[enigmisto]

I am currently reading the historical "Simplified and Natural Bridge Bidding: The Precision System" by C.C. Wei.

The book describes a slightly simplified version of the original Precision system, and the appendix describes the original, more advanced treatment for 2D opening.

In response to 2D opening, the responder can bid 2NT, which is conventional and asks opener to describe his hand further. Opener can then respond:

3 hearts = 4-4-1-4 distribution, 11-13 HCP
3 spades = 4-4-1-4 distribution, 14-15 HCP
3NT = 4-4-1-4 distribution, 14-15 HCP with singleton ace or king of diamonds.
4 clubs = 4-4-0-5 distribution, 11-13 HCP
4 diamonds = 4-4-0-5 distribution, 14-15 HCP

Here's my question: Why on earth do these conventional responses skip over 3 clubs and 3 diamonds? I can't for the life of me think of any reason why you wouldn't assign these artificial responses to the 3C-3NT range, unless perhaps in the original system 3C and 3D are reserved for some other more advanced meaning, and/or Wei wanted to make this compatible with some other part of the system that isn't described in this book.

Can someone please explain this to me?

[smerriman]

Are you sure you didn't just miss an earlier paragraph somewhere explaining those bids? See eg this or this which both have exactly what you described, but with the two missing bids also included.

Quote

Should you have a strong hand and wish to find the exact shape and strength of partners hand then your response is 2NT and opener responds as follows.

3C shows 11-15 and 3-4-1-5 shape
3D shows 11-15 and 4-3-1-5 shape
3H shows 11-13 and 4-4-1-4 shape
3S shows 14-15 and 4-4-1-4 shape
3N shows 14-15 and 4-4-1-4 shape with Diamond Ace or King
4C shows 11-13 and 4-4-0-5 shape
4D shows 14-15 and 4-4-0-5 shape

[enigmisto]

Thank you. The appendix clearly specifies 2D as only applying to 4-4-1-4 and 4-4-0-5 hands. But that explains, I guess, why the 3C and 3D bids were omitted. It seems that the original system must also permit those other distributions, but the 2D doesn't cover those distributions in this particular book.

I am certainly curious why those distributions were omitted from this book, but I think you've solved my mystery! Much appreciated.

[mycroft]

This is somewhat off-topic, especially for "simplified" precision, but the argument since 1970 has been "what do we do with 4M-5♣ hands?" Originally they were put in 2♣ opener with the 6+club hands, but they take up so much space trying to resolve it, and it's really nice being able to raise preemptively on ♣Qx and a couple of cards, and not worry about playing a 5=2 fit at the 3 level, that many have restricted 2♣ to 6+.

To do that, they have to deal with the (42)(25)s and the (43)(15)s. The common treatment is to put the 2 diamond hands into 1♦ or 1NT (it's basically balanced, right?) and the singletons into the "three-suiter, short diamond" 2♦ call. Therefore you need to be able to resolve those with the 2NT ask, too, and then, the system you see. It also helps the 2♦ call frequency, which is really bad.

Some don't like the "give away the defence" and the "low frequency" nature of that bid, and make the 1♦ opener 1+ (and do whatever with 2♦, weak, multi, I guess Flannery (although I've never seen it), ...).

Welcome to Precision!

Note: anything by C.C. Wei is good for understanding the theory of the system (especially if you were playing in 1970 and understand the standard of the time). But like anything 50 years old in bridge, it has been refined since then. Even this one is getting a little old, but I am very happy suggesting Berkowitz and Manley's "Precision Today" as a more modern introduction. It can get serious and complicated enough, if you and partner want to gadget it out (though if you're going to go to gadgety, once you *really understand* the basics of Precision theory and practise, I'd go MeckWell Lite).

[akwoo]

If you want simple, I would go with Standard Modern Precision by Daniel Neill.

If you want complicated, I would recommend learning some version of symmetric relay.

