A BBO-standard Precision style?

[helene_t]

I prefer to play Precision with pick-up partners. For some reason, it tends to create less bidding disasters than other systems. Maybe it's my selective perception. Maybe it's because people who put "Precision" on their profile most of them times actually know something about some kind of Precision, while people who put "SAYC" on their profile often just list it because it seems to be what other people expect you to play, and the same is sometimes true for WJ, Acol, SEF and 2/1. Maybe it's because no-brain auctions like 1NT-3NT, 2♣-3NT and 1♦-3NT are relatively frequent when you play Precision.

 

Anyway, there're a lot of issues you have to clarify if you're serious about Precision. For example, while SAYC, SEF and WJ imply Jacoby transfers (right?) it's not obvious what notrump structure comes with Precision.

 

Would it be worthwhile to try to establish some concensus Precision style by means of a series of polls? Would BBO (in the hypothetical event we managed to establish some reasonable concensus) be willing to support it by including its describtion along with BBO-Basic and BBO-advanced? Or would this be yet another dead-end standardization effort that nobody would adhere to?

[Gerben42]

This is a very good idea. I have not had a big problem with misunderstandings when playing WJ though. Maybe it is that Polish players are more sensible and everyone outside Poland who learns it reads the same file.

 

About Precision: Isn't there a sort of standard Wei-style Precision? But that has a 13-15 NT and a real diamond opener. Isn't the consensus today something like 1NT = 14-16 and put the weaker balanced hands into 1♦? I guess that is one of the questions that need to be adresssed.

 

Let me start by defining an opening structure:

1♣ = 16+

1♦ = 11 - 15 with 3+♦ or 11 - 13 balanced

1♥ = 11 - 15 with 5+♥

1♠ = 11 - 15 with 5+♠

1NT = 14 - 16

2♣ = 11 - 15 with 6+♣

2♦ = 11 - 15, 3-suited with short ♦ (4414 / 3415 / 4315 / 4405)

2♥ = Weak Two

2♠ = Weak Two

2NT = 20 - 21

 

Would that be allright?

[helene_t]

That looks fine and it's very similar to the Borins' book which is one of the better books about the system. In classic Precision, 1NT was 13-15 in all seats. A 3rd-seat 1NT should promise enough strength to make game opposite a maximum passed hand, so this implies that you don't open ballanced hands with 12 HCPs. So one consequence of the neboulous diamond is that 1NT becomes stronger, at least in 3rd and 4th seat. Gromov-Petrunin play 12-14 in 1st/2nd seat and 14-16 in 3rd/4th seat and that seems good to me, but probably not suitable for a BBO-standard. 14-16 in all seats is simpler.

 

I think that in order to have a chance of being accepted, a standard should reflect what is actually played on BBO. Many Precision players on BBO come from Asia or Eastern Europe, in particular China and Bulgaria. Unfortunately those countries are not represented well on this forum.

 

The books I have about Precision are all rather old and consequently present some archaic views. Too strict requirements for notrump openings (Reese), strange definitions of take-out-dobles (Borin, Wei) and a lot of bids reserved for describing specific 4441-shapes (Wei). I wonder to what extend this is actually being played nowadays. I've never discussed Impossible Negative with a pick-up partner. The three-suited 2♦ seems to be played by most but some prefer to play 2♦ as natural or multi and then choose the smallest lie when the 4414 comes up.

[Gerben42]

A big issue is the 2♣ (see other thread). In my scheme above it promises 6 pieces, hands with 5 ♣ are either treated as balanced (2425 / 4225), natural with diamonds (1435 / 4135) or 3-suited with short diamonds (4315 / 3415 / 4405).

 

Responses to 1NT: Since 14-16 is a strong NT, just play Stayman and Transfers (in 4 suits?) like everyone else.

 

Perhaps some reactions from the masses?

[MickyB]

What rebid do (41)35s make?

 

Doesn't sound like a bad idea, only time would tell whether it would catch on... but I'd much rather the 2♦ opener was moved to 2♥ :rolleyes:

[david_c]

IMHO a "standard" Precision system should involve a 5-card 2♣ opening, simply because that's how everyone learns it. So if you're looking for a standard, I'd vote for the system from Barry Rigal's book (14-16 NT, standard Precision 2♣/2♦, 1♦ promises at least doubleton). Having said that, I actually think Gerben's suggestion is a better system.

[hrothgar]

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

[pbleighton]

"Doesn't sound like a bad idea, only time would tell whether it would catch on... but I'd much rather the 2♦ opener was moved to 2♥"

 

This would confuse ACBL players, who can't play it.

 

My recollection is that Rigal's book advocates 2C as 6, or exceptionally as a very strong 5, with 1D = 2+ and NT = 14-16. Berkowitz' Precision Today pushes the same approach.

 

What about asking bids ;)

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

I guess these two books would be a good point to start then. My only book about precision is the Groetheim / Sontag book but that's far from standard.

