Help
straube said:
A lot of folks use a nebulous diamond, and I liked it even before I'd heard of IMPrecision.
Mea culpa -- bad presumption on my part that it was an IMP adaptation.
straube said:
Atul, when you wrote that IMPrecision was "excellent" I wonder whether you really understand it well enough to say. You haven't played the 1D structure and had as many or more of the misconceptions about it than I did. You also are more a fan of Reverse Flannery than I am and IMPrecision doesn't use Reverse Flannery. The other thing is that the structure is more complicated than the stuff I've been proposing and you've written a lot lately how you like things to be simpler. For example, the following does not seem to me to be something that you would like...
Bidding frameworks have both subjective and objective elements. My personal evaluation of the IMP ♦ structure probably stems from the fact that Adam's preferences in the former align more closely with mine.
That said, let's start off my comparing some specific responses:
1♦ - 1♥ (showing 2+ vs. showing 4+):
You seem to think that this is a very playable method, and while you may be right,it's very unpalatable to me. Also, there are some objective concerns that can be raised about the soundness of this method in competition. For example, consider an auction like 1♦ - 1♥ - (3♦) and give opener a balanced hand with say 2=4=3=2 and responder a GF hand with say 5-5 in rounded suits and a diamond stopper. If responder guesses to bids 3N, we have lost our 9 card heart fit.
Granted, it's possible to invent all sort of agreements to alleviate the problem, but the point is that I would rather play the more natural method unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.
1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ (showing 3+ vs. showing 4+):
Once again, there are concerns about what happens in case of interference and frankly, in the absence of an actual frequency analysis, it's really difficult for me to accept a method that adds more complexity.
straube said:
Off the top of my head, it seems that
1D-1S, 2D-2S*
.....2N-0445
..........3C-invite
..........3D-QP ask
.....3C-0454 min
..........p/3D-invites
..........3H-QP ask
.....3D-1453 max
..........3H-QP ask
.....3H-0454 max, 6
So it's not the main thing, but complexity is a consideration.
Once again, this is a very relay centric world view. In the first place, we have a hand limited to 15 HCPs facing an invitational hand. Why is important to resolve complete shape instead of just bidding game or signing off?
To me, trying to fit relays into every bidding sequence adds an enormous amount of complexity.
straube said:
After the IMPrecision sequence 1D-1S, 1N you and I both recently believed that a 2S contract couldn't be reached if responder had a weak hand with something like a 5134 pattern. I regretted losing so many spade contracts, but I think you thought that many played as well in 1N. So we found out that awm and sieong play that 1D-1S, 1N-2S shows a 5S/4m pattern.
Sure, it was good to get the clarification, but note that this was partly the reason for preferring the reverse Flannery responses over 1D. Yes, hands that respond 1N with a stiff spade may occasionally run into a problem, but in the absence of specific information about the frequency of such problems, I don't see any need to propose a solution that might result in a worse problem.
straube said:
awm has obviously done a lot lot more thinking about his 1D structure. It seems to me probable that it's the best structure possible. I'd like, however, to be able to discuss other solutions as well. Or other tweaks at least. Btw I'd vote for 1D-1S, 2D including the 1-4-4-4s.
No argument there; it fits my subjective criteria for parsimony and more importantly, it's battle worn. Personally, I would rather start off with a known quantity and tweak it based on actual results.
