[1Wishbone1]

This Project has rapidly spun out of control.

http://www.bridgemat...ard-majors.html
http://www.bridgehou...source_/FCM.doc

Some guy named Hamman advocates 4 Card Majors as well.

1. So, I started a Critique of my favorite Precision - whichever one I'm reading about at the moment - and I began thinking about making allowances for Hearts and Spades, building a Metric around the leading role for Spades. If you follow Kantar here, a strong 4 card Heart open would be quite nice. As I began considering what happens after that, some other things fell into place.

2. The Precision 2 D Complex has always been an ongoing battle. I TAKE NO POSITION ON THIS. "The Precision 2 Diamond Opening: Threat or Menace?" just isn't going anywhere so don't get started. Arcane Sequences are everywhere and the Original Precision could be supplanted by 3-4-1-5, 4-3-1-5... Hand Patterns and you'd grit your teeth and learn them or grit your teeth and not. See your dentist for details. I do note three items: John Montgomery's Revision Precision finds at a particular point in the discussion that, for his Classification System, there are 18 Hand Types and 18 Bid Slots to hold them. Sontag and Weichsel had their Hand types mapped out to the level of, "We've never run across this Sequence before in a match but we still believe it is important to carry this sequence", or something like that.

In Precision Today, ISBN 978-09642584-5-7, p. 108:

"If you are comfortable opening 2 clubs on a 5 card suit [with a 4 card major], you can handle three of the four [2 Diamond] patterns with that bid but you will still be forced to open 1 Diamond on the singleton with 4-4-1-4 shape."

Note that if a limited 4 card Heart opener is allowed, the 4-4-1-4 problem disappears as well.

3. SO! We've got a 2 D bid that just opened up. What could replace it?

FLANNERY?

In a Major Centered System, Flannery seems to be a good fit. In a Precision System, it would seem to be just right.

4. The question is about "Systems". You can make almost any System "work" if you are willing to spend enough time on the "Patches" and "Sequences" (See: Precision vs. 2/1). I've read of an Acol variation that used 5 S - 4 H Sequences. The solution might be to find a "Friendly System" for you.

I began looking at a Precision that took into account "Spades over Hearts" in the same way as "Majors over Minors". Flannery may have as many Sequences to learn as "4-3-1-5, 3-4-1-5...".
Would a "Four H Club" be friendlier with something like Flannery?

CW

[The_Badger]

I played Precision for years (with a regular partner) including the Sontag/Weichsel version (for my sins - lots to remember biddingwise). And yes, that 2♦ opener has always been a low percentage use bugbear but...

...yesterday I was actually reading Precision Bidding for Everyone by Wei and Goren.

Shape matters, of course (of course!), but the authors seem to emphasise that immediately quantifying your partner's opening 1♦, 1♥, 1♠, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦ hand as a maximum 15 HCP count was (to some extents) why Precision was so named (and so more precise than Standard American or 2/1.)

I think you can tinker with Precision until the cows come home, but if it ain't broken don't fix it I say. I still like the original version (albeit with some small changes - Forcing Stayman replaced with Jacoby transfers, etc).

[spotlight7]

I played with John Montgomery for several decades including KS, 2/1 and Precision.


He showed me an improved method after 2D* that works very well.



I like the Precision 2D* opening so much that I sometimes use it while playing other systems.



I I have used a 2D* Flannery and a 2H*(Precision 2D* opening) at the same time.


Kantar changed to five card majors some year back.



Most good Precision players use 2C* as 6+ Cs now.


If you like 4 card majors. Sabine Auken uses 4 card majors and canapé in her 1C*=16+HCP system.

[shevek]

I clicked on the system. Here are some thughts.

You suggest 1♥-2♥ is "bad" because it shows an 8-card fit and limited values.
Okay but the precise nature of the opening gives responder extra options, largely unavailable to Standard bidders.
For instance, passing 1♥ on a featureless 8-count, when opponents are likely to misjudge their assets.
Also raising on a doubleton to the likely 5-2 fit on some hands, knowing that a limited opener won't get carried away.
Likewise, mixing heavy and light raises, forcing the opponents to guess.

