[jtfanclub]

Customized Precision, pairs game (MP).

Your partner as dealer opens 1♠, limited in strength to 11-15 hcp. LHO passes.

You have:
♠x
♥KJxx
♦QTxx
♣JTxx

My current philosphy is to pass: nobody has game, this looks like the sort of hand where you want to defend, so let the opponents take it. If they pass this out, they'll also pass out lots of times when 1♠ is a top, so why let them know which hand this is? If it comes back to me doubled, I have redouble available to show this hand.

I was wondering what the higher-ups think of that sort of bidding style?

[Free]

Imo it depends on what the possible responses are. If you use 1NT as a relay (whatever strength), then I'd probably pass. But if you can bid 1NT natural, I'll do that

[pclayton]

This isn't the type of hand to pass 1♠.

I'm assuming 1N is forcing, otherwise this isn't an issue at all.

Depending on your response structure to forcing NT, you have an excellent chance to find a better fit besides spades. You don't mind a 2♥ rebid. 2♠ is made on a 6 bagger, so your OK there too. As far as 2♣ and 2♦: we play that the 2♦ rebid promises at least 4 (which is something good), but over a 2♣ rebid you are guessing to an extent.

The great thing about playing a forcing club, is that partner will not go nuts on the next round unless he has a real good 2 suiter (we play its 5 losers or less).

If the opponents drop you in 1♠, you shouldn't be happy at all. Odds are great that they have you outnumbered in trump.

Give me a doubleton trump and less than an 8 count, and we will systemically pass 1 of a major.

[DrTodd13]

I remember vividly a hand I played against a precision pair where the auction
went something like (1♥)-p-(p)-? and I balanced in. I got the smack-down layed on me because my RHO had a good 8 count and LHO also had a max. RHO passed because the hand looked like a misfit (it was) and there was no way he could play his suit at the 2 level. After this, I saw the wisdom in playing this way. The only reason a bid is forced with 6 points in SAYC is that opener could have 19+. If I don't have game and can't improve the contract then why bid?

[pclayton]

Right or wrong playing a strong club we alert the pass over one of a major for this reason.

Not dissimilar from alerting auctions like: 1 major - 4 major as "he could have a wide range".

[whereagles]

If you can bid a natural or 2/1-like forcing 1NT, there's indeed a case for trying that. You'll have problems only if pard bids 2S or 3S.. but even then, since 2S shows 6 cards and 3S is bid on playing strenght (NOT points), you might make it. If pard bids anything other than spades, it fits you just fine.

You do lose the opportunity to nail opponents if they balance 1S, but you improve the contract on many occasions.

[EricK]

jtfanclub, on Aug 10 2004, 08:00 PM, said:

Customized Precision, pairs game (MP).

Your partner as dealer opens 1♠, limited in strength to 11-15 hcp. LHO passes.

You have:
♠x
♥KJxx
♦QTxx
♣JTxx

My current philosphy is to pass: nobody has game, this looks like the sort of hand where you want to defend, so let the opponents take it. If they pass this out, they'll also pass out lots of times when 1♠ is a top, so why let them know which hand this is? If it comes back to me doubled, I have redouble available to show this hand.

I was wondering what the higher-ups think of that sort of bidding style?

Are you sure nobody has game?

If partner has a maximum with hearts, you might very well have a game.

However, pass may be a good gamble, especially NV v V. Missing a borderline NV game at pairs isn't the greatest crime, but doubling vulnerable opponents for 200 is quite often a clear top.

Maybe you should vary what you bid with this sort of hand, especially if you play against the same people all the time. Sometimes pass, sometimes bid 1NT. Keep them guessing!

Eric

[mikestar]

I would bid 1NT forcing with this hand, mainly beacuse there may be a heart game if partner is max and 5-4 in the majors, though avopidng a 5-1 fit in spades might be good as well. I swap a small heart to spades and pass is a standout; swap a small heart to a minor and pass is a reasonale gamble especially if they are vulnerable and we are not. If left in the 5-1 spades may paly badly, but the risk of missing game is less--if partner is 5-5 in the majors, they almost certainly have enough shape to balance.

Weaken the hand a bit so that there is really no game possible and I pass at any vulnerability.

