[Hilver]

Playing some kind of Precision, opening 1♦ is 11-15 HCP and 2+-card ♦, denying a five card in one of the majors, what should 2♠ be in this auction:

You LHO Partner
1♦ 1♠ 2♠

Should 2♠ be:
1. at least 10+ HCP and at least 4-card ♦ support, denying 4-cxard ♥ or
2. just asking for a ♠ stopper?

A second bidding sequence:
You LHO Partner
1♦ 1♠ 3♦

Should 3♦ promise:
1. 10-11 HCP and a good 5+-card ♦ support, denying 4-card ♥ or
2. weak jump support, 0-5 HCP and 5/6+ card ♦ support?

What are Your agreements in these situations?

Thx.

[awm]

What sort of hand is going to bid 2♠ "asking for a stopper?"

It seems like:

(1) You won't have 4+♥, since you could've made a negative double or bid 2♥.
(2) You probably won't have long spades, since you'd likely have a stopper then.
(3) If you had 4+♣, you could've bid 2♣.
(4) You surely have invitational or better values.

Putting these together, it seems like 2♠ pretty much guarantees 4+♦ and asks for a stopper. So you can play the 3♦ jump as weak (or constructive if you prefer).

[jtfanclub]

Hilver, on Sep 21 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

Should 2♠ be:
1. at least 10+ HCP and at least 4-card ♦ support, denying 4-cxard ♥ or
2. just asking for a ♠ stopper?

Why should it have anything to do with diamonds? It's a 2+ card diamond suit. You might have 5 clubs and 2 diamonds, for all he knows. I don't think on a 1 diamond opener that the average number of diamonds is much higher than the average number of clubs.

I would play it shows 10+ hcp, generally denies 4 hearts*, and asks for more info. I can't imagine the hand which knowing that partner is 11-15 and not much else is already thinking about stoppers.

*may have 4 hearts with a spade void, if you tend to convert negative doubles a lot.

[Mbodell]

Hilver, on Sep 21 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

Playing some kind of Precision, opening 1♦ is 11-15 HCP and 2+-card ♦, denying a five card in one of the majors, what should 2♠ be in this auction:

You                  LHO        Partner
1♦              1♠      2♠

Should 2♠ be:
1. at least 10+ HCP and at least 4-card ♦ support, denying 4-cxard ♥ or
2. just asking for a ♠ stopper?

A second bidding sequence:
You                  LHO            Partner
1♦                1♠          3♦

Should 3♦ promise:
1. 10-11 HCP and a good 5+-card ♦ support,  denying 4-card ♥ or
2. weak jump support, 0-5 HCP and 5/6+ card ♦ support?

What are Your agreements in these situations?

Thx.

I play a form of precision that has the 15-17 balanced bid as part of 1d so our 1d bids are generally 11-15 (or weaker) unbalanced or 15-17 balanced and 2+ diamonds.

The 2♠ bid would be 10+ relatively balanced and no stopper or possibly 13+ anything ready to act after next bid. Our dbl would show exactly 8-10 and 4 ♥ and 1nt and 2nt would cover 8-13 with a stopper - but possibly the likelihood of 15-17 nt hands effects this bid in our system more.

The 3♦ bid would be 10-11 diamond support (could be 4).

The 1♦ has more ♦ than ♣. We restrict the 2♣ bid to 6+ so 5 card ♣ suits are opened with the 1♦ bid unless they have 5 card majors or 1 or fewer ♦.

In total the expected number of diamonds in the openers hand when he opens 1♦ is 4.23. The expected number of clubs is 3.27.

About 40% of our 1♦ when it is the 15-17 balanced and only about 60% are the unbalanced sort. When it is the nt then ♣ and ♦ are equal and about 3.36 cards.

So if I restrict my 1♦ to the unbalanced hands only then the expected number of cards in ♦ is 4.80 and in ♣ is just 3.21. So I'd say the average number of diamonds is certainly significantly longer than the average number of clubs (contrary to jtfanclub's assertion).

