[DavidKok]

I think the IMPrecision 2m openings and the AEC (Nyström-Upmark) 2m openings have about the same number of hand types, but the IMPrecision ones are better placed in competition by guaranteeing a 6-card suit (although possibly more complicated to use constructively if you wish to find a 4-4 major suit fit?). By contrast the 1♦ openings are quite different. Since this is both the most frequent and the least descriptive of all opening bids in Precision systems I think making that more resilient to interference is a big improvement.

straube, on 2023-August-05, 09:31, said:

I missed that 2m denies a 4-cd major. In that case I more stongly prefer IMprecision. Excepting the 5m440s most IMprecision 1Ds are a card away from a weak NT and this allows for preempting against them. For example 1D-3D is much more likely to be successful opposite an IMprecision 1D opening than something that could be 4216.

Both minor hands are also more than a card away from balanced, and also a high number of the unbalanced hands have more playing strength. AEC pretty much gives up on the diamond raise, as far as I can tell. In return any new call in competition is immediately two-suited and quite descriptive. I wonder if there are system notes for competitive auctions, e.g. 1♦-(2♣)-? and now what.

[foobar]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-08, 02:14, said:

I wonder if there are system notes for competitive auctions, e.g. 1♦-(2♣)-? and now what.

IMPrecision has quite impressive methods for dealing with interference, and they should work just as well with AEC. For example, in the above:

1D - (2♣):

X: Takeout with the majors
2♦: NFB+ with ♥
2♥: NFB+ with ♠
2♠: 5+♦
2N: Natural
3♣: Stopper ask
3x: Preemptive

[straube]

foobar, on 2023-August-07, 16:47, said:

Doesn't under-loading 1♦ reduce number of unbalanced hands in 1♦? Basically, in a contested auction, their system doesn't have to cater to the 5+m4+m hands, and while they have to account for 6m4M, they are less frequent.


Think you probably meant some patterns in the 1♦ opening, since their 2m / 2N openings are ideal for relaying if that's desired.



Both systems can have a balanced 1♦ opening without a 4CM, right? Their system guarantees a 4CM in 1♦ if unbalanced.

Yes, I was saying their 1D is underloaded in comparison to IMprecision and that would be due to a reduction in the number of unbalanced hands.


Do they relay their 2N opening of 5m/5m? If the relay ask is 3H (the most obvious ask) that is pretty high for relays. +3

[foobar]

straube, on 2023-August-08, 12:34, said:

Yes, I was saying their 1D is underloaded in comparison to IMprecision and that would be due to a reduction in the number of unbalanced hands.


Do they relay their 2N opening of 5m/5m? If the relay ask is 3H (the most obvious ask) that is pretty high for relays. +3

No relays over the 2N opening:

2N - 3♥ (art GF):

3♠: 5521 / 5530 (high short)
3N: 5521 / 5530 (low short)
4x: 6511

Most of the time, opener will be 5521, so it's a good practical tradeoff.

[DavidKok]

3♥ asks low/high short, they don't distinguish between 5521 and 5530 (the answers being 3♠ = high short, 3NT = low short, 4m = 6m5om11 - I'm not sure whether 6520 hands are treated as 5521) and also don't use the rest of their relay methods over that as far as I can tell. Thankfully it's not very important - the opening is infrequent, quite specific about shape and narrow range, and if 5m is safe anyway there's some extra room to ask.

I was just a bit slow

[awm]

For what it's worth, we've found that 2m showing a six-card suit makes it a lot easier for us to ask on questionable hands in the 8-10 point range. The six-card suit gives us more three-level safety when no major suit fit materialises, and even when we end up in a pushy 3NT the possibility of a running six-plus minor tends to give us chances. Passing a 5-4 2m could easily lead to playing in the wrong strain (better fit in the other minor, or missing a major fit when responder has five and opener has three) but bidding seems not as safe without the six card suit (i.e. you hold ♠Axxx ♥KQxxx ♦xx ♣xx and partner opens 2♣; if you know that partner has six clubs you can easily bid 2♥ and find any major suit fit or land in your 8-card club fit at the three level, whereas if partner could have some 3154 shape it's a total misfit and not clear you will reach a reasonable contract if you respond).

