[qwery_hi]

What do you prefer in a precision framework - 2/1 or SAYC style responses to
the major openings? And Why?

Does anyone have a preferred set of major suit raises and the continuations playing precision?

[helene_t]

I choose 2/1 for simplicity but it may not technically be the best, especially if we open very light.

After having read Maarten Scholaard's article about 2/1 showing 10+ points (thanks, Gerben, for sending it ) I am tempted to adopt his methods for precision. It is similar to SAYC except that
1M-2x
2M is nonforcing, while
1M-2x
2y-2NT is forcing.

I think that would suit precision since it gives responder captainship.

[mtvesuvius]

I have always used 2/1 with precision, but we don't usually open less than 10... It has worked pretty well, of course we get to the occaisional 22 point 3NT, but...

[qwery_hi]

helene_t, on Feb 22 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

I choose 2/1 for simplicity but it may not technically be the best, especially if we open very light.

After having read Maarten Scholaard's article about 2/1 showing 10+ points (thanks, Gerben, for sending it ) I am tempted to adopt his methods for precision. It is similar to SAYC except that
1M-2x
2M is nonforcing, while
1M-2x
2y-2NT is forcing.

I think that would suit precision since it gives responder captainship.

helene_t, can you share the article please?

[helene_t]

qwery_hi, on Feb 23 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

helene_t, can you share the article please?

Can you read Dutch?

[sireenb]

We play precision with 2/1. We rarely open with less than 10 points so it works pretty well for us. The reason we changed to this style is that it is superior when responder has a strong hand and it works very well because opener is already limited.

As for raises, we play inverted Bergen raises with ranges modified slightly: GF+, inv+, 8-9 and 3M with 0-7. 1♥-2♠ is the strongest ♥ raise. Direct raise to 2M is always a 3 carder with 8-10. Better 3 carders either bid 3NT with game values or F 1NT followed by 3M with invitational values. Weak 3 carders start with 1NT then bid 2M so we do not pass with hands that would raise to 2M in standard but are not good enough to raise in precision. We also play splinters so responder with 4+ card fit may have a choice of raises.

Passed hand bidding is different and passed hand 1NT not forcing.

For continuations we play combined long-short suit trial bids. All long suit trial bids and some short suit trial bids are no longer available after a Bergen raise.

[Mbodell]

If you can play some sort of game forcing relay over the limited openers, where all other bids (including 2/1) are non-forcing, I think that's best. If you are forced to pick between SA and 2/1, I think SA is better, because I think you want to be able to bid naturally but still stop at the 2 level when you are 10 opposite 10. Having agreements on what is forcing and what isn't is important though (and things like what helene_t describes sound ok; not sure I'd want 2nt forcing if I could FSF over 1M-2x-2y instead).

That said, my partner and I in GCC precision events (with no gf relay) have recently switched to trying 2/1 GF with a non-forcing good 8-bad 13 1NT response. We do open 1M on most 5+ suits with 10+ points (unless we open 1nt). We don't mind passing non-fitting 8's as we aren't missing game. It is too new for us to tell if this new method is working, as we've only played 1 session with it.

[david_c]

In my opinion, the fact that you are playing limited openings doesn't make a whole lot of difference. It's probably true that light responses are slightly more attractive if you play light openings, but I think this difference is often overstated. Whatever works best for you in a standard system will also work best in Precision.

Personally I think 2/1 GF except rebid > SAYC > 2/1 GF.

[qwery_hi]

Thanks for your thoughts. I had a feel that SAYC > 2/1 , but as pointed out by mbodell, I think the viking club 1nt GF > SAYC > 2/1

[Ai Hao]

I use 2/1 style for precision.We open light sometimes, but our 2/1 normally has at least good 12 counts.

[rbforster]

Prior discussion - 2/1 theory in a limited bid system, GF, Std, NF, or what?

In brief, Standard (Forcing 1 round, not GF) probably wins on the frequency front, especially so if you have wide ranging one bids 8-15 vs 11-15). Most people like 2/1 GF out of familiarity, and it seems to work pretty well (this is what I play, opening 9.5-15). I looked into 2/1 Non-forcing methods too, but those are pretty rare and it's hard to tell if they are more common/effective than 2/1 GF hands to justify learning a new system with a bunch of special continuations.

[rbforster]

qwery_hi, on Feb 22 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

Does anyone have a preferred set of major suit raises and the continuations playing precision?

My custom and favorite major raise structure. It's a combination of Bergen, Jacoby, strong and fitted jump shifts, as well as the usual splinters and preemptive raises. A little complicated, but with enough relays you can fit it all in .

