[straube]

I feel like IMPrecision should be getting more discussion here as it has pretty much "solved" how to continue a strong club...at least in my mind. Atul and I adopted it after it smashed what we were doing in the deals I ran some months ago. Has anyone else started to use it?

I'm going to be contrasting IMPrecision to other systems and particularly Moscito because Moscito uses the idea of semipositives and is the easiest comparison to make. I know a few of us play Moscito (we used to) and I don't mean to rub Richard or Frederick the wrong way. I'm happy to hear if they have any counterpoints to make.

When I first looked at IMPrecision, I didn't like that responder never initiates a GF at his first opportunity. How do we deal with RHO interference? Nowadays I feel I was really wrong about that. If I'm worried about RHO, I should be happy that I have at least some suit information most of the time.

What I like best about IMPrecision is that it manages to be +0 with symmetric relays for both GF and semipositive auctions most of the time. Contrast that with Moscito which is +1 for both or TOSR which is +0 for GF auctions but +2 for semipositive auctions. That one step makes a lot of difference to me. How is this accomplished? Well, after say 1C-1D, 2C opener hasn't the foggiest whether he'll be passed or whether responder will start a strong GF auction. I'd say that's how it gets +0 though I'm at a loss to explain it better than this. So it's not always +0, but I'd say 80% of the time it is.

I'm going to contrast to Moscito again as far as semipositives go. Moscito uses...

1C-1H as most of the hands that don't have 5M/4 or 6M. The difficulty with 1C-1H is that there is no specific suit information. Lots of things are tossed in. If I remember correctly, responder could have 5332 or 1237. IMPrecision meanwhile uses 1C-1H as all semipositives with 4+ spades. It's a modest and appropriate use of space. It's +0. Opener usually doesn't have a 4-fit but often does.

We played 1C-1S as DN for a couple of years. Most of the time we had a semi-comfortable 1N rebid, but it was aggravating that opener couldn't rebid 2m naturally to play. Now both SCREAM (our prior structure) and Moscito have this problem. In a way, standard Precision has a problem here, too, because 1C-1D (0-7), 2m is fairly high without responder having shown whether he had a semipositive or not. He has to show some life with 6-7.

Now with IMPrecision...1C-1D, 2m responder has either a good hand or a bad hand. The bad hand almost always passes. The good hand relays.

Again with IMPrecision...1C-1H, 2m responder has shown at least a 5-ct already and opener doesn't care that much. Responder knows he can't have a great hand and doesn't have to move again just to show some count. Now I forget how Moscito uses 1C-1H, 2m and it's possible that they are in the same place as IMPrecision but I doubt it; opener is pretty much the one who starts the description of his hand and a natural 2C bid is probably not best. With SCREAM we played 1C-1H as ALL of our semipositives (worse than Moscito then) and we found that 1C-1H, 2m was better assigned as NOT natural. We used 2C as stayman (limited) and 2D as hearts.

Contrasting again to Moscito, I love that so many of responder's semipositives are 1H and 1S. Both afford opener a comfortable 1N rebid. The responses above 1N are at +0 which is not only good for relays but better for avoiding them, too. Moscito's 1C-2C+ at +1 means to me that we are a little uncomfortably high when opener doesn't have a fit; being +1 means that opener has less room to relay break than at +0.

The one caveat I'll mention is that IMPrecision has a bit of a tougher time when responder has 7+ QPs (responds 1D) and opener has a hand with a minor that is capable of game forcing opposite a very weak hand. There's some jumping around to do here. But these auctions are infrequent. They almost always result in a small slam and the question is more about determining whether a grand is on or not.

In short, I'd recommend taking a look at IMPrecision and I'd love to see more threads on it.

[Cyberyeti]

What in your opinion is the best reference to use ?

[straube]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-29, 12:25, said:

What in your opinion is the best reference to use ?

Adam has published it here...

http://www.cs.ucla.e...IMprecision.pdf

[awm]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

My impression though is that most people who like playing really complicated systems prefer to design and play their own methods... regardless of the merits of some pre-existing system. I'd include Sam and myself.

There is a technical advantage in that it is easier to remember complex stuff you made up yourself (by reconstructing the reasoning) but I think it is mostly that tinkering is amusing.

[Free]

In MOSCITO we have one GF bid and several other ways to find a fit, based on multi-landy principle. This is the complete structure after 1♣-1♥:
1♠ = GF relay
1NT = quite balanced most of the time
2♣ = both Majors (5-4 or better)
2♦ = 6+M
2M = 5M, 4+m
2NT = 55+m
3m = (6)7+m
3M = 7+M
All 2-level bids give us the opportunity to signoff, invite or bid game quite easily.

After 1♣-1♠ it's very similar, but we include very strong hands in 2♣.