Your big clubs seems to be 15-17 bal or 17+ unbal.
This is unusual. For most methods, the unbalanced hands can be the weaker ones because playing strength can compensate for a lack of court cards. Common these days is 14-16 NT, so 1♣ is 17+ bal or 16+ unbal.

If you "progress" to relay, you will find 5-card majors don't sit well with a strong club system.
That's why Blue Club & Moscito are steps up from Danielson's Precision.

[Zelandakh]

 shevek, on 2017-June-01, 23:31, said:

If you "progress" to relay, you will find 5-card majors don't sit well with a strong club system.
That's why Blue Club & Moscito are steps up from Danielson's Precision.

They don't? I guess that must be where I am going wrong with my system design then!

Back in the real world, Moscito uses transfer openings to accomodate 4 card majors. It turns out if you do the maths that a 5 card major 1♠ is already badly oversubscribed - a 4 card major 1♠ is good only with canapé or some other such mechanism for removing hand types unless you are setting your stall out for preemption. A 5 card major 1♥ is very slightly oversubscribed but reasonably close to the theoretically optimal level of hand patterns, particularly if you remove something (like 5332s).

In any case, the idea that 5 card majors do not fit to strong club systems is so bizarre to me that it requires some comment. The vast majority of strong and mixed club systems out there use 5 card majors and do so for very good reasons.

Finally, a 1♣ opening that is <some balanced range> or X+ unbalanced is not an uncommon set-up at all. The most popular such system is Swedish Club, where the balanced range is a weak NT. Switching that to 15-17 is certainly unusual but not really damaging and you get some minor efficiency gains when moving to "15+ balanced or X+ unbalanced" to compensate for the loss of protection against enemy preemption. It is a different way of setting up from Modern Precision but not inherently worse and not deserving of special criticism.

[Kungsgeten]

I like Glen's idea and find it sound. A big difference with Glen's system and Kantar's ideas is that Kantar suggests opening balanced minimum hands with 4 card majors with 1M, while Glen suggests that 1M should be unbalanced (so 4333, 4432 and 5332 are excluded). I haven't tried playing unbalanced majors, but it is something that I would like to do sometime. Not sure if I'd do it in a strong club context though, because of the relatively low frequencies of the major suit openings. A potential problem in Glen's structure is the 1H opening rebid, when you (probably) do not know if opener are 5-4 or 4-5 in clubs (but this could probably be solved with some form of Kaplan Inversion or similar).

Opening four card majors with minimum balanced hands is something I'm used to, since that is part of the Swedish standard system (4 card majors opened in order hearts -> clubs -> spades -> diamonds, and 15-17 NT which might include 5M332). We do not regard suit quality when opening though, making it a more aggressive system than Kantar suggests. I think wide range four card majors are a bit hard to handle, and if playing this style in a serious partnership I would probably want to remove the balanced 18-19 hands. Playing potentially balanced four card majors in a strong club system seems okay, especially hearts and in particular if you're using a Polish/Swedish Club (where 12-14 NT is included in 1C, but denies 4 hearts in this case). This way over a negative 1D response, you could have an articial 1H rebid and the 1S rebid would be 3+ spades weak/strong.

An alternate way could be inspired by the O'Carrot system (derived from Carrot Club) which uses the following:

1DHS = Unbal 4+ suit, including hands with longer clubs. 1M does not include 5M and 4+ clubs though.
2C = 6+ clubs.
2D = Multi.
2M = Roman, 5-card major and 4+ clubs.

I do think that Glen has a point though using 2D as 18-19 NT and 2NT as 20-21. On the other hand Moscito opens 1C with ALL 15+ hands...

