[bob100147]

We have been thinking about incorporating 2/1 game force (after opening a major suit) in our Precision system. Any thoughts on this? I don't see anything about this in any of the Precision books. Has anything been written about this?

[effervesce]

You can pretty much use a standard 2/1 framework in precision - the 2/1 method I use is 2/1 spectrum from

Overview
http://www.firesides.net/spectrm1.htm
NT and minor suit bidding (not really needed if you're playing precision)
http://www.firesides.net/spectrm2.htm
Forcing NT response
http://www.firesides.net/spectrm3.htm
2/1 GF response
http://www.firesides.net/spectrm4.htm
Summary
http://www.firesides.net/spectrum.htm

I like their structure as it fits very well (in my opinion) into a precision setting (as compared to other 2/1 styles). The links given are useful in that it also points out discussion points that you may want to talk about with partner - for example, the advantages/disadvantages of using 1M-2NT as perhaps a balanced GF, to make 2/1 bids 5+ suits, the use of bergen raises in a 2/1 context or invitational jump shifts, the impact of your NT range on your major suit opening, slow/fast arrival, constructive raises.

[helene_t]

I do that in some partnerships because I find it easier. If 2/1 is not GF there are tons of follow-ups after a 2/1 which may or may not be forcing.

But technically I don't think it's the best treatment. 2/1 GF works best with a sound opening style, but Precision is more suited for a light opening style.

[Gerben42]

2/1 GF and Precision seem to me to be like fire and water. Here's why:

In Precision, opener's strength is well defined (15 HCP maximum). Doing so, you can take liberties in what is an opening hand and open for example:

---

To play 2/1 GF, you will force to game (or almost force to game) on all hands that are worth a response of a new suit on the 2-level. For this you need a rather solid opening style, or you will get too high quite a lot. Opening the hand above in 2/1 would be asking for trouble.

If you are playing a natural style Precision, my preferred style for the 2-over-1 bids are Acol-ish: Light 2-over-1 bids with many nonforcing auctions. Opener can show a maximum if he can, and otherwise responder is more in control.

[kenrexford]

I'm not commenting one way or the other as to what makes the most sense playing precision, although I have used both 2/1 normal and 2/1 GF when playing precision.

That said, some of the arguments against 2/1 GF in a precision context don't seem to make a lot of sense, at least as articulated. If a precision opening might be LIA, like a 10-count (which is not all that different from the 11-counts I open playing 2/1 GF anyway), then you simply make a 2/1 bid show a little more. What's the issue?

If the issue is expanding the range of the 1NT bid, then stop responding with senseless 5-counts if partner is limited. That solves that problem.

I actually found that 2/1 GF worked a lot better with precision, because there was no problem with high reverses. Opener's range is tighter, such that we can focus on pattern better. We don't end up, when playing precisioon, with a 1♠-2♥-3♣ sequence where Opener could have 10 to 22 HCP and everyone is scratching their head. That may be a tad of an overstatement, but the principle is still there.

The other reality is that the forcing 1NT sequences are easier when Opener is known to be limited.

So, I don't really get this idea that 2/1 GF and precision are like fire and water.

[cherdano]

Lol, just noticed your new member name Ken, congratulations!

I also agree with you fwiw - which isn't much, as I have never played precision. I am sure Meckwell would appreciate Gerben's advice, though.

[awm]

In the US anyway, my experience is that most precision players use 2/1 GF style responses to their major suit openings.

This is not really an argument that 2/1 GF responses are "better" since I think there is a substantial bias based on familiarity (and regulation against relay-based methods) in the US field, but saying that the two methods don't work together at all is extreme.

It does depend on exactly how light you plan to open. It's true that 2/1 GF was initially conceived as a fairly sound opening system. The main argument for 2/1 GF is a frequency argument -- hands with game forcing values opposite an opening bid are more common than the invitational hands, so by playing 2/1 as game forcing you get a substantial advantage on the more frequent hand type in exchange for a loss on the less frequent type. These frequency arguments may not apply any more if you plan to open on real garbage -- the invitational range gets wider and wider and the GF range starts higher and higher, and at some point it will be the case that "standard" 2/1 bids become the winner.

But just because you play precision doesn't mean you open on garbage. Precision was initially a fairly sound opening system too. Just because you open some 11s doesn't make 2/1 GF unplayable. It's probably only when you get to the point that you open almost all 10s and a few 9s that 2/1 GF starts to look rather silly.

[WrecksVee]

Hello Bob,

I am in the camp who feel 2/1 is workable with Precision.

