Comments for Bob Mackinnon

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Larry

Larry — Fri, 24 May 2013 01:06:33 +0000

Amazon now has Precision 101 for the Kindle!

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Larry Lowell

Larry Lowell — Thu, 23 May 2013 14:30:50 +0000

Whoops, the correct title: The Simplified Precision System of Bridge Bidding, 1972, 1996.

Might be available at amazon according to http://www.bookfinder4U.com

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Larry

Larry — Thu, 23 May 2013 13:25:12 +0000

Precision Simplified for 2/1 G F Players by Neil H. Timm available from Amazon, probably intermediate level.

Or, search http://www.bookfinder.com for C C Wei’s The Precision Bidding System in Bridge, or Simple Precision (used & less than $10).

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Robert E. Harris

Robert E. Harris — Thu, 23 May 2013 02:43:26 +0000

Another nice article from Bob.

Is there a nice and pretty simple strong club book around? I see a fair number of “Precision Club” books but none seem to be simple at a level for a beginner.

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Bob MacKinnon

Bob MacKinnon — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:17:04 +0000

Thanks for the sensible comments. I think 2/1 GF is a reasonable rule for beginners and the points requirements have to be adhered to in order for the novice to make his contract without sophisticated techniques. However, one should not pretend it is better for some other reason, such as improved accuracy. Simple is best and for success bridge bidding need not be as complicated as it is made out to be.

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Jeff Lehman

Jeff Lehman — Mon, 20 May 2013 14:06:04 +0000

When some of the local teachers of bridge to school children gathered together, we decided to teach 2/1 but without 1NT being a forcing (or even semi-forcing) bid. Are these the agreements to which we would subscribe with our partners? No. But it does have the not inconsiderable merit of being pretty easy to learn. For brand new players, we are happy to teach them such basics as the approximate value and fit for bidding makeable games. (And we do not even get into bidding, preferring mini-Bridge, until such time as they have begun to learn the art of taking tricks other than with top cards.) There’s plenty of time to later refine and change bidding methods; the question is what teachings will get them fastest to enjoy the game with at least some ability to identify the potential strain and level of a reasonable final contract.

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Larry Lowell

Larry Lowell — Mon, 20 May 2013 02:29:37 +0000

My preferences in playing with a new partner are in order (1) Precision, (2) K-S, (3) SA, (4) 2/1.

Just last week a Precision partner and I playing for the first time won our direction with 61.76 % in a 15 table game. We played Simple Precision, no asking bids, 2 of a minor = 5+ cards and no 4-cd Major and 14-16 NT. We both felt right at home!

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Sun, 19 May 2013 18:53:50 +0000

Nice article. My take:
(1) New players should play as few gadgets as possible. Bobby Goldman was fond of saying, in bridge, “you have to learn to walk before you can run”. Developing bidding judgment without relying on gizmos will make you a much better player.
(2) 2/1 can be played anyway, without a lot of gadgets, and it is fine, and simple.
(3) Problems show up on competitive hands and misfit auctions. I don’t mind responding 1NT with a shapely hand if fourth hand will pass, but I hate not showing my long suit on an auction like 1H – P – 1NT – 3S – P -4S. Likewise, I have picked up some great hands, and forced to game, and seen the hands go downhill as the auction progresses. Committing to game without a lot of input seems a bit silly to me. Why can’t I change my mind when I learn more about the hand?
(4) I always play a 2/1 structure with a new partner. It is simple. I do not use a 2/1 structure with my regular partner, but we have spent hours and hours discussing which sequences are forcing, etc.
(5) Precision, and light openings, have little impact on 2/1. If partner will open any 11 count, and most 10 counts, then you need a balanced 14 count to force to game. So what?
(6) All methods have their price. In a 2/1 system, the 1NT response is so wide-range, it is completely meaningless. Responder hopes to learn enough about opener’s hand to place the contract. Using ACOL type methods that allow for very light 2/1 bids takes a lot of the burden off the 1NT response. Both players can describe their shape, but the strengths are often shrouded in mystery.

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Gary Mugford

Gary Mugford — Sun, 19 May 2013 18:12:13 +0000

Lak (and Judy),

Hundred percent right on Precision since it’s so very much rules-based on limited range bidding. Competition makes life difficult, but then again, ain’t nobody happy with 13-card-holding opponents thinking their turn to bid means TO bid. In my most dedicated partnerships, I play Precision against Vul opponents and revert to 2/1 GF that’s gimmicked much like Judy’s suggestions otherwise. Unfortunately, I don’t play Flannery, but partner knows that four spades to the six is not a suit. (Well, he knows NOW!!!). He has to be willing to hear 2S when the choice on the rebid is a (semi) chunky three-card spade suit or four of a minor headed by jack-nine. We live with the occasionally missed eight or nine-card minor part-score.

But playing variable systems is certainly NOT the province of novices. Mind you, I still believe the teaching of the game should start with the teacher preparing deals and then giving each defender and declarer notes as to what information they have. Spend a month learning to PLAY the cards and you will see things like how cards win tricks. That length and position are important. That finesses win AND lose about the same amount … in the absence of information. But that with a clue or two, suddenly finessing at the right time ceases to be magic incarnate and only the province of the Bobby Wolff’s of the world.

THEN introduce bidding of whatever system the teacher prefers. Review the notes from the previously-played hands and help the students target arriving at the same information through their bidding.

I know my theory is backwards but it is really only just working backwards from the hoped for goal. And since it starts with just a tiny amount of information to handle, the pyramid will grow in time. Consider the gigantic forest of possibiliites each novice faces from our little 15-word bidding language when starting with bidding. (NoTrump is one word and STOP … is politeness)

Just my two cents.

Comment on The Great Two-over-One Debate by Judy Kay-Wolff

Judy Kay-Wolff — Sat, 18 May 2013 05:48:23 +0000

I usually don’t enter into these discussions, but this subject intrigued me.

At one time, I was a firm believer that the best method was 2/1 forcing to game. However, I have made lots of adjustments in my system, veering from the straight and narrow.

For whatever it is worth …

Edgar Kaplan used to say the hardest fit to reach was a 5/3 in hearts after partner opened 1S, so he suggested that you could take liberties with five or more hearts and about 10 HCP. Therefore, 1S P 2H could be bid without a game going hand, making 2H forcing only one round. The three minimum rebids that can be passed are 2S, 2NT and 3H (all allowing for partner to sign off if their two level response was made with less than an opening bid). I have achieved some good results with this deviation.

Also, I have switched to 1NT over a major as INTENDED forcing only. If opener has a balanced 5/3/3/2 minimum opening, he or she may pass as responder cannot have a full opener. The only problem that arises is having a LR in partner’s suit. You may be forced to jump with only three trump which is not such a hardship, and I have found the gains are greater than the losses.

Also, over 1H openings a response of 1S promises five since we play Flannery. Thus, you can always raise with three spades, assured of at least an eight card fit.

I don’t claim to be a theorist (far from it), but I just wanted to share some of my departures from standard practices.

Hard and fast rules are hard to live by.