[awm]

I think there is a difference between a "common deviation" to avoid introducing a very weak suit and the call being systemic on this strength and shape. For example my impression was that Straube used 1H as the systemic response for a 33(34) game force regardless of the location of honors. If this is true, his letter to acbl is rather misleading and I would disagree with the "ruling" provided on that basis.

[straube]

I take your point and probably shouldn't have given an example hand at all...or perhaps given one as extreme as Axx xxx Qxx AKQx. In this case responding 1H makes it easier to find slam when partner has KQJx x AKxxx xxx.

How do others here feel about what I wrote? Do I need to send the ACBL another inquiry and how would I word the question if I did?

I think that others have responded in even weak 3-cd major suit fragments for systemic reasons. For example, I listed Meckwell's prior agreement to respond 1S to 1H which I think they did with even something like xxx x Axxxx Kxxx.

[akhare]

straube, on 2014-April-06, 02:30, said:

How do others here feel about what I wrote? Do I need to send the ACBL another inquiry and how would I word the question if I did?

I don't think anyone doubts your intentions, but a more concise query might be more representative (items in italics represent assumptions on my part and are subject to verification):

"Does the GCC permit a systemic response 1H to a 1D opening with any balanced game forcing hand containing two or more hearts? Note that the 1♦ opening shows 10+ HCPs with 0+♦ and that in most cases responder will have a hand with 4+♥."

[straube]

Thanks for that suggestion and for not doubting my intent. Adam, you're a careful wordsmith. Did you mean to leave that unclear or do you agree with Atul about not doubting my intent?

I wrote that inquiry with a GCC event in mind where we would only introduce a 3-cd holding (not 2) when we held a GF balanced hand. I think Midchart events allow for constructive responses and 1H might not have to promise any hearts at all.

[steve2005]

straube, on 2014-April-06, 02:30, said:

I take your point and probably shouldn't have given an example hand at all...or perhaps given one as extreme as Axx xxx Qxx AKQx. In this case responding 1H makes it easier to find slam when partner has KQJx x AKxxx xxx.

How do others here feel about what I wrote? Do I need to send the ACBL another inquiry and how would I word the question if I did?

I think that others have responded in even weak 3-cd major suit fragments for systemic reasons. For example, I listed Meckwell's prior agreement to respond 1S to 1H which I think they did with even something like xxx x Axxxx Kxxx.

Meckwell undoubtably play in Mid-chart events!

[Shugart23]

kenrexford, on 2014-April-04, 07:55, said:

I can expand on this.

2♣ Opening = Any three suits, 10-15 HCP. This covers more turf than the Precision 2♦ opening, obviously. It also takes some of the heavy load away from the 1♦ opening. You might think that the call covers too much territory, but the response structure is vastly superior to the traditional "Mini-Roman" 2♦ response structure. With M-R, 2NT is the asking bid. With 2♣ Roman 3-suiter, 2♦ is the asking bid:

2♣-P-2♦ = asking:

2♥ = Min (10-12) with 4 hearts (4441, 4414, 1444). After this, most is logical, but 3♦ asks again (3♥ = 4441, 3♠ = 4414, 3NT = 1444).

2♠ = Min without 4 hearts (4144)

2NT = MAX (13-15) with 4441

3♣ = MAX with 4414

3♦ = MAX with 4144

3♥ = MAX with 1444

2♦ Opening = Both minors, 10-15. This also takes heat off the 1♦ opening. It has "preemption with a punch," because it jams the majors to the two-level while allowing good penalty doubles by Responder if they do intervene (you don't need negative doubles). The response structure is somewhat easy to remember:

2♦-P-2♥ = Artificial, asking

2♠ = Min (10-12) with 3 spades

2NT = Min with no 3-card major

3♣ = Min with 3 hearts

3♦ = MAX with no 3-card major

3♥ = MAX with 3 hearts

3♠ = MAX with 3 spades

These two two-level openings are IMO superior to the Precision two-level openings because they cover more territory, are more manageable, and preempt them more than us when we want to preempt them more than us. They allow difficult-to-describe hands to be described fast, which makes the system less interference-prone, while causing problems for the opponents in describing major-oriented hands. On the last point, if the OPP opens 2♦ for minors, is 2M weak (what you would bid after 1♦) or intermediate? You cannot do both.

The structure comes together when a 1♦ opening shows EITHER minor but never both (or balanced). This is akin to opening 1♦ with any hand with which you would open a minor, with the 4441 hands removed and the minor two-suiters removed. 1♦...2♣ is identical to the standard 1♣...2♣, where not a single diamond is shown (but where you MIGHT have 4♦/5♣ in a pinch). But, again, you have no trouble worrying about the "normal" minor two-suiters, because you went through 2♦ opening with those hands, or with the 4441 hands. The response structure is fairly standard and normal, except that there are no "minor raises" because no minor has been shown.