For the 1♦ opening, I wouldn't think about it being "underloaded" or "overloaded" -- the balanced hands are going to be more than 2/3 of the openings regardless of which unbalanced hands land there and the frequency is not very different. The way I think about this is that when opponents jump into the auction aggressively, I want to be able to assume partner has a balanced hand and take sensible actions under that assumption. I tend to consider "how bad will my results be when partner is not balanced" rather than "how often will partner not be balanced", and I find that the three-suiters (one card from balanced) are less likely to give me trouble than the two-suiters. For example, if I see 1♦-(4♣) and I hold ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦AQx ♣xxx, I want to take a shot at 4♠. I'd be very unlucky to catch partner with a 1453 pattern given that this means partner has all the clubs that RHO lacks (maybe even one of the clubs RHO was supposed to have) and in my system every other opening guarantees me a 5-2 spade fit with extremely good odds for 8+ spades (I'm ignoring partner having 4+♣ considering the overcall). Playing the Nystrom-Upmark system, I have to be afraid of the 1462 and 1471 hands. Sure they are rare, but they are probably an unrecoverable disaster (yes, partner could bid 5♦ with these, but this will look foolish if I have 6-7 spades and out which is also a possible hand type for me).

[DavidKok]

foobar, on 2023-August-08, 10:12, said:

IMPrecision has quite impressive methods for dealing with interference, and they should work just as well with AEC. For example, in the above:

1D - (2♣):

X: Takeout with the majors
2♦: NFB+ with ♥
2♥: NFB+ with ♠
2♠: 5+♦
2N: Natural
3♣: Stopper ask
3x: Preemptive

Going by frequency, double is a problem here, while 2♠ and up are underloaded. This is a not-too-wild transfer response structure, I wonder if it's ever a good idea to change the methods based on the 1♦ opening. If RHO has clubs, opener is much more likely than normal to have 4M5(+)♦, which might enable a different structure (e.g. responder bids a 4cM - 'raise with fit, correct to 3♦ with 4oM and 5(+)♦, bid NT with balanced or clubs').

[foobar]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-08, 14:19, said:

Going by frequency, double is a problem here, while 2♠ and up are underloaded. This is a not-too-wild transfer response structure, I wonder if it's ever a good idea to change the methods based on the 1♦ opening. If RHO has clubs, opener is much more likely than normal to have 4M5(+)♦, which might enable a different structure (e.g. responder bids a 4cM - 'raise with fit, correct to 3♦ with 4oM and 5(+)♦, bid NT with balanced or clubs').

I think that you can experiment with the following over 1♦ - (2♣), but 1♦ - (2♦) (natural) is awkward:

X: 4+♠ (may have 4♥)
2♦: 4+♥
2♥: 5+♠; better hand
2♠: 5+♥

[awm]

foobar, on 2023-August-08, 10:12, said:

IMPrecision has quite impressive methods for dealing with interference, and they should work just as well with AEC. For example, in the above:

1D - (2♣):

X: Takeout with the majors
2♦: NFB+ with ♥
2♥: NFB+ with ♠
2♠: 5+♦
2N: Natural
3♣: Stopper ask
3x: Preemptive

We do in fact double with only one major provided responder has invitational or better values. There are some structured rebids by opener in the notes too, to handle various hands with two four-card suits.

[foobar]

awm, on 2023-August-08, 14:54, said:

We do in fact double with only one major provided responder has invitational or better values. There are some structured rebids by opener in the notes too, to handle various hands with two four-card suits.

Is this in a newer version of the document? My PDF just has the following for example, with no other supplemental notes about follow-ups over the X (though it does talk about bids after the transfers):

1♦ (2♣) Natural overcall
Dbl Both majors.
2♦ NFB+ with ♥.

[awm]

foobar, on 2023-August-08, 15:06, said:

Is this in a newer version of the document? My PDF just has the following for example, with no other supplemental notes about follow-ups over the X (though it does talk about bids after the transfers):

1♦ (2♣) Natural overcall
Dbl Both majors.
2♦ NFB+ with ♥.

After double:

With 11-13, opener bids a four-card major (if any) or 2♦ (4+♦) or 2NT (weak NT with a stopper) or pass to convert to penalty.
With 14-15, 3♣ shows either both majors, or one major and a club stopper; 3M shows that four-card major only. Opener will not pass below game after showing 14-15.

Responder can continue naturally, with (for example) 2♠ being a scramble (hands with 5+♠ and <4♥ start with transfer).

[foobar]

awm, on 2023-August-08, 15:25, said:

After double:

With 11-13, opener bids a four-card major (if any) or 2♦ (4+♦) or 2NT (weak NT with a stopper) or pass to convert to penalty.
With 14-15, 3♣ shows either both majors, or one major and a club stopper; 3M shows that four-card major only. Opener will not pass below game after showing 14-15.

Responder can continue naturally, with (for example) 2♠ being a scramble (hands with 5+♠ and <4♥ start with transfer).

Interesting -- things are much more cramped over 1♦ - (2♦) natural though, so probably choose the lesser of bad options (2N / 3♣) without a major, and cue 3♦ with a max that can't withstand a pass?

