[pilun]

This dull textbook hand came up the other day.
Scoring was matchpoints, which is important.

---

A few choices: pass, 1♠, 1NT, 2♥.

Clearly 2♠ is best at matchpoints.

If ♠Q is onside, might be +140 vs +110 in 2♥, +90/+120 in 1NT, depending on the club break.
One less for all those if ♠Q is offside.

Some will always rebid 1♠, even with 4-3-3-3.
I once played that 1♠ promised 4+♦.
Or you could play that 1♠ denied a balanced hand, 4-1-3-5 for instance.

The trend is to rebid 1NT here on all 11-13 balanced. The case for that is greater opposite an unpassed partner.
Probably doesn't matter much at IMPs. This seems to be a matchpoint issue.

[DavidKok]

I am not sure it is an issue at either form of scoring. Bidding 1♠ would win here, but bidding 1NT simplifies the auction opposite many other hands partner might have. It's just a balance of probability. You'll have some losses no matter which you choose, so pick the style that gains most on average (which I believe to be to bid NT with balanced hands at the earliest opportunity). At MPs the wins and losses are higher impact each, but I'm not sure the average flips sign.
As a minor aside, in the AEC-style Precision either the full relay 1♥ in the full system, or the simpler natural rebids in my custom version, have enough space to resolve the balanced hand and show the spades. My version is wasteful with bidding space, but there's actually room to play '1♠ = 11-13 balanced with 4 spades, 1NT = 11-13 balanced with at most 3 spades'. This is because e.g. 4=1=3=5 can rebid 2♣ to show '11-15 5(+)♣, 4♠, at most two hearts'.

[pilun]

Yes, one problem with rebidding 1♠ on a balanced hand is finding responder with a balanced 11-count.
Over a 1NT rebid, that 11-count has an easy pass.

A 1♠ rebid could be a shapely 14-15 count, in which case that responder will feel too good for 1NT and maybe try 2NT.
Either that, or opener will feel like raising responder's 1NT with a max.

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-June-26, 21:31, said:

This dull textbook hand came up the other day.
Scoring was matchpoints, which is important.

---

A few choices: pass, 1♠, 1NT, 2♥.

Clearly 2♠ is best at matchpoints.

If ♠Q is onside, might be +140 vs +110 in 2♥, +90/+120 in 1NT, depending on the club break.
One less for all those if ♠Q is offside.

Some will always rebid 1♠, even with 4-3-3-3.
I once played that 1♠ promised 4+♦.
Or you could play that 1♠ denied a balanced hand, 4-1-3-5 for instance.

The trend is to rebid 1NT here on all 11-13 balanced. The case for that is greater opposite an unpassed partner.
Probably doesn't matter much at IMPs. This seems to be a matchpoint issue.

Nick,

My adaptation of Nystrom-Upmark bids 1♠ with that hand, promising both 4♠ and a 11-13 balanced hand (a 2m rebid would show 5m and 4♠). Note that the original version bids 1♠ with 4♠ and unbalanced hands (and 1N with any balanced hand), but they also have to deal with the 4441 hands (which are systemically opened 1M in my version). I don't have a feel for which approach is better, and maybe @DavidKok might have a simulation handy.

Note that the 1♦ - 1♠ - 2m/2♥/2♠ can show both the unbalanced hands with 4♠ as well as the good/min raise of ♠.

[pilun]

foobar, on 2026-June-27, 10:49, said:

Nick,

My adaptation of Nystrom-Upmark bids 1♠ with that hand, promising both 4♠ and a 11-13 balanced hand (a 2m rebid would show 5m and 4♠). Note that the original version bids 1♠ with 4♠ and unbalanced hands (and 1N with any balanced hand), but they also have to deal with the 4441 hands (which are systemically opened 1M in my version). I don't have a feel for which approach is better, and maybe @DavidKok might have a simulation handy.

Note that the 1♦ - 1♠ - 2m/2♥/2♠ can show both the unbalanced hands with 4♠ as well as the good/min raise of ♠.

I never liked 1D - 1M - 2C with 4-5 minors.

Responder with 2-2 or 3-3 would go back to diamonds.
Opening 2C with that shape is attractive.

I'm less happy about opening 2D with 5-4.

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-June-27, 17:21, said:

I never liked 1D - 1M - 2C with 4-5 minors.

Responder with 2-2 or 3-3 would go back to diamonds.
Opening 2C with that shape is attractive.

I'm less happy about opening 2D with 5-4.

Yes -- a happy medium likely is 2♣ as the classic 6+♣ or 5♣4+♦, with 2♦ as single suited or 6♦-4+♣.

[mycroft]

This won't be terribly helpful, sorry.

My current Precision partnership plays "always rebid 1♠" because the book (Simple Modern Precision) says "always bid 1♠". Frankly, there's enough new in it for both of us that unless we both *know* a different style, "book says X" wins - for now at least.

It has some handwavey argument that "every expert knows this is better" in a two-line explanation that this is what you should do(*) - I am not an "argument from authority" kind of guy, so to me, this reads equivalent to "you should always bid 1♠ because I do". And it seems like a huge deviation from the rest of the book's "if it looks balanced, bid it like it's balanced (even 44M32, even 5M332, even some 5M4m22s if the honours are right)". So, if it weren't for "memory overload" issues, this would be high on my list to discuss.

Because the more I play "always bypass", the more I like it. There is the obvious advantage in the system I stared playing it in (weak NT in a near-universal 15-17 world that all *started* with 1NT, hiding the major); but the more I play it in strong NT world, the more I am comfortable with it. If we belong in 2♠, we probably aren't going to get to play it (if we belong in 1♠, it is *very likely* we'll only get to play it if it's wrong); if responder has a stronger hand, the strong implication that opener is two-suited (at worst 42(25), probably 4♠5m13) really helps. And, of course, the surprise of the 4-1 spade break when they balance in against 1NT, to go along with "which minor does opener actually have?" can be fun.

Yes, absolutely, you are behind when they *do* find their fit if you don't know where yours is, especially when it's the boss suit. Yes, absolutely, you are behind when you're left in 1NT and 9 tricks are available in spades (or +100 is the least worst score after 1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♠). It is a classic "I have to make the same number of tricks as the people in the suit fit do" situation, at least at matchpoints.

But you already are making a number of those choices playing Precision. You already have, I assume, a known partnership risk tolerance for "better on average" or "easier on rest of system" vs "1NT when the system hid our major fit" cases. This is just one more.

(*) Yes, if I were to have a criticism of the book it would be the prevalence of these - he likes his toys, and will go into detail about them and the reasons for the choices; many other things that could use at least that level of detail, that he doesn't have a cool toy for get "this is the way" in a paragraph. I strongly recommend the book anyway for those wanting to try this style, though, because he is very good at casualing it down (and slowing it down, and giving "here's the thought process behind the structures") from textbook level to readable. Just know that there *will be* places where you go "yeah, so why?" or "YA pronouncement from on high" and need to go looking elsewhere for a discussion.

[DavidKok]

Well said. I think the book is very much a description of a system, and sometimes an explanation of it, but in no way a comprehensive motivation for why SMP is the way it is. Some parts of it are also up for debate, or a bit dated. Nevertheless, it's an extremely well-written book with great information.