[Tomi2]

Mbodell, on Sep 22 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

In total the expected number of diamonds in the openers hand when he opens 1♦ is 4.23. The expected number of clubs is 3.27.

About 40% of our 1♦ when it is the 15-17 balanced and only about 60% are the unbalanced sort. When it is the nt then ♣ and ♦ are equal and about 3.36 cards.

So if I restrict my 1♦ to the unbalanced hands only then the expected number of cards in ♦ is 4.80 and in ♣ is just 3.21. So I'd say the average number of diamonds is certainly significantly longer than the average number of clubs (contrary to jtfanclub's assertion).

dont the percentages change, if your partner looks at his hand and has a 5 card ♦ suit? I bet this reduces the chances to find a 5 card fit in partners hand

[han]

Agree with Adam.

Instead of "asking for a stop" you can just show what you have in your hand.

[whereagles]

awm, on Sep 21 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

What sort of hand is going to bid 2♠ "asking for a stopper?"

Well, given 1♦ is limited, there are many more hands which are just interested to know of the stopper. (Some of those couldn't afford to cue on a sys like sayc or 2/1.)

It might go from, say,

x
xxx
xx
AKQJxxx

to

xxx
KJx
Axx
AQJx

In 2/1, hand 1 would probably bid 2♣ and hand 2 might be a bit stuck for a bid. Both these hands can afford 2♠ playing prec as slam seems quite remote...

[han]

Right. And then partner has Ax AJxx KQJxxx x and has no clue what's going on. So you give up the opportunity to make a good diamond raise for the purpose of hiding your easily biddable club hand.

[Gerben42]

With a regular partner I just play it as "good raise" but 1♦ shows 3 cards opposite a nonpassed hand. With a passed hand, 1♦ can be 2 cards but now responder can't be strong enough to want to bid 2♠ in the first place... Probably should mean "invite asking for stopper and maximum"

[jtfanclub]

Mbodell, on Sep 22 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

So if I restrict my 1♦ to the unbalanced hands only then the expected number of cards in ♦ is 4.80 and in ♣ is just 3.21. So I'd say the average number of diamonds is certainly significantly longer than the average number of clubs (contrary to jtfanclub's assertion).

But most people don't. They have 11-12 balanced or 11-15 unbalanced. Obviously, on the 11-12 balanced the odds of clubs or diamonds is exactly equal. And IIRC you're actually more likely to have 11-12 balanced than 11-15 unbalanced.

Here's what I get:
A. Balanced 11-12: 8% of all hands, 54.4% of all 1♦ bids.
All others are unbalanced 11-15 hands.
B. 5431/5422/4441/5440, no 5 card major: 4.7% of all hands, 32% of all 1♦ bids.
C. 5521, 6511, 6520, no 5 card major: .3% of all hands: 2% of all 1♦ bids
D. 6+ diamonds, no other 5 card suit: 1.7% of all hands: 11.6% of all 1[1D] bids.

Hands where clubs are better*: 44.2%
Hands where diamonds are better: 55.8%

I did it where there were no 'ties', the better suit if equal length. If I were to make 3 categories: equal length, clubs longer, or diamonds longer, none would be over 50%.

Obviously, the numbers are very different if you use a standard Precision 1 diamond. Moving the 4441/5440 to another bid won't make a significant difference.

[whereagles]

Hannie, on Sep 23 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

Right. And then partner has Ax AJxx KQJxxx x and has no clue what's going on. So you give up the opportunity to make a good diamond raise for the purpose of hiding your easily biddable club hand.

Which just shows you got a couple of problems understanding what precision is all about.

The likelyhood that pard has that hand is like 0,01% and this justifies the masterminding bid of 2♠. And I'm not even factoring in that pard mght open that hand 1♣ (I would). Why should I disclose my hand if I know I'm going to play 3NT 99,99% of the time when a stopper is found? This is one of the major advantages of playing a limited opener and the daisy-picking bid of 2♣ amounts to throwing it all away.

In sayc or 2/1 you couldn't afford to ask for a stop because pard could have far better than the hand you showed. In 2/1 you show what you have. In precision you can (and should) make decisions right away.