[awm]

foobar, on 2023-August-08, 15:56, said:

Interesting -- things are much more cramped over 1♦ - (2♦) natural though, so probably choose the lesser of bad options (2N / 3♣) without a major, and cue 3♦ with a max that can't withstand a pass?

Opener's rebids are similar in style (3♦ shows both majors or one major + diamond stopper; 3M is the bid major only; minimum hands bid 2M/2NT/3♣ with showing a four-card major getting priority and occasionally bidding 2NT without a stopper (3♣ is a five-card suit)). Responder's rebids are a bit more cramped, but in any case over opener's minimum, cuebid establishes a game force and other cheap calls are normally invitational and natural.

If you consider opener's shapes, he will almost always have a four-card major. The hand with both minors is rare and is probably passing the double, the other three-suiters have a four-card major, and this leaves only the balanced hands. Presuming that five cards in overcaller's minor passes, you're left with five cards in the other minor (fairly comfortable minor suit bid), 33(34) hands, and (32)44 where the holding in opponent's suit isn't good enough to pass. The latter two hands might bid 2♦ after 1♦-(2♣)-X but would try 2NT after 1♦-(2♦)-X. In any case, notice that the calls other than 2M from opener are really quite specific hand types and responder can normally place the contract (cue can be a check-back for a stopper if really concerned about this).

[cloa513]

foobar, on 2023-July-26, 10:49, said:

Looks like a very interesting system:

1♣: 16+
1♦: 11-13 balanced OR 4CM5m OR any 4441/5m440
1♥/1♠: 5+
1N: 14-16 (10-12 NV 1st and 2nd with 13-15 hands in 1♦)
2♣: 6+♣ OR 5+♣ and 4♦; no 4CM
2♦: 6+♦ OR 5+♦ and 4♣; no 4CM
2M: Preempts
2N: 12-15; 5-5 minors

They play quasi-symmetric relays over most of their openings, but it should be easy to replace with plain symmetric if desired. IMO, the 1M responses to 1♦ are a little bit of an overkill, and I would offload a couple of hand types from 1♦ and put them into 1M, but it looks very playable.

It is the precision problem of valuing strength and ignoring distribution so is foiled by all sort of preemptive jumps.

[foobar]

cloa513, on 2023-August-13, 19:41, said:

It is the precision problem of valuing strength and ignoring distribution so is foiled by all sort of preemptive jumps.

Looks like you are saying that strong ♣ openings are vulnerable to aggressive bidding by the opponents? If so, it seems like an issue that affects all strong ♣ systems, and this system is no exception.

[awm]

cloa513, on 2023-August-13, 19:41, said:

It is the precision problem of valuing strength and ignoring distribution so is foiled by all sort of preemptive jumps.

My experience has included getting a lot of good results from opponents who jump in aggressively. The thing is, when opener has a balanced 17-19 (which is easily the most frequent 1♣ hand type), we are actually ahead of natural bidders, because this is the hand type responder will assume from the opening. I'd expect much better results on this hand type after 1♣(strong)-3♠ than after 1♣(natural or balanced)-3♠ because partner will always play me for it after the strong club (and can do things like negative double on an eight count and four hearts, or bid 4♥ on 6-8 points and six hearts, or bid 3NT on a flat 7-9 with a stopper) whereas on the latter auction he must be concerned about the (much more common) weak notrump or minimum distributional club hand.

It's only when opener has a two-suiter that I'll often wish that I was playing a natural system; it's much easier to bid 1♥(natural)-3♠-P-P-4♣ and show both long suits and extras, whereas 1♣(strong)-3♠-P-P is more awkward.

But of course defenders don't know opener's hand type when they decide to preempt, and odds are fairly good that opener is balanced (or has a one-suiter, which is easy to handle in competition).

[pescetom]

awm, on 2023-August-14, 15:02, said:

My experience has included getting a lot of good results from opponents who jump in aggressively. The thing is, when opener has a balanced 17-19 (which is easily the most frequent 1♣ hand type), we are actually ahead of natural bidders, because this is the hand type responder will assume from the opening. I'd expect much better results on this hand type after 1♣(strong)-3♠ than after 1♣(natural or balanced)-3♠ because partner will always play me for it after the strong club (and can do things like negative double on an eight count and four hearts, or bid 4♥ on 6-8 points and six hearts, or bid 3NT on a flat 7-9 with a stopper) whereas on the latter auction he must be concerned about the (much more common) weak notrump or minimum distributional club hand.