This "Flamingo 1♦" opening (the term Jake Parrott coined) avoids the difficulties in Precision of the 4MAJ/5+clubs hand. You instead with Flamingo open 1♦, which makes the major-suit exploration no problem, and THEN show the clubs. The "Flamingo Diamond" is perhaps viewed as the "Walsh" approach to a Precision structure, therefore.

FWIW, all three of these openings are discussed in my Modified Italian Canape System book. The two-level openings are described exactly as you would play them in Precision, even though in a canapé context, because the canapé context is not relevant to those openings (except in sideline discussions of nuances for other sequences and the like). While the MICS book discusses Flamingo in the context of "Canape Flamingo," I took time to mention the nuances for Precision.

For the 2D opening showing both Minors, are you promising atleast 5-4 in Minors ? If 3-2-4-4 you open 1NT or open 1D and rebid NT depending upon point coint ? thanks

[kenrexford]

Shugart23, on 2014-April-07, 12:25, said:

For the 2D opening showing both Minors, are you promising atleast 5-4 in Minors ? If 3-2-4-4 you open 1NT or open 1D and rebid NT depending upon point coint ? thanks

At least 5-4 in the minors is required.

As to balanced hands, I open 1NT with 13-15 or so. With 11-12 hands, I pass unless I have at least one 4-card major, with which I open 1M because of canapé. If I were playing Precision, where that is not possible, then I would probably expand 1NT to 12-15, although adding in a balanced meaning to 1♦ openings is less troubling because of the no canapé situation.

[Shugart23]

kenrexford, on 2014-April-07, 13:08, said:

At least 5-4 in the minors is required.

As to balanced hands, I open 1NT with 13-15 or so. With 11-12 hands, I pass unless I have at least one 4-card major, with which I open 1M because of canapé. If I were playing Precision, where that is not possible, then I would probably expand 1NT to 12-15, although adding in a balanced meaning to 1♦ openings is less troubling because of the no canapé situation.

thanks....I might try your 1D, 2C and 2D opening .....can you expand on how you bid with 13 HCP and 5 Clubs and 4 Hearts while I wait for your book to show up ?....assuming no interference.

[kenrexford]

Shugart23, on 2014-April-07, 15:53, said:

thanks....I might try your 1D, 2C and 2D opening .....can you expand on how you bid with 13 HCP and 5 Clubs and 4 Hearts while I wait for your book to show up ?....assuming no interference.

If you open either One Club or One Diamond, and partner responds One Spade, you probably bury the hearts by rebidding 1NT or your minor. Same goes here.

That said, if you never have balanced, you can improve on the structure. You can rebid 1NT as not balanced but artificial. If Responder bids 1H, a simple rebid structure is to rebid the minor you have with no spade suit, 1S with four spades and longer clubs, or 1NT with four spades and longer diamonds, if you want. Better might be borrowed from canapé, where a 1NT response shows the three piece heart holding.

After a 1S, 1NT can be used to show the 4 card heart holding and either minor.

but all of this is somewhat unnecessary. Simple works. You end up with some minor length not shown, but so does the field. Your loss of knowledge also affects them.

[bluecalm]

Quote

For a new precision pair I'd recommend using mainstream methods rather than going down the rabbit hole of exotic structures proposed here (many of which strike me as poor on technical merit as well).

I think it's spot on. Additional point is that if you play what Meckwell play then it's easier to solve problems which you encounter especially in competitive bidding. You can just copy what Meckwell do and start from there. There are many people who know the system quite well and will able to help you with any questions. If you go for some elusive structure then you are on your own in every new situation. So I say go for 14-16NT, 11-13 1D promising 2+ diamonds, 2C as 6+, 2D as D shortness: (43)15/4414/4405. 1M openers disciplined (as far as precision goes, so no 10 counts unlles exceptional) and 2/1 strictly GF.
I think the system is very sound, 2C as 6+ is way better then 5+. 2D opening is very descriptive and 1D easier to play when it promises 2.

[kellonius]

Thanks all for the advice; I just returned to this thread to see many new replies.

SteelWheel; we actually have come to your suggestion as well: we have been playing a 12-15 NT so that our 1D opening is natural (4+) and all of our 1D, 1H, 1S openings promise an unbalanced hand. This has also given us a few nice gadgets: for example: 1D-1H-1NT (mm, equal or longer D), 1D-1H-2C (mm, longer C), 1D-1H-2D (single suited D), etc. We really like this approach so far.

We have been considering adding a 1H relay over 1C, "kokish" style: 1C -- 1D -- 1H -- relays 1S, showing either a balanced hand, hearts and another suit, or single-suited hearts. I have one question, though. We like to play that 1C -- 1D -- 1M only promises 4. How does this interact with a 1H relay here? For example: does 1C -- 1D -- 1H -- 1S -- 2C show 5+4+, but where you can have 4H5C or 5H4C? Does the 1H relay only work well if you play that 1C 1D 1M promises 5? Any thoughts here? Thanks!