No system though will get at the biggest challenge you will face against experienced opponents, which is that they will make a 2 or 3 level bid over your 1♣ at every reasonable opportunity, and you will have to figure out what your best guesses are in that situation. At MPs, the best guesses will depend on how matchpoint odds work out in your field. Fifty sessions of Precision in and I haven't really figured this out yet.

[Cyberyeti]

We simplify our precision by playing a 12-15 NT which we open with 4414 shape, so 2♦ guarantees 5 clubs and 1♦ shows 4.

This may not be best but means a lot of auctions are more natural and it's easy to remember which is important as I play it less than once a year with one partner.

[enigmisto]

akwoo, on 2021-January-19, 12:17, said:

If you want simple, I would go with Standard Modern Precision by Daniel Neill.

Standard Modern Precision was the first precision book I purchased. I'm a relative beginner, so it was too complicated for me. The number of conventions in the 1D responses was dizzying. The Wei book is more my speed.

However, one issue I'm having with the Wei book is that it doesn't really go into a whole lot of detail about how to follow-up on the 1D / 1H / 1S opening bids. It says you can "use your usual methods", but the usual methods that I know assume the opener has a wide range of 12-21 points, so it's not really clear which usual methods apply here. Wei's book outlines a rather simple system of responses, but it has gaps that I don't know how to fill in.

For example, the simple system it outlines for a major opening is:
Raises: 2M 8-10, 3M 11-13, 4M 14-15
New suit bid at 2 level shows 11-15
Jump shift bid shows 16+ and a really good five-card suit.
1NT is 8-10 pts, denies ability to raise or bid new suit
2NT is balanced 13-15, stoppers in unbid suits.

This simple system has a certain appeal because it's clearly designed to work well with Precision's notion of limited bids. But there are gaps I don't know how to fill. Specifically, it doesn't say what to do with a 16+ hand that doesn't have a really good five-card suit to bid, or you want to raise your partner's suit! It also doesn't say what to do with balanced hands outside those specified ranges.

I like the *idea* of the most common responses limiting the responder to 11-15 points, but it's frustrating that it only specifies one thing to do with 16+ points, and it doesn't cover all the possible hand types.

Suggestions?

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-January-19, 16:01, said:

We simplify our precision by playing a 12-15 NT which we open with 4414 shape, so 2♦ guarantees 5 clubs and 1♦ shows 4.

This may not be best but means a lot of auctions are more natural and it's easy to remember which is important as I play it less than once a year with one partner.

We simplified it in a slightly different way and just opened 1H on the 4414 hands. We never catered for that in the bidding, but the theoretical issues were outweighed by gaining a free 2D bid (which we used as multi).

[akwoo]

You use your usual methods, but there are adaptations for opener's rebids to account for the fact that opener is 11-15 (or 10-15 or 9-15; my Precision partnership is playing Precision to open lighter rather than to make our limited auctions better).

The first adaptation is that responder can simply pass with any hand that can't have a game opposite the right 15 count. Also, responder's ranges should go up by about 1 point to account for opener being possibly 11. Other than that, there are changes to opener's rebids when, previously, they would have shown some hand stronger than 15.

Opener's jump shift rebid is now a distributional 14-15, with 5 losers or fewer, non-forcing but rarely passed. (After a suit response, you could play mini-splinters instead. We use an artificial structure for mini-splinters.)

Opener's reverse is now a distributional 14-15, about 5.5 losers, non-forcing but rarely passed.

Opener's jump raise is now also a distributional 14-15, about 5.5 losers. Opener's raise to game is a very distributional 14-15, 5 losers.

We use opener's jump to 2N as the Bridge World Death Hand - 14-15 with 6 cards in our opening suit and 3 card support for partner. (Actually, I lied; we use the jump to 2N as 14-15, 6 in opening suit, denying 3 card support for partner, and a jump rebid as showing a 6 card suit and 3 card support for partner.)

Everything else means more or less what you would play in your non-Precision system. I think I've covered all of opener's rebids that, in a standard system, would promise more than 16+, but if I haven't, tell me and I can probably tell you what meaning should be assigned.

