[gwnn]

Relknes, do these preemptive bids contain 4-4 or 5-4? Does responder know which suit could be longer? Sometimes people run these simulations erroneously because they count say a 4-3 heart fit and a 5-3 spade fit as a success, whereas responder would need to guess. This is just a simple advice though. I believe it's sound to open 4-4's on the 2 level, as long as you don't mind a few occasional silly results.

[straube]

relknes, on 2011-March-31, 10:06, said:

So, after running the numbers on the preemptive bids, I found that although the probability of an 8 card fit is roughly 3/4, the probability of a 9 card fit is only about 1/3. In other words, the 2H bid is safe 75% of the time, and the 2S bid is safe roughly 50% of the time, but the other preempts are going to get you to a level higher than the Law of Total Tricks dictates 2/3 of the time... so they have to go.
To relieve the pressure on the 1M bids, it seems wise to limit their point range to 9-14.
Question for AWM concerning the 1NT bid. You mentioned to posability of going down 3 in 1NT when the opponents only have a partial. But if they take 9 tricks in NT defending, surely they can take 9 tricks in NT declaring, or am I missing something? Then again, pointwise it seems like 17 for us and 23 for them should leave us down 1-2 and them making a partial. Is it just in those situations where they would make game because of how the cards lay, but not have bid it?
I am considering moving the 1NT opening to "11-14 balanced with no decent 4 card major" in response to AWM's concern. I think I would have to allow 1NT on a poor 4 card major to keep the frequency of 1NT reasonable. It would also help lessen some more of the pressure on the 1M bids. What do people think?

I'm really biased toward 5-cd majors, especially for spades. I'd rather not open a balanced hand with a 4-cd major in the major; I'd rather tell partner I'm balanced. I could stand a system that opens 4-cd heart suits that are unbalanced or are 4-4 in the majors. Canape has been successful.

So it's kind of a sliding scale as to how preemptive/constructive you want your system to be. It sounds like you're moving from very preemptive to somewhat preemptive. We probably can't know what is optimum.

[relknes]

straube, on 2011-March-31, 11:00, said:

I'm really biased toward 5-cd majors, especially for spades. I'd rather not open a balanced hand with a 4-cd major in the major; I'd rather tell partner I'm balanced. I could stand a system that opens 4-cd heart suits that are unbalanced or are 4-4 in the majors. Canape has been successful.

So it's kind of a sliding scale as to how preemptive/constructive you want your system to be. It sounds like you're moving from very preemptive to somewhat preemptive. We probably can't know what is optimum.

Very true. I am moving a bit away from the extreeme preemptive style because the responses that I am getting seem to say that it is unwise to be quite as preemptive as I was thinking. If it were merely a matter of style, I would go with the agressive option, but people seem to be telling me that it is not a matter of style, but that it will simply cost imps. Varriance I am ok with, but long term loss I am not.
I go toward a 4 card major system to pair with a strong club sort of system. The basic reason that I want to open balanced 11-14 point hands with 1M when they have a 4 card major is that the ideal final contract is likely to be either 2M or 1N, and I want to give the oportunity to play in 2M if that is better.

[hrothgar]

My MOSCITO variant uses the following

1N shows 11+ - 14 HCP (could hold a 4 card major)

1N denies 11+ - 12 balanced with 4-5 Spades
1N denies 13 - 14 HCP balanced with 4-5 Hearts

The logic (such that it is) follows:

I wanted to avoid game invitational sequences in the major if possible
If the auction starts 1N - 2♣ - 2M, opener is tightly boxed and responder is well positioned to pass or bid game.
In a similar vein, the 1M openings are a lot better definited as well

I really like the auction

1♥ - (P) - 2♠ (where 1♥ is a transfer showing 4+ Spades)
This opening scheme increases the frequency of the 1♥ opening

Conversely, if the auction starts

1♦ - (P) - 2♥ we often need to deal with the opponents bidding or balancing in Spades.
I wanted to make sure that opener has extra strength (if balanced) to make it easier to penalize the opponents.

[awm]

relknes, on 2011-March-31, 10:06, said:

Question for AWM concerning the 1NT bid. You mentioned to posability of going down 3 in 1NT when the opponents only have a partial. But if they take 9 tricks in NT defending, surely they can take 9 tricks in NT declaring, or am I missing something?

