[flytoox]

This is really not a question of right or wrong. Instead, this is about partnership agreement. Suppose you play precision opening 1C with 16+. Holding
S: A9832
H: K
D: AKJ432
C: 2

Do you open 1C, planning to rebid diamond and then spades or you will open 1D and then rebid(jump if necessary) spades at some level.

I think this is important, as this will help pd to evaluate his hand properly.

[blackshoe]

This is a 1♦ opening and a jump shift for me, although I could wish for better spades.

[MrAce]

Double post sry

[MrAce]

I open 1♦ and then bid my ♠ without a jump twice if i can.

Jumping in ♠ suit doesnt mean you have 5 of them, it means you have a GF hand vs pd's 1♥ bid for example, which i dont think i do. You can do it with 4 card ♠ too (which is usually the case)

[Statto]

In the strong ♣ system I play I open 1♦. That it promises 4+ ♦ is immaterial.

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2012-March-18, 20:11, said:

I open 1♦ and then bid my ♠ without a jump twice if i can.

Jumping in ♠ suit doesnt mean you have 5 of them, it means you have a GF hand vs pd's 1♥ bid for example, which i dont think i do. You can do it with 4 card ♠ too (which is usually the case)

This would be exactly my understanding, except for one small thing. OP is asking from a strong club system point of view, which does not make jump-shift rebids by opener after 1D game forcing.

I don't know exactly where strong clubbers should draw the line about comparative strengths of the two suits and jump shift or not. But, I do know they won't be creating a game-force.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-18, 20:53, said:

This would be exactly my understanding, except for one small thing. OP is asking from a strong club system point of view, which does not make jump-shift rebids by opener after 1D game forcing.

I don't know exactly where strong clubbers should draw the line about comparative strengths of the two suits and jump shift or not. But, I do know they won't be creating a game-force.

I am so sorry then, i was totally unaware of strong ♣ situation. My bad, i shd have paid attention. Ty for clearing it up for me. Now Blackshoe's reply makes perfect sense to me.

[brian_m]

flytoox, on 2012-March-18, 20:02, said:

This is really not a question of right or wrong. Instead, this is about partnership agreement. Suppose you play precision opening 1C with 16+. Holding
S: A9832
H: K
D: AKJ432
C: 2

Do you open 1C, planning to rebid diamond and then spades or you will open 1D and then rebid(jump if necessary) spades at some level.

I think this is important, as this will help pd to evaluate his hand properly.

I'm not claiming this to be the majority method, but in the version of Precision that I play, 1♦ denies a 5 card major. I'm opening 1♠, planning to jump shift in ♦ if I can do so at a sensible level.

[r_prah]

The ♥K singleton is not great; I open 1♦ and jumpshift in spades.

[gwnn]

Upgrading into 1♣ with 1-suited hands makes perfect sense, upgrading into 1♣ with 2-suiters is a bad idea.

Legal aside: this is one area where ACBL regulations are more sensible than EBU - in England you are very rarely allowed to open 1♣ with a 1-suiter unless it has sufficient hcp for the opener.

[32519]

brian_m, on 2012-March-19, 06:19, said:

I'm not claiming this to be the majority method, but in the version of Precision that I play, 1♦ denies a 5 card major. I'm opening 1♠, planning to jump shift in ♦ if I can do so at a sensible level.

I’m sorry but the only guy I agree with here is brian_m. If you are playing Precision, I don’t see how you can open the ♦ suit first. How do you bid a 4441 hand with 14-15 HCP (max)? After 1♦, partner makes the expected ♥ response and now you jump to 2♠? How do you think partner is going to interpret the bid? He will understand 4144 (singleton ♥) and 14-15 HCP (or 13-15 depending on your style). If you are playing Precision, you need to open the ♠ suit first and then jump bid in ♦ second time round.

[manudude03]

Seems a clear 1D+2S bid. Actually, this shows 6-5 for me.

32519, on 2012-March-19, 08:07, said:

I’m sorry but the only guy I agree with here is brian_m. If you are playing Precision, I don’t see how you can open the ♦ suit first. How do you bid a 4441 hand with 14-15 HCP (max)? After 1♦, partner makes the expected ♥ response and now you jump to 2♠? How do you think partner is going to interpret the bid? He will understand 4144 (singleton ♥) and 14-15 HCP (or 13-15 depending on your style). If you are playing Precision, you need to open the ♠ suit first and then jump bid in ♦ second time round.