-----------

The trend in modern bidding, in all systems, has been to no longer have ways for responder to show 16+ hands immediately. Instead, responder just keeps making more forcing bids until it's clear from the number of forcing bids they've made that they must have a better than game force hand, and, along the way, opener will show their strength. Almost no one seriously plays strong jump shifts these days - almost everyone has switched their jump shifts to some array of conventional meanings or some invitational range or weak.

[enigmisto]

Thanks akwoo, but I think you're describing how to remap the opener's bids which would usually mean 16+ to his 11-15 pt range. That all makes sense to me, more or less.

My concern was in the list of responses to the 1H opening, no info is given in the simple structure about what the *responder* should do with 16+ hands. With one exception, every bid on the list restricts the opener to 15 points or less. If opener says 1H and I've got a 16+ hand with hearts support, what do I bid? If opener says 1H and I've got a 16+ balanced hand, what do I bid? What if one of the suits is unstopped?

[steve2005]

enigmisto, on 2021-January-18, 21:32, said:

I am currently reading the historical "Simplified and Natural Bridge Bidding: The Precision System" by C.C. Wei.

The book describes a slightly simplified version of the original Precision system, and the appendix describes the original, more advanced treatment for 2D opening.

In response to 2D opening, the responder can bid 2NT, which is conventional and asks opener to describe his hand further. Opener can then respond:

3 hearts = 4-4-1-4 distribution, 11-13 HCP
3 spades = 4-4-1-4 distribution, 14-15 HCP
3NT = 4-4-1-4 distribution, 14-15 HCP with singleton ace or king of diamonds.
4 clubs = 4-4-0-5 distribution, 11-13 HCP
4 diamonds = 4-4-0-5 distribution, 14-15 HCP

If you are going to omit
...3C shows 11-15 and 3-4-1-5 shape
...3D shows 11-15 and 4-3-1-5 shape
I would suggest using
3C = 4-4-0-5 distribution, 11-13 HCP
3D = 4-4-0-5 distribution, 14-15 HCP

[nige1]

Before the advent of Precision, Elizabeth McGowan and I played a similar system, Nottingham Club, which worked fine:

• Strong 1♣, "Loose" 1♦ included all 4441s, 5 card 1M, 13-15 1NT, Intermediate 2m, Weak 2M.
• After1M, simple change of suit N/F but 1N = forcing-relay.
• We anticipated the Blue team's improvements by developing a (much simpler) asking-bid protocol.

If you hanker after simplicity, you could try something like that.

[akwoo]

enigmisto, on 2021-January-19, 20:14, said:

Thanks akwoo, but I think you're describing how to remap the opener's bids which would usually mean 16+ to his 11-15 pt range. That all makes sense to me, more or less.

My concern was in the list of responses to the 1H opening, no info is given in the simple structure about what the *responder* should do with 16+ hands. With one exception, every bid on the list restricts the opener to 15 points or less. If opener says 1H and I've got a 16+ hand with hearts support, what do I bid? If opener says 1H and I've got a 16+ balanced hand, what do I bid? What if one of the suits is unstopped?

I would suggest you forget about that list of responses to 1H, which is based on 1970s standard american and completely outdated.

Right now, when not playing precision, what are your responses to 1H? Use those.

[enigmisto]

akwoo, on 2021-January-20, 01:02, said:

I would suggest you forget about that list of responses to 1H, which is based on 1970s standard american and completely outdated.

Right now, when not playing precision, what are your responses to 1H? Use those.

For example, over 1H I would treat 2NT as Jacoby 2NT. If you don't have long or shortness to show, you show whether your hand is minimum, invitational, or maximum. But in Precision, opener's hand is already down to a 5 pt range, and there is really only the notion of minimum and maximum. So at least one of the Jacoby 2NT responses is "wasted". That was my first clue that applying regular responses to precision has a bit of an impedance mismatch.

I searched some bridge forums to see what adjustments to make, and all I could find was a bunch of people berating someone for asking how to adapt Jacoby 2NT to precision, saying he shouldn't be using standard methods with precision. Reading that made me feel that it would be misguided to mix standard and precision.

