Inferior System

[card_judge]

Since I am the inexperienced neophyte here how do I contend with the "elite" who knock my use of Precision as an inferior system.

 

The only way I have been able to do so to date is show them at the end of the night (or tournament) who was ahead of who in the standings. But they always seem to indicate the "field was weak". Didn't we both play against the same field?

 

Perhaps it is because I have only been playing Precision since March?

 

♦ ♦ ♦

[awm]

Meckstroth and Rodwell play precision. Cohen and Berkowitz play precision. Soloway and Hamman play a strong club (basically precision with 4cM). Sontag and Weichsel play precision.

 

I'd say these are pretty good pairs to be playing an inferior system.

[mike777]

Meckstroth and Rodwell play precision. Cohen and Berkowitz play precision. Soloway and Hamman play a strong club (basically precision with 4cM). Sontag and Weichsel play precision.

 

I'd say these are pretty good pairs to be playing an inferior system.

Agree the vast majority of players call these systems Precision, but of course these systems are not Precision or anything close to it. One example is Precision is a 5 card major system not a 4 card major system. Better to call it Neopolitan if anything. :).

[Gerben42]

Not enough? How about:

 

von Arnim - Auken

Gromov - Petrunin

Muller - de Wijs

Groetheim - Tundal etc. (Viking Precision)

etc.

 

Well I don't know who your "elite" is but it seems they are sort of stuck in an "our way must be the right way" attitude.

[awm]

Of course, no top partnership is playing a vanilla "off the shelf" system. Those who play precision don't play it "right out of the CC Wei book" (or the Barry Rigal book, or any other book on precision). Just like those who play "two-over-one" don't play the Hardy or Lawrence book, and those who play Polish club don't play WJ2005.

 

Precision as a "basic method" would seem to entail a strong aritficial 1♣ with other openings limited, natural 5-card majors, a natural 2♣ opening (either 5+ or 6+ club depending on style), and a special opening bid for 3-suited short in diamonds (classically this is 2♦ but some have moved it to 2♥ so as to make use of multi).

 

Similarly two-over-one as a "basic method" would entail a strong artificial 2♣ bid, five-card majors, fairly wide-ranging one-level openings, 1M-2x forcing to game, and a wide-ranging forcing (or semi-forcing) 1NT response to 1M.

 

I think there are plenty of good partnerships using precision as a basic method, easily enough that you can't discount the system. Saying that they're "not playing precision because they don't play the CC Wei book" is like saying that top 2/1 partnerships "are not playing 2/1 because they don't play the Hardy book."

[mikeh]

Precision is a catchall for a subset of the larger forcing club school of methods. Precision is (I believe) generally thought of as requiring 16+ for 1♣, with 5 card majors and a limited 2♣ opening. However, as with any catchall naming, there are as many variants of precision as there are established partnerships (and probably more).

 

I doubt that any of those who are telling you that 'Precision' is an inferior method (inferior to what?) are actually 'elite' in any minds but their own :)

 

However, it may well be that YOUR variant of precision is 'inferior' (or 'superior') to methods that they consider to be better. Thus if you play 'precision' as set out in Wei's original book, it will indeed be 'inferior' to most sophisticated methods in use today. Play Meckwell 'precison' (which bears as much resemblance to Wei's book as does a Boeing 767 to the Wright Brother's original plane) and no-one would call the method 'inferior'.

 

That is not a knock on Wei's method, but a reflection of the progress in bidding theory, both in big club methods and elsewhere, since that day.

 

If you are committed to 'precision', then my advice is to study the near-inifinite variations available to you and evolve your own 'method' as far as partnership harmony and memory workload allow.

 

But do not close your ears to constructive criticism. No constructive critic would say only that your method is inferior. In what way? Are there solutions to the percieved problem, that do not create equivalent or worse problems elsewhere? Are there offsetting advantages such that you can accept a fundamentally unsound aspect of the method (eg the 2♣ opening is almost always a weak spot in the method). And so on.

 

Good luck and enjoy.

[keylime]

i've had many in my bridge life, comment how archaic and ancient Precision is, until the scores got posted and they wondered why they weren't competitive.

 

Push and push HARD. Destroy that "empire" mindset as the total sham that it is.

[Rebound]

I happen to really like precision. 'They' can knock it if they want. I don't care. It works for me. I feel much more in control of the bidding (I mean from the standpoint of knowing what is going) when playing precision compared with, say, 2/1.

[card_judge]

I must agree with you Rebound. I am much more at ease playing Precision than Std. Am or 2/1. Playing those two systems I tended to "over bid" and when set say I was sacrificing. That became a bad excuse for bad bidding. Now it doesn't happen unless I am actually sacrificing.

 

♥ ♥ ♥

[akhare]

Since I am the inexperienced neophyte here how do I contend with the "elite" who knock my use of Precision as an inferior system.

 

The only way I have been able to do so to date is show them at the end of the night (or tournament) who was ahead of who in the standings. But they always seem to indicate the "field was weak". Didn't we both play against the same field?

 

Perhaps it is because I have only been playing Precision since March?

