[helene_t]

Another poll about Basic Precision, not as you play it with your regular p but as you would play it with a pick-up p.

The classic books (Wei, Goren, Reese) define a double of interference over our 1♣ as negative (5-7 HCP or similar) but says little if anything about shape. As I understand it, modern Symmetric Relay also uses this.

Borin's book suggest the opposite, non-forcing freebids and GF doubles.

Or should we adopt a defense more similar to standard methods, with a double showing (primarily) length in unbid suits, especially unbid major suit(s)?

[Gerben42]

Similar to standard methods would be easiest but I am not a traditional Precision player.
So Double is negative and free bids are invitational or better (F1R)

[Double !]

This is a crucial issue to clarify when playing the system.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, in the initial versions (wei) of the system, doubles and freebids through the 2-level (if not a J-S) were both negative, and 1NT was an artificial unbalanced GF response if opps overcalled at the 1-level. Above that, a cue bid suggested a balanced positive response, with or without stopper, and double followed by a suit bid was a GF. The artificial 1NT response was soon replaced by 1NT = 6-8 (or 5-7) with a stopper, and all unbalanced hands were either bid by using a negX first followed by a new suit (now forcing) or playing free suit bids as positive responses and making negXs followed by a suit as NF. My personal preference has always been for the negative double and negative free bid.

Interestingly, the first time I played Precision with a new person on BBO (he was from either Hungary or Bulgaria), P used the artifical 1NT GF response when the opps overcall my 1C bid. What was scary was the fact that I knew what he was doing. (told you that I'm a bidding dinosaur.)

[luke warm]

i think interference can be used to advantage, given you have 2 extra bids.. so to my way of thinking, we can now use interference to show what normally takes awhile, controls... pass=0, 1; next step=2; x (or xx)=3 (allows opener to convert)... almost anything can work, even point showing or natural bids... i don't feel strongly about this

[Chamaco]

Freebids (including 1NT) nonforcing at level 1/2, forcing at level 3.

DBL = either 5-7, for takeout (major oriented) OR generic GF, usually NOT single suited (would jump) NOR 2-suiter (would bid "Michaels" cue OR "Unusual 2NT")

[luke warm]

i prefer free bids @ 1 and 4 levels forcing, 2 and 3 levels not.. so x is either normal neg x or gf

[bearmum]

luke warm, on Jul 19 2005, 12:42 PM, said:

i prefer free bids @ 1 and 4 levels forcing, 2 and 3 levels not.. so x is either normal neg x or gf

I play diferent responses (depending on the level of interfering bid) but as a generic bid I like the X to show positive response and anything else to show about 5-7

BUT looking at what you sugguest that looks good for a casual partnership and one I hadn't even considered

[Gerben42]

I think more standard is 2-level nonforcing, other levels forcing. Anyway...

[coyot]

I think even Basic Precision should handle different types of interference.
(I don't play precision but I like to interfere with it )

The system should be able to handle:
1) standard overcalls (there I would vote for standard approach - classic negative double, promising unbid majors for sure)

2) two-suiters with at least one suit specified (here cuebid of the specified suit can be used as strong and anything else as non-forcing freebid)

3) two-suiters with no suit specified (dbl showing points, own suit nf) - opps will have a tough time preempting so you can afford to use strong double.

4) shortest-suit overcalls (1NT for having their suit and double for takeout against that suit - or the other way round)

5) shortest or longest suit overcalls.

I'm using the latest method for disrupting strong club and it works wonders against casual partnerships and intermediate/advanced players. Never suffered a doubled disaster, few times perhaps gave them some hints or led a wrong suit, but quite often they missed a slam or played 3nt instead of a suit contract...

[helene_t]

We had this disaster yesterday in the partnership bidding:

1♣-(1♥)-x-(3♥)
4♠-a.p.

Opener had a 4252 20-count, responder a 2263 6-count with the diamonds not quite good enough for a 3♦ which would otherwise be appropriate for this shape and values.

Clearly my 4♠ bid was wrong. I suppose one could argue for either 4♦ or 4♥. Anyway, this nebulous double seems impractical to me. Wonder if a major-oriented negative double is any playable.

Defining 1NT as semi-positive would help. In the FD file I defined all non-jump freebids as GF, for simplicity, though.

BTW, the cuebid is undescribed in this FD file. I suppose one could play it as natural, after all psyches and weird conventions come up quite frequently.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Feb 17 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

We had this disaster yesterday in the partnership bidding:

1♣-(1♥)-x-(3♥)
4♠-a.p.

Opener had a 4252 20-count, responder a 2263 6-count with the diamonds not quite good enough for a 3♦ which would otherwise be appropriate for this shape and values.

Clearly my 4♠ bid was wrong. I suppose one could argue for either 4♦ or 4♥.

Or X, which shows extra values but no suit. Then your partner bids 4♦ and you raise to 5. If your partner had a balanced 6 count with no heart stop, he'd pass and you'd play 3♥X, but you don't have game anywhere and hopefully with 26 hcp between you you'll be able to find 5 tricks.