[han]

whereagles, on Sep 24 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

Which just shows you got a couple of problems understanding what precision is all about.

I disagree with both of your assertions.

While opener's strength is much better known than in standard bidding, he can still have a wide variety of hands. There will be many hands where you want to involve opener. If you often mastermind your 2S call then you take partner out of the picture, which will hurt you on many more hands than the 0.01% you estimate.

And while my bridge still has many problems, understanding of what precision is all about is not one of them imo.

[helene_t]

Why should a 2♣ freebid be stronger than a 2♦ freebid? You could play 2♣ as competitive (or invitational if you prefer) primarily with 4-5 clubs and some diamonds tolerance, that would have a high frequency. OTOH if 2♦ is NF you would like to have at least 5 diamonds. So you could play 2♦ as forcing and 2♣ as non-forcing, and then 2♠ would show a strong hand with clubs.

Without discussion I would assume 2♠ to be a strong hand with 4+ diamonds, though.

[Mbodell]

jtfanclub, on Sep 24 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

Mbodell, on Sep 22 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

So if I restrict my 1♦ to the unbalanced hands only then the expected number of cards in ♦ is 4.80 and in ♣ is just 3.21.  So I'd say the average number of diamonds is certainly significantly longer than the average number of clubs (contrary to jtfanclub's assertion).

But most people don't. They have 11-12 balanced or 11-15 unbalanced. Obviously, on the 11-12 balanced the odds of clubs or diamonds is exactly equal. And IIRC you're actually more likely to have 11-12 balanced than 11-15 unbalanced.

Here's what I get:
A. Balanced 11-12: 8% of all hands, 54.4% of all 1♦ bids.
All others are unbalanced 11-15 hands.
B. 5431/5422/4441/5440, no 5 card major: 4.7% of all hands, 32% of all 1♦ bids.
C. 5521, 6511, 6520, no 5 card major: .3% of all hands: 2% of all 1♦ bids
D. 6+ diamonds, no other 5 card suit: 1.7% of all hands: 11.6% of all 1[1D] bids.

Hands where clubs are better*: 44.2%
Hands where diamonds are better: 55.8%

I did it where there were no 'ties', the better suit if equal length. If I were to make 3 categories: equal length, clubs longer, or diamonds longer, none would be over 50%.

Obviously, the numbers are very different if you use a standard Precision 1 diamond. Moving the 4441/5440 to another bid won't make a significant difference.

You are right that shifts the numbers from what I play quite significantly (from favored 1.59 to 0.65), although I'd say diamonds are still reasonably preferred to clubs. I get balanced 11-12 is 54.4% of the 1♦ bids like you but still that the average diamond length is 3.92 while the average club length is 3.27 and I get clubs are better 32.7% of the time, they are equal 18.2% of the time and diamonds are better 49.1% of the time.

Restricted to the balanced 11-12 case the average of both clubs and diamonds is 3.25 and clubs is better 38% of the time, diamonds better 38% and equal length 24%.

Restricted to the unbalanced case the average of diamonds is 4.72 while the average of clubs is 3.30 and clubs is better 26.2% of the time, they are equal 11.3% of the time, and diamonds is better 62.4% of the time. [these numbers are a little different than the unbalanced above in my first post since in the first post I was using a more sophisticated selection than blindly 11-15 so very shapely hands that didn't have 11 hcp but also didn't get a different bid (I.e., long diamonds hands with 9 or 10 points) would be included].

[jtfanclub]

Mbodell, on Sep 25 2007, 07:53 AM, said:

You are right that shifts the numbers from what I play quite significantly (from favored 1.59 to 0.65), although I'd say diamonds are still reasonably preferred to clubs. I get balanced 11-12 is 54.4% of the 1♦ bids like you but still that the average diamond length is 3.92 while the average club length is 3.27 and I get clubs are better 32.7% of the time, they are equal 18.2% of the time and diamonds are better 49.1% of the time.