[mgoetze]

kellonius, on 2014-April-12, 16:10, said:

Does the 1H relay only work well if you play that 1C 1D 1M promises 5?

Yes.

[straube]

kellonius, on 2014-April-12, 16:10, said:

We have been considering adding a 1H relay over 1C, "kokish" style: 1C -- 1D -- 1H -- relays 1S, showing either a balanced hand, hearts and another suit, or single-suited hearts. I have one question, though. We like to play that 1C -- 1D -- 1M only promises 4. How does this interact with a 1H relay here? For example: does 1C -- 1D -- 1H -- 1S -- 2C show 5+4+, but where you can have 4H5C or 5H4C? Does the 1H relay only work well if you play that 1C 1D 1M promises 5? Any thoughts here? Thanks!

Don't you mind giving up your 1C-1D, 1H-1N, 2C, 2D, etc sequences? You might find some infrequent use for them, but the point is that they are infrequent.

Kokish might make sense after a strong 2C-2D, 2H or a Precision 1C-1D, 2H but in these instances there is a higher priority for opener to describe his hand than after 1C-1D, 1H.

I think 1C-1D, 1H should be either natural or artificial 20+ (but not both) for most Precision players.

[kellonius]

Oh, one more question.

We actually have the ability right now to say that our 1D, 1H, and 1S openings 100% promise an unbalanced hand; that is because we pass 11 balanced, open 16+ ANY 1C, and open 12-15 bal 1NT, 5M common.

One issue is that we're particularly vulnerable to a 4522/45(31) shape, because if we open 1H and hear the expected 1NT forcing, partner is apt to take a minor suit rebid seriously as a 4 card suit (we promise an unbalanced hand).

Our solution (as of a few days ago) is try 2H Flannery, showing exactly 4522 or 45(31), 11-15. Any thoughts; is this playable, or infrequent enough that we should just accept rebidding a two card minor (or five card major) with 4522/45(13)?

[SteelWheel]

kellonius, on 2014-April-12, 16:10, said:

Thanks all for the advice; I just returned to this thread to see many new replies.

SteelWheel; we actually have come to your suggestion as well: we have been playing a 12-15 NT so that our 1D opening is natural (4+) and all of our 1D, 1H, 1S openings promise an unbalanced hand. This has also given us a few nice gadgets: for example: 1D-1H-1NT (mm, equal or longer D), 1D-1H-2C (mm, longer C), 1D-1H-2D (single suited D), etc. We really like this approach so far.

We have been considering adding a 1H relay over 1C, "kokish" style: 1C -- 1D -- 1H -- relays 1S, showing either a balanced hand, hearts and another suit, or single-suited hearts. I have one question, though. We like to play that 1C -- 1D -- 1M only promises 4. How does this interact with a 1H relay here? For example: does 1C -- 1D -- 1H -- 1S -- 2C show 5+4+, but where you can have 4H5C or 5H4C? Does the 1H relay only work well if you play that 1C 1D 1M promises 5? Any thoughts here? Thanks!

I've played several approaches on these auctions: I started with the "Matchpoint Precision" "possible canape" style, where you always bid your four-card major first, rather than bidding your five-card minor and risk the auction dying right there (a very similar version of which is in the Berkowitz/Manley "Precision Today" book).

Then I tried combining this with a Kokish-ish 1♥ relay. This gave us great auctions like: 1♣--1♦--1♥ (could be hearts, hearts and another or various big balanced hands)--1♠ (essentially forced relay unless very weak with a long minor suit)--1NT, showing exactly 20-21 HCP (as opening 1NT showed 14-16, and rebidding 1NT showed 17-19). What was the point of all this? Basically, we got to play 1NT with 20 or 21 opposite nothing, where the field/other table is opening 2NT (swished), and seven tricks are pretty much all you can make when the dummy is a yarborough.

In that style, 1♣--1♦--1♠ still promised only four spades, although tended to deny some of the "heart hands".

Recently, I've heard that someone else has tweaked this so that responder can make more relay breaks over 1♥, if he has heart support and can handle the auction if opener turns out to have the big balanced hand after all--but I don't have those system notes myself.

Yet another approach which has something going for it is the one in Barry Rigal's book, where most of opener's second round bids are transfers (except for the 1♠ rebid which remains natural); but, e.g., 1NT rebid is a transfer to ♣s!, 2♣ to 2♦, and a few other funky ideas. The idea was that you've already right-sided all club contracts and wrong-sided all diamond contracts. Responder generally accepted the transfer, unless maximum where he was allowed to break and "tell his own story".

Any of these are fine. As long as you have some way to bring four card majors into the picture quickly, you'll do fine.