It's only when opener has a two-suiter that I'll often wish that I was playing a natural system; it's much easier to bid 1♥(natural)-3♠-P-P-4♣ and show both long suits and extras, whereas 1♣(strong)-3♠-P-P is more awkward.

But of course defenders don't know opener's hand type when they decide to preempt, and odds are fairly good that opener is balanced (or has a one-suiter, which is easy to handle in competition).

Not playing a strong club system, I am seeing fairly good MP results from jumping in aggressively over strong 1♣, playing the opener for a strong NT. With two partners I agreed to bid Multilandy, with the obvious variation that Double shows clubs and 1NT is equivalent to Double. I would be curious to know what those who play these systems think about that, but it seems to work out quite well so far, better than Mathe' which caused them few problems.

[foobar]

pescetom, on 2023-August-14, 15:42, said:

Not playing a strong club system, I am seeing fairly good MP results from jumping in aggressively over strong 1♣, playing the opener for a strong NT. With two partners I agreed to bid Multilandy, with the obvious variation that Double shows clubs and 1NT is equivalent to Double. I would be curious to know what those who play these systems think about that, but it seems to work out quite well so far, better than Mathe' which caused them few problems.

FWIW, the majority of gains in a strong ♣ system are from the limited non-1♣ openings. It's true that on occasion, interference over a 1♣ opening (~15% of openings) may produce a sub-optimal result, but it's more than offset by gains on the remaining 85%.

When the opponents can't interference over 1♣, it's just icing on top of the cake. Also, as awm noted, it's unclear that interference always produces bad results. There's a recent thread on BW on the efficacy of Mathe vs. other methods over 1♣, but clearly, using X as both majors isn't going to cut it.

[mycroft]

I don't mind double=majors, and play Mathé by preference (wouldn't in a world where we saw enough strong club that we could remember something else reliably). Sure, it's a stupid bid, and gives the opponents more room and... but I have a partner too. And as someone doing a I/N presentation on (playing against) weak NT said, "I actually like Landy. Everything natural, except for 2♣, which is the hand most wanting to compete - both majors". And if partner has enough of either major to get to 2♠ or the 3 level - sure, responder will assume that opener has the 17-19 BAL. But negative double into the 4-1 break? or is opener the short in the other major one? or "take the points, find out that 3NT scores better"? Never mind when they don't have it and 500 into 920 comes out.

My goal, having played Precision for nearly a decade, is to get to 2♠ or higher before opener gets a rebid. Only when it's safe, but still. Any system that makes that harder, to me, is worse than the confusion and lack of cuebids it provides to the opponents. So, for me the problem is the Multi 1♦ call - now partner needs (not that much, but) something in both majors to push enough (and it still gives them one more call over passing). Not terribly thrilled with the 1M call either - sure it's great when you find the 4-4 fit and raise, it's fine when you can afford to pass it, but when partner has to go looking for the minor, the strong club's ears hear "misfit"...

I also believe that if you're going to make a "confuse the opponents" call, it has to be one that is easily passed. That was my argument against Suction (in both places it's played, frankly). "bid the one suit you're guaranteed to not have" = "pass and resolve the confusion, if you don't have something you want to get out straight away". It would also apply to 1♦ "one major", except that most will do the "split the 1♦ call into 'bad' and 'okay'" to make their memory easier. Now a *1♥* "either major" call :-)

But to the original comment that sparked this subthread, I started my local "intro to Precision" class with "So, Precision sacrifices 4 calls (1m, 2m) to get their 1M limited openers. It's worth it." That's a bit of a stretch (the 2♣ call is really nice when it comes up, and 1♦ "grunt" actually isn't much of a sacrifice), but not actually false.

[straube]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-08, 02:14, said:

I think the IMPrecision 2m openings and the AEC (Nyström-Upmark) 2m openings have about the same number of hand types, but the IMPrecision ones are better placed in competition by guaranteeing a 6-card suit (although possibly more complicated to use constructively if you wish to find a 4-4 major suit fit?). By contrast the 1♦ openings are quite different. Since this is both the most frequent and the least descriptive of all opening bids in Precision systems I think making that more resilient to interference is a big improvement.

I've had pretty good luck opening the minor with 4M/6m hands. Very often we don't have a major suit fit or if we do, the minor suit fit scores more tricks. I'm sure there are counter-arguments.

I've used a relay after a 2m opening that is GF unless responder breaks relay with his second bid...thereby showing 5S and a natural GI. This allows picking up 4/4 major suit fits whenever responder has a good constructive or GI hand.

2C-6m
.....2D-GF OR GI with 5S
.....2H-4+H
..........2S-4S
...............2N-5H
..........2N-3H
.....2S-club raise
.....2N-4S

Same idea for 2D opening