[Zelandakh]

 Kungsgeten, on 2017-June-02, 02:00, said:

I like Glen's idea and find it sound. A big difference with Glen's system and Kantar's ideas is that Kantar suggests opening balanced minimum hands with 4 card majors with 1M, while Glen suggests that 1M should be unbalanced (so 4333, 4432 and 5332 are excluded). I haven't tried playing unbalanced majors, but it is something that I would like to do sometime. Not sure if I'd do it in a strong club context though, because of the relatively low frequencies of the major suit openings.

Do you have an issue the major suit frequencies of Swedish Club? The easy solution is to play a strong club but extend the range upwards slightly on the 1M openings. The most popular such structure is the one I use - 1♣ = "15+ ♣/bal or 18+ any" but the basic concept is available in a range of specific packages within the right system design.

[Kungsgeten]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-02, 05:45, said:

Do you have an issue the major suit frequencies of Swedish Club? The easy solution is to play a strong club but extend the range upwards slightly on the 1M openings. The most popular such structure is the one I use - 1♣ = "15+ ♣/bal or 18+ any" but the basic concept is available in a range of specific packages within the right system design.

We open 1M with 5M332 and 11-13(14), so our 1M openings aren't unbalanced. I would say we have a pretty conservative style of initial action and responses (at least in a "Precision" context), so the common argument of playing limited majors because of aggression isn't necessary true for us. I would say the benefit is in a constructive auction (making rebids easier when you don't have to worry about 17+ hands) and also in competetive auctions (where we do play an aggressive style).

I'm not sure if frequency should be an issue, I'm just thinking about potential gains for the bids. Having an unbalanced major, my guess would be that it is a bit easier to handle a wider range compared to standard american or K/S 5cM. Showing your suit right away is usually a good thing, but on the other hand so is limited openings. Swedish player Ulf Nilsson, who has played unbalanced majors for a long time (wrote an article about it in the Bridge World I believe), claims that he was suprised to see that the biggest upside to put 5M332 into another bid was to be able to show your hand type as balanced as quick as possible -- thus not the 1M opening bids themself (although they're good too).

Another idea I like is DavidC's blogposts about one- and two bid hands. He proceeds to suggest that the range for two-suiters could be wider than one-suiters, because two-suiters need two bids and if you open with a (potentially) strong club you might only get one bid if the opponents interfere. He suggests opening 1H with 11-19 if holding 5+H and 4+m, but 11-16 with 6+H. Regarding spades he suggests 11-16 in all cases, because you have the boss suit. Not sure if this is a wise way to design a system, but there's something to it.

I haven't heard of many Swedish/Polish structures where the weak 5M332 is included in 1C, but I think it might work (although it will probably be hard to show your fifth major unless you're in a constructive GF auction). I think something along the following lines would be fine:

1C = a) 12-14 NT, including all 5332 and also 4-4-1-4. b) 16+ unbal with clubs. c) 18+ bal with 5M. d) (16)17+ with 6+M or 5-4 majors e) Unbal "Acol strength" (about 19-21) with 5M f) 20+ NT / 4441 g) Any GF
1D = 4+D unbal, 11-21. Longer clubs possible if 11-15.
1M = 11-15(16) unbal with 5+M or 16-19 with 5M and 4+m.
1NT = 15-17
2C = 6+C or 5C and 4M, (11)12-15 (doesn't open light with clubs)
2D = 18-19 NT, no 5cM. Might be 4-4-1-4.
2M = Weak
2NT = Some sort of preempt I guess, or perhaps 20-21 NT if you like that, or maybe some constructive hand with clubs. Another idea is 18-19 NT with 5M.

So this is basically what I play, but with unbalanced majors and the range of the majors expanded a bit The thing I like most about Swedish Club is that the weak NT gets its own spot, and pulling some of the strong hands out of 1C makes it even more so.

[1Wishbone1]

Thanx, everyone. Keep the comments coming.