What's wrong with bidding 1S with that? 1S doesn't deny a max

[gwnn]

32519, on 2012-March-19, 08:07, said:

How do you bid a 4441 hand with 14-15 HCP (max)? After 1♦, partner makes the expected ♥ response and now you jump to 2♠? How do you think partner is going to interpret the bid? He will understand 4144 (singleton ♥) and 14-15 HCP (or 13-15 depending on your style). If you are playing Precision, you need to open the ♠ suit first and then jump bid in ♦ second time round.

With 4144 it is normal to rebid 1♠ over 1♥. In standard this has a range of about 11-18, so precision players can survive with 11-15.

[ArtK78]

I have not played Precision in many years, but I was not aware that a 1♦ opening denied a 5 card major.

If it does, then you have a severe problem on these cards. Opening 1♠ on this hand is sick, and you will never be able to convey an accurate picture of your hand to partner.

Even if I had the (unplayable) agreement that a 1♦ opening denied a 5 card major, I would open 1♦ and treat my spade suit as a 4 card suit (for the present). I would like to jump shift in spades over a 1♥ response and otherwise reverse into 2♠ for my rebid, but if my 2♠ call has some other systemic meaning (which should be disposed of immediately after playing this hand) then I will rebid 1♠ over 1♥. If I am not allowed to bid 2♠ over a 1NT or 2♣ response by partner, I will bid 3♦.

[brian_m]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-19, 08:23, said:

I have not played Precision in many years, but I was not aware that a 1♦ opening denied a 5 card major.

If it does, then you have a severe problem on these cards. Opening 1♠ on this hand is sick, and you will never be able to convey an accurate picture of your hand to partner.

Even if I had the (unplayable) agreement that a 1♦ opening denied a 5 card major, I would open 1♦ and treat my spade suit as a 4 card suit (for the present). I would like to jump shift in spades over a 1♥ response and otherwise reverse into 2♠ for my rebid, but if my 2♠ call has some other systemic meaning (which should be disposed of immediately after playing this hand) then I will rebid 1♠ over 1♥. If I am not allowed to bid 2♠ over a 1NT or 2♣ response by partner, I will bid 3♦.

So, let me get this right, Art. Despite the fact that I explicitly said I realised it wasn't the majority method, and from your undoubted position of strength of having "not played Precision in many years", you're able to suggest that the agreement is "unplayable"?

Well, having played Precision for the vast majority of the last 40 years, I beg to differ. What *I* think is unplayable is violating system just on a whim, as you advocate. If those spades were 9xxxx rather A9xxx, I'd agree with you.

You probably still think 1♦ shows 4+ ♦, as per Goren's write-up.

[ArtK78]

brian_m, on 2012-March-19, 09:32, said:

So, let me get this right, Art. Despite the fact that I explicitly said I realised it wasn't the majority method, and from your undoubted position of strength of having "not played Precision in many years", you're able to suggest that the agreement is "unplayable"?

Well, having played Precision for the vast majority of the last 40 years, I beg to differ. What *I* think is unplayable is violating system just on a whim, as you advocate. If those spades were 9xxxx rather A9xxx, I'd agree with you.

You probably still think 1♦ shows 4+ ♦, as per Goren's write-up.

Brian:

Thanks for your insight into what I think.

I don't remember ever seeing anyone (let alone Goren) stating that a 1♦ opening in Precision promised 4 diamonds.

If you say that the current version of Precision would call for a 1♠ opening on these cards, I am not in a position to dispute that fact. I can state that I view that as an unplayable method unless the current version of Precision has incorporated canape. There is no chance that you are going to convince partner that you have six strong diamonds and five mediocre spades after opening 1♠.

[mikeh]

Brian, in my experience, when someone states that a method is 'unplayable', they don't mean it literally. They mean, or at least I do when I use the expression, that in their opinion there will be too may instances in which a sequence will arise in which the chosen method will cause a profound problem and, often, result in a bad outcome.

I happen to agree with Art, in that the notion of systemically requiring 1♦ to deny a 5 card major will give rise to problems when you hold 5-6 or 5-7 hands.

Now, these are a small percentage of opening bids, and you can play for a long time and not have the situation arise.

