[steve2005]

Since Precision deals well with a double of 1♣ why can't you turn the tables and double opp 1♣ opening to show a precision 1♣.
briefly the system would be
double = 17+ pts bal or 16+ then play your normal methods and if rho competes use our methods over interference
1♦ = 4-4 in majors 11-15 or 5-4 or better in majors 8-15
1♥/1♠ = normal overcall
1N = 14-16 pts balanced
2♣ = weak 2 in ♦
2♦ = 11-15 pts 5+♦
2♥/2♠ = normal pre-empt
2N = unusual 2N ♦ & ♥
3♣ = Ghestem ♦ & ♠

{edit] replace 2 bids below should you ever get 20-21 pts you can double
2N = 20/21 pts bal
3♣ = unusual 2N ♦ & ♥

you also should be able to do something similar after a 1♦ opening but im not familiar with big ♦ openings

[PhilKing]

steve2005, on 2014-February-12, 17:51, said:

Since Precision deals well with a double of 1♣ why can't you turn the tables and double opp 1♣ opening to show a precision 1♣.

briefly the system would be

1N = 14-16 pts balanced

This is my favourite part.

[straube]

Dbl and 1D would be underutilized. 2D would handle too much.

.............Standard...................Precision
1C........takeout, strong..........strong
1D.......D, D/H, D/S, D/C........H/S
2D.......weak D......................D, H/H, D/S, D/C

[PrecisionL]

Why limit it to only when opponents open 1♣?

The Overcall System uses the Power Double and Roman Jump Overcalls:

(1 of a suit) X = 16+ hcp any distribution. Responses: cheapest bid = 0-5 hcp.

Non-jump bids are 5cd suits and 6-8 hcp and jump bids are 8+ hcp and G.F.

Intermediate singel jump overcalls and RJO take care of 1 and 2 suited hands.

3-suited hands are handled by 1NT overcall for takeout.

http://www.jeff-gold...em/foutnote.txt

http://www.fernside....lStructure.html

[straube]

Not saying Bergen is the ultimate authority, but I really respect his ideas. Here's what he said about NTO...

"Inverting dbl + 1NT is absurd.
I see no merit in this.

I strain to dbl a minor with many hands,
and want my partner to infer that when I pass 1C or 1D,
I almost never have a decent hand.

I am very much into dbling 1C even w hands like

AJxx Kxxx A xxxx or
AJx AJx Kxx xxxx

In addition to all this,
from a frequency point of view,
the inverting is silly.

The overall system strikes me as
an attempt by someone who had too much time on his hands
and wanted to produce something different."

[1eyedjack]

steve2005, on 2014-February-12, 17:51, said:

Since Precision deals well with a double of 1♣ ...

Don’t think that I agree with the premise.
I expect that you are alluding to additional bidding space provided by the double.
And it is true that if you make the effort, and you assume that this is the end of intervention on the hand, and you make no attempt to capitalise on the meaning of the double (which can vary greatly) then there is scope for amending your continuations.
The reality is that the double will show some sort of distributional spanner, and a small amount of additional bidding space that it affords to responder will likely be more than eliminated by advancer. And if you add to that a desire both to capitalise on the bidding space and to adjust your continuations according to the meaning of the double it is going to get complicated.

[mycroft]

The premise of Precision 1♣ is based on the fact that 24 or so points are hidden in the other three hands, and it's quite likely that partner has a third or so of them.

The double of 1♣ suggested is based on the fact that 12 at most points are hidden in the other two hands, and LHO can point-count the hand. It's quite likely that partner has slightly less than half of them, and it doesn't take much less than "slightly" for the axe to drop and there to be nowhere to go. Or they can get to the game that they can make because they're playing double-dummy on the missing 16 points, maybe. Sure, when partner has more than average, we're in great shape, but then again, natural overcalls should put us there, too.

There was a pair in Waterloo that played Precision including over our openings. We strongly encouraged it for all of our opponents - especially the double.

OS double at least tends to be balanced and partner knows what to do (even if it's "take your lumps").

[PrecisionL]

straube, on 2014-February-12, 21:03, said:

Not saying Bergen is the ultimate authority, but I really respect his ideas. Here's what he said about NTO...

"Inverting dbl + 1NT is absurd.
I see no merit in this.

I strain to dbl a minor with many hands,
and want my partner to infer that when I pass 1C or 1D,
I almost never have a decent hand.