1.I would like to bring things back to the OP idea (I'll even Block the problem in a different manner): Precision looks to Classify hands by "5 Card Majors", "Strong One Club Opening", "Limited Bids" etc. When you follow the Classification System to the end, you are left with a few "Other Hand Types" that fall outside the Scheme. This becomes a "Feature", not a "Bug". With a bid such as "2D", you access a Set of Sequences that return a quite specific description of the problem hand. OK. We all know this.

2. This isn't a matter of "Tinkering". The modern advocacy of the 2C Bid as limited to 6+ Clubs is Systemic for many. Others are not convinced. Remember the quote above from Berkowitz and Manley: If you are OK with 5 Clubs - 4 of a Major, the 2D opening becomes a matter for 4-4-1-4 Responses, a simplified Return on Investment.

3. Within the Scoring System, the Majors are separated from the Minors and the Minors have had separate Treatments (Clubs vs Diamonds) for a long, long time. Would there be advantages to treating Spades and Hearts differently in Precision? One solution would be to have limited use of 4 Card Heart suits as Direct Bids. Kantar wants a Strong 4 Heart opening and, if allowed in a Precision Classification Scheme (Not every 4 Card Heart Suit would apply), would end the necessity of the 2D "Special Bid".

It could be replaced with a 2D Flannery Bid and that would appear to be a Perfect Fit in such a System.

Asymmetric Majors might be a Good Thing. All I was trying to do was examine an Opening I saw.

4. BTW, I'm not Glen. The link in the first Post was to a very fine article on this idea. Very predictably, I disagree with his Mappings. If there is a weakness at the 16 - 18 HCP 1 Club Opening, then maybe pairing a Strong NT with 1 Club would solve the problem. Balanced Hands would open 1 NT, hands with Singletons would Bid 1 Club. Just a thought.

5. Finally, Attn: Spotlight7: Tell me about Montgomery. His Revision Precision intrigues me, therefore he intrigues me.

Thanx, all,

CW

[Zelandakh]

To compensate for not including 5332s in the 1M openings, I would extend the maximum up to 17 and open slightly lighter, around Rule of 19. The lower end and limited nature is made somewhat safer by the unbalanced opening as you are more able to stop low in a seven card fit and get away with it. You are obviously also well placed to jam the auction more effectively too if the fit is better. Because of the stopping low benefit, I would be reluctant to include the 18-19 point hand types in your suggested base. I think those will do better within the 1♣ opening, regardless of whether it is mixed (Swedish) or strong.

As you probably remember, I switched over to treating 5M(332) hands as balanced in all ranges in my system some time ago and I am firmly of the opinion that this is an overall winner. It did admittedly feel unnatural to start with but after a while it becomes second nature. With such methods as 2♣ Puppet Stayman and special relay breaks for some of these 5M(332) hands, it is not uncommon for these hands to become particularly simple to bid. I have not played the method with a more typical (2NT or 3♣ Puppet) structure so cannot vouch for the differences that might bring shold you opt for that instead.

[Zelandakh]

 1Wishbone1, on 2017-June-02, 10:22, said:

1.I would like to bring things back to the OP idea (I'll even Block the problem in a different manner): Precision looks to Classify hands by "5 Card Majors", "Strong One Club Opening", "Limited Bids" etc. When you follow the Classification System to the end, you are left with a few "Other Hand Types" that fall outside the Scheme. This becomes a "Feature", not a "Bug". With a bid such as "2D", you access a Set of Sequences that return a quite specific description of the problem hand. OK. We all know this.

I would argue that 1♦ isreally the bucket bid in Modern Precision defined more by what it does not show than what it does. 2♦ (or 2♥) showing 4415 minus a card is a fairly precise meaning!

 1Wishbone1, on 2017-June-02, 10:22, said:

2. This isn't a matter of "Tinkering". The modern advocacy of the 2C Bid as limited to 6+ Clubs is Systemic for many. Others are not convinced. Remember the quote above from Berkowitz and Manley: If you are OK with 5 Clubs - 4 of a Major, the 2D opening becomes a matter for 4-4-1-4 Responses, a simplified Return on Investment.