[blackshoe]

The first part of Standard Modern Precision starts with the idea that you should be familiar with 2/1 before you start playing SMP. So there's that. I grant that some of the structure, if it's new to you, is a bit hard to swallow all at one gulp, but you don't really need to do that. For example over 1♦ you can just bid as you would in 2/1. It's not optimum, but it will get you going. SMP's scheme for practicing the system is also very good.

As for handling big responding hands, take a look at SMP's "Modified Jacoby 2NT" later in the book. Here, 2NT over 1M shows invitational or better values. One of the advantages to SMP is that often a particular bid means pretty much the same thing no matter how you get there. So for example a 3M raise is always, or maybe almost always, a weak raise with at least four card support. Also keep in mind that in almost every system a new suit by responder is forcing.

You might also want to take a look at Santa Fe Precision by Dennis Dawson. This is another approach to Meckwell Lite that is very similar but not identical to SMP. The author takes a slightly different approach to the system, so there may be something here you would find more useful or more understandable than in Neill's book.

There is a new book out on Symmetric Relay, strangely enough titled Symmetric Relay. It's by Australian expert Nick Hughes. It's a very good exposition of the method, and IMO this is a very important addition to the literature. But it's an advanced book, and even then not for the faint of heart. :-)

[enigmisto]

Thanks. I've spent the past year learning SAYC plus all the conventions described in LearnBridge and the book "Standdard Bidding with SAYC". I still don't execute it perfectly, but I understand all the concepts. I looked only briefly at 2/1. My preference would certainly be to find a way to learn Precision without having to completely master two other bidding systems first. In fact, part of my motivation for looking at Precision was my frustration that there are so many conventions in SAYC that come up rarely in play and have numerous context-sensitive variations, so I tend to forget them over time and bungle them if they do come up. I'm attracted to the idea of a system that is based around a consistent set of principles, and bids that remain the same across more contexts. Since the SMP book is still a bit advanced for me, are there any online lessons or interactive programs that would help me learn it directly?

[akwoo]

enigmisto, on 2021-January-20, 17:14, said:

Thanks. I've spent the past year learning SAYC plus all the conventions described in LearnBridge and the book "Standdard Bidding with SAYC". I still don't execute it perfectly, but I understand all the concepts. I looked only briefly at 2/1. My preference would certainly be to find a way to learn Precision without having to completely master two other bidding systems first. In fact, part of my motivation for looking at Precision was my frustration that there are so many conventions in SAYC that come up rarely in play and have numerous context-sensitive variations, so I tend to forget them over time and bungle them if they do come up. I'm attracted to the idea of a system that is based around a consistent set of principles, and bids that remain the same across more contexts. Since the SMP book is still a bit advanced for me, are there any online lessons or interactive programs that would help me learn it directly?

Precision has to have conventions that come up rarely and have context-sensitive variations, simply because there are a lot of rare but high-value distinctions that have to be made after 1♣-1♦. You need to tell if you're 19 opposite 6 or 17 opposite 6 or 17 opposite 2 (or 22 opposite 7, with the right fit for slam).

For Jacoby 2N - you should play the same responses as in standard, except that 3M should show a maximum, and both 3N and 4M should show minimums, with 3N suggesting that 3N might be the right place to play despite having a 9 card fit. (Even playing standard, some people play this variation of Jacoby 2N at matchpoints.) There's better more sophisticated stuff, but what I said is fine.

Let me say something about free Internet resources on bridge. People do things for free because they get some satisfaction out of it. Developing good resources is a lot of work. For a lot of experts, the satisfaction comes from helping other people, particularly talented young players, become the next generation of experts at bridge. Helping talented players become experts is fun. Helping mediocre players not suck? That's work, and people are much less likely to be willing to do it for free. (Maybe they'll do some of it for free to sell books or otherwise attract paying customers.)