[Free]

The MOSCITO semi positives use the "quick in quick out" principle. Opener can quickly signoff (or pass), invite or bid game after 1♣-1NT/2X. As a result, we have some leftovers combined in 1♣-1♥: unbalanced without 5M or any balanced. When responder doesn't have a 5 card M (exception is 5M332) you'll usually end up in some NT contract unless opener has a Major of his own. They also focus on handling interference much better than the standard 1♣-1♦ start. Knowing about 1 or 2 suits + approximate strength helps a lot. And even after 1♣-1♥ responder can simply bid his Major when holding a 5332, or make a takeout double, or whatever.

Note though that the semi positives I'm describing here are the ones from Richard from more than a decade ago. Paul Marston (biggest ambasador of MOSCITO) has published several booklets over the years, and the semi positives changed every time. Perhaps there are newer and better structures available.

Not sure how I should interpret the responses over 1♣ in the document, strength isn't always clearly defined. And what's the difference between a super positive and a game force?

[straube]

Free, happy you have some interest.

Free, on 2013-July-30, 03:56, said:

In MOSCITO we have one GF bid and several other ways to find a fit, based on multi-landy principle. This is the complete structure after 1♣-1♥:
1♠ = GF relay
1NT = quite balanced most of the time
2♣ = both Majors (5-4 or better)
2♦ = 6+M
2M = 5M, 4+m
2NT = 55+m
3m = (6)7+m
3M = 7+M
All 2-level bids give us the opportunity to signoff, invite or bid game quite easily.

After 1♣-1♠ it's very similar, but we include very strong hands in 2♣.

Yes. That's what I remember. I know it's just my opinion, but I've played both systems and found that IMPrecision is just way ahead. After 1C-1H opener has nothing but points to go on. He can start a GF relay with a 1S rebid at +1. (This is a side point, but it SHOULD NOT be a GF relay. It should be an asking bid that could turn into a GF relay which is precisely what Adam does). So to get back...it can start a GF relay with a 1S rebid but this is at +1 compared to IMPrecision which would relay at +0. Aside from that, you can rebid 1N natural (pretty much the same as IMPrecision) or you can start to describe opener's hand. Note however that you have to describe all unbalanced patterns of opener's starting with 2C on up. With IMPrecision you don't have to do that because you have information about responder's hand already. You know he has at least 4 spades. So with Imprecision, opener can rebid 2m naturally and responder may pass or may relay opener's hand or may raise or may describe other features of his hand. Way far ahead. There's no need for opener to show both majors. No need for opener to show 5S/4m. Opener can temporize with 1S and support spades later (after hearing more about responder's hand). Opener may jump in spades immediately. So many options.

Free, on 2013-July-30, 05:04, said:

The MOSCITO semi positives use the "quick in quick out" principle. Opener can quickly signoff (or pass), invite or bid game after 1♣-1NT/2X. As a result, we have some leftovers combined in 1♣-1♥: unbalanced without 5M or any balanced. When responder doesn't have a 5 card M (exception is 5M332) you'll usually end up in some NT contract unless opener has a Major of his own. They also focus on handling interference much better than the standard 1♣-1♦ start. Knowing about 1 or 2 suits + approximate strength helps a lot. And even after 1♣-1♥ responder can simply bid his Major when holding a 5332, or make a takeout double, or whatever.

Note though that the semi positives I'm describing here are the ones from Richard from more than a decade ago. Paul Marston (biggest ambasador of MOSCITO) has published several booklets over the years, and the semi positives changed every time. Perhaps there are newer and better structures available.

Not sure how I should interpret the responses over 1♣ in the document, strength isn't always clearly defined. And what's the difference between a super positive and a game force?

Now I don't recall all of the semipositives and how they were ordered, but I know that the 2-level contained 5M/4m semipositives and I always had to ask....why are we showing 4m so high? If you take my meaning, it's the SPADES that we want to know about and knowing about the fifth spade is something, but the 4m is in a relative sense not that important. No, the semipositives are set up for relays but at +1. When you are +1 and you are not even sure that opener wants to relay, I think that is not as good as being +0. What I'm saying is that +0 leaves more room for opener to break off relays and describe his own hand.

We had a horrid time organizing Moscito semipositives. We didn't care for the way we originally learned them...which included 1C-2S as single-suited spades and was NF. Technically this could be KQJxxxx Kxx x xx and while a hand this good is rare we just cringed from playing 1C-2S as this. But however we tried, being +1 really hurt.

Look at Adam's structure for 1 and 2-level semipositives....

1N-5+ hearts but not 4 spades or 5 clubs
2C-single-suited (6+) clubs or 4D/5C but not 3-suited
2D-4+H, 5+C
2H-3-suited, short spades
2S-3-suited, short clubs

I mean, there are plenty of ways for opener to break away and describe his own hand. Certainly these bids take up space. For sure opener has less room to describe his hand. But he knows more and at a step lower than Moscito. The key is that more of responder's semipositives in IMPrecision are placed in 1H and 1S.