[Zelandakh]

kellonius, on 2014-April-12, 19:09, said:

One issue is that we're particularly vulnerable to a 4522/45(31) shape, because if we open 1H and hear the expected 1NT forcing, partner is apt to take a minor suit rebid seriously as a 4 card suit (we promise an unbalanced hand).

Our solution (as of a few days ago) is try 2H Flannery, showing exactly 4522 or 45(31), 11-15. Any thoughts; is this playable, or infrequent enough that we should just accept rebidding a two card minor (or five card major) with 4522/45(13)?

I also play 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ opening as unbalanced, albeit with a higher max range (17). My solution is to continue in relay style. For 1♥ that means:

1♠ = INV+ relay
1NT = weak with 4+ spades
2♣ = weak with 4+ clubs (and usually <4 spades)
2♦ = weak with 5+ diamonds (and usually no other 4 card suit)
2♥ = weak raise
others = various raises with 4+ hearts

After 1♥ - 1♠:
==
1NT = min without 4 spades (now 2♣ is GF and 2♦ through 3♣ are natural invites)
2♣ = 4+ spades (now 2♦ is GF and 2♥ through 3♦ are natural invites)
2♦ = max with 4+ clubs, GF
2♥ = max one-suited, GF
2♠ = max with 5+ diamonds, GF
2NT = max with 5♠4♦, GF
others = max with 6+ spades and 4 diamonds, GF

The only difference for you that I can immediately see is that the max range is ~14-15 rather than 14-17. Alternatively you could adjust the invite range to split the hands between 10-12 and 13-15 - up to you.

Another approach is to copy the method over 1♠ so that the first step is the equivalent of a forcing 1NT and other simple responses are GF. So (again over 1♥):-

1♠ = most non-GF hands
1NT = GF with 4+ spades
2m = nat and GF
others to taste, matching the 1♠ structure

Note also that there are different ways of playing 1♥ as a relay after a 1♣ - 1♦ start. I use this to show specifically 18-20 or a big balanced (23+) hand. This can also be adapted in a Precision context to show something like 19+, with minimum 1♣ openers describing themselves naturally. In this approach it is common to play that 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ is the big hand, similar to a 2♣ opening in natural methods. You still cannot show everything immediately (min with 5♥4other must usually rebid 2♥ for example) but this method is one that some find very easy and natural.

The bottom line is really that no method is 100% perfect when the 1♣ opening is 16+ across the board. Taking some hands out of 1♣ can help here, for example you sometimes see the suggestion of playing a 1♦ opening as Standard so that the only diamond-based hands within 1♣ are GF. Or my approach, which is copied from several other systems, of making 1♣ 15-17 with clubs or balanced, or 18+ any. All of these ideas are tried and trusted in some form or another, albeit played far less than, for example, Meckwell. In this respect bluecalm's point is well taken - you need to have some fall-back for handling unusual situations, especially when you start playing something more complicated. The more often and the higher the level at which a system is played, the easier it is going to be to obtain this information.

[Kungsgeten]

kellonius, on 2014-April-12, 19:09, said:

Our solution (as of a few days ago) is try 2H Flannery, showing exactly 4522 or 45(31), 11-15. Any thoughts; is this playable, or infrequent enough that we should just accept rebidding a two card minor (or five card major) with 4522/45(13)?

I play Swedish Club (1C is 11--13 NT or 17+) and we use 2H as Flannery (our 2D opening is weak multi). We play that the 1H opening in principle denies 4 spades, but have an agreement that we may open 1H with 7-4 or 6-5 it Flannery seems inappropriate. So 2H is 5+ hearts and 4 spades, 11--16 (11--15 probably makes it somewhat better). In this way 1H--1S promises 5+ spades, which is nice, and responder can bypass 1S if holding only 4 spades. Flannery have some other effects too, if playing 2/1 GF: 1H--2m; 2S could show 6+ hearts for instance, while 2H is a catch-all. Since you play that 1H is unbalanced it seems strange that 1H--1NT; 2C is either 4+ clubs or 4-5-2-2.

Another solution is to play Kaplan Inversion/Interchange:

1H--1S = Forcing NT, may have 4 spades
1H--1NT = 5+ spades, forcing

1H--1S;
1NT = 4+ diamonds
2C = 4+ clubs
2D = 4+ spades
2H = 6+ hearts

1H--1NT;
2m = Natural
2H = 6+ hearts
2S = 3+ spades

Even though I like Flannery I think that Kaplan Inversion may be better in your case, since you do not have any rebid problems after 1H--1NT (showing 5+ spades) and you may want your 2H (or 2D) opening to show short diamonds (unless you treat 4414 as balanced). 1H as always unbalanced 11-15 also makes it pretty rare, and excluding hands with 4 spades from this opening makes it even more infrequent. This may not be a problem ofcourse