A BBO-standard Precision style?

[luke warm]

asking bids - yup :unsure:

[bearmum]

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.

asking bids Probably :unsure:

 

Can agree if 1NT is F /NF

 

Impossible neg --or unusual positive (which I prefer having played both)

 

I like Michaels ;)

 

Also need to agree on what sort of overcalls over opps NT

[DenisO]

I've only skimmed through these threads/polls but nobody seems to have mentioned that Oliver Clarke (OliverC) teaches Precision in the BIL - so there should be some BBOers familiar with his methods. The notes are at:

 

http://bbo.pigpen.org.uk/

 

Denis

[helene_t]

Wow, I wasn't ware of that. Actually, this is very similar to what I intended to write.

 

Looks nice, easy to read and not too diffent from what these polls seem to be leading to.

 

Oliver's system defines 1♣ 2NT as semi-positive, natural. I'm not sure if I like that.

[csdenmark]

I've only skimmed through these threads/polls but nobody seems to have mentioned that Oliver Clarke (OliverC) teaches Precision in the BIL - so there should be some BBOers familiar with his methods. The notes are at:

 

http://bbo.pigpen.org.uk/

 

Denis

Thank you Denis. The version Oliver has put up is a complete SUPER-Precision version. As far as I am informed Oliver is using Jannersten which might be the reason for the 1♣ - 2NT feature Helene is mentioning.

 

I have taken a quick glance at the version and I see it is in many ways similar to Belladonna/Garozzo version. I will check whether the differences in names of features are substantial too or only names.

 

Until now I have rejected new partnerships based on Jannersten but from now on I intend to accept.

 

Especially I noticed Oliver is emphasizing the principle of captaincy. As it is one of the basic principles for Precision I think many posters in this Forum will spend their time well reading that.

[DenisO]

Note that in addition to the basic version which he teaches in the BBO BIL, there is also a more advanced precision variant (which he played with Jason Hackett) available for download.

 

Denis

[csdenmark]

Note that in addition to the basic version which he teaches in the BBO BIL, there is also a more advanced precision variant (which he played with Jason Hackett) available for download.

 

Denis

This is the private but very solid version: Precision.doc(MS-Word-473k)

 

The other version below I cannot open and WEB-search cannot find an application. Denis do you know which application can be used to read the document below?

 

Precision.lwp, (WordPro-550k)

[helene_t]

The first draft can be found here.

 

I have made some choices on issues that have not been discussed here and/or where there was no clear majority. Many of the issues are minor or (hopefully) uncontroversial, but if you disagree feel free to say so. Maybe we need more polls.

 

Sorry for the ugly lay-out, I will improve on it at a later stage.

 

Eventually it should go with a link to Oliver's site, I think, and to other online resources.

[helene_t]

Claus: I think it's the same document, written for another word processor.

[DenisO]

Yes I think so too - written with Lotus WordPro.

[csdenmark]

Yes I think so too - written with Lotus WordPro.

Sorry - I am not going to purchase $ 19,- to be able to open the document. If the document is important I think Oliver will be able to convert into standard formats.

[DenisO]

Sorry - I am not going to purchase $ 19,- to be able to open the document. If the document is important I think Oliver will be able to convert into standard formats.

You seem to misunderstand - there is no need to spend any money to open the WordPro document. The two documents ( i.e. Precision.Doc and Precision.lwp) are the same - just available for different wordprocessing programs <_<

 

And you can open Precision.doc with any version of Microsoft Word.

[bigmax]

Personally, I think that creating standard BBOPrecision is a great idea. But lets keep it simple and reasonably natural. BBOSuperpresision may be next project.

 

The main reason I prefere sayc or 2/1 in pick up partnership is handling interference over prec 1♣ opening. It seems to involve a great deal of cooperation between partners. And as I found out a few times - here even less snandards exist.

 

I think it is nessesary to add detailed description of action after 1♣ -(any) and 1♣-(p)-1♦ -(any) into this discussion

[1eyedjack]

I prefer to play Precision with pick-up partners. For some reason, it tends to create less bidding disasters than other systems.

I am really surprised by this statement. We all have our own experiences, to be sure, but mine are completely at odds with this, and I had two main ideas of the reason for this:

(1) There are a number of varieties of precision, in which a sequence defined one way in one version of precision has a totally different meaning in another variety. Similar instances apply in natural systems but I reckon that on balance ( a ) the instances have a lower frequence and ( b ) when they arise they have (on balance, and subject to exceptions) a lesser impact. Misinterpret whether a 1H opening bid is a 4 or 5 card suit and the impact is likely to be less disastrous then whether a 1C.....3H bid is a delta as opposed to an epsilon asking bid.

