[andych]

In MP Precision by CC Wei & Ron Anderson, 1♣=16+, 1NT=13-15.
They propose not to open 1NT with 4 card major. How do you feel like the idea?

[whereagles]

andych, on Apr 25 2006, 04:02 PM, said:

In MP Precision by CC Wei & Ron Anderson, 1♣=16+, 1NT=13-15.
They propose not to open 1NT with 4 card major. How do you feel like the idea?

Terrible idea, a step in the wrong direction.

The 1NT opening is the only opening which can still take a beating. Stuff should be dumped into the 1NT opening, not taken out of it.

[Gerben42]

I agree. Now if you were playing 4-card majors with your strong Club there is more upside to all this.

[pigpenz]

god that is so long ago
I do remember that their 2♣ opening denied a four card major, I do remember that Anderson and Hugh Mclean when I played against them in the 70's did not play matchpoint preciscion....so there had to be a reason.

[Flame]

If i take out the majors i would increse the range. 11-15 or something like that could work imo.

[pbleighton]

"If i take out the majors i would increse the range. 11-15 or something like that could work imo"

Then 1D promises a 4 card major and denies a 5 card major, 2m = 6+, or 5-4ms, and denies a 4 card major, and you have Matchpoint Precision (or something like it).

Peter

[glen]

Playing this we used to cringe everytime the 1♦ opener came up, which was lots and lots of cringing.

[luke warm]

i don't like it at all, believing as i do that if it looks like a nt, walks like a nt, and quacks like a nt then it's probably a nt

[cwiggins]

pbleighton, on Apr 25 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

"If i take out the majors i would increse the range. 11-15 or something like that could work imo"

Then 1D promises a 4 card major and denies a 5 card major, 2m = 6+, or 5-4ms, and denies a 4 card major, and you have Matchpoint Precision (or something like it).

Peter

Yes, it is something close but not exactly "Matchpoint Precision." A Matchpoint Precision 1D was "natural" but included all balanced hands with a 4CM. 2C was 6+ clubs without a 4CM, and 2D was a standard Precision 2D opener.

We have a couple of pairs around here who play the style you describe (i.e. 1D promises a 4CM, 1NT is a balanced 12-15 without one, etc.) and have so for years. They are moderately successful, probably more successful than their skill level would suggest.

If you decide to play 1D as promising a 4CM, you might want to search the web for the Diamond Major. It's 1D opening promises a 4CM with a range of 11-19 HCP. There are some interesting ideas that can be adapted.

When I played Matchpoint Precision (10+ years ago), my partner and I got better than average results when we opened 1NT. But we eventually gave up opening 1D with 11 HCP balanced hands because the 11-15 range on the 1NT rebid was too wide for comfort. And that eventually led to us changing our 1NT range to 14-16 to let us comfortably open the 11 HCP again.

[Double !]

officeglen, on Apr 25 2006, 12:04 PM, said:

Playing this we used to cringe everytime the 1♦ opener came up, which was lots and lots of cringing.

I can see why

It's lots of fun when you must open a 4306 hand with 1 diamond. Matchpoint Precision was/ is very much a majors-first system

I have mixed feelings about the 1NT opening denying a 4-card major. Matchpoint Precision came out in about 1975, several years after cc wei's first precision book started to make an impact in bridge in the U.S. I always thought that the whole point of the modifications of no 4-card major for either the 1NT opener or the 2C opener was to prevent the matchpoint system fixes that periodically occurred when these bids were made containing a 4-card major and partner didn't have a good enough hand to make a "stayman-like" response to the opening.

IMO, eliminating 4-card majors from a 1NT opening has its advantages and it's disadvantages. It makes any further bidding including handing competition/ interference by the opps easier to handle (it can eliminate the need to play negative doubles if the opps compete over 1NT and allow you to try for that big penalty number). But it means that hands with 4-card majors have to go somewhere else, and it also reduces the number of hands that you will open with 1NT. I have mixed feelings about the latter because I like to open 1NT as often as possible in order to force the opps, should they choose to compete, have to start their bidding at the 2-level knowing that opener has already roughly described his/her hand within certain parameters with the opening 1NT bid. It's a matter of partnership preferences and priorities. [I, personally, prefer to find ways to make it more risky for the opps to compete at the expense (at matchpoints) of some bidding accuracy.]

DHL

[guido]

pigpenz, on Apr 25 2006, 04:38 PM, said:

god that is so long ago
I do remember that their 2♣ opening denied a four card major, I do remember that Anderson and Hugh Mclean when I played against them in the 70's did not play matchpoint preciscion....so there had to be a reason.

Hugh hated MP Precision. His system of choice was a very simple major oriented Strong Club/Weak NT system. His 1D denied a 4-card major unless the hand was strong enough to reverse. The Hog (Ron Anderson) won't play this and C.C. Wei wouldn't have paid them to play it anyway.

If one is going to try 1N denies a 4-card major, I suggest extending the range of 1NT. I've played this with some success (I don't like it, but it has some good points this way). 1D would now promise either an unblanced hand or a major (for example, 1D-1S;1N woudl promise 4H).

As someone else has already said, the sans major approach works much better in a 4-card major system, but is a different thread.

Paul (guido)

[scsm1963]

I played a version of MP Precision for 5 years and found the 1NT without a 4 card major a big improvement.
1D was played with 13-15 points and a balanced hand with a 4 card major (11-12 with balanced hand = pass)
Often got to a good 3-4 fit in the majors which beat any 1NT contract and forced opponents to start balancing on the 3 level.
The knowledge that no 4-4 fit in the majors available makes bidding much easier.
The hands with long D can be shown by bidding and rebidding D's.

We also played 1D was semi-forcing (P could only pass with <9 points and 6+D)

Worked well for us

[Siegmund]

I've tried grafting this style on to Unassuming-Club-like Polish variations. For that purpose I like it quite well.

Garden variety Polish leaves you occasionally bidding 1C-1D-1M on a 3-card suit, if you want 1C-1D-1NT to promise a strong notrump.

So what I was trying was

1NT = 11-14 no 4CM
1C-1D-1M promising 4 cards (either balanced or clubs+major)
1C-1D-1NT 15-18
1C-1D-2C strong artificial, 1C-1D-3C 15-18 with 6 clubs, Unassuming-style, but that is really optional.

with 1D promising real diamonds, 1M promising 5 (but including 5332s), and 2C showing clubs and denying a 4-card major.

I agree with the 2006 posters that the 1D opening was the problem for MP precision -- and for a whole lot of more modern Precisions too.

I seem to have a really strong allergy to a weak notrump that isn't shape-restricted in some way, missing way too many major suit fits on partscore deals. That attitude doesn't seem to be shared by a lot of other weak notrumpers, but I've never quite managed to figure out why, despite everything Stark's and Kleinman's books had to say.

[steve2005]

Another thing to consider. If 1N denies a 4M then that makes it easier to overcall over 1N.

We played against a pair in long imp match who may not have been disclosing this. Sometimes they opened 1♦ sometimes 1N. They couldn't explain why and director was no help.