This doesn't really follow. First, there is a tempo advantage associated with the opening lead, such that it's not unusual to take an additional trick or two on defense over declaring. Second, there are often situations with a guess that declarer can get wrong in the play (but when defending, seeing the dummy prevents a similar mistake). For example, say declarer has ♦Q9x opposite ♦KTx on a two-way guess for the jack to take two tricks in the play. But when defending notrump by the opponents, you can see the jack (or not) in dummy so are unlikely to get this wrong. Finally, there are cases where the opponents can actually make 3NT on 10 opposite 13 and two balanced hands, but are very unlikely to ever bid it. By playing 1NT vulnerable on these hands (instead of defending a partial by the opponents) you are conceding a much bigger score. The fact that the layout permits them to make an otherwise against-the-odds 3NT contract doesn't really provide much consolation when you are losing a bunch of IMPs or MPs.

Again, if this was just my intuition you'd be free to discount it. But there are a number of expert pairs who play (or have played) very weak notrump at nonvulnerable and virtually none of them play this sort of range at red in serious competition. I think that's rather indicative that I'm not alone here.

[relknes]

awm, on 2011-March-31, 11:30, said:

This doesn't really follow. First, there is a tempo advantage associated with the opening lead, such that it's not unusual to take an additional trick or two on defense over declaring. Second, there are often situations with a guess that declarer can get wrong in the play (but when defending, seeing the dummy prevents a similar mistake). For example, say declarer has ♦Q9x opposite ♦KTx on a two-way guess for the jack to take two tricks in the play. But when defending notrump by the opponents, you can see the jack (or not) in dummy so are unlikely to get this wrong. Finally, there are cases where the opponents can actually make 3NT on 10 opposite 13 and two balanced hands, but are very unlikely to ever bid it. By playing 1NT vulnerable on these hands (instead of defending a partial by the opponents) you are conceding a much bigger score. The fact that the layout permits them to make an otherwise against-the-odds 3NT contract doesn't really provide much consolation when you are losing a bunch of IMPs or MPs.

Again, if this was just my intuition you'd be free to discount it. But there are a number of expert pairs who play (or have played) very weak notrump at nonvulnerable and virtually none of them play this sort of range at red in serious competition. I think that's rather indicative that I'm not alone here.

OK. I was just currious how that worked. I always though of breaking a new suit as costing a fraction of a trick, not gaining a trick. I also find it easier to play declarer than defense, but that is probably a function of my limited experience level.
I am convinced that, non-vulnerable, a very weak (10-12ish) NT is the best. Vulnerable, a stronger NT is preferable, from what I have read (and what you wrote in your post). The question, for me, is if it is worth it to play a "varriable NT" range, say 10-13 non-vunerable and 13-15 vulnerable, or if it is better to split the difference with a range like 11-14 that would lessen the memory work and risk of confusion.
I am intrigued, also, by what hrothgar wrote about his version of the MOSCITO 1NT. Something like that may also be a solution, though I have to give the implications some more thought.

[straube]

Quote

The question, for me, is if it is worth it to play a "varriable NT" range, say 10-13 non-vunerable and 13-15 vulnerable, or if it is better to split the difference with a range like 11-14 that would lessen the memory work and risk of confusion.

I'd split the range. A "problem" though with having split ranges and having weak NV and strong V is that you pretty much need two separate continuations to sort out the strong NTs.

Say you're not vulnerable and you open 1H. Partner bids 1N. Now what? Especially difficult if your heart can be 4-cds in length. What could you bid sensibly to show a strong NT? Can't I think. If you play 5-cd majors, you rebid 2m and hope to hear partner invite.

[relknes]

straube, on 2011-March-31, 14:17, said:

I'd split the range. A "problem" though with having split ranges and having weak NV and strong V is that you pretty much need two separate continuations to sort out the strong NTs.

Say you're not vulnerable and you open 1H. Partner bids 1N. Now what? Especially difficult if your heart can be 4-cds in length. What could you bid sensibly to show a strong NT? Can't I think. If you play 5-cd majors, you rebid 2m and hope to hear partner invite.