Bob is a regular teammate and was kind enough to share his system notes. This was a question I was going to ask. I suggest looking at Washington Standard, Hardy, BWS, Mike Lawrence, et al. All such works can be a source of ideas.

One question to resolve is whether 2/1 is 100% GF or if the rebid of the 2/1 suit can be passed, say after 1M-2X-2M-3X. Personally I favor the 100% GF approach with three level jump shifts over 1M as natural invitational bids. This is the approach suggested in Washington Standard.

I suspect that 1♦-2♣ might remain "standard" as it seems a better fit IMO. But it could be played as GF to be consistent. I feel 1♦-2♥/♠ are best as strong jumpshifts and 1♦-3♣ would be natural and invitational.

BTW while I like the Washington Standard approach, I do not get to use it in my most practiced partnership as my partner does not care for it. So whatever you decide needs to take partnership harmony into account.

Comments above re the advantage Precision limited openers have using 2/1 seems correct to me. You can bid shape with less worry about limiting the hand since your one bids are already limited. I feel that would work well. Standard 2/1 folks can not know what to do with doubleton ♠ and a reasonable 13 HCP that they make a 2/1 on over 1♠. But in Precision after 1♠-2♣-2♠ (showing 6+ cards) a jump to 4♠ placing the contract is reasonable. Standard bidders using 2M rebid as both a limit call and also to show much stronger hands without a convenient rebid only promise 5 cards here, so the knowledge of an eight card ♠ fit is not yet known.

Rex aka WrecksVee

[Gerben42]

Quote

This is not really an argument that 2/1 GF responses are "better" since I think there is a substantial bias based on familiarity (and regulation against relay-based methods) in the US field, but saying that the two methods don't work together at all is extreme.

That's not my point of view, it's just that the two philosophies are opposite. Somehow Meckwell make it work, it seems. I haven't looked at a large number of their hands to see how they handle misfitting 2/1 sequences. My guess is that they play 3NT and hope, but I go down in many 3NTs they make, and in a normal field I don't want to be in too many 3Ns that the others won't bid anyway and go down.

For me "Precision" is not the solid thing as it was designed either. My openings in Precision are:

1♣ 15+ or 16+ balanced
Rest 10-14, opening almost any rule-of-19 hand.

Shift 2 HCP in 3rd and 4th seat.

That is not very suited for 2-over-1 GF, hence my comments.

[bob100147]

WrecksVee, on Jul 12 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

Hello Bob,

I am in the camp who feel 2/1 is workable with Precision. 

Bob is a regular teammate and was kind enough to share his system notes.  This was a question I was going to ask.  I suggest looking at Washington Standard, Hardy, BWS, Mike Lawrence, et al.  All such works can be a source of ideas.

One question to resolve is whether 2/1 is 100% GF or if the rebid of the 2/1 suit can be passed, say after 1M-2X-2M-3X.  Personally I favor the 100% GF approach with three level jump shifts over 1M as natural invitational bids.  This is the approach suggested in Washington Standard. 

I suspect that 1♦-2♣ might remain "standard" as it seems a better fit IMO.  But it could be played as GF to be consistent.  I feel 1♦-2♥/♠ are best as strong jumpshifts and 1♦-3♣ would be natural and invitational.

BTW while I like the Washington Standard approach, I do not get to use it in my most practiced partnership as my partner does not care for it.  So whatever you decide needs to take partnership harmony into account.

Comments above re the advantage Precision limited openers have using 2/1 seems correct to me.  You can bid shape with less worry about limiting the hand since your one bids are already limited.  I feel that would work well.  Standard 2/1 folks can not know what to do with doubleton ♠ and a reasonable 13 HCP that they make a 2/1 on over 1♠.  But in Precision after 1♠-2♣-2♠ (showing 6+ cards) a jump to 4♠ placing the contract is reasonable.  Standard bidders using 2M rebid as both a limit call and also to show much stronger hands without a convenient rebid only promise 5 cards here, so the knowledge of an eight card ♠ fit is not yet known.

Rex aka WrecksVee

Rex,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. We are still undecided. It is true that we open a lot of hands that other people wouldn't (Precision does make opening light very easy). 2/1 would force us to respond 1NT often. But our system has led to some misadventures (including a slam we missed at the regionals).

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Jul 13 2008, 01:50 AM, said:

Having played a version of Meckwell's system for several years I can say that getting to the right partscore seems to be a low priority for them. You almost always get to a playable partscore, but often an inferior one. A lot of their system is based on being able to place the (game) contract as early as possible, giving away as little information as possible, while still having excellent tools and a lot of room available if you want to investigate slam. To me this is a winning style, and something missing in most systems.

