[kenberg]

I am sure everyone enjoyed watching the Reisinger on VuGraph. Great show folks, thanks.

I don't get to play against Precision nearly as often as would be good for me. I have various untested opinions. There were a lot of big club players on the vugraph. It would be nice to have a list of who was playing a big club and who wasn't. I would like ot browse through some of the hands to see the effects.

On a fair number of hands, bidding is far more about judgment than it is about system. But not always. I have this lingering thought that the big deal in defending against Precision is not how to handle the 1♣ opening (passing is often a fine idea) but rather how to deal with the 1♦ opening. If I always had both majors and partner always had at least one of them, there would be no problem. BUT. Mr. Precision on my right opens 1♦, could be short, and here I am with my 4=3=4=2 shape. It's a good bet that at the non-Precision table the opening is 1♣ and my hand doubles. I do what?

I am not asking for an answer to the above, but I am thinking (this is the whim part) that it would be nice to easily get to the various Reisinger auctions at tables where one or the other pair is playing Precision, and observe how often this and other problems, peculiar to big club systems, come up and how they are solved at high levels of play.

I am wondering if anyone else has been thinking, or acting, along such lines. Same applies to other VuGraph tourneys of course, it's just that the R was just playing.

[Phil]

Many think of a Precision 1♦ opening much like an invisible suit. So a double emphasizes the majors, and doesn't say squat about clubs. The same should be true for a prepared 1♣.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

treat the 1D as natural, as long as it showes 2+.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

And really, even for the pairs that allow 1♦ on 1, I imainge it is usually on at least 2. If they are 4=4=1=4 and outside their 2♦ range, assuming that's how they handle the three suiters, then I guess they open 1♦. In fact, now that I think of it, I suppose Precision players occasionally get dealt 4=4=1=4. They can't just get up and leave the table. Maybe they open 1NT when nothing else fits? Or 2♦ is 11-15? I guess it could work.


Anyway, back to my whim. I think I want to make use of Vu-Graph to see how this all plays out. My interest is something like this: How often does the big club system really help or hinder each side. For example, if I hold 4=4=4=1 and rho opens a precision diamond, I am not as comfortable as I would be when a standard player opens 1♣ on my right. On the other hand, if I hold a modest 6=3=3=1 and bid 2♠ over 1♦, I can imagine third hand might wish that the 1♦ call had been more well defined. The 11-15 part may be helpful, but the 2+ or 1+ might cause him some grief. I'm just curious about how this all gets sorted out in Reisinger level, or similar VuGraph level, play.

Just another thought. It has occurred to me that playing some variant of DONT over 1♣ might be good. Suppose most tables are not playing a big club. At those tables, perhaps 1NT is opened and second hand bids a DONT 2♦. At our table 1♣ is opened and I bid a DONT 2♦. Advantage to us, it seems. At the other tables, third hand knows about the at least semi-balanced 15-17.

It could be called DOPE. Disturb Opponents Precision E? I'm working on the E.


Anyway, I am not claiming to be a Precision Defense Theorist. I feel like exploring some hands on VuGraph.

[mycroft]

The players that are playing 1♦ 1+ are putting the normal Precision 2♦ hands (4=3=1=5 minus a card) into 1♦ (and dealing with the 4=4=0=5 somehow). The people that are playing 1♦ 0+ are likely doing the same thing, but opening 1♦ with 4=4=0=5. Some play it even with some 6-card club suits, and it's probably worth checking when they announce. Some people are playing 1♦ "0+, promises a major" like in old Matchpoint Precision (which effects their 2m openers).

Frequently they do this to allow 2m to either be a natural weak 2, or an intermediate 2 (equivalent to the 2♣, but with diamonds). I would guess they sometimes do this to throw the Maxi-Roman hands into 2♦, or Multi, or everything else people play.

I would like to see a good, reasonably simple "short minor" defence, especially one that can handle 11-15 1♦ and 11-21 1♣ hands reasonably equivalently. I like the idea of bluejak's defence, but my record of it needs a few questions answered (I guess I *could* ask him those questions :-). I will admit, it's mostly to annoy the couple of people around here who play Montreal Relay - but the idea of a "confuse the issue some more" defence to either of those bids, especially a "clubs or balanced" short club, just seems right.