[enigmisto]

akwoo, on 2021-January-20, 18:16, said:

Let me say something about free Internet resources on bridge. People do things for free because they get some satisfaction out of it. Developing good resources is a lot of work. For a lot of experts, the satisfaction comes from helping other people, particularly talented young players, become the next generation of experts at bridge. Helping talented players become experts is fun. Helping mediocre players not suck? That's work, and people are much less likely to be willing to do it for free. (Maybe they'll do some of it for free to sell books or otherwise attract paying customers.)

I didn't say I wanted free. I want interactivity. I want community. I developed an interest in Bridge last year right before everything, including my local Bridge club, shut down. So no opportunity for classes, or for meeting people to play with.

Turns out, surprise surprise, it's no fun to slog through a book on bidding, and then the only place to play is against BBO bots which use an entirely different system. There's no one true standard in Bridge, so it's pretty much impossible to find someone who has learned exactly the same system that you've learned, so how does one even play? No two books use exactly the same system, so it's difficult to grow one's knowledge -- each new book I get feels almost like starting over. Every new computer program I try uses a totally different set of conventions.

The most enjoyable learning experience I've had so far is the (paid) app at learnbridge.com. Excellent exposition of bidding principles, followed by interactive multiple-choice quizzes to test your understanding. A lot of great material told from one coherent viewpoint. Even so, it's still hard to find opportunities to put this knowledge into practice without a steady partner who has read exactly the same material.

So I'd be interested in something like that, for Precision, if it exists. Or some online classes. Or a computer program I can buy with bots that play according to some standard, well-documented form of precision that is easy to learn and understand. Or a place to find people who all have the same shared understanding of the same underlying system.

[akwoo]

Bridge is no fun without steady partners. Find some.

If you want to play some particular system as outlined in some book, you find someone who is willing to learn, teach them the book over the course of a few months, and put up with them making mistakes in the meantime (or permanently). (Or someone else finds you and is willing to do this for you.)

SMP is roughly the closest there is to a standard Precision in North America, but in fact, every pair I know playing it (1) is a steady partnership that agreed to learn SMP together, (2) makes modifications to the system to suit their styles, and (3) are good enough to regularly place in open regional tournaments.

Most advanced bridge players have some bit of system tinkerer in them. Everyone enjoys changing their system a little bit to deal with some gap they are particularly annoyed about (while opening some other gap that they aren't as annoyed about). That means there's basically never standard anything.

There is no community of not-advanced players in North America that play Precision. (Occasionally, a partnership of not-advanced players decides to pick it up.) I have heard that it might be a standard system in Taiwan, but you'd have to learn Mandarin and maybe Taiwanese as well.

[mycroft]

One of the benefits of knowing standard (in your area - 2/1 in North America, Forum D in France,...) is that you can play with basically anyone and be 80% on page straight away. Precision (again, if you're not from Taiwan or Hong Kong) isn't that - finding someone that plays Precision is hard, and assuming you're on the same page with them is harder yet.

SMP is the closest one can get to "Everybody plays it" these days; Berkowitz and Manley is still an easier introduction (if you don't know from standard why the bids in SMP are the way they are, it won't be effective for you). I would suggest that "anyone" who plays Precision can back it down to Wei/Reese/Goren levels if they have to, but it will feel very clunky. Bridge has just moved on so much in the last 50 years, at least partly because of what the early Precision teams taught the world (that doesn't require the strong club to work, even).

If you want to play Precision, the two methods have always been:

• Find a book and a partner and have both of you learn from that and play it, then go looking for things to fix the holes; or
• find a partner that already plays, and learn the system from them.

Both involve having a partner - if you want to be comfortable playing pickup, you won't be playing Precision.

But as akwoo says, bridge is a partnership game, and while playing with anyone and everyone is fun, it's much more fun with a regular partner (and playing with others sometimes, not all the time).

Having said all that, I tried to teach a "straightforward basic 2010 Precision" for a class a few years ago, explicitly because "if you show anyone who plays Precision your card, they'll be able to play it, even if they miss their toys" and "if we get enough Strong Club players in our area, people can actually get non-regular partners playing it". If you want, I can send you my class notes. Do note that they, too, are based on "I assume you know how to play standard, so my comments are how Precision fixes the holes in standard (that you all can see)".