A strong NT would open 1♣ or 1♦ to start with, denending on how strong the balanced hand is. Here would be the balanced hand structure with a varriable NT:

Vulnerable: 10-12 pass, 13-15 open 1NT, 16-17 open 1♣ and rebid 1NT, 18-19 open 1♦ and rebid 1NT
Non-Vulnerable: 10-13 open 1NT, 14-16 open 1♣ and rebid 1NT, 17-19 open 1♦ and rebid 1NT

[straube]

I see. It's not great that you have to pass the 12 pt balanced hands vulnerable. What are your 1C and 1D openings (exactly) and what are your responses?

[relknes]

straube, on 2011-March-31, 14:45, said:

I see. It's not great that you have to pass the 12 pt balanced hands vulnerable. What are your 1C and 1D openings (exactly) and what are your responses?

Under that particular varriable structure, you would pass 12 point balanced hands that don't have a 4 card major when vulnerable. It would be easy to tweak the vulnerable structure to be: 10-11 pass, 12-14 1NT, 15-17 1♣ then rebid 1NT, 18-19 1♦ then rebid 1NT, if that would be better.
The exact 1♣ and 1♦ openings will depend on how the NT issue gets settled, but if we assume for convenience that a 1NT opener ended up being non-varriable, 11-14 balanced with no good quality 4 card major, then they would be:
1♣ = 15+ points unbalanced with 5+ hearts, 15+ points unbalanced with 4+ clubs and no 5 card major, or balanced (15-17, 21-22, or 25-26)
1♦ = 15+ points unbalanced with 5+ spades, 15+ points unbalanced with 4+ diamonds and no 5 card major, or balanced (18-20, 23-24, or 27+)
The 1NT opener would also affect the 1M bids slightly. They would, under the assumption of a 11-14 1NT, be:
1♥ = 9-14, 4+ hearts (unbalanced if 9-10, good quality suit if only 4)
1♠ = 9-14, 4+ spades (unbalanced if 9-10, good quality suit if only 4)
The sole exception to the good quality suit rule would be that you still open 1H with 4-4 majors regardless of suit quality.

*Edit: when 1♣ shows 4+ clubs, it could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape. Likewise 1♦ could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape.

[straube]

Feels like you're trying to set up for...

1C-1D,
.....1H-5H, 15+
.....1S-clubs?
.....1N-15-17

1D-1H,
.....1S-5S, 15+
.....1N-18-20

is that right?

Trying to show 5/15 at the 1-level seems wrong to me. It caters to too specific a hand type and seems as if its design is to be nf. Whatever the meaning of a step 1 rebid, it needs to be forcing.

Compare this to strong clubbers some of whom use 1C-1D, 1H as an artificial 20+ hand. You need a way to create a force for those good hands that don't have 5M.

[relknes]

straube, on 2011-March-31, 16:07, said:

Feels like you're trying to set up for...

1C-1D,
.....1H-5H, 15+
.....1S-clubs?
.....1N-15-17

1D-1H,
.....1S-5S, 15+
.....1N-18-20

is that right?

Trying to show 5/15 at the 1-level seems wrong to me. It caters to too specific a hand type and seems as if its design is to be nf. Whatever the meaning of a step 1 rebid, it needs to be forcing.

Compare this to strong clubbers some of whom use 1C-1D, 1H as an artificial 20+ hand. You need a way to create a force for those good hands that don't have 5M.

The schematic was going to be:

After 1♣-1♦:
1♥ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ hearts
1♠ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades
1N = 15-17 balanced
2♣ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ clubs
2♦ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts
2♥ = 20+, unbalanced, 5+ hearts, GF (since partner's 1♦ response showed 5-9 points)
2♠ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades
2N = 21-22 balanced
3♣ = 20+, unbalanced, 5+ clubs, GF
3♦ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts, GF
3N = 25-26 balanced

A simmilar structure is in place over 1♦-1♥

*Edit to earlier post: when 1♣ shows 4+ clubs, it could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape. Likewise 1♦ could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape.

[straube]

I don't think that will work. Here's what we're doing after strong club

1C-1D-GF with certain hands
1C-1H-shows 5-7 hcps
.....1S-artificial GF
.....1N-17-18
.....2L-to play
1C-1S-shows 0-4 hcps
.....1N-17-20 hcps
.....2C-artificial GF
.....2L-to play

Meckwell does...