My view of this is a little different from most BBFers. I think the traditional 2♣ opening is a loser but can be acceptable providing the hcp range is kept below 5 and you are getting enough compensation elsewhere in the system. You will notice, for example, that Kungsgeten keeps his range to 4(5) hcp, so I would surmise from this that his experience is similar. The 6+ club opening is obviously much better of itself but you have to be careful that you do not have to make too many compromises elsewhere to accomodate it. In this respect I do not think the same approach is necessarily ideal for every system design, even though the 2♣ part might at first glance seem identical taken in isolation.

 1Wishbone1, on 2017-June-02, 10:22, said:

3. Within the Scoring System, the Majors are separated from the Minors and the Minors have had separate Treatments (Clubs vs Diamonds) for a long, long time. Would there be advantages to treating Spades and Hearts differently in Precision? One solution would be to have limited use of 4 Card Heart suits as Direct Bids. Kantar wants a Strong 4 Heart opening and, if allowed in a Precision Classification Scheme (Not every 4 Card Heart Suit would apply), would end the necessity of the 2D "Special Bid".

It could be replaced with a 2D Flannery Bid and that would appear to be a Perfect Fit in such a System.

Asymmetric Majors might be a Good Thing. All I was trying to do was examine an Opening I saw.

There clearly are potential advantages to treating majors differently. There is some good analysis available suggesting that opening 5♥(332) hands 1NT is considerably more successful than 5♠(332) ones. I would need to take a little more time than I currently have to think about the specific ideas you have in mind, probably some more information too. Just to mention in passing though that H+H play a 5♠4♥ (natural) system, so the idea of doing this (sometimes referred to as Swiss Acol) is not exactly unknown to theory.

[steve2005]

If the big improvement is to replace Precision 2♦with Flannery, I'm not getting too excited.
A strong club with canapé 4-card majors could be a bid improvement if you can handle this style.

[1Wishbone1]

 steve2005, on 2017-June-02, 13:21, said:

If the big improvement is to replace Precision 2♦with Flannery, I'm not getting too excited.

I understand completely. I'm just looking at filling in a few holes. "Five Card Majors" f'rinstance. "You can bid 5 Card Majors or 4 Card Majors". Oh, RILLY? Might there be an advantage to recognizing Spade Priority over Hearts? How would that work? Would playing "5 Card Spade, Four Card Heart" help you get better scores and win more? That's all I'm considering here right now.

Quote

A strong club with canapé 4-card majors could be a bid improvement if you can handle this style.

I'm still trying to find info on the Orange Club which Hamman and Wolff (et al) played which meets your description exactly. Has Bob sent you his notes on it yet?

Thanx,

CW

[1Wishbone1]

Zelandakh said:

I would argue that 1 ♦ is really the bucket bid in Modern Precision defined more by what it does not show than what it does.

Agreed. One way of looking at it is to think of 1 C as the unlimited version of 1 D - These Bids become two containers of potential. People sneer at Rodwell's commment on the "Nebulous Diamond" but I don't...

Quote

2♦ (or 2♥) showing 4415 minus a card is a fairly precise meaning!

Yup!

Quote

There clearly are potential advantages to treating majors differently. There is some good analysis available suggesting that opening 5♥(332) hands 1NT is considerably more successful than 5♠(332) ones. I would need to take a little more time than I currently have to think about the specific ideas you have in mind, probably some more information too. Just to mention in passing though that H+H play a 5♠4♥ (natural) system, so the idea of doing this (sometimes referred to as Swiss Acol) is not exactly unknown to theory.

It's very interesting (Logical) Stuff!