You were asking what the difference is between a superpositive and a GF. Basically a superpositive starts at 7 QPs. So the semipositives are 2-6 QPs except that a hand with 2 QPs has to have about 5 hcps. Eventually the QPs are shown in steps...2-3, 4, 5, 6 zooming.

The range of 2-6 is obviously wider than Moscito's 3-5. Let me point out that Moscito has the same "problem" that IMPrecision has...which is that 3-5 QPs includes hands that intend to force game. So allowance has to be made for both systems and responder should never be dropped short of game without announcing it first. IMPrecision would never go 1C-2C, Pass any more than Moscito should go 1C-2S, Pass (except maybe it does). Responder can have jacks or extra shape such that game should be bid.

OTOH, it is a wider range. I can only tell you that we first tried a range of 2-5 QPs and had our superpositive at 6 and we gave this up and went back to Adam's way. I've found 2-6 to not be the problem that I thought it might. With the hcp requirement, we're usually talking about hands that are 5-10 or 11 hcps...and that's just not that wide a range.

What I like about 7 QPs as a superpositive is that when we reverse relay (opener shows his hand), he is sometimes at +0 and sometimes at +1 and (in a sense) we recoup this occasional lost step by having a better hand. For example, Moscito can reverse relay and its GF responder starts at 6, right? So let's say both systems have opener show a 5431 at 3H (and remember that in IMPrecision we reverse relay at +0 a lot), then Moscito knows the QP total is 6+ what opener has (base 9?) while IMPrecision knows the QP total is 7+10.

I think the basic problem that Moscito has is its 1D response. We had a thread awhile back where I asserted that Moscito should adopt the balanced hand principle vs the limiting hand principle it currently espouses. 1C-1D, 1H I thought should be a balanced hand vs a stronger hand. But IMPrecision does something better with 1C-1D. It makes it 7+ QPs or DN. This means that 1C-1D, 2C and 1C-1D, 2D are not forcing. Moscito doesn't do this and (in a sense) has less branching here. Another example, 1C-1D, 1S in IMPrecision is forcing but 1C-1D, 1S-2L show DNs. How often does Moscito branch here? Doesn't it almost always go 1C-1D, 1S-1N? That's throwing a tremendous amount of sequences out the door.

[TylerE]

Free, on 2013-July-30, 05:04, said:

. And what's the difference between a super positive and a game force?

The intro defines a super-postive as GF values _and_ at least 7 relay points (A=3, K=2, Q=1).

[straube]

TylerE, on 2013-July-30, 09:11, said:

The intro defines a super-postive as GF values _and_ at least 10 relay points (A=3, K=2, Q=1).

If so, it is a misprint. Our definition is 7+ QPS and I believe Adam's definition is 7+ QPs or any hand that wants to be captain. The point for him is a bit moot because his super-positive does the asking and not the telling. What he wouldn't want to do is make a semi-positive/light GF hand with 7 or more QPs. Adam, please clarify if needed.

[awm]

Super positive is 7+QP. 10+QP is virtually a slam force opposite strong club!

We observed at some point that our balanced hand resolution is not great and usually balanced hand should ask not tell so stuck balanced GF in 1D as well. We can also bid 1D with GF freaks (8-card suit, 6-6 hand) that our relays do not accomodate. So it's not quite as clean as "7+ QP or DN" in 1D but still seems to work.

[TylerE]

My fault, brain fart.

[TylerE]

PS: I find the system intriguing and if anyone would be interested in playing it some that'd give me an excuse to actually learn it.

[chasetb]

TylerE, on 2013-July-30, 10:38, said:

PS: I find the system intriguing and if anyone would be interested in playing it some that'd give me an excuse to actually learn it.

I just printed it off today and am working on memorizing it, and I would be interested in playing it with you.

[perko90]

Adam,

I'm quite interested in your system. I love the concept of showing shape info on semi-positive responses to 1♣. Your structure is efficient and elegant. I intend to steal some ideas.
I have a few questions about your system:
1) There's no 2♦ opening description in section 7. I assume 2♦ is 11-15 HCP, 6+ diamonds or 5+ and a 4cM?
2) (34)15 shape hands don't match the description of the 1♦ or 2♣ opening bids. How does your system handle these?
3) Earlier in the text, it states that the 1♠ rebid after 1♣-1♦ can be made on balanced hands with 4 spades and too strong for a 1NT rebid, yet that bidding section says the 1♠ rebid is unbalanced only. Assuming the former is correct, after 1♣-1♦; 1♠-2♣ (negative w/ 0-2 spades and 3+ clubs), I assume opener with a balanced hand passes w/ 4 clubs and perhaps bids 2NT with all others? (2♦ and 2♥ would seem to imply unbalanced hands)

[awm]

The 2♦ opening shows 10+ to 15 hcp and 6+♦. Four card major is possible.