[the hog]

Pass is gambling. You may have a much better spot in 2C/D.
You may have 4H on.

♠x
♥KJxx
♦QTxx
♣JTxx

Axxxx
ATxx
KJx
x

Look at this average opener. Would you not want to be in game here, or at least some number of H rather than 1S? Add the Q of H and you still are below your magic 16.

I would only pass if playing the original symmetric where 1N is a gfr.

[jtfanclub]

jtfanclub, on Aug 10 2004, 03:00 PM, said:

Customized Precision, pairs game (MP).

Your partner as dealer opens 1♠, limited in strength to 11-15 hcp. LHO passes.

You have:
♠x
♥KJxx
♦QTxx
♣JTxx

My current philosphy is to pass: nobody has game, this looks like the sort of hand where you want to defend, so let the opponents take it.  If they pass this out, they'll also pass out lots of times when 1♠ is a top, so why let them know which hand this is?  If it comes back to me doubled, I have redouble available to show this hand.

I was wondering what the higher-ups think of that sort of bidding style?

I apologize...we play 2D as an expanded mini-Roman, including all 11-15 hands with 5 spades and 4 hearts. Therefore, my partner has explicitly denied 4 hearts.

The reason why it's a philosophy question (and I haven't told you what 1NT means) is because it's a question of building the system. Do we need to have a way of bidding these hands, or can we afford to just pass? For example, one thing we're considering is a forcing NT in which the minor suit responses aren't natural: 2C shows a balanced minimum, 2D shows an unbalanced minimum (5 card unknown minor or 5431). But that means that hands like the one I showed would have to pass the 1S bid.

So my question is really, is it good to make a system in which this hand passes?

[pclayton]

jtfanclub, on Aug 10 2004, 03:30 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Aug 10 2004, 03:00 PM, said:

I apologize...we play 2D as an expanded mini-Roman, including all 11-15 hands with 5 spades and 4 hearts. Therefore, my partner has explicitly denied 4 hearts.

The reason why it's a philosophy question (and I haven't told you what 1NT means) is because it's a question of building the system. Do we need to have a way of bidding these hands, or can we afford to just pass? For example, one thing we're considering is a forcing NT in which the minor suit responses aren't natural: 2C shows a balanced minimum, 2D shows an unbalanced minimum (5 card unknown minor or 5431). But that means that hands like the one I showed would have to pass the 1S bid.

So my question is really, is it good to make a system in which this hand passes?

I didn't think I there existed a convention that I disliked more than regular mini-roman, but I think this treatment would be it!

Why on earth would you want to expand the Precision 2♦ call to include a 5 card major?

By the way, I still bid 1N.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Aug 10 2004, 07:45 PM, said:

Why on earth would you want to expand the Precision 2♦ call to include a 5 card major?

There are two basic reasons:

1. Difficulty showing our hands after a pre-empt on a one of a major opening.
If the opponent overcalls 3♣ after a 1♠ opening, for example, it is difficult to get to the right contract, particluarly if your partner wants them to play it at 3♣ undoubled if you don't have four hearts, but wants to compete to 3♥ if you do. Like, say, the hand I originally mentioned.

1a. Gets rid of negative doubles. It's much more useful for a double there to mean "if you have a strong, balanced hand, let them play it doubled".

2. Unbelievable pre-emptive value.
Take two auctions: 2♦ P 2♠ and 2♦ P 4♥ On the first one, there's no way for the opponents to tell if we have a 7 card fit or a 10 card one...all they know is that my partner doesn't have interest in game. This makes it virtually impossible for them to use the LAW or similar methods to tell if they should compete further. Likewise, by not farting around before the 4♥ bid, there's no way to tell if partner is sacrificing or expects to make it.

The strength of Precision isn't finding the right contract...it's finding the right contract without giving the opponents sufficient information to know if they should compete. Most of the hands where it beats 2/1 and similar systems is where the opponents could have gotten a good score by bidding or doubling and they didn't, or they could have gotten a good score by keeping their mouths shut and they didn't. It isn't designed to be a two way street: opener describes his hand as quickly and completely as possible, and then responder places the contract and decides what the partnership should do if the opponents won't let them play there.

This bid (and the responses) is an excellent example of showing responder enough information to place the contract without responder having to tell anything about his hand.

