[tommylee]

If t he bidding goes 1c/1d/1h/? what bid should responder use as the double negative (0-5 hcps). Many use 1NT, but Match Point Precision suggests that you invert 1 spade and 1NT so that 1NT shows 4 spades and 1 spade is the double negative 0-5. The apparent point is to right side the contract. Opener has an unbalanced hand so is he better of trying to find a 2 level suit contract? Would a better alternative be to simply pass responder's 1NT?

[helene_t]

What is 1♥ exactly in your system?

But yeah if 1♥ is an artificial bid that can among other things be a balanced hand in a certain range (say 19-21 or whatever you play) then it is best to play 1♠ as a relay.

[Zelandakh]

If 1♥ is natural, simple is to play the same as over a 1♥ opening with ~6hcp transferred from Responder to Opener.
If 1♥ is either/or such as Kokish, everyone plays 1♠ as a relay.
If 1♥ shows strength such as 18+, the standard is 1♠ as a negative and others as GF.
If 1♥ shows a particular range (18-20 or whatever) then you can choose between relay or negative (but I prefer relay).

[SteelWheel]

In my most frequent Precision partnership, 1♥ shows either hearts, hearts and another, or various big balanced hands, a la Kokish. Responder is 98% forced to bid 1♠ unless he has a very weak hand with a long suit. In those cases, he is allowed to break the relay and show the long suit directly.

[steve2005]

Pass is an option with ♥ tolerance. and if your 1♥ promises 5♥ which mine does.

[straube]

 SteelWheel, on 2015-April-01, 17:28, said:

In my most frequent Precision partnership, 1♥ shows either hearts, hearts and another, or various big balanced hands, a la Kokish. Responder is 98% forced to bid 1♠ unless he has a very weak hand with a long suit. In those cases, he is allowed to break the relay and show the long suit directly.

You are losing a lot of sequences. Imo this is a very bad method. Imagine if your 1H opening required an 1S response 98% of the time.

[SteelWheel]

 straube, on 2015-April-01, 18:21, said:

You are losing a lot of sequences. Imo this is a very bad method. Imagine if your 1H opening required an 1S response 98% of the time.

Well, I could point out that this same approach is used by many top Precision pairs--but I won't.

The main thing is that unlike your example, responder's hand is limited to 0-7, and (for us) no mini-weak two in a major. Mostly, we're just shifting captaincy for one round back to opener. His hand is more important to describe right now.

[straube]

Whether you start with 1H or 1C-1D, 1H you have the same amount of room available for continuations. The fact that in your method responder has 0-7 and opener has a big hand with hearts or balanced is a design decision. So I'm questioning the design decision that lead to an almost-forced 1S continuation to be needed. The "problem" could be with the meaning of 1C or the 1D response or the 1H rebid. I think the 1H rebid is the problem. It contains hand types that are too dissimilar for responder to describe his hand before sorting out which hand-type opener has.

I think it's much better for 1C-1D, 1H to be just hearts or to promise a bigger hand. If it's one but not both responder is empowered to describe his own hand.

[SteveMoe]

After 1♣-1♦-1♥ showing 4+ ♥ absent Kokish, I like 2♣ artificial showing 6-7 HCP and 0-2 ♥ cards. (I like to use opener's 2♦ rebid as a plea for help. Will pass next call). 2♦ shows 3♥ and 6-7 HCP (You can choose to put all 3-card hands 0-7 here. Opener invites for 4-5 Hcp and responder takes another bid with 6-7).

Single J/S are now 4-5 Hcp splinters. 2N is 6-7 4+ trumps. Double jumps are 6-7 splinters.

Single raise is (3)4+ trumps and 0-3 HCP. 3♥ would'll be 4-5 Hcp balanced 4-card raise.

That leaves 0-5 unfitting hands. Play Kaplan inversion. 1N shows 4+♠. 1♠ denies 4+♥ (3+ if extending range of 2♦).

Much centers on whether you consider partner's 1♥ rebid unlimited or not. If not you can choose to pass with hopeless 0-2 Hcp hands (poor/no fitting shape). If so you need to decide if 1♠/N is forcing.

Finally if you do play Kokish 1♥, consider playing 1N by responder as Lebensohl to get out at the 2-level with 6+ cards and nothing. You'll be glad you did.