Moreover, even when it does arise, you will survive most of the time. In an uncontested auction, the hands on which it is important for partner to know you are 5-6, as opposed to 5-5, will be uncommon. And in a contested auction, maybe it won't matter that you may not be able to bid diamonds, or maybe the auction will time out well for you despite a sub-optimum start. And, of course, by opening 1♠ on 5-6, you will occasionally preempt LHO out of being able to bid hearts at the one-level, and get a good result that way.

But in my view, the gains from using 1♦ to deny a 5 card major seem a bit remote, and I truly don't see why you want to use a method that prevents you from accurately describing your hand to partner.

In addition, there are a host of competitive or slam-type auctions in which it will be valuable to be able to show 5-6.

Here's an easy one: LHO bids 4♥ no matter which suit you open.

Compare 1♠ [4♥] P P. Now, maybe you belong in 5♦, either making or a good save. Obviously, if you belong in 4♠, partner will often be able to bid it since you opened 1♠, but you can't get to 5♦ with any degree of safety.

1♦ [4♥] P P Now you get to bid 4♠, and partner knows you are 5=6 and can pass or correct. You get to 4♠ everytime you'd get to 4♠ after opening 1♠, but now you also safely get to 5♦ when that is better. Of course, maybe the best result was passing 4♥, but the point is that bidding 1♦ affords more flexibility. I could go on, but I suspect you are already aware of these issues but have chosen to play a suboptimal approach because the costs are low and the comfort level experienced by you is high.

[brian_m]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-19, 10:05, said:

Brian:

Thanks for your insight into what I think.

I don't remember ever seeing anyone (let alone Goren) stating that a 1♦ opening in Precision promised 4 diamonds.

If you say that the current version of Precision would call for a 1♠ opening on these cards, I am not in a position to dispute that fact. I can state that I view that as an unplayable method unless the current version of Precision has incorporated canape. There is no chance that you are going to convince partner that you have six strong diamonds and five mediocre spades after opening 1♠.

Art,

The comment about what you thought was tongue in cheek. I'm aware that British and American humo(u)r is different, so I even put a smiley on the end.

No, I absolutely do NOT say that the "current version" of Precision calls for a 1♠ opener. I've stated very clearly that I accepted it was NOT a majority method. Precision has fragmented over the roughly 50 years since Wei's Taiwan team came on to the scene. I don't think there's any such thing as "the current version".

I also think you're a little off beam in calling this Canape. It isn't. If it was Canape, then I would guarantee another suit of at least the same length in a two suited hand. That means that if I were 5-1-4-3 shape (in suit order) I would have to open 1D, assuming any other requirements were met. I'm most definitely not advocating that!

Finally, I don't have my copy of Goren's Precision writeup to hand, we moved a little over a year ago and reorganising my books hasn't come to the top of the list yet, but from memory I'm almost certain that Goren advocated a 4+ card 1♦ opener and a 12-15 HCP 1NT opener. As and when the book comes to light, I'll check.

[brian_m]

mikeh, on 2012-March-19, 10:26, said:

Brian, in my experience, when someone states that a method is 'unplayable', they don't mean it literally. They mean, or at least I do when I use the expression, that in their opinion there will be too may instances in which a sequence will arise in which the chosen method will cause a profound problem and, often, result in a bad outcome.

I happen to agree with Art, in that the notion of systemically requiring 1♦ to deny a 5 card major will give rise to problems when you hold 5-6 or 5-7 hands.

Now, these are a small percentage of opening bids, and you can play for a long time and not have the situation arise.

Moreover, even when it does arise, you will survive most of the time. In an uncontested auction, the hands on which it is important for partner to know you are 5-6, as opposed to 5-5, will be uncommon. And in a contested auction, maybe it won't matter that you may not be able to bid diamonds, or maybe the auction will time out well for you despite a sub-optimum start. And, of course, by opening 1♠ on 5-6, you will occasionally preempt LHO out of being able to bid hearts at the one-level, and get a good result that way.

But in my view, the gains from using 1♦ to deny a 5 card major seem a bit remote, and I truly don't see why you want to use a method that prevents you from accurately describing your hand to partner.

In addition, there are a host of competitive or slam-type auctions in which it will be valuable to be able to show 5-6.

