[blackshoe]

People describe "classic Precision" as Precision without the "nebulous" 1♦, and imply that originally, Precision's 1♦ opening was more "natural".

I have a couple of C.C. Wei's early books about the system, and I don't recall seeing anything other than the "nebulous" version in them. OTOH, I'm not entirely sure mine are the earliest books on the system. So, can someone cite for me where, when, and by whom "Precision with the nebulous 1♦ opening" and "Precision with the natural 1♦ opening" were first published?

"Nebulous" 1♦: the diamond suit could be as short as two cards.
"Natural" 1♦: the minimum length is 4 (or possibly 3, I suppose).

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-21, 11:25, said:

People describe "classic Precision" as Precision without the "nebulous" 1♦, and imply that originally, Precision's 1♦ opening was more "natural".

I have a couple of C.C. Wei's early books about the system, and I don't recall seeing anything other than the "nebulous" version in them. OTOH, I'm not entirely sure mine are the earliest books on the system. So, can someone cite for me where, when, and by whom "Precision with the nebulous 1♦ opening" and "Precision with the natural 1♦ opening" were first published?

"Nebulous" 1♦: the diamond suit could be as short as two cards.
"Natural" 1♦: the minimum length is 4 (or possibly 3, I suppose).

Regretfully, I am pretty far away form my books right now, but I'm pretty sure that I have a Wei book with a 4+ card Precision Diamond.

I think both Resse's and Jannerstein's write-ups included a 3+ (maybe a 4+ card) card Diamond opening.

[mycroft]

"Classic" Precision:
- did not open hands that didn't upgrade to 13 (assuming no misfit)
- used a 13-15 NT
- used a 12ish-15 6+ or 5-4 2♣ and a 4414/4405 2♦

...so their 1♦ was "4, very very rarely 3". So, "Natural".

I don't have Wei's books, but I have Reese's book on the 1971-ish British Precision.

[PrecisionL]

I have ALL the books issued on Precision or variants thereof:

Precision Bidding in Bridge: The Story of the Cinderella Team, C. C. Wei, 1969:

"One diamond promises a 4-card suit (although a bid in a 3-card diamond suit migt be ventured for tactical reasons)." page 17.

Precision System, Edited by Terence Reese, printed in Taiwan, no date:

Shows hands that don't fit 1NT or 2 clubs and thus opens 1♦ on 3-cards. "It is never correct to open One Diamond on a doubleton."

Bidding Precisely, Volume 1, C.C. Wei, 1974: Many examples opening 1♦ with 3 or Kx.

Match Point Precision, C.C. Wei & Ron Anderson, 1975:

"Like the "short club" opening favored by many standard bidders, our 1♦ opener is used with hands that clearly merit an opening bid, but don't meet the requirements for any other opening."

Example: :♠: AKJ7 ♥: A9 ♦: 86 ♣: JT832 page 64.

Precision Bridge - A Bid for Every Occasion: From Alpha to Omega,Frank Maxie Davis, 1976:

"It [1♦] may be as few as two cards and as many as six."

[glen]

PrecisionL, on 2014-February-21, 17:43, said:

I have ALL the books issued on Precision or variants thereof:

Goren Presents the Precision System of Contract Bridge Bidding

[Bbradley62]

My college friends and I learned Precision (circa 1983) and we definitely learned that 1♦ showed four diamonds; 2♦ opening was three-suited short in diamonds. I'll see if I can figure out what book we used.

Edit: I think it was the same Goren book Glen mentions, published 1971.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2014-February-21, 19:30

[PrecisionL]

glen, on 2014-February-21, 19:06, said:

Goren Presents the Precision System of Contract Bridge Bidding

"A Precision Opening Bid of 1♦ shows 11-15 points and a four-card diamond suit." page 136, 1971.

Or page 131 for the exact same quote in the paperback version,1972, 1976.

[steve2005]

yes, 1♦ promised 4+♦ but at the cost of not opening a lot of 12 counts.
nowadays people are opening most 11 counts so don't have much choice other than a nebulous 1♦

[blackshoe]

It looks like in the original system, ca. 1969 or so, 1♦ "promised" four, but it wasn't long (1974, 1975) before people were using 1♦ as "nebulous".

High card strength is, I think, a different issue.

Just for laughs I looked up "classic". It means "judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind" or "remarkably and instructively typical". I would submit that the "natural" 1♦ opening used in the original version of Precision is neither.

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-22, 11:31, said:

High card strength is, I think, a different issue.

High card strength is directly related, for determining whether to open 1♦ or 1NT. If you hold to the 13-15HCP definition for 1NT, then "nebulous" 11-12HCP hands must open 1♦ (assuming you consider them to be opening hands).

[blackshoe]

Well, sure, but I was speaking to the situation where you start by agreeing that the diamond opening will have 4+ diamonds. Now you may decide not to open 11s or bad 12s, or you may decide you can go ahead and do that. The considerations are different. Or so it seems to me.

Or maybe it's all tied together. I dunno. It's late.

[Bbradley62]

I'm pretty sure we played 1NT=11-15, but it was a long time ago, so memory may be foggy.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-22, 11:31, said:

Just for laughs I looked up "classic". It means "judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind" or "remarkably and instructively typical". I would submit that the "natural" 1♦ opening used in the original version of Precision is neither.

You need a better online dictionary:-

1. of the highest class, esp in art or literature
2. serving as a standard or model of its kind; definitive
3. adhering to an established set of rules or principles in the arts or sciences: a classic proof
4. characterized by simplicity, balance, regularity, and purity of form; classical
5. of lasting interest or significance
6. continuously in fashion because of its simple and basic style: a classic day dress

The first Precision variants I read about (not Goren) all used a 13-15 NT and a natural 1♦ opening.