Those numbers look right to me...I was just to lazy to work on the equal length part.

I don't think the numbers are significant: 3.27 vs. 3.92 is just not enough to ignore clubs and insist on diamonds. If 2♠ is simply an inquiry, it will do the job- it usually only takes one additional bid for partner to describe his hand.

I don't think there's a bid advantage to the 2♠ bid showing diamonds.

Here's what I'd use, modified from my own Precision system

1♦ (1♠)

X=6+ HCP, 4+ Hearts or certain very strong hands (15+ hcp)
1NT=6-9 hcp, spade stopper, usually balanced, does not have 4 hearts.
2♣: 4+ card suit, if 4 cards then also 4+ diamonds, 8-11 hcp, not forcing
2♦: 5+ card suit, 8-11 hcp, not forcing
2♥: 5+ card suit, forcing
2♠: 10+ hcp, usually 12+ hcp, forcing for 1 round
2NT: 11-12 hcp, balance, spade stop.
3♣/3♦/3♥: pre-emptive

But the point is, I'm not going to 'raise' a suit that could be two and on the average is only 4 cards, especially not a minor.

[whereagles]

Hannie, on Sep 24 2007, 10:55 PM, said:

While opener's strength is much better known than in standard bidding, he can still have a wide variety of hands. There will be many hands where you want to involve opener.

Precision allows you to mastermind more often. That's clear. Now, whether you want to do that or not is more a matter of style than of technical considerations.

However, do I think the longer one plays precision, the more often one ends up masterminding. Within your own style, of course.

[cherdano]

Sounds like you played too much precision, whereagles...

[awm]

Here's what Sam and I play, in our strong club methods where 1♦ is symmetric with respect to the minors. We play intermediate two bids on 6+ cards in both clubs and diamonds, so the 1♦ opening is one of: 11-13 balanced w/o a 5cM, 11-15 with any 4441, 5440, or 5431 that doesn't include a 5cM, or 10-15 with 5-5 or better in the minors.

After 1♦-(1♠):

Double = 4-5♥, if 5♥ typically a weak suit and classic takeout shape (like 1-5-4-3).
1NT = natural, no game opposite 11-13 balanced.
2♣ = transfer to ♦, 5+♦, 6+ points.
2♦ = transfer to ♥, 5+♥, 6+ points.
2♥ = transfer to clubs, usually 5+♣ but could also be balanced w/o stopper, INV+.
2♠ = both minors, could be weak
2NT = natural INV, with stopper
3♣ = constructive, something like 5-9 hcp with 6+♣ (a.k.a. weak but not garbage)

The transfers in competition are nice because they let us bid with the "negative free bid" hands without having to overload our negative double to include all strong hands. We're also helped by the fact that our 1♦ opening is usually balanced (something like 2/3 of the time) making us likely to find two-plus support opposite (the toughest hands for transfer methods are when opener has no fit and a lot of shape, and has to either accept the transfer and potentially play a terrible partial, or reject the transfer and destroy his own side's follow-up structures without extra values).

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Sep 25 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

Sounds like you played too much precision, whereagles...

lol. Wonder where the system got its name from ...

[keylime]

I had a good think over this because it's something that Larry and I have discussed in full in terms of context, and we are of the nonstandard view.

In KLP, this sequence was an unbalanced G/F in diamonds OR clubs. In Ultra, it's a G/F in clubs.

I am of the view that playing this in the conventional context, a LR or better in diamonds, loses the any 4-5/5-5 minor hands when 4th chair bumps - likewise, having a natural 2NT that is non-forcing is also potentially not ideal due to the same situation (pard opens a shape 10, you got 11). I think instead it is better to use 2NT as a relay of sorts - either a bust hand in clubs, an invite in diamonds, or a G/F call en route to 3NT. That would leave a direct 3C to be invitational, and a cuebid to be as mentioned above.

I'm the first to admit this is very much out of the mainstream, but I've found this treatment to be a winner.

I like Adam play xfers in this sequence and they are a huge relief with regards to NFB's and such (different schedule of responses tho).