You ask for more info. Without going nuts, I'll give you an Outline:

1 NT: 16 - 18 HCPS, Balanced.
1 Club: 16+ HCPS, Unbalanced. There appears in the Literature an uneasiness gathered through the years about the "Bare" 1 Club Opening. If 1 Club is bid at the 16 - 18 HCP level, having a Singleton or Void helps. You might Bid 1 Club with an "A x" on one Hand and consider it for NT next hand. Tying the Strong Club with a Strong NT complements. (BTW, if it's 15 - 17 or whatever, that's OK.) 'N obviously, if you have 19+ HCPS, open 1 Club - A big hammer takes care of a lot of nails.

1 Spade: 11 - 15 HCPs, 5 Spades. Standard of the industry. No changes.

1 Heart: 11 - 15 HCPS, EXPECTS 5 Hearts but may be 4. Here is where it gets interesting. You can Open a 4 Card Heart suit as is with a Strong Heart Suit (Kantar). Opening a 4 Card Heart suit takes pressure off of the 1 D Precision Open and eliminates the need for the 2 D Precision Complex. ***Again, millions of happy Precisioneers love the 2 D Bid and any of the Sequences that fit their partnership style. I have no argument here.*** The advantage to changing is the opportunity - with something like the 2 D Flannery - to be able to bid certain Major combinations that have given problems in the past. The Probabilities between Precision 2 D and Flannery are about the same. There may be more biddable Major combinations with a Flannery type Bid. Mebbe not.

1 D: Lots more here. Later.

2 Clubs: I'm OK with the 5 clubs-4 Major Rubric. The point of all of this is getting A job done in different manners. The 5 C / 4 M fits the 4 Card Heart idea nicely since it allows one of the legs of the 2 D bid to be taken by the 5-4 2 Club Bid - Or even a "1 Heart---2 Club" combination.

2 Diamonds:Flannery. Or something else. You pick'em.

2 Hearts/Spades: I'll end here. I've been looking at extended Weak 2s. ACBL states that the Point spread should be no more than 7. Howz'about 8 - 13/14. People are opening 5 card Majors as "Weak 2" Bids these days. Why not have more points to your 6 suit? All it would take would be another, different Set of Sequences to learn over 2 NT, right?

Never mind.

Anyway, thanx!

CW

[Zelandakh]

 1Wishbone1, on 2017-June-02, 14:51, said:

1 Heart: 11 - 15 HCPS, EXPECTS 5 Hearts but may be 4. Here is where it gets interesting. You can Open a 4 Card Heart suit as is with a Strong Heart Suit (Kantar). Opening a 4 Card Heart suit takes pressure off of the 1 D Precision Open and eliminates the need for the 2 D Precision Complex.

This I am perhaps misunderstanding. If you are only opening with a good 4 hearts and removing the 2♦ opening, you become somewhat stuck with a hand like: ♠AKxx ♥xxxx ♦x ♣AQxx.

 1Wishbone1, on 2017-June-02, 14:51, said:

2 Hearts/Spades: I'll end here. I've been looking at extended Weak 2s. ACBL states that the Point spread should be no more than 7. Howz'about 8 - 13/14.

8-14 strikes me as a very strange range to choose. If you were to have 9-15 then it would remove a complete hand type from the 1M opening, which might allow for an improved rebid structure. Or 5-12 would take out a few hands without missing out on any of the more traditional weak two hands. 8-14 seems to me to offer the worst of both worlds, both losing some benefits of normal weak twos but without any significant knock-on benefits to the 2M structure. The idea of stronger weak twos works best in combination with a mini multi to take out the "trash" weak two hands. But combinging this concept with Flannery? Put me down as unconvinced.

[1Wishbone1]

Zelandakh said:

This I am perhaps misunderstanding. If you are only opening with a good 4 hearts and removing the 2♦ opening, you become somewhat stuck with a hand like: ♠AKxx ♥xxxx ♦x ♣AQxx.

No misunderstanding. That's what would happen from time to time. Opening a strong Kantar 4 card Heart excludes opening with 4 small Hearts. Sometimes, however, you might have to open a 4-4-1-4 with weak Hearts. See below.