 

(2) The inherent weaknesses of precision are well documented as being the vulnerability of the 1C opener (and, depending on its nebulousness, the 1D opener) to opposition intervention. You may take the view that that weakness is more than compensated for by the other strengths of the system, and I will not get drawn into that argument. I will however maintain that in order to protect yourself effectively against the ravages of intervention you need to have a comprehensive defence to intervention, and I fear that no attempt at standardization in this area is likely to achieve sufficient common consent as to achieve a standard that you can expect to adopt with a pick-up partner.

[csdenmark]

Sorry - I am not going to purchase $ 19,- to be able to open the document. If the document is important I think Oliver will be able to convert into standard formats.

You seem to misunderstand - there is no need to spend any money to open the WordPro document. The two documents ( i.e. Precision.Doc and Precision.lwp) are the same - just available for different wordprocessing programs <_<

 

And you can open Precision.doc with any version of Microsoft Word.

Thank you Denis. I see that Helene was right in her assumption that it was the same document in 2 different formats.

 

What I am interested of is Jannersten version to see the differences between Jannersten and Belladonna/Garozzo. I have ordered for the Jannersten book for that purpose.

 

Thank you very much Denis. - You have been very helpful.

[csdenmark]

(2) The inherent weaknesses of precision are well documented as being the vulnerability of the 1C opener (and, depending on its nebulousness, the 1D opener) to opposition intervention.  You may take the view that that weakness is more than compensated for by the other strengths of the system, and I will not get drawn into that argument.  I will however maintain that in order to protect yourself effectively against the ravages of intervention you need to have a comprehensive defence to intervention, and I fear that no attempt at standardization in this area is likely to achieve sufficient common consent as to achieve a standard that you can expect to adopt with a pick-up partner.

I disagree Jack. It is no weakness of precision but a strong argument for playing solid versions - and that only.

 

I agree with you that handle of interference is of great importance but also defense. Bidding sequences for uncontested actions tend to be obsolete nowadays.

 

I studied Bocchi-Duboin system a month ago. A rather poor construction summarised as:

• 5 card major
  
• Balanced
  
• Preempts
  

It is in fact an excellent system due to emphasiz on interference handle and defense. A bit similar you see by Hamway, an ordinary canape' system with solid interference handle.

[Robertn]

I've played various forms of Oliver's system with Oliver himself and with fellow students from his BIL classes. In broad terms, the website describes:

- a basic framework system, much like Helene is developing

- a few gadgets that Oliver likes using within this system (e.g. Romex trial bids, fit jumps or mini-splinters over 1H/S)

- a very detailed system of asking bids, similar to Jannersten and Garozzo but with extra tweaks in the asking sequences, responses, and interference handling

- some suggestions on using Lebensohl and transfer Lebensohl in many sequences

- the complete Clarke-Hackett system (65 pages), some duplicating the above but completely different sections on e.g. point-showing responses to 1D openings, and multi-style preempts

 

 

I find the basic system fine for playing with precision learners - most get the basics fairly quickly and any problems come as much from basic bidding judgement as from forgetting the specialised bids.

 

It does get harder playing the asking bid sequences with a partner who isn't familiar with all the details. There are nine different asks (alpha-iota), some of which have variable response tables depending on the situation - and of course a misunderstanding can result in chaos! I've managed these ok when playing with Oliver, but with other partners it may require a friendly enough table that you can have the web-page open and discuss as you go along <_<

 

Classes are on Saturdays in BIL (8pm UK, 3pm Eastern) for anyone interested - Delta/Theta/Iota asks this coming Sat!

 

Robert

[coyot]

(2) The inherent weaknesses of precision are well documented as being the vulnerability of the 1C opener (and, depending on its nebulousness, the 1D opener) to opposition intervention.  You may take the view that that weakness is more than compensated for by the other strengths of the system, and I will not get drawn into that argument.  I will however maintain that in order to protect yourself effectively against the ravages of intervention you need to have a comprehensive defence to intervention, and I fear that no attempt at standardization in this area is likely to achieve sufficient common consent as to achieve a standard that you can expect to adopt with a pick-up partner.

I disagree Jack. It is no weakness of precision but a strong argument for playing solid versions - and that only.

The question is:

 

Will you be able to come up with a good and solid enough system to handle all types of artifical interventions, WHILE keeping this system simple enough to be usable by intermediate players?