 

As to the question on precisely the 1435-distribution. As I think rebidding 1NT on a singleton in partner's suit is a serious crime, rebid 2♣. Stating it differently, the sequence 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ does not make the ♦s real. This is a minor annoyance as it affects only one precise distribution (1435). Playing precision you have no business pulling 2♣ anyway with a 5233-distribution or similar.

 

About asking bids: Do most players play them? Nothing wrong with just bidding naturally, especially with a pickup partner. It might be useful to define the difference between 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♥ and 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♥ though.

 

We'll have a poll on the 2♣ and the 3-suited hands later on after the 1NT range is set.

[keylime]

We're forgetting "Precision Today" by Berkowitz. That espouses both schemes but places a strong emphasis on 6 pieces for 2C.

 

For a BBO-Precision, NO asking bids. Keep it natural.

 

For a 1D opener, 2+. 2D as the three suiter, just for comformity sake.

 

What about Kokish relays? Those would be sweet.

[han]

Very nice idea Helene.

 

I think that the Opening structure proposed by Gerben is a good start. I strongly prefer 2C showing 6.

 

I think that it would be best if the 1NT and 1M structures are identical to the structures in BBO-advanced, except for the obvious implications with respect to opener's jump shifts etc.

 

The hardest part would be follow-ups to 1C. Anybody who would like to make a suggestion?

[Gerben42]

Followup to 1♣ is not that hard:

 

1♦ = negative or 4441

1♥ = 5+♥

1♠ = 5+♠

1NT = balanced 8 - 11

2♣ = 5+♣

2♦ = 5+♦

2♥/♠ = 4 - 7 with long suit

2NT = balanced 12+

3x = Semisolid 7-card suit with nothing on the side

[bearmum]

Followup to 1♣ is not that hard:

 

1♦ = negative or 4441

1♥ = 5+♥

1♠ = 5+♠

1NT = balanced 8 - 11

2♣ = 5+♣

2♦ = 5+♦

2♥/♠ = 4 - 7 with long suit

2NT = balanced 12+

3x = Semisolid 7-card suit with nothing on the side

That's a good response list to 1♣ :angry:

 

The other thing u need is agreement on interference bidding over 1♣ --easiest is with 8+ points DOUBLE -- PASS with less :P

 

Asking bids CAN be left out of a basic Precision ---- which then becomes almost SAYC like with the only STRONG opening bids 1♣ and 2NT -- 13-15 NT and 1♦♥♠ as 11-15

 

Other conventions can be added as agreed

[luke warm]

Followup to 1♣ is not that hard:

 

1♦ = negative or 4441

1♥ = 5+♥

1♠ = 5+♠

1NT = balanced 8 - 11

2♣ = 5+♣

2♦ = 5+♦

2♥/♠ = 4 - 7 with long suit

2NT = balanced 12+

3x = Semisolid 7-card suit with nothing on the side

close to the one i'm fooling with

 

1d=0-7

1h=8-11 balanced

1s=5+ clubs

1nt=5+ diamonds

2c=5+ hearts

2d=5+ spades

2h=12+ balanced

2s=8+ 3 suited

2nt=puppet to 3c, p/c preempt hand

[pbleighton]

"Followup to 1♣ is not that hard:

 

1D = negative or 4441

1♥ = 5+♥

1♠ = 5+♠

1NT = balanced 8 - 11

2♣ = 5+♣

2D = 5+D

2♥/♠ = 4 - 7 with long suit

2NT = balanced 12+

3x = Semisolid 7-card suit with nothing on the side"

 

I would change 1D to negative only and 3x to 4441 GF short in the bid suit.

 

Peter

[han]

Agree with Peter on this, prefer to have 1D unambiguous.

 

I like a transfer style better, e.g.:

 

1D= 0-7

1H= 5+ spades, GF

1S= 5+ hearts, GF

1NT= 5+ clubs, GF

2C= 5+ diamonds, GF

2D= 8-11 balanced.

 

I understand that this won't make it to the standard.

[DrTodd13]

If you want to shift up the NT range to 14-16 that is fine and then 1♦ followed by NT is the 12-13 hands. What I like to do is play a 12-15 NT and never open an 11 point balanced hand. I think this increases the precision of 1♦ because you know it is an unbalanced hand.

[csdenmark]

I think that in order to have a chance of being accepted, a standard should reflect what is actually played on BBO. Many Precision players on BBO come from Asia or Eastern Europe, in particular China and Bulgaria. Unfortunately those countries are not represented well on this forum.

Interesting idea Helene but the real problem you see in most topics in this area - everybody want their personal version of Precision.

 

You mention Asia and Bulgaria and you are quite right it is also among those + americans I find my partners. In both China and India the problem really is they have national standards for Precision. So too in Bulgaria. I dont remember the asian specialities but bulgarians plays 15-17 range NT. I have the impression that in India the standard is very near to Power Precision(Sontag/Weichsel). In USA the standard is Goren/Wei.

 

Lately I have noticed that many players, even from Turkey, knows Meckwell Club. Maybe instead try to make a modern championsystem a standard which at least not yet has been infected with a lot of personal interpretations.

