Talk:Precision Club

Popularity
There are three main reasons for Precision's perceived lack of popularity in North America:

1) Most people don't understand the power and ease of the 1C opening. 2) Limited bids are foreign in scope. 3) Many people do not like having to play against it.

Precision-based methods are used in the top eschelon of the game. That speaks volumes to the superiority of the method.

I disagree.
The reason why Precision bids generally do so well is because few people are equipped to deal with the system. In most American clubs the system users are required to provide a suggested defense against the system, which they usually just say: "Double for majors and No trump for minors." Needless to say this is hardly the most effective defense against the system.
 * Please sign your articles with four tildes for us to know who you are. Mario Fantoni 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition
I my experience Precision is successful at club level and lower due to two main reasons.

Firstly, limited understanding by Beginner to Advanced level opposition, and a degree of intimidation as such opposition assume that if the players have taken the trouble to learn such a complicated system then they must be quite good.

Secondly, the fact that the first round of bids are limit bids establishes a maximum level that the bidding should go to. This means that the partnership rarely gets into trouble due to having overbid. Admittedly the partnership is also less likely to find game contracts based on distribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.250 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

A reason for impopularity
One reason why Precision is not very popular in America is because some clubs still require players using Precision to use the "Alert" before some very known variations like the "Gambling 3NT" (used to show 24-27HCP) and 1C - 1D not meaning 4-4-4-1 (Impossible Negative). "Alerts" make the bidding clumsy so nobody likes them. Mario Fantoni 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I think it's pretty clear that the article has some serious NPOV problems. Describing Precision as more precise than other methods or using phrases like "Experience has shown..." are not appropriate. Put up some quotes of authorities saying how wonderful Precision is. I've already put up some quotes from authorities saying it sucks; and let's leave it at that.200.121.172.211 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with this. There should be sections for "advantages" and "disadvantages" or similar. Precision certainly has its critics; combining a strong club with 5 card majors means the 1D bid has to do a lot of work. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)