opening bid! See http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/weakjump.html for details.

 

BTW, I like 2/1 GF, because I think that - in absence of a strong GF relay - responder should be able to set early on a GF.

 

I don't think this is a good suggestion. 2/1 GF is so helpful in "standard" because otherwise no one is limited and the whole auction is a mess. In Precision opener is limited so you don't need to establish a GF, in fact it is now better to get your suit in early so partner can help judging the situation. I guess 2/1 forcing to 2-of-openers-suit is best for Precision.

Besides, 2/1 GF will punish partner when he has a light opening, which he is entitled to have in Precision.

 

I cannot visualize the suit symbols, though

 

Acrobat 7 for Linux can't either. How do you make your PDF file?

 

About the system file:

 

1. I always thought in "standard" Stayman the two invitational sequences with 5-4 majors were 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ and 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ and NOT 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥...

2. balanced is with one l (1♦ - 2nt)

3. Include a runout after 1NT doubled. Simplest is natural and redouble scrambling (at least two suits)

 

please don't oust the three-suiter short in diamonds, I have found it works much better than most people give it credit for.

Me too. The bad convention that has been in this spot for many is Mini-Roman: 4441 with any shortness.

[Gerben42]

It was called Advanced Precision,and I think his name

is spelled Jannersten.

Right, his name is Per Jannersten. I met him in Maastricht when I bought some things in his well-known bridge shop (they had a stand at the Olympiad). A real nice guy.

[helene_t]

Sigh, I'm so sorry for this PDF-mess. I hate computers. Lol.

 

Click here to read the draft in MS-Word format

[helene_t]

1. I always thought in "standard" Stayman the two invitational sequences with 5-4 majors were 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ and 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ and NOT 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥...

Let's see if I understand this. So Stayman can be weak with ♠♥♦ or with 5♥4♠. Or invitational with 5♠4♥, or with spades only. Can you bid an invitational with 5♥4♠ via transfer?

 

3. Include a runout after 1NT doubled. Simplest is natural and redouble scrambling (at least two suits)

 

So with a strong hand you pass? Will a subsequent double be t/o or penalty? (Maybe it means the same as a double of an overcall over partner's 1NT opening).

[Gerben42]

One 4-card major: Pass if weak, Stayman if invite or better

 

One 5-card major: Transfer

 

Both majors:

Stayman if weak (4+4+) then bid 2♥.

Invitational:

with 5♥4♠ transfer then bid 2♠

with 5♠4♥ stayman then 2♠

with 5♥5♠ transfer to ♠ then 3♥

GF:

stayman then bid your 5-card suit at the 3-level (or your 4-card suit playing Smolen)

 

Runout: I was suggesting a simple runout, I am not claiming this is best.

Pass with strong hand. Redouble to scramble. New suit is weak and natural.

 

Double is take out up to 2♦.

[jikl]

It was called Advanced Precision,and I think his name

is spelled Jannersten.

Right, his name is Per Jannersten. I met him in Maastricht when I bought some things in his well-known bridge shop (they had a stand at the Olympiad). A real nice guy.

I think you'll find it was written by his father, Eric Jannersten.

 

Sean

[DenisO]

Has this good idea for a BBO basic precision fizzled out? I can only find a draft document and that doesn't seem to address what should be done with positive 4441 hands ie impossible negative. or unusual positive. There seemed a lot of interest in the idea, so I'm a bit surprised it seems to have gone to sleep.

 

Denis

[csdenmark]

Has this good idea for a BBO basic precision fizzled out? I can only find a draft document and that doesn't seem to address what should be done with positive 4441 hands ie impossible negative. or unusual positive. There seemed a lot of interest in the idea, so I'm a bit surprised it seems to have gone to sleep.

 

Denis

Probably best so.

 

- Those who already knows Precision have no interest in a hybrid.

 

- Those who play homecooking will not study and will not apply.

 

- Those who learn Precision in BIL learn a different and full version.

 

 

So in fact it is difficult to see the stakeholders here.

[zasanya]

Has this good idea for a BBO basic precision fizzled out? I can only find a draft document and that doesn't seem to address what should be done with positive 4441 hands ie impossible negative. or unusual positive. There seemed a lot of interest in the idea, so I'm a bit surprised it seems to have gone to sleep.

 

Denis

Probably best so.

 

- Those who already knows Precision have no interest in a hybrid.

 

- Those who play homecooking will not study and will not apply.

 

- Those who learn Precision in BIL learn a different and full version.

 

 

So in fact it is difficult to see the stakeholders here.

I am a diehard precision fan and in the company in which I play a precision ♣ does not have to be alerted but a natural ♣ needs to be alerted. :rolleyes:

So the moment someone suggests playing precision without asking bids I get put off.Its like having a gun and no bullets.

[vang]

So the moment someone suggests playing precision without asking bids I get put off.Its like having a gun and no bullets.

this is the reason for meckstroth-rodwell failures ;-)

[csdenmark]

I am a diehard precision fan and in the company in which I play a precision ♣ does not have to be alerted but a natural ♣  needs to be alerted. :rolleyes:

So the moment someone suggests playing precision without asking bids I get put off.Its like having a gun and no bullets.

As you prefer tournament set-up you are doomed to standard.

 

Players of Precision, or any other strong system, must be serious about such. They must seek and enjoy practice as often as possible. This normally means completely to skip all standard except with old friends of course.

[helene_t]

Has this good idea for a BBO basic precision fizzled out? I can only find a draft document and that doesn't seem to address what should be done with positive 4441 hands ie impossible negative. or unusual positive. There seemed a lot of interest in the idea, so I'm a bit surprised it seems to have gone to sleep.

 

Denis

I haven't had time to maintain the FD file for a long time. It's about one year ago that I announced the FD file to be ready for inclusion in the standard set as far as I'm concerned. I don't know why this has not happened, maybe the quality was found to be insuficient.

[precision0]

I am trying to collect some players that play or want to learn precision in order to run a private (or public) club and to organize tournaments... what do you think of my idea ?

[helene_t]

I can only find a draft document and that doesn't seem to address what should be done with positive 4441 hands ie impossible negative. or unusual positive.

The FD file has impossible negative.

[DenisO]

The FD file has impossible negative.

Thanks Helene for all your hard work on the FD file :)

[csdenmark]

I can only find a draft document and that doesn't seem to address what should be done with positive 4441 hands ie impossible negative. or unusual positive.

The FD file has impossible negative.

Helene - If you want your file to be distributed as a free download from bridgeFILES you will be welcome. Please mail me the file + possible additional information. Please ensure I will receive possible updates.

 

If you think it is a high quality product offered for purchase only that will be OK too.