We open 1♦ with all 5m-(431) hands. Our 1♦ opening can almost be described as "11-15, no 5M, no 6m, not the right hand for 1NT opening" except that the rare 6/5 minors hands do open 1♦.

1♣-1♦-1♠ can be bid on hands with 4♠ too strong for 1NT rebid. This range is "at least a good 21" (i.e. hand that wants game opposite some 0-4 point hands). After 1♣-1♦-1♠-2♣ these hands typically rebid 2NT (which is like 21+ to 24) or 3NT. We find this sequence helpful because it removes some hands from 1♣-1♦-1♥ (allowing us to relay on both sequences when responder is strong) and because it allows us to find some 4-4 spade fits that we might otherwise miss and right-side some 4♠ contracts (where weak responder would have bid 1♠ double-negative over 1♥).

[mgoetze]

awm, on 2013-July-29, 22:00, said:

My impression though is that most people who like playing really complicated systems prefer to design and play their own methods... regardless of the merits of some pre-existing system. I'd include Sam and myself.

My impression is that the noncontested response structure to a strong 1♣ is one of the least relevant parts of any bidding system, and thus a "testimonial" praising this aspect of a system exclusively is, frankly, worthless.

[rbforster]

mgoetze, on 2013-August-17, 17:47, said:

My impression is that the noncontested response structure to a strong 1♣ is one of the least relevant parts of any bidding system, and thus a "testimonial" praising this aspect of a system exclusively is, frankly, worthless.

The point about IMPrecision is not its decent uncontested relay auctions, which are a dime a dozen in precision methods and TOSR is simpler by far. The point is that its got a decent way to combine the shape-first semi positive approach of Moscito's big club (for better handling of interference and non-GF auctions), with GF relay methods both after 1♣-1♦ and after semi positive responses when opener has sufficient extras.

[awm]

mgoetze, on 2013-August-17, 17:47, said:

My impression is that the noncontested response structure to a strong 1♣ is one of the least relevant parts of any bidding system, and thus a "testimonial" praising this aspect of a system exclusively is, frankly, worthless.

I agree that this is not the most important part of a system (although people spend surprisingly much time discussing it). Our structure does have some big advantages when fourth hand comes in (because we have shown a lot more shape information than regular precision on the very common semi-positive hands, while still being in roughly the same place on the also-common minimum GF hands).

There are other nice aspects to our methods as well; personally I think our 1♦ opening is a huge winner. By excluding the "long diamond suit hands" we are able to accomplish all of the following: 1. Have two ways to raise to 2M after 1♦-1M, which helps us stay low when game's not possible while also bidding marginal games when it's right. 2. Increase the odds that opener has a balanced hand, which means we can play transfers in competition (1♦-(1♠)-2♦ = hearts) to maximum effect. 3. The knowledge that opener is "one card from balanced" helps us a lot in high level competitive auctions. 4. Show exact shape when opener is unbalanced in a huge number of auctions.

Our 2♦ opener (natural with 6+ diamonds and intermediate) is also really effective, both as an annoying preempt and because it's pretty descriptive. We are much better placed after an auction like 2♦-(4M) than we would be if we'd opened a regular precision 1♦ or even a standard 1♦. We also sometimes shut opponents out completely when they have a "regular one-level overcall" and win the competitive auction that way (or if they bid 2M on their one-level overcalls, we are well-equipped to hammer them when they're wrong). I think our 1♦+2m openings are a huge improvement over other "precision" spin-offs' allocation of basically the same hands.

We also have some useful competitive agreements that seem non-mainstream, and what I think is a very good structure for 1NT responses.

[mgoetze]

Adam, I have no doubt that yours is an excellent system; the time spent away from this forum has not at all diminished my respect for you. But it has not increased my respect for straube's priorities either...

[straube]

mgoetze, on 2013-August-17, 19:34, said:

Adam, I have no doubt that yours is an excellent system; the time spent away from this forum has not at all diminished my respect for you. But it has not increased my respect for straube's priorities either...

I guess you have a point. Now I did talk about the contested auction such as here...

Quote

When I first looked at IMPrecision, I didn't like that responder never initiates a GF at his first opportunity. How do we deal with RHO interference? Nowadays I feel I was really wrong about that. If I'm worried about RHO, I should be happy that I have at least some suit information most of the time.

but I spent most of my time saying what I liked about the uncontested auction. I understand that you think I emphasized the wrong things, but we apparently agree that IMPrecision is an excellent system.