1C-1D 0-7
.....1H-4+ hearts, forcing
.....1S-4+ spades, forcing
.....1N-17-18
.....2m-to play
.....2H-artificial, forces 2S for various hand types
.........2S-forced
.........2N-GF balanced
.........forget what else
.....2S-artificial, stronger, 3-suited with major suit shortness
.....2N-22-23 or so

or TOSR

1C-1D 0-7
.....1H-20+ artificial
..........1S-0-4
.....1S-shows various with a 5-cd minor
..........1N-asking
..........2C-pass or correct
..............2D-diamonds
.....1N-not sure the range
.....2C-5/4 or better majors
.....2D-unspecified 6cd major
.....2M-5M/4m
.....2N-not sure the range

Important to be able to get into a GF at a low level

[relknes]

straube, on 2011-March-31, 17:40, said:

I don't think that will work.
......
Important to be able to get into a GF at a low level

Would it work better to have the structure be like this?

After 1♣-1♦:
1♥ = GF, unbalanced 20+ (still in clubs or hearts), or balanced (25-26 or 29+), Relay
.....1♠
..........1N = 25-26 balanced
..........2♣ = 20+, 5+ clubs
..........2♦ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts
..........2♥ = 20+, 5+ hearts
..........2N = 29+ balanced
1♠ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades
1N = 15-17 balanced
2♣ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ clubs
2♦ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts
2♥ = 15-19, unbalanced, 5+ hearts
2♠ = GF, 20+, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades
2N = 21-22 balanced

with a simmilar structure over 1♦?

[straube]

relknes, on 2011-March-31, 19:07, said:

Would it work better to have the structure be like this?

After 1♣-1♦:
1♥ = GF, unbalanced 20+ (still in clubs or hearts), or balanced (25-26 or 29+), Relay
.....1♠
..........1N = 25-26 balanced
..........2♣ = 20+, 5+ clubs
..........2♦ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts
..........2♥ = 20+, 5+ hearts
..........2N = 29+ balanced
1♠ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades
1N = 15-17 balanced
2♣ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ clubs
2♦ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts
2♥ = 15-19, unbalanced, 5+ hearts
2♠ = GF, 20+, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades
2N = 21-22 balanced

with a simmilar structure over 1♦?

I don't see that working either. It's very difficult to get into a GF without responder showing a little something. I have to correct my structure a little because 1C-1S, 2C-2D is actually a third negative so the 2C bid is not quite GF but opener's rebids of 2N or higher thereafter establish a GF. The point of my correction is to illustrate how difficult it is for one hand by itself to initiate a GF.

Is your 1C-1D, 1H-1S now virtually forced? What's 1S show? and what else could responder bid?

The other thing you have to think about is how likely these hands are to come up.

1C-1D, 1H-1S, 1N to show 25-26 is very infrequent for such an important sequence. TOSR is probably showing 20-22 or so (can't remember) at that point. I'm using that as an asking bid having established a GF at the point of 1D. Meckwell is probably using that as 16-19 or so with hearts and no spade fit (not absolutely sure on that point).

1C-1D, 1S to show a three-suited 15-19 is pretty rare. I looked it up on a simulator and it said .25% of hands fit that and that's including the 5C431s.

I would recommend just using one strong opening...the 1C opening and using 1D for hands that don't fit your other openings. In order, I like...

A) the nebulous diamond (promises no diamonds)-sets up fabulously for relay continuations
B) the 2+ diamond (in combination with 2C showing 6 and 2D showing short diamonds)
C) the unbalanced hand with 3+ diamonds (has shortness or 6 diamonds)

I'd also recommend looking up TOSR (transfer oriented symmetric relay) for their 1C-1D continuations. They are pretty simple and pretty good.

Probably not what you want to hear, but I don't think reserving both 1C and 1D as strong openings is necessary or best.

[relknes]

straube, on 2011-March-31, 23:10, said:

I don't see that working either. It's very difficult to get into a GF without responder showing a little something. I have to correct my structure a little because 1C-1S, 2C-2D is actually a third negative so the 2C bid is not quite GF but opener's rebids of 2N or higher thereafter establish a GF. The point of my correction is to illustrate how difficult it is for one hand by itself to initiate a GF.