 

♦ ♦ ♦

It will be really interesting to find who these "elites" are. My contention is that almost any form of Precision is superior to 2/1 or SAYC -- in the recent rgb system design contest, a near vanilla version of Precision finished first :unsure:...

 

Atul

[han]

Strange. I have talked with many bridge players, and I have read almost every thread in this bridge forum for a while now. I have never ever heard anybody say that precision is an inferior system (inferior to what?), and I have played precision for some years. Where do you meet these elite people?

 

Perhaps I missed some of these comments because I thought that they were jokes. It could very well be that some poster here has written that precision is far inferior to SAYC, I would not have taken it seriously.

[SoTired]

Since I am the inexperienced neophyte here how do I contend with the "elite" who knock my use of Precision as an inferior system.

Meckstroth and Rodwell play precision. Cohen and Berkowitz play precision. Soloway and Hamman play a strong club (basically precision with 4cM). Sontag and Weichsel play precision.

I would say the problem is with the "elite". Maybe they are not so "elite" as you think.

 

I don't play Precision, but recognize it's value.

 

Now if I can only get the Precision "elites" to stop slamming 2/1....

[Guest Jlall]

Now if I can only get the Precision "elites" to stop slamming 2/1....

That is a much more daunting task :)

[Walddk]

To sum it up:

 

The system that works for you and your partner is a fine system. Don't worry about whether other people don't like the system you choose. Inferior and superior are irrelevant words in this context.

 

Get on with things and :) no matter what the "elite" tells you.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

When I tell people I meet in f2f tournaments that I play Precision I often get the response "So you are still playing Precision?". It turns out that before the Biedermeijer mafia concurred the Netherlands, Precision enjoyed some popularity. And if you go to a bookstore and ask for Precision books, they will offer you their last moth-eaten copy of Goren's book. I have seen Rigal's book in one bookstore but generally they only sell very old books. And those who play Precision at intermediate level are always in their 70's or 80's.

 

Also, in order to sell the "Dutch Acol" system (which is actually "Dutch Goren" but for marketing-strategic reasons called "Acol"), the authors of the popular From Start to Finish-textbooks literally write that "You may encounter pairs, mainly old people, who play so-called club systems. Those are inferior systems, no-one has ever won a major event playing such a system". Now "club system" probably refers to either Vienna or some home-grown Vienna-like system, but I suppose that the authors are pleased that many of their disciples think that it refers to any system with a forcing or semi-forcing 1♣ opening.

[SoTired]

This argument over which is better, precision or 2/1 reminds me of a similar incident that occured many years ago.

 

In the US, in the late 60's or early 70's, 5-card majors was quite popular among experts, but 4-card majors were still mostly being taught by bridge teachers. The president of the US bridge teachers association (I forget the exact organization name), sent a letter to all the teacher members asking whether members should join the "dogmeat" that taught 5-card majors. Right... he called them "dogmeat."

 

My mother (a local expert and bridge teacher) was furious. Besides that most experts played 5-card majors, besides that teaching 5-card majors is so much easier than 4-card majors, the fact is for beginners, 5-card majors is easier to learn because there are fewer rules.

 

I wish I had seen the scathing letter that my mother sent, or learned what happened next, but I was too young.

 

So I guess much of this fight of precision vs 2/1 is probably similar to apple vs windows or one religion vs another. Whatever you grew up with and whatever you are used to is what you think is the best. And small minds can't see beyond that.

[Chamaco]

Since I am the inexperienced neophyte here how do I contend with the "elite" who knock my use of Precision as an inferior system.

Just don't contend :-)

 

Play what you like, the way you like, and when you get better scores than them, just joke "Sorry, I was lucky" :)

[helene_t]

When those "elite" people say that the field was weak, maybe what they mean is that your opponents were not experienced in playing against Precision.

[tysen2k]

When I tell people I meet in f2f tournaments that I play Precision I often get the response "So you are still playing Precision?".

I get the opposite reaction. People tell me, "I should get my act together and learn how to play precision." :D

[Trumpace]

When those "elite" people say that the field was weak, maybe what they mean is that your opponents were not experienced in playing against Precision.

By a "weak field", my guess is that the "elite" meant that most people weren't that good at the bridge (most likely play). Even though you have played the same people, getting a good result does not imply that your system is better. Basically, playing in a weak field, there is too much randomization and you cannot use results there as a basis for such comparisons. The "elites" probably have some other source of data from which they say that precision (which today, covers a wide range of bidding systems) is inferior.

 

btw, to the original poster, what did they say it was inferior to? SAYC?

[card_judge]

I thought I would get a reaction but never expected this much. The "elite" was speaking as 2/1 was the superion system.

 

Now I didn't mean for this thread to get to be whether 2/1 was better than Precision. Just trying to figure out how to respond.

 

Thank you all that responded. You have all helped. BTW Roland your advice I will totally tend to heed. My partner and I like it. We are comfortable with it. And we scratch more frequently than not using it. So it will be tough to get me to switch to another.

 

♠ ♠ ♠