FWIW I prefer emphasis on fit for partner's Major so I'd rebid 2♣ holding 0-2 ♥ and 5+ ♠.

[PrecisionL]

SteveMoe, that is a good construct and similar to what I have played for years.
Reference: Berkowitz-Johnson notes: http://www.reocities...lub-system.html

However, the Kaplan Inversion we discarded after playing a hand in NT when responder had 6♠.

For IMP contests, we used 1♠ as the double negative, 0-4 hcp without an ace: 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠

[straube]

Kaplan Inversion doesn't make sense here. There are too many hand types with spades. Plus if the 1S rebid were 0-4 and the 1N were spades 0-7 (not sure this is being suggested) then you have a worse problem. Here's a scheme based on Meckwell from a prior thread. We've discussed 1C-1D (0-7) continuations many times. In this scheme, many hands with spades are offloaded from the 1S rebid.

 straube, on 2014-February-01, 11:51, said:

1H-natural
.....1S-natural, 0-7, denies 4 hearts, denies 3 hearts with 5-7
..........2L-natural
...............2S-6S, 0-4
...............2N-GI (up to 5 spades)
..........2N-invitational
.....1N-0-4, denies 4 hearts or 4 spades
.....2C-5-7 and 0-2 heart
..........2D-weak relay
...............2H-2-fit
...............2S-6 spades
...............2N-short hearts
...............3m-6m
..........2H-6 heart
...............2S-6 spades
..........2S-4S/5H, GF
..........2N-GF (could have rebiddable hearts)
..........3m-GF
..........3H-GI
......2D-5-7 and exactly 3 hearts
..........2H-weak
...............2S-4S/3H (mandatory because opener could be exactly 4/4 in the majors)
...............2N-both minors, short spades
...............3m-6m
..........2S-artificial invite
...............2N-weak
..........2N-GF
..........3m-GF
..........3H-GF
.....2H-0-4, 4 hearts
.....2S-5-7, 3H/5S
.....2N-5-7, 4H bal
.....3C-5-7, 4H short clubs
.....3D-5-7, 4H short diamonds
.....3H-5-7, 4H short spades
.....3S-6S/3H


Then after 1C-1D...

1S-
.....1N-0-4, denies 4 spades
.....2C-5-7, denies 3 spades
..........2D-weak relay
...............2H-5 hearts
...............2S-2 spades
..........2H-5S/4H, forcing
..........2S-6S
..........2N-GF (could have rebiddable spades)
..........3m-GF
..........3H-GF, 5/5
..........3S-GI
.....2D-5-7, 3 spades, could have 5 hearts
..........2H-artificial invite
...............2S-weak
..........2S-weak
..........2N-GF
..........3m-GF
..........3H-GF
..........3S-GF
.....2H-5-7, 6H
.....2S-0-4, 4+ spades
.....2N-5-7, 4+ spades, bal
.....3C-5-7, 4+ spades, short clubs
.....3D-5-7, 4+ spades, short diamonds
.....3H-5-7, 3S/6H
.....3S-5-7, 4+ spades, short hearts
.....3N-?
.....4m-?
.....4H-3S/7H

[SteveMoe]

 PrecisionL, on 2015-April-02, 05:26, said:

SteveMoe, that is a good construct and similar to what I have played for years.
Reference: Berkowitz-Johnson notes: http://www.reocities...lub-system.html

However, the Kaplan Inversion we discarded after playing a hand in NT when responder had 6♠.

For IMP contests, we used 1♠ as the double negative, 0-4 hcp without an ace: 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠

Where I play the inversion, 1N is forcing. Partner will rebid 2♣/♦ with 3+, 2♥ with 6+ and 2♠ with 4+. Over 2minor, my first priority is to correct to 2♥ with 2. I can rebid ♠ with 5+. I can pass any rebid up to 2♠ with 0-3. Partner's 2N through 3♠ are F1R, Gf if I hold 4-5 any.

...but I suspect you know that 😀!

[PrecisionL]

 SteveMoe, on 2015-April-02, 14:36, said:

Where I play the inversion, 1N is forcing. Partner will rebid 2♣/♦ with 3+, 2♥ with 6+ and 2♠ with 4+. Over 2minor, my first priority is to correct to 2♥ with 2. I can rebid ♠ with 5+. I can pass any rebid up to 2♠ with 0-3. Partner's 2N through 3♠ are F1R, Gf if I hold 4-5 any.