Here's an easy one: LHO bids 4♥ no matter which suit you open.

Compare 1♠ [4♥] P P. Now, maybe you belong in 5♦, either making or a good save. Obviously, if you belong in 4♠, partner will often be able to bid it since you opened 1♠, but you can't get to 5♦ with any degree of safety.

1♦ [4♥] P P Now you get to bid 4♠, and partner knows you are 5=6 and can pass or correct. You get to 4♠ everytime you'd get to 4♠ after opening 1♠, but now you also safely get to 5♦ when that is better. Of course, maybe the best result was passing 4♥, but the point is that bidding 1♦ affords more flexibility. I could go on, but I suspect you are already aware of these issues but have chosen to play a suboptimal approach because the costs are low and the comfort level experienced by you is high.

Mike,

I guess I just got a little needled by the combination of Art stating that he hadn't played Precision for many years and then calling my version of the system unplayable.

Yes, you can construct hands where bidding the major first costs. I don't disagree with that. To understand why I prefer the major first approach, you would have to look at other parts of the version of Precision that I use. It's quite a distance from "standard Precision", if such a thing exists. As a general principle, though, I wouldn't put catering to opponents' pre-empts as a major consideration. If I'm that worried about 4♥ overcalls, I'm not going to play Precision in the first place, because they're far more of a concern to me over a 1♣ opener than on the occasions I hold a limited ♦+major two-suiter.


Brian.

[ArtK78]

brian_m, on 2012-March-19, 11:20, said:

Art,

The comment about what you thought was tongue in cheek. I'm aware that British and American humo(u)r is different, so I even put a smiley on the end.

No, I absolutely do NOT say that the "current version" of Precision calls for a 1♠ opener. I've stated very clearly that I accepted it was NOT a majority method. Precision has fragmented over the roughly 50 years since Wei's Taiwan team came on to the scene. I don't think there's any such thing as "the current version".

I also think you're a little off beam in calling this Canape. It isn't. If it was Canape, then I would guarantee another suit of at least the same length in a two suited hand. That means that if I were 5-1-4-3 shape (in suit order) I would have to open 1D, assuming any other requirements were met. I'm most definitely not advocating that!

Finally, I don't have my copy of Goren's Precision writeup to hand, we moved a little over a year ago and reorganising my books hasn't come to the top of the list yet, but from memory I'm almost certain that Goren advocated a 4+ card 1♦ opener and a 12-15 HCP 1NT opener. As and when the book comes to light, I'll check.

Which one of us is British? I hope it is you, Brian, because it is certainly not me. My paralegal is British, but I don't think her sense of humor has rubbed off on me (yet).

C.C. Wei's team came on the scene about 40 years ago, since it was either during or just before my bridge-playing life started, which was in 1972. During my first year of playing, and even before setting foot inside of an ACBL club game, a friend of mine purchased the Goren-Wei Precision book. This was just after C.C. Wei and Ron Andersen had an 81% score in a regional pair game in NYC playing Precision. We learned the system and played it. It had a 13-15 1NT opening, which it referred to as a weak NT. 2♣ nonforcing Stayman, 2♦ forcing Stayman responses. 1♦ openings were 3+ cards, if I recall correctly. Any hands of less than 16 points that did not fit into a 1NT, 2♣ (6+clubs or 5-4 in clubs and a major) and 2♦ (4414 or 4405 shapes, with short diamonds and no 5 card major) were opened with 1♦. Since all hands of less than 16 HCP with doubleton diamonds and without a 5-card major were either opened 1NT or 2♣, and since all hands with less than 2 diamonds were opened either 1M or 2♣ or 2♦, only those rare hands with 3 diamonds which did not fit any other opening had to be opened 1♦. For example, a 1-4-3-5 hand with weak clubs and strong diamonds would be opened 1♦ (x KQJx AKx xxxxx). But, for the most part, a 1♦ opening in that version of Precision did have 4 diamonds. Just as a 1♦ opening in most Standard methods rarely has less than 4 diamonds (4432 being the only shape that qualifies for a 3-card 1♦ opening in Standard unless you are allowed to open either minor suit with (43)33 shape).

I know I don't have a copy of that Precision book anymore. If I remember correctly, I loaned it to someone and never got it back. I did find my copy of the original Romex book yesterday, but that is another matter entirely.