[Apollo81]

To an extent, I feel that game-invitational auctions always involve a bit of guesswork, so systemically I prefer to focus on the game-forcing sequences. Thus I prefer 2/1 GF to 2/1 one-round force, which applies whether I'm playing Precision or not.

[akhare]

Rob F, on Feb 23 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

Prior discussion - 2/1 theory in a limited bid system, GF, Std, NF, or what?

In brief, Standard (Forcing 1 round, not GF) probably wins on the frequency front, especially so if you have wide ranging one bids 8-15 vs 11-15). Most people like 2/1 GF out of familiarity, and it seems to work pretty well (this is what I play, opening 9.5-15). I looked into 2/1 Non-forcing methods too, but those are pretty rare and it's hard to tell if they are more common/effective than 2/1 GF hands to justify learning a new system with a bunch of special continuations.

I agree with RobF -- in my experience, standard style responses work better with light limited openings. Of course, I have never really bought the "The 2/1 system is much better than standard" argument and that may very well explain my bias...

[Echognome]

If those are my choices, then I prefer 2/1 GF, because it eases the game bidding a lot. I can hear Adam in my ears though saying that it's difficult when we open light to have to have to judge whether to establish a GF immediately. I do believe he has a lot of merit in his views. I haven't personally found this to be a huge problem however, and find that even if you end up in some bad games, you also make some of those bad games. I think it is more than offset by having more accuracy in your slam bidding.

For what it's worth, I prefer a GF relay (can live with 1NT or 2♣) and the other bids used for other purposes. The problem with that, of course, is that it runs afoul of GCC and the other bids can even run afoul of midchart. So it might depend upon where you will play your bridge to consider any alternatives.

[awm]

My well-known opinion:

If you frequently open quite light (shapely 8 and 9-counts for example) then I don't like 2/1 GF. I see a lot of people with this opening style who game force on non-fitting 13-counts anyway, which I think is utter garbage and reaches all sorts of terrible 3NT games that don't make opposite decent opposition. The alternative is to reserve the game force for something like a nice 15-count but in this case the GF becomes increasingly rare and you are left bidding a super-wide-ranging forcing notrump all the time (now something like 6-14, given that most precision players don't like to pass the opening on six counts anymore -- a view I agree with btw).

The sounder your openings the less this is a problem of course... but if you play precision and open fairly sound, then you are much better off playing some sort of game-forcing relay because opener is so tightly limited, which would also free up most of your 2/1 bids for invites.

My recommendation is to play "standard" style responses if you open very light and have a fairly wide range, and to play 2♣ as artificial GF (balanced, clubs, or very strong) with other 2/1 bids invite-to-min-GF if your opening range is something like 11-15.

[akhare]

Echognome, on Feb 23 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

For what it's worth, I prefer a GF relay (can live with 1NT or 2♣) and the other bids used for other purposes.  The problem with that, of course, is that it runs afoul of GCC and the other bids can even run afoul of midchart.  So it might depend upon where you will play your bridge to consider any alternatives.

Well, you *can* construct a very playable and sound 100% GCC legal relay scheme starting with a forcing 1N response (ducking for cover before this starts another 30 page thread on the GCC )...

[mikestar]

If you play fairly sound limited openings, 2/1 is pretty playable, but if your idea of a Precision 1♠ opener is ♠AQxxx ♥KTxx ♦x ♣xxx you will get to a lot of hopeless games if you use 2/1 liberally, and will overload 1NT forcing if you use 2/1 conservatively.

[rbforster]

mikestar, on Feb 23 2009, 04:36 PM, said:

if your idea of a Precision 1♠ opener is ♠AQxxx ♥KTxx ♦x ♣xxx you will get to a lot of hopeless games if you use 2/1 liberally, and will overload 1NT forcing if you use 2/1 conservatively.

Your example is a normal example of the minimum hand I'd open in my methods under the Rule of 18. Opposite these sorts of openers (up to 15 points), I usually force to game as responder with a misfitting 14 count and with fitting 13 counts. I will point out that there's little harm in bidding a forcing NT on most misfitting near GF hands and waiting to see what partner bids. You can then upgrade or downgrade appropriately in light of the response. It's true you'll sometimes end up in 3N without enough strength to make, but I think that's a relatively rare occurrence. If we play all our 24 point 3N's, that's not too bad and we only play a few 23 point 3N's (which you'd like to avoid ideally). Finding the light games (and slams) seems a worthwhile tradeoff to me, but I leave that to for each to judge for themselves.

[Gerben42]

Quote

helene_t, can you share the article please?

I guess I might have some time in the near future to write something about this style. Basically, 2NT is forcing by both.