[gurgistan]

Hello all,

Wei presented a style of rebids for a 1C opener to a no trump bid by responder that are unlike anything I have seen in 2/1. For example, a 1C opener facing a 1N bid by responder would rebid his five card suit if he had one hoping to find responder with three cards in that suit and go to game in that suit.

However, 1C opener also has the option of using Jacoby transfers over 1N/2N bids by responder.

Which method is the most common: Wei's or Jacoby?

Do I need working knowledge of both methods?

[hrothgar]

gurgistan, on 2011-March-18, 06:41, said:

Hello all,

Wei presented a style of rebids for a 1C opener to a no trump bid by responder that are unlike anything I have seen in 2/1. For example, a 1C opener facing a 1N bid by responder would rebid his five card suit if he had one hoping to find responder with three cards in that suit and go to game in that suit.

However, 1C opener also has the option of using Jacoby transfers over 1N/2N bids by responder.

Which method is the most common: Wei's or Jacoby?

Do I need working knowledge of both methods?

I don't recall precisely when Wei's book was written, but is probably about 4 decades old at this point.
If you are trying to learn Precision, I would strongly recommend that you start with a more modern book.

I'm fairly idiosyncratic: I always thought that Jannerstein did the best job presenting Precision.
(Yes, I recognize how ridiculous it is to recommend using a moden book and then pointing someone at Jannerstein)
I'm also quite fond of Rigal's Precision in the 90s, though I find his presentation of symmetric relay impenetrable

I know that other folks are fond of Manely's book...

[dake50]

Wei makes more sense. The strong opener (likely to have tenaces) bids his suit.
Jacoby is more common to keep one scheme after any/all NT.

[blackshoe]

I like Rigal as well, though I had much the same problem with the symmetric relay appendix. It always struck me as kind of an afterthought.

If I were starting a new Precision partnership, I'd use Rigal or Berkowitz and Manley.

[mike777]

I would think meck lite would be a decent precision system for 2011. I thought there is enough information to play it out there or on bbo.

[dcohio]

I use transfer stayman and natural suit bids after 1C-1N. You want the 1C hand as declarer if you end up in a suit.

[the hog]

1NT showing a balanced hand in response to a big Club is a losing proposition. Why not play 2D as showing all balanced hands, and relay out the shape?

[straube]

the hog, on 2011-March-18, 22:10, said:

1NT showing a balanced hand in response to a big Club is a losing proposition. Why not play 2D as showing all balanced hands, and relay out the shape?

Agree about 1N, but 2D for all balanced hands covers too many hand strengths. Also, you don't want to pattern the balanced hands. You want opener to pattern when he is unbalanced and responder is balanced.

[the hog]

straube, on 2011-March-19, 00:31, said:

Agree about 1N, but 2D for all balanced hands covers too many hand strengths. Also, you don't want to pattern the balanced hands. You want opener to pattern when he is unbalanced and responder is balanced.

Never had a problem with wide ranging response strength. Just use a CP ask if you need to.

[Zelandakh]

I think straube's point is that there is space for 21 hand types over 2D, but there are 22 balanced hand types unless you throw out the 5332s. That is before you get to the questions of hcp strength and controls. Having said that you can organise a playable system this way and if you happen to also play double-barelled Stayman it is also not too much to learn. Personally I split my balanced hands up in order to show a major immediately if I have one; so 1C - 2D shows 4-5 hearts and balanced or 3-suited; 1C - 2H is balanced with 4-5 spades; 1C - 1S (no major) - 1N - 2H is balanced without a major; and 1C - 1H (spades) - 1S - 1N (hearts) - 2C - 2D is balanced or 3-suited with both majors. This is both good for right-siding and also good when 4th hand competes.

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2011-March-20, 03:00, said:

I think straube's point is that there is space for 21 hand types over 2D, but there are 22 balanced hand types unless you throw out the 5332s. That is before you get to the questions of hcp strength and controls. Having said that you can organise a playable system this way and if you happen to also play double-barelled Stayman it is also not too much to learn. Personally I split my balanced hands up in order to show a major immediately if I have one; so 1C - 2D shows 4-5 hearts and balanced or 3-suited; 1C - 2H is balanced with 4-5 spades; 1C - 1S (no major) - 1N - 2H is balanced without a major; and 1C - 1H (spades) - 1S - 1N (hearts) - 2C - 2D is balanced or 3-suited with both majors. This is both good for right-siding and also good when 4th hand competes.

I think there's only 16 balanced hand patterns (excluding 5332s) but with space available for only 21 there is not enough room to ascertain strength before 3N has been passed. We use 1C-1H to show a semipositive response and 1C-1H, 1S-2D shows a balanced hand (not 5332) which leaves enough room to pattern out. Opener knows the strength to be 3-5 queen points which is tight enough.