[PeterGill]

Ken,

Sartaj Hans and I played Big Club (1D 2+ cards) in the Reisinger Final.
Bart Bramley and Lew Stansby played Big Club against us.
The previous day, Meckwell played Big Club against us.
I can't remember which of the following pairs played Big Club:
Greco - Hampson, Diamond - Platnick, Auken - Welland, J. Lall - Hamman,
partly because I didn't play against all of them.
I can't think of any other pairs who might have been playing Big Club.

There were also a few Polish Club pairs (mostly eliminated on Day 2) and one Fantunes pair.

Peter Gill

[Mbodell]

 PeterGill, on 2012-December-05, 23:59, said:

I can't remember which of the following pairs played Big Club:
Greco - Hampson, Diamond - Platnick, Auken - Welland, J. Lall - Hamman,

Someone else will probably remember for sure but I think I remember when playing each of Greco-Hampson, Diamond-Platnick, and Auken-Welland that they all play big club.

I don't know what Lall and Hamman settled on.

[kenberg]

Thanks, guys. This will (more than) get me started. Me being me, I should not promise to be doing a deep analysis. But I may report back if I find some interesting examples.

[PhilKing]

 kenberg, on 2012-December-06, 06:07, said:

Thanks, guys. This will (more than) get me started. Me being me, I should not promise to be doing a deep analysis. But I may report back if I find some interesting examples.

Hold on!

You can reduce your search time by using this site:

http://bridgetoernoo...hp/home/search2

Go to the search box and type (say) "Meckstroth 1d" and it will give you all hands from major events where 1♦ was bid at his table, most of which were opened 1♦.

You should also get bridgecomposer, so you can copy and paste relevant hands into nice pbn files.

There are 164727 hands in the database, which yield over 2000 results for Meckstroth alone, so I expect to get your report late 2017.

Enjoy.

[kenberg]

 PhilKing, on 2012-December-06, 06:46, said:

Hold on!

You can reduce your search time by using this site:

http://bridgetoernoo...hp/home/search2

Go to the search box and type (say) "Meckstroth 1d" and it will give you all hands from major events where 1♦ was bid at his table, most of which were opened 1♦.

You should also get bridgecomposer, so you can copy and paste relevant hands into nice pbn files.

There are 164727 hands in the database, which yield over 2000 results for Meckstroth alone, so I expect to get your report late 2017.

Enjoy.

Fascinating! It seems a fair number of Meckstroth 1d bids are in response to 1c, but I am not about to quibble. This should give me more than enough to do.

Those who know me best will advise you not to place money on a report reaching you by 2017. Late 2018 maybe.

[Zelandakh]

I believe bluecalm has a searchable database of bridge hands taken from Vugraph. If you know (or are willing to learn) some Python then this might be the best option for you.

[kenberg]

Going to the link PhilKing supplied, the first Meckstroth 1♦ opening led to the following hand from the 1981 Bermuda Bowl:

Meck is W.

---

The opening lead was the King of spades, 110 for EW.


At the other table, not playing Precision, 1♣ is opened in fourth position.


1♣ P 1♦ P
2♦ X 2♥ P
3♦ P P P

The opening lead is a trump, 110 for EW.

Boring? Well, yes and no. The Precision auction put N on lead, and as it happens he is the guy with the KQJx. But of course S might have been the one with the KQJx. At any rate, the board was flat. Possibly the trump lead allowed for a play for ten tricks, but this was imps.

In fact both auctions showed W to have substantial length in the minors, upping the chance that NS would get the hearts right to make 140 their way, but neither bid it. And anyway, if the defense to 3♥ begins with two high diamonds and then a club that is allowed to ride to the K, declarer has to take the first round finesse in hearts since a heart to the ace will leave him with no safe way back to his hand.

So, largely, I see this as a hand where the result was determined by individual skill and judgment, not by choice of system. And it didn't matter a bit what the NS agreements were about how they would bid over a precision 1♦. I am guessing that far more often than not, this will be the trend. Sometimes it will really matter, one way or the other, that a pair is playing precision, and sometimes it will really matter, one way or the other, what the defensive agreements over precision openings are, but mostly it will come down to judgment. One hand does not make a trend, so I will be browsing through more.