The analagous SAYC auction would be...

1♣ 1♥ P 3♥

You wouldn't have X there be penalty, would you?

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Feb 17 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

We had this disaster yesterday in the partnership bidding:

1♣-(1♥)-x-(3♥)
4♠-a.p.

Opener had a 4252 20-count, responder a 2263 6-count with the diamonds not quite good enough for a 3♦ which would otherwise be appropriate for this shape and values.

Clearly my 4♠ bid was wrong. I suppose one could argue for either 4♦ or 4♥. Anyway, this nebulous double seems impractical to me. Wonder if a major-oriented negative double is any playable.

Defining 1NT as semi-positive would help. In the FD file I defined all non-jump freebids as GF, for simplicity, though.

BTW, the cuebid is undescribed in this FD file. I suppose one could play it as natural, after all psyches and weird conventions come up quite frequently.

Responder is violating basic of precision - principle of captaincy.

With 6 point and no shape the response is pass.

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Feb 17 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 17 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

We had this disaster yesterday in the partnership bidding:

1♣-(1♥)-x-(3♥)
4♠-a.p.

Opener had a 4252 20-count, responder a 2263 6-count with the diamonds not quite good enough for a 3♦ which would otherwise be appropriate for this shape and values.

Clearly my 4♠ bid was wrong. I suppose one could argue for either 4♦ or 4♥.

Or X, which shows extra values but no suit. Then your partner bids 4♦ and you raise to 5. If your partner had a balanced 6 count with no heart stop, he'd pass and you'd play 3♥X, but you don't have game anywhere and hopefully with 26 hcp between you you'll be able to find 5 tricks.

The analagous SAYC auction would be...

1♣ 1♥ P 3♥

You wouldn't have X there be penalty, would you?

I agree, I can't imagine anything but double with the 4252 hand.

[csdenmark]

cherdano, on Feb 17 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

I agree, I can't imagine anything but double with the 4252 hand.

Hmm - it was 2-2-6-3 and 6 points. I hope you can pass or stay away from serious precision play.

[helene_t]

Claus, they were talking about opener's action over 3♥

[Cascade]

This would be one of the first things that I would discuss in a pick-up precision partnership.

As you mention the two common approaches are:

1. Bids remain GF and double shows any 5-7

2. Bids are limited and double shows any 8+

since these are pretty much opposites we need it sorted.

Your comment about Symmetric Relay seems wrong to me as double is usually the first step of the relay in an attempt to claw something back.

Personally when not playing relays I usually play double to be more standard takeout oriented and usually play bids are game-forcing.

However especially over pre-emptive interference I think there are some serious problems with this approach. I think we need to be able to bid a moderate hand with a decent suit as this is quite a common holding and has a reasonable chance of game opposite little more than a fit and any 16 hcp.

I think there is something to be said for:

Suit bids natural and limited

Double takeout style - with double and bid being forcing

Jumps to be forcing and distributional

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 18 2008, 05:49 AM, said:

We had this disaster yesterday in the partnership bidding:

1♣-(1♥)-x-(3♥)
4♠-a.p.

Opener had a 4252 20-count, responder a 2263 6-count with the diamonds not quite good enough for a 3♦ which would otherwise be appropriate for this shape and values.

Clearly my 4♠ bid was wrong. I suppose one could argue for either 4♦ or 4♥. Anyway, this nebulous double seems impractical to me. Wonder if a major-oriented negative double is any playable.

If double just shows values then over 3♥ you can double for takeout suggesting four spades.

[helene_t]

Yes that's right, I could double or bid 4♦ or 4♥, my choice of 4♠ was induced by a thought that p must have spades. I know that was a mistake, that's not the issue.

I defined responder's dbl as 5-7 (or some such) nebolous (except that a semipositive jump is available) since that was the clear majority in the poll. I'm not sure how opener is supposed to use that information, though.

What you (Cascade) describe, with t/o style dbls combined with either GF or limited freebids, seems a lot easier. (I suppose a more complex approach with different sorts of dbls and freebids depending on the level of interference would be technically better, but this system is supposed to be simple).

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Feb 17 2008, 11:35 PM, said:

Claus, they were talking about opener's action over 3♥

Oh sorry - I am commenting x after 1C-1H-X assuming meaning responder bid double.

Glad to hear I am wrong!

[Mbodell]

I think you have to evaluate both when you want to go constructive and when you want to penalize opponents. If you bid on non-game forcing hands then you are opting to not penalize opponents on hands where you might not even have a game your way. That seems to not be well structured given how often people like to invent overcalls of 1♣.

I think it is smarter to reverse pass/dbl and have pass show 5-7 or penalty double or some game forcing hands and have pass near force dbl from the 1♣ bidder. Then direct dbl can be 0-4 and direct suits can be game forcing (of the type not shown by p -> dbl -> suit).

But I think you definitely want to be able to explore and penalize overcalls especially if you are in the part socre or maybe game area and only let them off the hook most of the time when you are in the game and maybe slam or stronger area.