 

The strong club, being the supposedly best thing about the system, needs to be protected and once it becomes popularl, people will play a ton of psychic defenses against it. Disrupting the club is so important that I will put my favorite gadgets against it into profile :-)

[hrothgar]

The strong club, being the supposedly best thing about the system, needs to be protected and once it becomes popularl, people will play a ton of psychic defenses against it. Disrupting the club is so important that I will put my favorite gadgets against it into profile :-)

I haven't seen a reputable author claim that the 1♣ opening is the "strength" of Precision in 20 years.

 

Most players consider it a necessary evil...

[csdenmark]

I haven't seen a reputable author claim that the 1♣ opening is the "strength" of Precision in 20 years. 

 

Most players consider it a necessary evil...

Agree Richard! I normally call it a strong 'trash can' - but just the same.

 

On the other hand - much of the fun playing Precision comes from the features assigned to 1♣ opening. It is here you have most of the asking bids and it is also here it is disclosed whether your new partner is a Precision player or just a strong club player.

 

The strong club opening is the nerve of the system but the advantage is of course the limit openings and the absence of all the curious conventions used in standard systems in order to sort out range and distribution. This advantage is of course shared with most other strong systems(Pass-, club- and diamond systems).

[bearmum]

Thank you Denis. The version Oliver has put up is a complete SUPER-Precision version. As far as I am informed Oliver is using Jannersten which might be the reason for the 1♣ - 2NT feature Helene is mentioning.

 

I have taken a quick glance at the version and I see it is in many ways similar to Belladonna/Garozzo version. I will check whether the differences in names of features are substantial too or only names.

 

Until now I have rejected new partnerships based on Jannersten but from now on I intend to accept.

 

Especially I noticed Oliver is emphasizing the principle of captaincy. As it is one of the basic principles for Precision I think many posters in this Forum will spend their time well reading that.

Any "super Precision" type structure is IMO not for pick up partnerships :lol: and I think Helene is looking for a few BASIC conventions for use in a Precision style structure (right?)

 

Also -- playing any system (not only Precision ) I thing the "captaincy" idea is mandatory ;) as having TWO people trying to captain is often a disaster :(

[mgoetze]

I am pretty much happy with Gerben's opening bid structure (though I like a natural 2♦), and please don't oust the three-suiter short in diamonds, I have found it works much better than most people give it credit for. ;)

 

However, in the realm of responses to 1♣, I consider transfer positives sufficiently superior to consider them worth including in "BBO-Precision" even though it will add to the learning curve somewhat. Number one reason: 1♣-1NT - everyone else is making 3NT, you're the only one playing it from the wrong side...

 

I would like to see asking bids but they will need to be much simpler than the ones Oliver offers if they are to find widespread acceptance. While I'm sure many will agree that a full relay structure is superior, the main thing as far as I'm concerned is to have a system that you can easily play with a pickup partner, without gobbling up tons of memory resources which you would rather spend on your regular system with your regular partner. And as has been pointed out, the strong point is not the 1♣ opening, it is more of a necessary evil. ;) Yet still, we want to be spared the 1♣-1♥-1♠ "so let's see, he's got, uh, 12-21 points and I forgot to ask him about the XYZ convention" not to mention the 2♣-2♦-3♦-3♥-4♣ "uh... ok maybe I shouldn't show my spades" situations.

 

Meanwhile, can we please have Ghestem? It's really not that much harder than Michaels. Also, what about 1♣-1♦-1♥ - articial or natural? I'm really fond of the 20-22 1NT. ;)

[mgoetze]

So, I guess we have let the polls run for long enough now... is someone volunteering to evaluate the results and put it all together? Or are there already people secretly writing Full Disclosure files for BBOPrecision? :)

[helene_t]

As allready mentioned, the first draft is available. I haven't received any feedback yet.

 

But since Oliver is allready teaching Precision in the BIL and has made an elaborate description of his system, you can also refer to his page.

[Chamaco]

As allready mentioned, the first draft is available. I haven't received any feedback yet.

 

But since Oliver is allready teaching Precision in the BIL and has made an elaborate description of his system, you can also refer to his page.

Helene , I had missed the post where you referred to this pdf. :-)

 

I cannot visualize the suit symbols, though :)

 

------------------------------------------------

 

For the moment, all I can say is that I much prefer to have 1D opening to have strintly 4+ diamonds, and that, when I do have (41)=3=5 with bad clubs, I prefer to open it a weak NT if it falls within range, rather than opening a 3 card diamond suit (unless the diam suit is made of AKx or similar).