Zel: I have a book on Python that I keep meaning to read, but I have just downloaded Mathematica 9 and I can see where that may keep me occupied.

[mycroft]

Riffing off MBodell:

From kibitzing the Reisinger, I note that Auken-Welland played what looked like the same system Millikan-Welland played against me in the Spingold a few years ago, with 1♣ clubs-or-balanced, with transfer responses (and relays with Millikan, never got to see that with Auken) rather than a Big Club.

I'm not really surprised at that - when the sponsor and the pro play different systems at this level, the pro learns something new :-).

I'm pretty certain that Hamman-J. Lall were playing a standard base system as well - but Hamman-Wolff and Hamman-Soloway didn't when that was the Nickell Team. You might look at Baldursson-Jonsson as well - they play Precision.

[JLOGIC]

 kenberg, on 2012-December-06, 08:27, said:

Going to the link PhilKing supplied, the first Meckstroth 1♦ opening led to the following hand from the 1981 Bermuda Bowl:

Meck is W.

---

The opening lead was the King of spades, 110 for EW.


At the other table, not playing Precision, 1♣ is opened in fourth position.


1♣ P 1♦ P
2♦ X 2♥ P
3♦ P P P

The opening lead is a trump, 110 for EW.

Boring? Well, yes and no. The Precision auction put N on lead, and as it happens he is the guy with the KQJx. But of course S might have been the one with the KQJx. At any rate, the board was flat. Possibly the trump lead allowed for a play for ten tricks, but this was imps.

In fact both auctions showed W to have substantial length in the minors, upping the chance that NS would get the hearts right to make 140 their way, but neither bid it. And anyway, if the defense to 3♥ begins with two high diamonds and then a club that is allowed to ride to the K, declarer has to take the first round finesse in hearts since a heart to the ace will leave him with no safe way back to his hand.

So, largely, I see this as a hand where the result was determined by individual skill and judgment, not by choice of system. And it didn't matter a bit what the NS agreements were about how they would bid over a precision 1♦. I am guessing that far more often than not, this will be the trend. Sometimes it will really matter, one way or the other, that a pair is playing precision, and sometimes it will really matter, one way or the other, what the defensive agreements over precision openings are, but mostly it will come down to judgment. One hand does not make a trend, so I will be browsing through more.


Zel: I have a book on Python that I keep meaning to read, but I have just downloaded Mathematica 9 and I can see where that may keep me occupied.

Yeah, I mean the hand is from 1981. No norths would pass over 1D as a passed hand anymore lol. At one table north actually got to double 1C p 1D p 2D, and then south passed over easts 2H bid! At that table they would even know to take the first round heart hook.

[kenberg]

Pursuing that thought, suppose you are North and after three passes there is a minor suit opening on your right. Your call? Does it matter whether the opening is a possibly short precision diaomnd or a possibly three card more or less standard one club? Or to vary the question, if you were playing with three clones (that's clones, not clowns) how would you envision the auction going in precision, and how in standard? We end in 3♥? Making? Presumably no one is doubling 3♥ at imps?

I'm sure as I browse I will find plenty of hands where is matters a lot whether a pair is or is not playing precision. But on this one, maybe not.

[FM75]

I play one variant of a strong club, as devised by Oliver Clarke and Jason Hackett. I can't speak for any other systems, but in this system one diamond is any hand with 11-15 hcp that can't be opened any other way!

In practice, this excludes 11-15 hands with a 5 card major, 2 and 3 club hands containing long clubs and possibly a 4 card major, and hands that would be opened 1NT. In the system mentioned, that is 10-12 NV, or 13-15 Vul. Though my partner and I have settled on 13-15 NV in 4th seat.

For "information content" it seems to rank just a tad more descriptive than 'pass".


To get an understanding of the hands statistically, you can construct the bidding system within which it fits and run it through the hand dealer program on BBO. It is hard to bid against, I guess, but it is not especially easy even for the partnership in a constructive auction. But 1D-p-1M-p;1N usually narrows it down to a very tight hcp range13-15 or 10-12 (the opposite of the NT range) and a balanced to semi-balanced hand.