[Gerben42]

If we get all springy and happy about our own conventions we could just take Relay Precision or Keylime Precision "off the shelf" but pd wont play that. I dislike the 3x to be 4441 because it is UNPLAYABLE (too high when both are unlimited in strength) and because IT IS NOT A NATURAL BID.

[luke warm]

yeah gerben is right.. we all have things we think are the cat's meow ... i do like the 1h and 2h bids being the balanced hands, cause they give opener an in between bid to ask if responder is 5332, and because the continuations to a negative answer (1nt and 2nt) are so easy and logical

 

but i do like asking bids and ogust (or some other tab)

[Double !]

Let me start by defining an opening structure:

1♣ = 16+

1♦ = 11 - 15 with 3+♦ or 11 - 13 balanced

1♥ = 11 - 15 with 5+♥

1♠ = 11 - 15 with 5+♠

1NT = 14 - 16

2♣ = 11 - 15 with 6+♣

2♦ = 11 - 15, 3-suited with short ♦ (4414 / 3415 / 4315 / 4405)

2♥ = Weak Two

2♠ = Weak Two

2NT = 20 - 21

 

Would that be allright?

Actually, in it's initial versions, Precision openings of 2NT were 22-24 (19-21 were shown via 1C-response-2NT jump. Then came the relays where 20+ hands rebid 1 Heart over 1D response and then bid minimum NT to show the balanced 19-21.)

 

If we are to develop a default or BBO std Precision system, I think it will be very important to discuss responses to 2C openers as there are many different structures being used including those in Polish Club.

[hrothgar]

Hi all

 

I haven't been posting much on this thread. While I play losts of strong club structures, I really dislike the combination of strong club and 5 card majors and tend to avoid Precision variants. With this said and done, I applaud your efforts and wish you all luck.

 

For what its worth, I think that the main issue you need to sort outis the trade off between efficiency and "standard" use. I suspect that there really isn't any clear consensus regarding what is or is not standard. Personally, I'd recommend trying to specify a good system and assume (hope) that it will spread.

 

Here's the opening structure that I would prefer

 

1♣ = 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced

1♦ = 2+ Diamonds (3=3=2=5 shapes)

1♥ = 5+ Hearts

1♠ = 5+ Hearts (rarely 4315 with bad clubs)

1N = 11-13 HCP unless red on white (otherwise 14-16)

2♣ = 5+ Clubs

2♦ = Prefer Frelling. Willing to play multi

2♥: 4=4=1=4, 4=4=0=5, 3=4=1=5

2♠ = 5+ Spades and 4+ minor

2N = Bad 3 level preempt in either minor

3♣ = 5+ clubs and 5+ Diamonds, 8-12 HCP

3♦ = Constructive preempt

3♥ = weak

[luke warm]

i tend to agree with richard on the 5M thing, but if that's what people like ... anyway:

 

1c=16+ if balanced, 17+ if not (opposite of his heheh)

1d=4+ diamonds

1h=5+ but can be 4 in a 2425, 1435 or similar hand

1s=5+ but can be 4 if 4225, 4135, 4315, etc

1nt=12-15 always, never 2 doubletons (makes continuations easy)

2c=3 suited

2d=weak 2 in a major or 20, 21 balanced

2h=11-16, 6+

2s=11-16, 6+

2nt=11-16/17, 6+ clubs

3c/d/h/s=preempt

3nt=gambling

4c/d=namyats

4h/s=preempt

[helene_t]

For what its worth, I think that the main issue you need to sort outis the trade off between efficiency and "standard" use. I suspect that there really isn't any clear consensus regarding what is or is not standard. Personally, I'd recommend trying to specify a good system and assume (hope) that it will spread.

I agree that there is a trade-off between "standard" and efficiancy. This project could easily turn into some incoherent ratatouli of classic and modern methods.

 

My intension is to create a document describing a very simple and not too archaic system that one can refer to when playing with a pick-up partner. Now there are thousands of projects out there on the net, describing the "optimal" bidding system. I'm not going to invent yet another optimal system.

 

I hope it's possible to make a system script that satisfies these succes criteria:

- Simplicity. If you know some kind of Precision you can read through it quickly.

- Not too excentric. It should be within the range of anyone's notion of what "Precision" means.

- Playable. Doesn't have to be hyper-effective. If it's equally playable as SAYC it's fine with me.

[helene_t]

There are a few issues that I haven't adressed in the polls:

 

- Asking bids?

- (Non)forcing 1NT response

- Development after 2♣ opening for example: what does a response of 2NT mean?

- Response to overcalls (is a shift by an unpassed advancer forcing?)

- Impossible negative?

- Michael's cuebid?

 

If somebody knows how to phrase a question related to one of those issues, feel free to start a poll.

 

Those issues aside, I think I have made enough polls that I can write a first draft for a system script after having waited a few more days to collect more votes. Thank you all for your contributions and looking forward to your comments on the first draft.