[mikestar]

If passing hands such as these allows you to have a system design that actually significantly increases Precision's advantage from "responder jumps to the right contract and lets the enemy guess" auctions, then the price is worth paying, IMO.

The question of the size of the added avantage should be considered carefully.

[Rebound]

jtfanclub, on Aug 10 2004, 10:05 PM, said:

The strength of Precision isn't finding the right contract...it's finding the right contract without giving the opponents sufficient information to know if they should compete. Most of the hands where it beats 2/1 and similar systems is where the opponents could have gotten a good score by bidding or doubling and they didn't, or they could have gotten a good score by keeping their mouths shut and they didn't. It isn't designed to be a two way street: opener describes his hand as quickly and completely as possible, and then responder places the contract and decides what the partnership should do if the opponents won't let them play there.

I'm afraid I must disagree with this statement, at least insofar as the treatment I have learned is concerned. Our method is to use the system to find the best contract (typically for IMP play), opponents be damned. Theoretically, the opponents can have all the info they can get but it won't make any difference if we're in the optimal contract.

I realize interferance makes this more difficult but where game or slam is available, there is generally little the opponents can do if we have found our best contract. Further, we have agreed that any double above 2♣ is penalty, allowing us to punish "just a bid" calls against us.

I admit, the fully constructive style is old-fashioned compared with damn the torpedoes - bid anything to screw up the opponents - methods. However, it makes for great fun playing it against those methods. I take great joy from scoring +300 when we know from the opening bid we are unlikely to make game.

Of course, opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one. This method works for me but I can understand how many would find flaws in it.

Incidentally, back to the topic, I agree with those who say that a weaker hand or another spade is needed to pass 1 ♠; 1NT seems right whether it is forcing or not.

[hrothgar]

Rebound, on Aug 11 2004, 05:57 PM, said:

 

Two very important comments:

>Theoretically, the opponents can have all the info they can get
>but it won't make any difference if we're in the optimal contract.

This assertion is badly flawed on many levels.
At the very least, please consider that its MUCH easier to defend against descriptive auctions.

>Our method is to use the system to find the best contract (typically for IMP
>play), opponents be damned.

VERY provincial attitude... Regretfully, the opponents have remarkably little incentive to let you use your system to find the best contract.

Personally, I don't think that I like the proposed 2♦ bid, but I very much agree with fundamental concepts that underlie it...

[Trpltrbl]

I can come up with many 15 point hands pd can have where game is cold and possibly slam.
So pass is out of the question. I bid 1 NT forcing.

Mike

[whereagles]

jtfanclub, on Aug 11 2004, 12:30 AM, said:

we're considering is a forcing NT in which the minor suit responses aren't natural: 2C shows a balanced minimum, 2D shows an unbalanced minimum (5 card unknown minor or 5431).

You can try this, perhaps:

1S 1NT
2m = natural 54, any strenght
2H = balanced minimum. Responder passes with hearts or bids 2S or 3m to play
2S = 6 card minimum

[paulhar]

Quote

This method works for me but I can understand how many would find flaws in it.

I suspect as you gain experience, you'll find flaws in it too. You can reach the optimal contract of 3NT on:

Scoring: IMP

---

but you're going to lose a lot of matchpoints and IMPs to pairs that reach 6H and don't get the dreaded diamond lead. Enough hands like this and your opinion might change.

Let me add to Richard's (hrothgar) excellent comments:
Your descriptive auctions give the opponents lots of room to find their own games and slams and good sacrifices.
Your penalty doubles at the 2 level may get you some +300's but they hurt you in trying to find your own best contract.

Ron should be by later with a much more persuasive argument.

[inquiry]

When I first learned precision back in the very early 70's from a very small pamplet thing written by CC Wei, the system called for PASS after a non 1♣ opening bid with all hands less than 8 hcp. This hand would fall into that category.

Experience, however, quickly showed this was not a winning exercise, and we strted responding with less and less. I agree this hand has too much downside to pass. When they let you play 1S, you are in the wrong contract for matchpoints, and you may be really, really in teh wrong contract if you can make 4he for imps.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Pass - missfit boards I leave opps to play... If LHO had trap pass, I don't like to play possible 2♥ rebid of my p with dbl.
Misho