[helene_t]

The purpose of these polls is to get an idea about how a basic Precision system that you can agree to play with a pick-up partner should look like.

So it's not about your favorite high-tech Precision system that you play with your regular p. For this reason, it's probably better to play a single notrump range all-through.

[flytoox]

with balance 11 or bad 12 I would just pass. I really hate 1D nebulous with min strength.

[david_c]

I really dislike having to pass balanced 12-counts. If you are going to play a system where you pass some hands with opening values, it's much better to choose an unbalanced type for this (such as the Precision 2♣). Then at least you are likely to have a safe way back into the auction later, normally with a take-out double. Whereas, if you pass with minimum balanced hands, you're committing yourself to passing throughout unless partner can take a free bid. This problem is made worse by the fact that you know everyone else will have opened with your hand.

Hence I've voted for a 14-16 no-trump. Yes, a nebulous 1♦ is a handicap when you have a hand with real diamonds, but it's really a very good descriptive bid for balanced hands in the 11-13 range.

Having said that, a 12+ -15 no-trump has the advantage of simplicity, so I wouldn't really mind being forced to play it in a pick-up partnership.

[Chamaco]

I vote for 1NT = 12+/15, but responder will treat it as 13-15

The idea is to pass bad 12, and upgrade to 13 the good and decent 12.

Hand 1
KJxx-Qxx-Axx-QTx

Hand 2
AQxx-Tx-KQx-JTxx

I think that passing with hand 1 will hardly lead to disaster (scattered values, 4333, no extras in intermediates or clustering of honors).

Hand 2 is a better hand, honors are clustered, pullng their weight, no ugly 4333 distribution, this in my view can easily be upgraded to 13.

The occasional bad result coming from passing a bad 12 will be offset by every time responder will be able to evaluate the hand better by knowing 1D has real diamonds: the frequency of this benefit will be much higher, IMO.

[flytoox]

Chamaco, on Jul 14 2005, 08:41 AM, said:

I vote for 1NT = 12+/15, but responder will treat it as 13-15

The idea is to pass bad 12, and upgrade to 13 the good and decent 12.

Hand 1
KJxx-Qxx-Axx-QTx

Hand 2
AQxx-Tx-KQx-JTxx

I think that passing with hand 1 will hardly lead to disaster (scattered values, 4333, no extras in intermediates or clustering of honors).

Hand 2 is a better hand, honors are clustered, pullng their weight, no ugly 4333 distribution, this in my view can easily be upgraded to 13.

The occasional bad result coming from passing a bad 12 will be offset by every time responder will be able to evaluate the hand better by knowing 1D has real diamonds: the frequency of this benefit will be much higher, IMO.

I pretty much agree with this.

[flytoox]

Donot know if somebody tried this, but how about 1d then rebid 1N showing 14+-16-, and 1N opening showing 12-14-? In this case, 1D is either real suit or quasi-strong NT.

[helene_t]

flytoox, on Jul 14 2005, 12:07 PM, said:

Donot know if somebody tried this, but how about 1d then rebid 1N showing 14+-16-, and 1N opening showing 12-14-? In this case, 1D is either real suit or quasi-strong NT.

That's fine in 1st and 2nd seat. In 3dr and 4th seat I prefer 1NT to be strong enough to play 3NT opposite a maximum passed hand. This is related to whether you would open 1M on a 4-card with marginal values in 3rd seat.

Anyway, allthough a good idea, it is too far from what most people play, I think.

[david_c]

flytoox, on Jul 14 2005, 11:07 AM, said:

Donot know if somebody tried this, but how about 1d then rebid 1N showing 14+-16-, and 1N opening showing 12-14-? In this case, 1D is either real suit or quasi-strong NT.

I play this with a mini-NT when not vulnerable in the first two seats. But I'm afraid it does make the 1♦ opening much harder to handle - you have real problems with the 1♦:1NT sequence, and balanced 15- or 16-counts are a liability in competitive auctions. And I've yet to pick up a hand where it's useful that opener promises real diamonds when minimum. So we only play this way because we think the mini-NT is very effective: if you're not convinced by the mini then I'd advise you to avoid this 1♦ opening if at all possible.

[Gerben42]

I vote 14 - 16 and here's why:

First, as partner is going to force to game with a positive response to your strong club that is 16+ there is a big difference between a balanced 16 and an unbalanced 16-count. I dislike having to open 1♣ on marginal hands. Better to put these into 1NT.