Looking forward to your analysis.

[PhilKing]

 FM75, on 2012-December-06, 17:28, said:

I play one variant of a strong club, as devised by Oliver Clarke and Jason Hackett. I can't speak for any other systems, but in this system one diamond is any hand with 11-15 hcp that can't be opened any other way!

But then you have no bid for the vomit-worthy 9 and 10 counts Jason opens.

[kenberg]

 FM75, on 2012-December-06, 17:28, said:

To get an understanding of the hands statistically, you can construct the bidding system within which it fits and run it through the hand dealer program on BBO. It is hard to bid against, I guess, but it is not especially easy even for the partnership in a constructive auction. But 1D-p-1M-p;1N usually narrows it down to a very tight hcp range13-15 or 10-12 (the opposite of the NT range) and a balanced to semi-balanced hand.

This is not my plan. I want to see some hands played at high levels, eg Meckwell at the BB. The same hands will be played at least twice, and I want to see how it goes with big clubs and with whatever passes for standard these days. Whatever I do, calling it an analysis would be misleading. I am thinking I will be looking at some of the Meckwell, and other, hands such as the one I posted above and I will probably find some interesting things about them. In the one above, it appears to me that the possible contracts are 3(or lower) ♦ EW or 3(or lower)♥ NS. And I can't see that it much matters whether some big club system is played. In fact, both tables ended in 3♦. I am expecting to find some hands where it does matter, and I hope to see how it matters. I see this as a stroll in the park, looking at the scenery, rather than a Lewis and Clark expedition.

But I do plan to put up some of the interesting hands I run across.

I think Michael Rosenberg in Bridge, Zia and Me commented that it is very important to have agreements but less critical (within reason) just what those agreements are. i imagine MR was neither the first nor the last to say such a thing. I see this as something of a test of that viewpoint, although not at all a rigorous one.

Btw, I don't mind at all, I would like it, if others added hands of this sort. But I ask that it be from these high level games, preferably contrasting precision at one table with non-precision at the other. I prefer there not be any agenda. . There are many areas to discuss the problems of bidding this way or that, I see this a little differently.

[JLOGIC]

 kenberg, on 2012-December-06, 16:13, said:

Pursuing that thought, suppose you are North and after three passes there is a minor suit opening on your right. Your call? Does it matter whether the opening is a possibly short precision diaomnd or a possibly three card more or less standard one club? Or to vary the question, if you were playing with three clones (that's clones, not clowns) how would you envision the auction going in precision, and how in standard? We end in 3♥? Making? Presumably no one is doubling 3♥ at imps?

I'm sure as I browse I will find plenty of hands where is matters a lot whether a pair is or is not playing precision. But on this one, maybe not.

I would probably double but 1H is fine. I think you are on the right track, minor suits don't really matter much and this is especially true when you are both passed hands (and if you can compete it is very unlikely to be in a minor). This is true whether it is a 3+ club or a 2+ club or a 2+ diamond etc. That is why good players have been doubling more and more with 2 cards in unbid minors in recent times. I don't think I treat a precision diamond any differently than a natural diamond but then again either way I am fine doubling with doubleton clubs and the right hand type. I even posted a hand recently where both players made a t/o X of 1D with 3343 lol.

[FM75]

I just reread your original post. It seems your concern is competing against the precision 1 diamond opener.

My initial reaction is that it should be easier to compete against that opening, than against a standard 1 diamond opening, if for no other reason than you know much more precisely what you are up against strength-wise - presumably some 11-15, versus 10-20 for SAYC or 2/1 style.

Then I note that you are talking about the results at the top level. At this level, I am not sure that it is really worth much to try to analyze the boards played against precision systems versus non-precision, simply because the number of participants is so small that any results you might find will simply be a reflection of the actual players playing and their skill levels (and individual variations) rather than the bidding systems used.

Example - Pair A consistently scores better. Pair B consistently reaches better contracts DD. Can you conclude anything from those results?

"Defensive" pair C does better than pair D. Is that because they played better, or because their systems were better suited to play against the teams they met (playing the 1D opening)?