...but I suspect you know that ��!

Interesting ....

I am use to playing canape, thus a 2♣ or 2♦ bid after 1NT (by responder) is natural with 4 of the M and 5+ of the minor. (I hate the forcing 1NT convention.)

[SteveMoe]

Our NT rebids after opening 1♣ rarely/never have a 5-card Major, so we allow for 3-card minor fragment. Partner's minor can be longer than their major. Opener will not be 4441. We always land on our feet.

[Trick13]

 straube, on 2015-April-01, 20:37, said:

Whether you start with 1H or 1C-1D, 1H you have the same amount of room available for continuations. The fact that in your method responder has 0-7 and opener has a big hand with hearts or balanced is a design decision. So I'm questioning the design decision that lead to an almost-forced 1S continuation to be needed. The "problem" could be with the meaning of 1C or the 1D response or the 1H rebid. I think the 1H rebid is the problem. It contains hand types that are too dissimilar for responder to describe his hand before sorting out which hand-type opener has.

I think it's much better for 1C-1D, 1H to be just hearts or to promise a bigger hand. If it's one but not both responder is empowered to describe his own hand.

This argument disturbs me ... because it doesn't seem unreasonable, and I also use 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ as a relay.

If you compare it to 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ as just hearts then
- You are forced to bid NT with a balanced 5 card heart suit
- Unbalanced hands with 5♥ and 4♣ become awkward (see later)

On the other hand you have gains
+ You can stop in 2x when responder is very weak with a 6-card suit, and opener was going to bid 2NT (still waiting for this to happen)
+ You have two ways to bid 1NT, and 2 ways to bid 2NT and 3NT (3 ways actually)
+ You can rebid 2♣ as artificial GF. It seems odd to have a GF 2♣ in a strong ♣ system, but you are ahead of the natural field that opened 2♣, and you are probably ahead of other precision pairs (except those clever enough to be using a symmetric relay system of course), because you have established the GF lower. And when it doesn't come up (almost all the time) you are ahead of other precision pairs because you have limited to your hand, and sequences such as 1♣-1♦, 2♠ can be NF.

Seems like a net gain to me.

[straube]

 Trick13, on 2015-April-09, 19:58, said:

Seems like a net gain to me.

But you've only listed advantages for Kokish. Where is your list of advantages for 1H natural? For example, responder may raise hearts immediate. Or advantages for 1H bigger? Responder may easily GF. The analysis needs to be more objective.

And some of these advantages seem pretty small. Take 1C-1D, 1H-2C. If I understand correctly this is an attempt to play 2C with a weak hand and long clubs. Sure it's nice when it comes up. But you said it hasn't for you yet, right? Isn't it a very pessimistic use for this sequence? In other words opener has a good hand and we devote system space for signing off in responder's bust at a contract of 2C? This is something most folks can't do after 1D, 1H, 1S, or 1N openings.

Here are a few better uses for 1C-1D, 1H-2C

Meckwell....

16+, 0-7, nat, 6-7 without 4S or 3H

Symmetric Relay...

16+, 0-7, 20+, GF and 4+S without hearts

homegrown system based on IMPrecision 1D response

16+, 0-4 or GF, asking, GF with both majors

All of these are optimistic forward-going uses. In all of them, the meaning of the 1H rebid was designed to allow responder to have a conversation with opener, to react to opener and to describe his own hand.

Sure Kokish has wins. It also just about throws away 1C-1D, 1H-1N and higher sequences. You didn't list wins for 1C-1D, 1H natural or 1C-1D, 1H bigger, but I think it's not hard to imagine that throwing away 1C-1D, 1H-1N+ sequences as Kokish does has got to be costly in the long run.

[Trick13]

 straube, on 2015-April-09, 23:17, said:

But you've only listed advantages for Kokish. Where is your list of advantages for 1H natural? For example, responder may raise hearts immediate. Or advantages for 1H bigger? Responder may easily GF. The analysis needs to be more objective.
....

I had thought the advantages of the natural 1H were implied in the disadvantages I listed. I haven't played 1H bigger enough to comment on that. All puppets/marionettes/transfers give up a natural bid and any conversations that would hang off that, but you get some different conversations. Having played this method for a while, I can report that it works OK in practice. I'm sure Imprecision is better but I'm too old to learn that .