To those planning to pass 12-counts and play 13 - 15: The nebulous diamond does not change that much to the system. You will lose on some hands where you cannot make a preemptive 3♦ response (which you are not playing because it is a pickup partnership) but will gain when you can open on a balanced 11/12 count or so. Open light and open often, Precision is the system to do so.

[Chamaco]

Gerben42, on Jul 14 2005, 02:29 PM, said:

To those planning to pass 12-counts and play 13 - 15: The nebulous diamond does not change that much to the system. You will lose on some hands where you cannot make a preemptive 3♦ response (which you are not playing because it is a pickup partnership) but will gain when you can open on a balanced 11/12 count or so. 

I disagree.

1) When responder knows that 1D has diamonds, he not only wins when he can preempt, but also when he can compete for the partscore in normal competitive battles.

2) While knowing that opener has 4+ diamonds is sometimes an advantage but NEVER a disadvantage, opening BAD balanced 12 count can indeed be a disadvantage in some cases: pard can overestimate our hand, we might get trapped by opps if they hold the balance of power, etc.
So opening bad 12 can be sometimes good and sometimes bad, but opening 1D with real diamonds is NEVER bad so the frequency of the NET benefits from opening natural diamonds is higher than the one of opening bad 12.


3) when 1D is NEVER balanced, the sequence 1D-1M-1NT does not show a balanced hand, and usually shows a singletonnin pard's suit; usually it shows hands with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs. It is very useful to know that 1D-1M-2C is NOT canapè.


Bottomline: opening light (in-quick/out quick) is certainly nice, but with bad balanced hands is not necessarily always good: willing to pay the price of occasionally passing bad 12 is not such a huge price, to improve the rest of the system.

[MickyB]

Agree with David - if you are going to split your balanced hands into two ranges, strong NT is better constructively - same as if you weren't play a strong club

There are basically three options in 1st+2nd seat - Keep all of the balanced hands out of the suit openings by playing 12/13-15, 14-16 with 11-13 opening 1♦, or (1st NV only IMO) play a mini NT, 9-12 or 8-11 or so. If you believe that the mini gains enough to make it worth playing then you want a 4 point range to increase frequency.

3rd+4th seat is a bit different, as Helene says the 1NT opener should be looking for game, and weaker balanced hands can be opened a suit (and only look for game if they find a fit). I voted for 14-16, it's the only sensible option that doesn't involve changing your NT structure by seat.

[awm]

Perhaps the best argument for 14-16 is that you're less likely to see frequent penalty doubles. Playing a "weak" notrump range is fine when you have the agreements, but you REALLY need a sequence of runouts after you get doubled for penalty. That'd be just one more thing you'd have to add to the system if you were playing 12-15 or 13-15.

[keylime]

I would like this:

10-12 NV
14-16 VUL.

[MickyB]

awm, on Jul 14 2005, 06:43 PM, said:

Perhaps the best argument for 14-16 is that you're less likely to see frequent penalty doubles. Playing a "weak" notrump range is fine when you have the agreements, but you REALLY need a sequence of runouts after you get doubled for penalty. That'd be just one more thing you'd have to add to the system if you were playing 12-15 or 13-15.

Dunno, I think as long as you can bid a suit and XX for SOS you've got a workable runout.

[keylime]

What would the NT ladder be then? What about avoiding the 2NT trap?

[han]

Agree with Gerben about 14-16 NT.

Just like Keylime I like 10-12 when NV in 1st or 2nd, but this seems like a very bad idea for our purpose. For one thing, we would probably need 2 different 1NT systems, as well as extra agreements for when 1NT gets doubled, etc. I'm surprised to see this suggestion here.

[keylime]

Well 10-12 is popular but....having a runout scheme is not good for some "standard" approach. So, 14-16 is good.

[Gerben42]

That's what I normally like also, mini NT 1st 2nd NV, say 10-12 in Precision or 10-13 in standard. Playing standard I also like the 14-16 NT when it isn't 10-13

[Double !]

If given time to discuss the issue with a new P, I would opt for 14-16 NT (with transfers). Otherwise I assume 13-15 1NT with 2-way Stayman (as that is how the original versions were written).

[luke warm]

i've had good luck with 12-15 all the time, balanced a must (for systemic coherence).. 5332 fine with a major