Is your 1C-1D, 1H-1S now virtually forced? What's 1S show? and what else could responder bid?

The other thing you have to think about is how likely these hands are to come up.

1C-1D, 1H-1S, 1N to show 25-26 is very infrequent for such an important sequence. TOSR is probably showing 20-22 or so (can't remember) at that point. I'm using that as an asking bid having established a GF at the point of 1D. Meckwell is probably using that as 16-19 or so with hearts and no spade fit (not absolutely sure on that point).

1C-1D, 1S to show a three-suited 15-19 is pretty rare. I looked it up on a simulator and it said .25% of hands fit that and that's including the 5C431s.

I would recommend just using one strong opening...the 1C opening and using 1D for hands that don't fit your other openings. In order, I like...

A) the nebulous diamond (promises no diamonds)-sets up fabulously for relay continuations
B) the 2+ diamond (in combination with 2C showing 6 and 2D showing short diamonds)
C) the unbalanced hand with 3+ diamonds (has shortness or 6 diamonds)

I'd also recommend looking up TOSR (transfer oriented symmetric relay) for their 1C-1D continuations. They are pretty simple and pretty good.

Probably not what you want to hear, but I don't think reserving both 1C and 1D as strong openings is necessary or best.

Responder has shown something. Specifically, the 1♣-1♦ and the 1♦-1♥ both show 5-9 points.
The sequence to show 0-4 points is 1♣-1♠ or 1♦-2♣ with the idea of opener signing off in his best suit at the 2 level unless they can force game opposite a bust.
Any bid by responder other than the neutral 1st step or the very negative 3rd step is taken as 10+ points game force. These responses were covered earlier, so I thought you were just asking about the continuations after the neutral response.
My least favorite bid in bridge happens to be a nebulous 1♦ showing points in the 10-14 sort of range. When the opponents interfere, which they are very likely to do when both majors are still available at the 1 level and you have a barely above average hand, then partner is lost and all those fabulous relays are useless. My opinion is that the 1m bids should be saved for hands that don't fear competition, since you are letting the opponents in so cheap.
It is fine that other people like the bid, but I just can't stomach it. It would be interesting to find out how many imps it costs, on average, when a Precision player opens 1♦ promising 0+ diamonds. Even more interesting to know how much it costs when the left hand opponent overcalls.

[straube]

I see. Yes, I expect the nebulous 1D to lose imps. It really ought to lose imps compared to a 1D that shows some number of diamonds.

[glen]

straube, on 2011-April-01, 00:29, said:

I see. Yes, I expect the nebulous 1D to lose imps. It really ought to lose imps compared to a 1D that shows some number of diamonds.

Depends on what the "some number" starts at

[wclass___]

I don't want to go in details explaining all aspects, because from my experience one needs a lot of knowledge and experience with nebulous type 1♦ on his own to be able to evaluate weight of pros and cons.

Quote

However, this is counterbalanced by the
“preemptive” effect of 1D as opposed to 1C. I was not expecting to find this when I took
up the style, but it exists. The 1D opening that can be as short as a doubleton works quite
well. Ask Eric Rodwell. I have to admit that I do not fully understand why it seems to
make so little difference whether you open 1D on the doubleton or 1C on the five-card suit
when you have, say, 3=3=2=5 distribution. For a long time this was one of my main
objections to playing modern Precision; I thought that the lack of definition in minor-suit
auctions would be costly. Eventually, I learned otherwise. I also learned something else, as
is stated in other places in this book: it is not necessary to be able to understand the
underlying reason or reasons for the existence of a fact in order for it to be true. The fact
still exists, regardless of whether you know why it is a fact or not.

From my experience my nebulous 1♦ (playing it only NV 1st/2nd seat) defined as = 12-15 balanced or 5m+4M yields very good results.

[Flameous]

I think it would be best to use the kokish relay approach on one lvl. (It had some cool name in precision that I can't remember)
So 1♥ is either hearts or some GF hand. This should probably leave you better placed than separating them to two bids.

I'd also suggest to moving the club hands to 1♠. Aiming for that you can pass 1♠ from opener is way too small goal and it might even work at your disadvantage sometimes.