Quote

8-14 strikes me as a very strange range to choose. If you were to have 9-15 then it would remove a complete hand type from the 1M opening, which might allow for an improved rebid structure. Or 5-12 would take out a few hands without missing out on any of the more traditional weak two hands. 8-14 seems to me to offer the worst of both worlds, both losing some benefits of normal weak twos but without any significant knock-on benefits to the 2M structure. The idea of stronger weak twos works best in combination with a mini multi to take out the "trash" weak two hands.

You may be correct. I dunno. "What's the best range for opening 1 NT?" I dunno. All I know is that I mapped out a larger Range for the Weak 2 that impinged on opening Bids of 11+ and almost everytime I examined the Hands, it seemed to work out just Ducky. I used a 2 NT forcing to put the Captaincy with Responder. Hands that opened @ 11 - 13 HCPs/6 of a Major gave a positive result quite often. It was fun and appeared to give an advantage: "Partner, I've got 6 good Spades and around 12-ish points. Wha'chu gonna do 'bout it?". If the division is 8 - 10. 11 - 13/14, then the 15 point "Weak-2" might be opened 1 Club.

Quote

But combinging this concept with Flannery? Put me down as unconvinced.

'N that's just fine. I appreciate your input. I came into this Project looking at seeing if an advantage would accrue if the Majors were ordered around Spades above Hearts. To go all Hegelian about it, "One way of looking at it..." would be to allow Spades to be opened with guaranteed 5 and Hearts to be opened with 4 in a limited number of cases. I wanted to see if it would work in Precision because I LIKE Precision. Maybe it doesn't work in Precision being built around 5 Spades, 4 Hearts. Maybe there are other Sequences that would get the job done. I don't know Swedish Acol and the Orange Club is a Private Bidding Language - Ludwig Wittgenstein, call your office...

One thing leads to another. If a 4 Card Heart Bid is allowed, maybe something else changes. Maybe the Tried 'n True 2 D Complex isn't needed. Mebbe try Flannery. OK. You're not convinced.

That's fine.
I thank you.

Charles

[straube]

I like IMprecision's use of 2D to show an intermediate hand with six+ diamonds. The opening 2C shows 6+ clubs.

Assuming you use 1M-2C as a GF relay of opener's 5-cd majors and 1D-1H as a combined natural or GF relay of the nebulous opening, you

can comfortably relay every opening excepting that 2D opening.

A natural 2D opening handles many more hand patterns than the Precision opening. It's also more LAW abiding.

[Cyberyeti]

We play a very natural precision style strong club, 12-15 NT, 4 card diamond, and open 1N with precisely 4414

[1Wishbone1]

Cyberyeti said:

We play a very natural precision style strong club, 12-15 NT, 4 card diamond, and open 1N with precisely 4414

1. This is very close to Original Wei. How are your Clubs handled? I assume your Program is successful...

2. It appears that the 1 NT opening is being modified in several ways by various Partnerships. Does this handle the Precision oddities?

Thanx,

CW

[PrecisionL]

I have played a scheme similar to Auken's Strong Club and it was my favorite Strong Club version.

Now playing with 3 partners, a combination of Nightmare and Fantunes:

1♣ = 15+ hcp: (a) Balanced, 80%, or (b) Clubs Primary with or without a side 4-cd suit, 15%, or {c} Very Strong, 4-losers or less, 5%.

1♦ = 4+♦ & 10-14 & possible canape, or 15-19 hcp

1♥ or 1♠: 4+ cards, unbalanced, possible canape, 10-14 hcp, or 15-17 with 5-cds

1NT = 11-14 hcp

2♣ = 6+♣ & 10-14 hcp

2♦ = 6♦ or 5♦ & 4♣, 10-14 hcp

2♥/2♠ = 10-14 with good 5-cd suit, or not so good 6-cd suit

2NT = Unusual for the minors, 5-5 & 8-12 hcp