If you mostly play IMPs, I strongly agree. If you play more MP-events, your priorities will differ by a lot.

[rbforster]

I play a light opening precision style system and we use 2/1 GF. 1M openings are rule of 18 - all 10 counts, the 9's with distribution, the 8's with lots of distribution. I have found that playing 2/1 GF has worked pretty well and better than anything else I've tried. Here are my observations having played this style for a few years now -

1. When you open light, adjust your GF response to be a little stronger. This is most true when you may have a misfit. Our rule of 18 openers are supposed to be "worth 10 points" after counting distribution, and we make a non-fitting 2/1 bid with 14+. Yes, you'll get to a few misfit 3N contracts on 23 highs and go down, but the opponents can rarely double and you'll find some 26 point slams too.

2. With a fit, make sure you upgrade your hand, roughly making a 2/1 GF (or other fit-showing raise) about 1 point lighter than you would otherwise.

3. Bergen raises or equivalent are very good in a light opening framework since you will often preempt/steal the contract when the opponents' points are divided. Consider using some of your direct jumps for this (3♣♦).

4. Regarding forcing NT, use this pretty much as usual, including responding with light hands if you want. A few observations however -

-- by opener, jump bids show lots of distribution and a pretty good hand, but are non-forcing. Typically a 13-15 count with 6/5 shape would jump in their second suit, and a similar hand with a 7 card major and shortness would jump in their major. I like to keep these standards pretty strict in terms of showing lots of shape, as this protects against getting too high when responder has a weak hand (that will pass or preference).

-- similarly with jump shifts, I play reverses by opener after 1N are non-forcing and distributional. 1♥-1N-2♠ (or 1♦-1♠-2♥) would typically show a good 6/5.

-- I play all suit bids at the 3 level rebids after 1NT forcing as invitational by responder. It's not that important to have special 3 level signoffs (i.e. 1♠-1N-2♦♥♠-3♣ and the like) since if you're broke as responder (KJTxxxx and out) and just pass the opponents, with the majority of the points, almost certainly balance (and you can run later it they try to double 1M).

-- If you have a marginal GF as responder, feel free to bid 1NT forcing and await further developments. You can't go back after you make a 2/1 GF, but you if you start with 1N you can always bid 3N later if things look good (or 2N if they don't).

I think a 2/1 "Standard" style or even a 2/1 Non-Forcing style could work in a precision framework, but both of these will require a lot more agreements about followup auctions to make them decently playable. 2/1 GF works "out of the box" just fine for precision if you just play it the same way you play it over standard openings (adjusted for what counts as GF strength of course) - it's simple and easy and most people know it.

[cwiggins]

If you decide to go with 2/1 GF, then you have another question: the style of 2/1.

Style 1: Mike Lawrence's 2/1 style uses 2M as the catchall bid.

Style 2: Rodwell-Meckstroth and Bergen use 2NT as the catchall so that M shows 6+ long.

Style 3: Hardy limits 2M to a minimum hand.

I don't see anyone using the Hardy style these days. While Styles 1 and 2 can be played in either forcing or natural club systems, in my area: the standard bidders all use Style 1 while the few big club pairs use Style 2.

[kenrexford]

cwiggins, on Jul 13 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

If you decide to go with 2/1 GF, then you have another question: the style of 2/1.

Style 1: Mike Lawrence's 2/1 style uses 2M as the catchall bid. 

Style 2: Rodwell-Meckstroth and Bergen use 2NT as the catchall so that M shows 6+ long. 

Style 3: Hardy limits 2M to a minimum hand.

I don't see anyone using the Hardy style these days.  While Styles 1 and 2 can be played in either forcing or natural club systems, in my area: the standard bidders all use Style 1 while the few big club pairs use Style 2.

Style 2 for me. Not sure how precision would impact this, though. Actually, modified stayle 2 (2♦ instead if partner bids 2♣ can be catch-all).

[Mbodell]

If you can play a relay or relayish style I've enjoyed it where you have 1 GF bid and then all other bids are some form of NFConst except perhaps artificial raises (bergan, drury, etc.). Then partner can very quickly decide to pass, correct to major, force to the 3+ level.

That said, 2/1 GF doesn't seem that unplayable, especially since partner of a (8+)10-15 opener should be stronger anyways then the partner of a (10+)12-22 opener.