I am very much into dbling 1C even w hands like

AJxx Kxxx A xxxx or
AJx AJx Kxx xxxx

In addition to all this,
from a frequency point of view,
the inverting is silly.

The overall system strikes me as
an attempt by someone who had too much time on his hands
and wanted to produce something different."

I have played such a defensive system for 5 years now and am quite happy with it for Match Point Pair events.

When partner does not have his share of hcp, then we get to play in 1 of a major instead of 1NT.

[Free]

Stolen bids aaaa-suck!

[johnu]

Am I the only one who wants to adopt this over 2♣ opening bids?

[Mbodell]

Free, on 2014-February-13, 14:06, said:

Stolen bids aaaa-suck!

Believe it or not I have played against at least one pair that did this. They played a strong club themselves but also played a X of opponents 1♣ showed a strong club hand (and then they played their strong club system). It actually came up on a hand when my partner opened a strong club for our side and then their side doubled to show a strong club! We got out of the way and let them have the honor of going down in something.

[Cthulhu D]

straube, on 2014-February-12, 21:03, said:

Not saying Bergen is the ultimate authority, but I really respect his ideas. Here's what he said about NTO...

"Inverting dbl + 1NT is absurd.
I see no merit in this.

I strain to dbl a minor with many hands,
and want my partner to infer that when I pass 1C or 1D,
I almost never have a decent hand.

I am very much into dbling 1C even w hands like

AJxx Kxxx A xxxx or
AJx AJx Kxx xxxx

In addition to all this,
from a frequency point of view,
the inverting is silly.

The overall system strikes me as
an attempt by someone who had too much time on his hands
and wanted to produce something different."

why is switching them silly from a frequency point of view? once they've opened its likely to be there hand so you ewant to use as much space as possible, and 8-14 NTO is much more frequent than the strong NT overcall

[dick payne]

Any strong club bid is vulnerable to controlled psyches. Many players have abandoned a strong club as a result of this. A precision 1D bid is also something of a Aunt Sally, because it is so imprecise. It is easy to devise a system of overcalls on an either/or principle and start with a double on any sound opening bid

[blackshoe]

Controlled psychs are illegal in at least some jurisdictions (the ACBL in particular).

[steve2005]

I don't think this is an inversion of 1N and double. im suggesting 1N overcall as 14-16 which is basically strong.
inverting and playing 12-14 1N overcall would be a poor strategy imho as you don't have the pre-emption advantage of a weak NT and have all the disadvantages plus they might have an edge on what to lead.

1♥/1♠ overcall basically the same
1♦ different but I always found 1♦ overcall a waste of time. So instead using 1♦ on a lot of hands you would do a minimum takeout double plus Michael's hands

so I think I'm more inverting double with 1♦
I'm not adverse from also using 1♦ for min takeout doubles 4-3 in majors

[mycroft]

Controlled Psychs are illegal. However, any (not primarily destructive) system is legal over strong clubs, including many that, were only "allowed over natural" defences allowed, would have to be "controlled psychics" (actually systemic calls). The classic example of that is Wonder Bids, perfectly allowable in the ACBL over a strong club (or a Polish Club or Montreal Relay for that matter) - "that suit or takeout of that suit", with the control being some call(s) that are pass or correct. K/S style "controlled psychs" would be allowed over a strong club (whether you'd want to play "11+ or 0-4, 5+ cards" I don't know, but it's legal).

It has to be *disclosed*, mind you; any undisclosed tendency with a call that caters for it is still (very justifiably) illegal.

[Zelandakh]

dick payne, on 2014-February-15, 05:04, said:

Any strong club bid is vulnerable to controlled psyches. Many players have abandoned a strong club as a result of this. A precision 1D bid is also something of a Aunt Sally, because it is so imprecise. It is easy to devise a system of overcalls on an either/or principle and start with a double on any sound opening bid

These are not controlled psyches but undisclosed multi-way calls. If you see someone doing this then discuss their discloure issues with your local director.

Can you name a single high-level pair that has abandoned a strong club system because of this?

The nebukous 1♦ opening in modern Precision can be difficult for both sides to handle in competition. Many pairs think that the nebulous nature of the 1♦ opening is a good thing and causes the opponents more headaches than the opening side. I seem to recall an interview some time back with Rodwell where he said something along the lines that the nebuolous 1♦ opening was one of the parts of their system they would never change because it is so effective.

It is easy to create many competitive structures but most of them are simply not good. Write down a full system and let us see how it stacks up against the alternatives.